ladder 2003

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by moomba
Therefore if Carey and Burns do not work out:

Out: Johnson
In: Torney, Begley

Yes, in this case your list would definately be worse than last year [/B]

Sorry Moomba, I don't see how it would be worse.

The Crows won't play Torney in Johnsons position, and the Crows do have players in Torney's likely position who can take up Johnson's role.

In fact, those very players did exactly that for those games in 2002 where Johnson was unavailable, with barely a hiccough.

I say again, I can't see the problem!

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by moomba
For the love of god.

One question. Would you prefer:

a) Johnson in the midfield and Goodwin in defence
b) Goodwin in the midfield and Torney in defence

If the answer is a) you have proven my point. If it is b) you have proven my suspicions.

Moomba

For the love of God Moomba, the answer is a) but b) is nearly as good.

There is no case for a drop of six ladder places and a de-rating of Adelaide's list based on the difference between a) and b).

If you argue there is, you have proven my point.

 

[moomba]

Originally posted by ok.crows
Sorry Moomba, I don't see how it would be worse.

The Crows won't play Torney in Johnsons position, and the Crows do have players in Torney's likely position who can take up Johnson's role.

In fact, those very players did exactly that for those games in 2002 where Johnson was unavailable, with barely a hiccough.

I say again, I can't see the problem!

Normally that would be enough to convince me, however you also couldn't see how the Crows would give up any more than a first round pick for Carey.

Moomba

 

[moomba]

Originally posted by ok.crows
For the love of God Moomba, the answer is a) but b) is nearly as good.

There is no case for a drop of six ladder places and a de-rating of Adelaide's list based on the difference between a) and b).

If you argue there is, you have proven my point.

Geez, it was just someones opinion that there will be eight sides better than the Crows. It could be that Adelaide is worse, it could be that in that persons opinion (not even mine) other sides will improve more than the Crows will improve.

I don't agree with the people that say that North will get the wooden spoon, but I am not going to bother wasting my time arguing the point because in the long run they could be right, just as whoever predicted the Crows fall could be right.

Get over it.

Moomba

 

[Tio_Ray]

Originally posted by ok.crows
I couldn't give a fig if you had the Crows in your top 2 or not ... I just noted that I found your stated reason frankly bizarre.

"9 Adelaide - honest side that will go better IF carey can still play".

Come on now, in 2002 the Crows with a bit of a struggling forward setup that is changed week to week - yet still manage to get to third spot and score the fourth highest in the competition on the strength of the rest of the side - then they add Carey and suddenly the Crows will slip a fair way down to ninth unless Carey does well?

You have yet to answer the question - how so?

If Carey doesn't kick a single sausage for Crows in 2003 - why shouldn't the Crows still be capable of third spot?

BTW - I only had my wild-arse stab because someone explicitly asked me for it. Normally I wouldn't hazard any guess at a ladder this early.

Easy....I don't think the crows will improve this year and I think alot of other teams will....therefore the slip.....I also think carey is a big MAYBE factor but if he performs then all is well and good for you...ok

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Originally posted by macca23
Out: Johnson

In: Carey, Burns, Torney, Begley

Yeah, I see where you're coming from. Our list is obviously worse than last year.

The only "Out" of any note was Sugar, but I wouldn't really count Begley as much of an "In" either (compared to some of the players we delisted). However, Mattner & Rutten will play considerable games in 2003. Overall the list is much better than last year (although I'm sure most club supporters would be saying the same).

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

My ladder for 2003 (at the end of the minor round) in these early stages would be:

1. Port Adelaide (will have the motivation after previous finals games)
2. Brisbane (have the talent, but do they still have the hunger?)
3. Adelaide (will continue to improve to challenge for the flag)
4. Richmond (biggest jump up the ladder with quality midfielders)
5. Collingwood (will consolidate on 2002)
6. Essendon (still have big guns, but lack previous depth, particularly in the midfield)
7. Melbourne (will be therabouts as long as there are no board room dramas)
8. West Coast (good midfield, but don't have KPP to challenge yet)
===
9. Hawthorn (opposite to Weagles in that they have KPP, but lack midfielders)
10. Fremantle (if they can win away from home, they will crack the finals)
11. Geelong (still believe they are too inexperienced, but watch out in a few years time)
12. St Kilda (talented list, pity about the coach though)
13. Carlton (will improve, but not enough to make the finals)
14. Western Bulldogs (lack depth IMO in particular in KP forwards & will need to rebuild with talented youngsters to challenge in a few years)
15. Sydney (worst list IMO)
16. Kangaroos (Laidley is going to blood youngsters with a view to rebuilding for the future)

