Esse-don fans, you do realise you've lost your last 7 games by an average of 51 points right?

[Grin]

So after 35 pages we've pretty much established that Essendon fans are of the opinion that their club, that has lost it's last 7 games by an average of 51 points, is in it's premiership window.

(confused pause. Then)

Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Sniff
Gafaw Gafaw. Bwa ha ha ha ha ha.
Stop!
(deep breaths)
Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Tears of mirth.
(bites lip)
Oh dear



You guys are just too precious

 

[Jobe Watson]

I disagree Jobe. U MAD?

Not really. It's your opinion, and you're entitled to it.

It's wrong, but you're entitled to it.

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

Our average crowd in Melb during those last 7 losses was 62k- Rich was 40k
We also played Adel during that period @ aami for a 40k turnout, Rich only managed 33k a month earlier.

So I'll add basic mathematics to the list of things Bummer fans can't do:

50,066 vs Geelong
44,899 vs Hawthorn
42,674 vs Norf
59,381 vs Carlton
47,590 vs the Tigers
56,491 vs Collingwood

=average of 62k despite the highest crowd being 59k.

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

Not really. It's your opinion, and you're entitled to it.

It's wrong, but you're entitled to it.

Another Bummer that can't add. 57-102=-45= loss to Essinden

 

[_RT_]

Those averages were for both our melb games only, get it right & yeah we played some better sides, whats the defence for your crowd at aami being way less or any crowd average over the last "well forever" being well down.

I posted the 10yrs of crowd figures to illustrate your band wagon comment was horseshit, the gulf between our clubs popularity wise was just a bonus.

In your last 6 games in Melbourne this year your biggest crowd was 59,381 against Carlton in round 21, so explain how you averaged 62k.

When you played the Crows this year they were in the 8 and you were fighting to maintain a spot in the 8, therefore more people turned up. How do you explain how last year when Essendon were in the 8 and both Richmond and Adelaide were well outside the 8 the difference in crowd figures was 95 people despite us playing them in round 23 when both sides seasons were well and truly cooked?

BTW your list of crowd averages over the last decade gives a pretty clear indication as to why the Bombers are bandwagoners. In 06 when you had your worse season the crowd number is 7k down on 07, 09 & 11 years that Essendon were finals bound or fighting for a top 8 spot. In 08, 10 & 12 again the crowd drops off as the likelihood of success isn't there to bring the bandwagon supporters in.

 

[Jobe Watson]

Another Bummer that can't add. 57-102=-45= loss to Essinden

128-109

11 wins to 10.

11th place to 12th.

Numbers are fun.

 

[_RT_]

128-109

11 wins to 10.

11th place to 12th.

Numbers are fun.

Round 17 67-134
Round 18 86-180
Round 19 100-104
Round 20 76-100
Round 21 60-156
Round 22 57-102
Round 23 72-104

7 games average margin 51 points.
7 games conceding 100+ points.
2 games with 15 goal margins and another with an 11 goal margin
and 1 game where you lost to 12th place.

Perhaps sometime in this thread you can discuss those numbers.

 

[Piston]

Round 17 67-134
Round 18 86-180
Round 19 100-104
Round 20 76-100
Round 21 60-156
Round 22 57-102
Round 23 72-104

7 games average margin 51 points.
7 games conceding 100+ points.
2 games with 15 goal margins and another with an 11 goal margin
and 1 game where you lost to 12th place.

Perhaps sometime in this thread you can discuss those numbers.

What's this got to do with anything?

 

[_RT_]

What's this got to do with anything?

That's the Bumblers end to the season and the original topic of this thread. Perhaps you guys might want to address this sometime soon, afterall we are 36 odd pages in and you haven't really gone near it yet, except to suggest that it's lies.

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

128-109

11 wins to 10.

11th place to 12th.

Numbers are fun.

Apparently most recent encounter means nothing, it's all about the 2nd most recent game. Because after all, one team didn't even try the second time round so it doesn't really count.

