Bet the average losing margin wasn't 40 points. Post those loses under Mick.
So youre argmuent in MM's favour is that our losses to Hawthorn were more honorable? Are you Monkey King in disguise?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Bet the average losing margin wasn't 40 points. Post those loses under Mick.
Who won 3 flags.would have been about that against Geelong between 2007-2011
We've been smashed against Hawthorn under Bucks everytime we've taken the field. They willingly score 100+ points with ease. Hard to see that changing.So youre argmuent in MM's favour is that our losses to Hawthorn were more honorable? Are you Monkey King in disguise?
No, they were even worse under Mick.Bet the average losing margin wasn't 40 points. Post those loses under Mick.
Who won 3 flags.
We've been smashed against Hawthorn under Bucks everytime we've taken the field.
No, they were even worse under Mick.
The three biggest losing margins against the Hawks under Mick (after 2007) were 65, 54 and 45 points, compared to Bucks whose three biggest losing margins have been 55 and 38 points twice. We also won a flag and made the Grand Final under Mick, yet we lost by more against the Hawks despite that.
Who won 3 flags.
He should change his username to represent the views that he holds:Thatsgold.
We lost to Carlton twice last year, and now that Mick has taken over, we have beaten them twice. Those are the facts.
Bucks>Mick
No, I'm just sick of wasting my time on negative, one-sided, biased people like yourself that refuse to open their mind to opposing opinions. I debated early in the season, but realised that no matter how much I point out that people like you are wrong, you're never going to change.
Yes, it is the coaches responsibility to identify skill errors, but it's not him that is actually out on the field playing. We've had 40 different players out there on the field this year, with 8 debutantes in their first season. Consistency doesn't come that quickly, especially when we get so many injuries throughout the season that 40 different players have been playing throughout the season, and 8 players who have never played an senior AFL match. Despite all this, we're still 6th on the ladder, and last week we were still an outside chance of making the freaking top 4!
How are things at Kindergarten today?
So you surround yourself with one-sided people that share your narrow world view? You must be Gen Y. No one else could be that self-absorbed.
I am a baby boomer and don't share your view but feel more aligned with DThomas. Now if someone could explain to me how I put someone on the ignore list, you will be the first.
It's idiotic to compare GWS to Carlton. Nobody would gloat about that. We lost to Carlton twice last year, and now that Mick has taken over, we have beaten them twice. Those are the facts.
Bucks>Mick
FACTSimplistic pulp.
2008 round 7: 65 pointsBet the average losing margin wasn't 40 points. Post those loses under Mick.
By your logic, Carlton were a better side than us last year, despite missing the finals and us finishing top 4, since the abilities of their players would have had something to do with the end result, right?LOL!!! That has to be the most idiotic post Ive seen. Deciding on who is the better coach by who wins or loses a game. You obviously dont believe the abilities of the players have anything to do with the end result.
And this is exactly why I don't debate with you. Good job attacking me instead of my argument, you've just admitted defeat right then and there.How are things at Kindergarten today?
By the way, the only stat that matters is that Carlton have 16 Premierships, Collingwood have 15.
So you surround yourself with one-sided people that share your narrow world view? You must be Gen Y. No one else could be that self-absorbed.
Try this link:I am a baby boomer and don't share your view but feel more aligned with DThomas. Now if someone could explain to me how I put someone on the ignore list, you will be the first.
By your logic, Carlton were a better side than us last year, despite missing the finals and us finishing top 4, since the abilities of their players would have had something to do with the end result, right?
FACT
Therefore, Bucks>Mick.Not at all. Its a combination of the two, even then anything can happen in a game of footy that can turn the result. Everything being equal we shouldnt have lost to the scum last year at all. Does that mean Ratten>Bucks???
and under Bucks?Thats not a fact.
THIS is a fact.
2008 round 7: 65 points
2008 round 18: 54 points
2009 round 15: 45 points
THATSTOLD!!!Thats not a fact.
THIS is a fact.
2008 round 7: 65 points
2008 round 18: 54 points
2009 round 15: 45 points
You obviously missed this post:and under Bucks?
Burny, burny, burn, burn!No, they were even worse under Mick.
The three biggest losing margins against the Hawks under Mick (after 2007) were 65, 54 and 45 points, compared to Bucks whose three biggest losing margins have been 55, 47 and 38 points. We also won a flag and made the Grand Final under Mick, yet we lost by more against the Hawks despite that.
and under Bucks?