 

[demon_69]

First of all like to thank dan26 for his ladder, good work

My 2003 Ladder :
At round 22 (not after finals)
1. Port Adelaide – Will do good in the season but I think will drop of in the finals.
2. Brisbane – aren’t what they use to be but still good enough to a 2nd posse
3. Melbourne – being a Melbourne supporter use probably think im talking crap, but all I’m going to say is, look at this in September 2003
4. Adelaide – Can only get better with Carey coming on board.
5. Essendon
6. Fremantle
7. West Coast
8. Bulldogs - Think they will get higher (hope they do )
9. Collingwood – IMO, they over achieved this year and will under achieve next year.
10. Geelong
11. Hawks
12. Kangaroos
13. St.Kilda
14. Carlton
15. Richmond
16. Sydney


Any where from 3rd onwards till 12th I think have a chance of making the finals. IMO I think it will be a very tight competition next year.

 

[X_box_X]

Originally posted by Inferno_03
First of all like to thank dan26 for his ladder, good work

My 2003 Ladder :
At round 22 (not after finals)
1. Port Adelaide – Will do good in the season but I think will drop of in the finals.
2. Brisbane – aren’t what they use to be but still good enough to a 2nd posse
3. Melbourne – being a Melbourne supporter use probably think im talking crap, but all I’m going to say is, look at this in September 2003
4. Adelaide – Can only get better with Carey coming on board.
5. Essendon
6. Fremantle
7. West Coast
8. Bulldogs - Think they will get higher (hope they do )
9. Collingwood – IMO, they over achieved this year and will under achieve next year.
10. Geelong
11. Hawks
12. Kangaroos
13. St.Kilda
14. Carlton
15. Richmond
16. Sydney


Any where from 3rd onwards till 12th I think have a chance of making the finals. IMO I think it will be a very tight competition next year.

Who is your English teacher, mate?

 

[carnthedees]

1. Brisbane
2. Adelaide
3. Port Adelaide
4.Melbourne
5. Collingwood
6.Western Bulldogs
7. Essondon
8. Richmond
9. West Coast
10.Hawthorn
11.Geelong
12. St Kilda
13.Fremantle
14.Kangaroos
15.Sydney
16. Carlton

 

[macca23]

Originally posted by moomba
Therefore if Carey and Burns do not work out:

Out: Johnson
In: Torney, Begley

Yes, in this case your list would definately be worse than last year

Your whole argument is flimsily built on negative ifs. In one foul swoop you just dismiss the presence of Carey and Burns who barring injury are likely to kick 80 to 100 goals between them for the year.

As for ifs, IF my auntie had balls she would be my uncle. But she hasn't. I'll call her uncle when she does!!

 

[Zombie]

Originally posted by macca23
Your whole argument is flimsily built on negative ifs. In one foul swoop you just dismiss the presence of Carey and Burns who barring injury are likely to kick 80 to 100 goals between them for the year.

Haha, I find it funny that you bag the guy for presenting a scenario that is possible and even likely and then you go and present a scenario that is absolutely ludicrous and have the audacity to mock him.

In their last seasons Carey and Burns combined for a total of 52 goals and that was playing in seperate teams, to suggest they will combine for a total of up to 100 goals is just ridiculous.

 

[moomba]

Originally posted by macca23
Your whole argument is flimsily built on negative ifs. In one foul swoop you just dismiss the presence of Carey and Burns who barring injury are likely to kick 80 to 100 goals between them for the year.

How have I done that. Shall I quote for you a third time. Please read it this time.

I thought it was Johnson, which would have made an explanation for Adelaide's fall a lot more plausible.I have picked them for top 4 but a lot of that is based on the expectation that Carey and Burns to a lesser extent will improve the side. If neither works out I think Adelaides list on the whole is worse than it was last year. Torney will be OK, but will not make up for the loss of Johnson IMO.