Anyway:

111.63% to 100.01%

9 disposals in 3 quarters vs Daniel Jackson

 

[Jobe Watson]

That's the Bumblers end to the season and the original topic of this thread. Perhaps you guys might want to address this sometime soon, afterall we are 36 odd pages in and you haven't really gone near it yet, except to suggest that it's lies.

We've already gone over it plenty. We had a lot of injuries. You say we're making excuses but in your mind you know we did.

 

[Jobe Watson]

Apparently most recent encounter means nothing, it's all about the 2nd most recent game. Because after all, one team didn't even try the second time round so it doesn't really count.

Anyway:

111.63% to 100.01%

9 disposals in 3 quarters vs Daniel Jackson

Yep, and umpires cost Richmond in the first encounter apparently...

Wow, % means a lot. I suppose St.Kilda were a better team in 2012 than Fremantle then. But I guess you need to grapple on to any little thing when you can't even finish above the pathetic Essendon...

0: amount of times Richmond has defeated the Gold Coast

2: amount of matches Cotchin lost single-handedly in 2012 with clanger kicks in the dying minutes

30: amount of Brownlow votes Jobe recieved on the way to winning

9: Richmond's finishing place in 2013

 

[_RT_]

We've already gone over it plenty. We had a lot of injuries. You say we're making excuses but in your mind you know we did.

Using injuries is the first excuse of losers.

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

What's this got to do with anything?

Agree. Your mob wasn't trying so those games don't count. Reality is they are an 11-4 team that will be in premiership contention next year

Thanks to Bluelegs for that last one

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

We've already gone over it plenty. We had a lot of injuries. You say we're making excuses but in your mind you know we did.

-Thinks losing games by 90 points is excusable because they had a few soft tissue injuries.
-Trolls Richmond for losing a game by 2 points when they had 8 of their best 22 players missing





Bummers logic

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

OK Jobe, we'll touch a bit more on that point you just made. But first I'd like you to list what you consider to be Essin-dun's best 22 to be. Do one with and without Daniher and Goddard, so we can compare the improvement the club has made since last year.

 

[Jobe Watson]

-Thinks losing games by 90 points is excusable because they had a few soft tissue injuries.
-Trolls Richmond for losing a game by 2 points when they had 8 of their best 22 players missing

We're back to square one.

You. lost. to. the. Gold. Coast. Twice.

From a game you had to sell interstate just to eradicate the pathetic amount of debt your club has taken on. There is nothing more embarrassing than that.

We had a mammoth injury list to a young team and suffered by dropping games to good teams. If we ever lost to Gold Coast though I'd seriously contemplate microwaving my membership or dropping chicken shit at Hird's door.

 

[Piston]

That's the Bumblers end to the season and the original topic of this thread. Perhaps you guys might want to address this sometime soon, afterall we are 36 odd pages in and you haven't really gone near it yet, except to suggest that it's lies.

Okay right.

Has anyone denied it happened?

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

We're back to square one.

You. lost. to. the. Gold. Coast. Twice.

From a game you had to sell interstate just to eradicate the pathetic amount of debt your club has taken on. There is nothing more embarrassing than that.

We had a mammoth injury list to a young team and suffered by dropping games to good teams. If we ever lost to Gold Coast though I'd seriously contemplate microwaving my membership or dropping chicken shit at Hird's door.

I'm not fussed. Richmond were only 6 and 9 months older on average. Unlike other clubs they didn't have the developed bodies to bully their teenagers (like other clubs) so it was a team of kids vs a teams of kids. And their kids are very talented.

The Bummers only managed a 17 point win, and this was before injuries!!!! So a full strength Essendon list was 3 goals more competitive than a Richmond side with 8 players missing.

I know how you can't argue with injuries.




Anyway post your clubs best 22.

 

[Vtorians]

I'm not fussed. Richmond were only 6 and 9 months older on average. Unlike other clubs they didn't have the developed bodies to bully their teenagers (like other clubs) so it was a team of kids vs a teams of kids. And their kids are very talented.

The Bummers only managed a 17 point win, and this was before injuries!!!! So a full strength Essendon list was 3 goals more competitive than a Richmond side with 8 players missing.

I know how you can't argue with injuries.




Anyway post your clubs best 22.

