Great grand final matchups we were robbed of

[eth-dog]

The fact Sydney could only generate one goal in the whole second half (McDonald’s goal) against Collingwood in the Prelim (McInerney’s from a Moore brainfade and Papley’s from a push/dropped mark) tells me you were lucky to make the GF all together.

The fact that Collingwood didn't lead the match at any point means that they were the inferior side on the day, as well as everything else I listed.

West Coast beat Collingwood this year, so are West Coast better than Collingwood?

That's a serious straw man argument.

Do you think Collingwood were better than Sydney this year? If so, why?

 

[adammania9]

The fact that Collingwood didn't lead the match at any point means that they were the inferior side on the day, as well as everything else I listed.

That's a serious straw man argument.

Do you think Collingwood were better than Sydney this year? If so, why?

Who's saying Collingwood were better than Sydney? The argument was would Collingwood have been a better matchup for Geelong? The 99% likely answer is yes

 

[eth-dog]

Who's saying Collingwood were better than Sydney? The argument was would Collingwood have been a better matchup for Geelong? The 99% likely answer is yes

The answer is no. Sydney demonstrated that they were better in every facet of the game throughout the year.

To say Collingwood would have been a better opponent implies that they were the better side this year. As I've demonstrated, they weren't, and therefore would have been just as much if not more fodder as Sydney were.

 

[adammania9]

The answer is no. Sydney demonstrated that they were better in every facet of the game throughout the year.

To say Collingwood would have been a better opponent implies that they were the better side this year. As I've demonstrated, they weren't, and therefore would have been just as much if not more fodder as Sydney were.

Foolishness. Collingwood would not have lost by 81 or greater

 

[eth-dog]

Foolishness. Collingwood would not have lost by 81 or greater

Says Collingwood fans... And anybody who has a history of hating Sydney on here.

All available evidence says that Collingwood were the inferior team to Sydney throughout the season. Stands to reason that they would have been inferior in the Grand Final as well.

 

[adammania9]

Says Collingwood fans... And anybody who has a history of hating Sydney on here.

All available evidence says that Collingwood were the inferior team to Sydney throughout the season. Stands to reason that they would have been inferior in the Grand Final as well.

So the Cats are lucky they didn't play Hawthorn then since Hawthorn beat Geelong at the G

 

[kickazz]

shouldacouldawouldadidna

 

[eth-dog]

So the Cats are lucky they didn't play Hawthorn then since Hawthorn beat Geelong at the G

Sure, if you want to oversimplify all my other points to the one that suits you.

 

[adammania9]

Says Collingwood fans... And anybody who has a history of hating Sydney on here.

This is the longest bow drawn

 

[eth-dog]

This is the longest bow drawn

Literally the only ones who've said it in this thread are Collingwood fans and one Hawthorne fan, who has a well known dislike of Sydney.

Nice of you to ignore everything that says Sydney were the better team this year. Keep the straw man up.

 

[adammania9]

Literally the only ones who've said it in this thread are Collingwood fans and one Hawthorne fan, who has a well known dislike of Sydney.

Nice of you to ignore everything that says Sydney were the better team this year. Keep the straw man up.

Collingwood fans say it because they're right champ

 

[eth-dog]

Collingwood fans say it because they're right champ

Of course. That's why they had an inferior offense, defense, percentage, record against the top 8 and never beat either side.

No, no, everyone else must be wrong.

 

[adammania9]

Of course. That's why they had an inferior offense, defense, percentage, record against the top 8 and never beat either side.

No, no, everyone else must be wrong.

Following your logic: every game would be 1st defeats 2nd because 1st is better. 10th defeats 13th because 10th is better. That’s now how sports work: I don’t get how you can’t wrap your head around this.

Every game is different. There are so many factors at play. The location, the weather, the wind, player availability etc.

Geelong have a superior offence, defence, percentage and record against the top 8 than Hawthorn. So why didn’t Geelong beat Hawthorn?

Saying Collingwood would have lost by 14 goals or greater merely because they couldn’t get over the line against Sydney on their home deck by one point is a ludicrous opinion

 

[Major Colvin]

the 1999 GF stands out most for mine - Essendon v North would have been a ripping contest. Instead the North v Carlton GF was an absolute snoozefest, where the Roos just held Carlton to a 5-6 goal margin all day.

 

[eth-dog]

Following your logic: every game would be 1st defeats 2nd because 1st is better. 10th defeats 13th because 10th is better. That’s now how sports work: I don’t get how you can’t wrap your head around this.

Every game is different. There are so many factors at play. The location, the weather, the wind, player availability etc.

Geelong have a superior offence, defence, percentage and record against the top 8 than Hawthorn. So why didn’t Geelong beat Hawthorn?

Saying Collingwood would have lost by 14 goals or greater merely because they couldn’t get over the line against Sydney on their home deck by one point is a ludicrous opinion

Saying Collingwood definitely would have done better than Sydney when their record portrayed the fact that Sydney had a better attack, defence, percentage, as well as the fact that Sydney had a far superior record against top 8 sides and won both head to head matches is absolute delusion.

Collingwood were an inferior team to Sydney in every facet of the game, and yet Collingwood fans in here would have us believe that without a shadow of a doubt that they'd have been better than them in the Grand Final. The team that never lead once in their chance to get there.

 

[adammania9]

Saying Collingwood definitely would have done better than Sydney when their record portrayed the fact that Sydney had a better attack, defence, percentage, as well as the fact that Sydney had a far superior record against top 8 sides and won both head to head matches is absolute delusion.

Collingwood were an inferior team to Sydney in every facet of the game, and yet Collingwood fans in here would have us believe that without a shadow of a doubt that they'd have been better than them in the Grand Final. The team that never lead once in their chance to get there.

Relevance?

Tell me why Geelong didn’t beat Hawthorn or why Sydney didn’t beat Essendon when they have better attacks, defences etc etc

 

[eth-dog]

Relevance?

Tell me why Geelong didn’t beat Hawthorn or why Sydney didn’t beat Essendon when they have better attacks, defences etc etc

Relevance? When they had the opportunity to make the Grand Final they couldn't even get ahead, period. Yet you and your mate swear black and blue that you would have performed better than the team that beat you.

Tell me why Collingwood would have done better. You have yet to present an argument as to why that's the case. All you've said is that it's "foolish" to believe otherwise.

 

[adammania9]

Relevance? When they had the opportunity to make the Grand Final they couldn't even get ahead, period. Yet you and your mate swear black and blue that you would have performed better than the team that beat you.

Tell me why Collingwood would have done better. You have yet to present an argument as to why that's the case. All you've said is that it's "foolish" to believe otherwise.

Not sure why being ahead at any stage during the game has any relevance. Only thing needed is to be ahead at the final siren. It’s a shame there wasn’t another 90 seconds to play.

You’re ignoring my question. Why do teams with better attacks and defences etc lose to bad teams? How come Geelong who have the best attack and defence didn’t go 25-0?

The previous match-up between Geelong and Collingwood is a much more relevant indicator than Sydney vs Collingwood. That qualifying final was as 50/50 a final as you’ll see. We would not have lost a grand final by 14+ goals.

 

[eth-dog]

Not sure why being ahead at any stage during the game has any relevance. Only thing needed is to be ahead at the final siren. It’s a shame there wasn’t another 90 seconds to play.

You’re ignoring my question. Why do teams with better attacks and defences etc lose to bad teams? How come Geelong who have the best attack and defence didn’t go 25-0?

The previous match-up between Geelong and Collingwood is a much more relevant indicator than Sydney vs Collingwood. That qualifying final was as 50/50 a final as you’ll see. We would not have lost a grand final by 14+ goals.

Well if you trail the entire game it's pretty obvious that you didn't deserve to win. You had 2 hours of the game to get ahead, seems like enough time to get a lead once throughout. Collingwood weren't good enough to do that.

I'm ignoring it because it's irrelevant to the discussion.

Finally, a reason why you swear black and blue as to why you'd have done better! But yeah, that doesn't hold. Sydney's previous match up with Geelong they won. So yeah, not really all that relevant at all.

Sydney were the better side throughout the year than Collingwood as I have shown plenty of times in this thread. In every facet of the game, including beating them twice. To suggest that Collingwood, despite all that, would have done better than Sydney is delusion in it's highest form. But you can keep deluding yourself otherwise, it's what you do best.

 

[adammania9]

Well if you trail the entire game it's pretty obvious that you didn't deserve to win. You had 2 hours of the game to get ahead, seems like enough time to get a lead once throughout. Collingwood weren't good enough to do that.

I'm ignoring it because it's irrelevant to the discussion.

Finally, a reason why you swear black and blue as to why you'd have done better! But yeah, that doesn't hold. Sydney's previous match up with Geelong they won. So yeah, not really all that relevant at all.

Sydney were the better side throughout the year than Collingwood as I have shown plenty of times in this thread. In every facet of the game, including beating them twice. To suggest that Collingwood, despite all that, would have done better than Sydney is delusion in its highest form. But you can keep deluding yourself otherwise, it's what you do best.