Theres no doubt, we didn't play well against bottom 4 sides GC, GWS, Port or Melb & that needs to change.

 

[Heisenberg_]

I love the lengths these deluded flogs will go to to talk about anything but the thread topic

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

I love the lengths these deluded flogs will go to to talk about anything but the thread topic

It's interesting isn't it? They suggest injuries are the only reason for these losses yet Lance Franklin didn't play in their 94 point loss to the Hawks and Richmond's injury list was as long as (and more talented than) theirs in the 102-57 drubbing in round 22. Apparently these "injured" players will return to their list and make them a 60-100 point better side.

 

[Jobe Watson]

I'm not fussed. Richmond were only 6 and 9 months older on average. Unlike other clubs they didn't have the developed bodies to bully their teenagers (like other clubs) so it was a team of kids vs a teams of kids. And their kids are very talented.

The Bummers only managed a 17 point win, and this was before injuries!!!! So a full strength Essendon list was 3 goals more competitive than a Richmond side with 8 players missing.

I know how you can't argue with injuries.




Anyway post your clubs best 22.

3 of those missing were from suspensions, Foley, Grimes and Vickery had been out for about 2 months by that point and you had ample time to adjust, Greffeths ain't much of a loss anyway. I'll give you Ivan, but that's it.

17 point win in rainy conditions, with us having to make our sub at qtr time. You'd kill for that result. Freo were challenged by Gold Coast too, and they certainly aren't a shit team. Only really bad teams actually lose to Gold Coast.

As for our best 22:

Hardingham, Hooker, Fletcher
Hibberd, Carlisle, Dempsey
Zaharakis, Watson, Stanton
Winderlich, Hurley, Jetta
Crameri, Ryder, Davey
Bellchambers, Howlett, Heppell

Myers, Hocking, Melksham (Lovett-Murray/Browne)

Without including Daniher and Goddard, that's how I'd have it.

Hardingham, Hurley, Fletcher
Hibberd, Carlisle, Dempsey
Zaharakis, Watson, Stanton
Winderlich, Daniher, Jetta
Crameri, Ryder, Davey
Bellchambers, Goddard, Heppell

Howlett, Myers, Hocking (Melksham/NLM/Browne/O'Brien)

With Goddard and Daniher.

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

3 of those missing were from suspensions, Foley, Grimes and Vickery had been out for about 2 months by that point and you had ample time to adjust, Greffeths ain't much of a loss anyway. I'll give you Ivan, but that's it.

Sorry, I forgot that the team only gets weaker when the players miss games due to injury, not suspension.

And lol at the bold bit. Surely the Bummers should've adjusted to their supposedly enormous injury list? After all they did suck for 2 months straight and lose 7 games by 51.7 over that time.

17 point win in rainy conditions, with us having to make our sub at qtr time. You'd kill for that result. Freo were challenged by Gold Coast too, and they certainly aren't a shit team. Only really bad teams actually lose to Gold Coast.

Sorry, I also forgot that it only rained on the Esse-don players, and that the Gold Coast got to run around in perfect dry conditions.

Thank you for posting the best 22.

 

[Jobe Watson]

Sorry, I forgot that the team only gets weaker when the players miss games due to injury, not suspension.

Self-inflicted suspensions are completely different from injuries. If your players weren't so reckless (Jackson) or stupid (pill popping Duhsteh) they wouldn't have missed games at all.

I suppose Daniel Connors getting delisted mid way through the year also made your team weaker? He was basically a best 22 player at that point. Why don't you chuck him in there too as an omission.

And lol at the bold bit. Surely the Bummers should've adjusted to their supposedly enormous injury list? After all they did suck for 2 months straight and lose 7 games by 51.7 over that time.

How are we supposed to adjust when we were losing more players each week?

Go through the matches and see which team had to use their sub at or before half time the most in season 2012. I'd wager Essendon was close to the top, if not at the top.

Sorry, I also forgot that it only rained on the Esse-don players, and that the Gold Coast got to run around in perf\ect dry conditions.

The comparison was between Essendon's game vs. Gold Coast and Richmond's game vs. Gold Coast - did you play in the rain for the majority of the game against them?