You’ve done it again. Why do bad teams lose to good teams? Is it because each game is different? Why did Geelong and Sydney lose to Hawthorn and Essendon if they are superior in every capacity? Why did West Coast defeat Collingwood?

You’re referring to Sydney’s previous matchup against Geelong which was six months prior and at the SCG? The grand final is played at the MCG. You seem to love your data and trends. Collingwood’s last three results against the Cats at the MCG were decided by a combined 29 points. Why would the grand final have been decided by 85+?

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

This is a reaching argument if I’ve ever seen one.

Bad news Cats, goals from opposition turnovers don't count anymore. Better give the cup back.

 

[eth-dog]

You’ve done it again. Why do bad teams lose to good teams? Is it because each game is different? Why did Geelong and Sydney lose to Hawthorn and Essendon if they are superior in every capacity? Why did West Coast defeat Collingwood?

You’re referring to Sydney’s previous matchup against Geelong which was six months prior and at the SCG? The grand final is played at the MCG. You seem to love your data and trends. Collingwood’s last three results against the Cats at the MCG were decided by a combined 29 points. Why would the grand final have been decided by 85+?

Yes, I've proven your delusions again. You're catching up!

Normal person logic: Collingwood would have been worse than Sydney due to the fact that Sydney have outstripped them in every facet of the game this season, including but not limited to the fact that they beat them twice during the season including the game that got them into the Grand Final by leading from start to finish.
Collingwood supporter logic: Collingwood would have done better because we were closer in the Qualifying Final!!!!!!!!1

I have proven time and again how silly your argument is. Everything points to Sydney being a superior side this year (literally everything) and yet you continue to peddle the fact that I'm 100% wrong, and Collingwood, a quantifiably worse side than Sydney, would have done better. That all the data in football is wrong. You point to previous match ups, I point to previous match ups but mine don't count because it's at a different ground? Right.

You would have been just as bad, if not worse. You're allowed to think otherwise. You'd be wrong, but you're allowed to think that.

 

[adammania9]

Yes, I've proven your delusions again. You're catching up!

Normal person logic: Collingwood would have been worse than Sydney due to the fact that Sydney have outstripped them in every facet of the game this season, including but not limited to the fact that they beat them twice during the season including the game that got them into the Grand Final by leading from start to finish.
Collingwood supporter logic: Collingwood would have done better because we were closer in the Qualifying Final!!!!!!!!1

I have proven time and again how silly your argument is. Everything points to Sydney being a superior side this year (literally everything) and yet you continue to peddle the fact that I'm 100% wrong, and Collingwood, a quantifiably worse side than Sydney, would have done better. That all the data in football is wrong. You point to previous match ups, I point to previous match ups but mine don't count because it's at a different ground? Right.

You would have been just as bad, if not worse. You're allowed to think otherwise. You'd be wrong, but you're allowed to think that.

You’ve gone full nuffie champ. Not even going to ask any further for an answer to the question you’ve ignored half a dozen times because I’m not really interested in reading your predictably trash responses

I’m staggered that after all your years of watching football that these are the conclusions you are drawing

 

[SuperSub17]

Yes, I've proven your delusions again. You're catching up!

Normal person logic: Collingwood would have been worse than Sydney due to the fact that Sydney have outstripped them in every facet of the game this season, including but not limited to the fact that they beat them twice during the season including the game that got them into the Grand Final by leading from start to finish.
Collingwood supporter logic: Collingwood would have done better because we were closer in the Qualifying Final!!!!!!!!1

I have proven time and again how silly your argument is. Everything points to Sydney being a superior side this year (literally everything) and yet you continue to peddle the fact that I'm 100% wrong, and Collingwood, a quantifiably worse side than Sydney, would have done better. That all the data in football is wrong. You point to previous match ups, I point to previous match ups but mine don't count because it's at a different ground? Right.

You would have been just as bad, if not worse. You're allowed to think otherwise. You'd be wrong, but you're allowed to think that.

This is some genuine idiocy.

Nobody is arguing that Collingwood had a better season than Sydney on the whole. They are stating (correctly) that Sydney had a much worse than average performance on the day.

They are two separate things.

 

[Defabs]

I think arguing Collingwood V Richmond is probably a more sensible scenario given Collingwood finished above GWS, had the week off, just lost to GWS and GWS were well and truly cooked in the GF.
Collingwood v Richmond in the GF would have been an absolutely crazy build up in Melbourne. Richmond May still have got the better of Collingwood but the match up is one we unfortunately missed.