If I was involved in a debate about how Nicole Kidman would look with a beard, would I not have to first make an assumption that she had a beard. I am now involved in a debate about the strength of the Crows playing list without contributions from Carey and Burns. Does is not stand to reason that I would have to make the assumption that Carey and Burns will not contribute to the side. This doesn't mean that I have dismissed the presence of Carey and Burns, just as I have not dismissed the reality of a beardless Kidman.

As for ifs, IF my auntie had balls she would be my uncle. But she hasn't. I'll call her uncle when she does!!

Hello, this is a thread where people are making predictions for what will happen in 9 months time. It is full of IF's and if you can't cope with one person in the world not rating your side as highly as you do perhaps you would be better off taking your rolling eyes and joining the Cats and Swans supporters in denial land.

Moomba

 

[Mcchawk]

After reading this thread these things won't happen

Geelong top 4.............Next
Richmond top 4.............see above
Collingwood top 4..........2002 lucky
Carlton - in the finals..........CRAP


Eight will be

Brisbane
Port
Adelaide
StKilda
Hawthorn
Essendon
Collingwood
West Coast

Premier- Brisbane

 

[SCRAY72]

Originally posted by Mcchawk
After reading this thread these things won't happen

Geelong top 4.............Next
Richmond top 4.............see above
Collingwood top 4..........2002 lucky
Carlton - in the finals..........CRAP


Eight will be

Brisbane
Port
Adelaide
StKilda
Hawthorn
Essendon
Collingwood
West Coast

Premier- Brisbane

There is no way St.Kilda will finish above Hawthorn, Collingwood, Essendon and Melbourne.
They will improve but not enough to jump to 4th.

 

[ok.crows]

Originally posted by Tio_Ray
Easy....I don't think the crows will improve this year and I think alot of other teams will....therefore the slip.....I also think carey is a big MAYBE factor but if he performs then all is well and good for you...ok

I can't see any reason whatsoever for excluding the Crows from improving (even without Carey) in exactly the same way that would enable "alot" of other teams to improve. What factors are there holding back the Crows in particular in any way?

As for the Carey factor - let us just say that we can think of Carey at 32 effectively replacing the role that the trio of forward players who each played only some games for the Crows this year and who were cut - Hewitt, Bienke & Fitzgerald. Although Schell wasn't cut, we can throw his name in here as well.

Now I'd say that the chances are pretty fair that the Crows will get a better return from Carey than any of those (named above) you can think of that he would be replacing in the side.

It is not a certain thing, but it seems to me that the odds are pretty good.

On the balance of probability any punter with an ounce of objectivity would actually conclude that the chances of Crows improving a bit look quite a bit better than the chances of a big slide, IMO.

I just state this as my opinion, I don't expect you to hold the same view, but I sure as heck can't see any sort of internal strife at the club, loss of core playing strength, lack of motivation, complacency, worries with the coaching staff, player disaffection, excessive age - anything at all that indicates a slide is due.

 

[Go South]

Give up.

 

[Mcchawk]

Originally posted by SCRAY72
There is no way St.Kilda will finish above Hawthorn, Collingwood, Essendon and Melbourne.
They will improve but not enough to jump to 4th.

StKilda's list is awesome if they can take that to the field, I'll predict them to have a Hawthorn like dynasty in the 80's. Big wrap but, it can happen. The draft was supposed to even thing's up but hasn't evened things up at all.If you sacrifice the year ie finish 12 to 16 for a few seasons then you'll achieve success over the next 10 for those few years sacrificed. beware of st.kilda

 

[roostersgal4eva]

Originally posted by Zombie
* giggles @ how much of a bandwagoner you are

awwww - thats the nicest thing any1 ever said to me

10/10 for originallity

i wasnt put on this planet to please you zombie!

 

[Pies rock]

Despite Brisbane's back to back flags, they are yet to win the minor Premiership. They will drop slightly next season.

1. Port
2. Collingwood
3. Adelaide
4. Brisbane
5. Richmond
6. Essendon
7. Wet Toast
8. Whorethorn

9. Melbourne
10. Geelong
11. St Kilda
12. Carlton
13. Freo
14. Bulldogs
15. Kangas
16. Sydney

 

[NICK THE PIE MAN]

Originally posted by da_bomber
If anything we have probably the best amount of depth in the comp unlike some other teams who cant seam to win consistently without their captain!!!!!!!!!!!!( COLLINGWOOD)

Oh yes.
A Qualifying Final win at Football Park against the minor premiers Port without Bucks shows how we can't win without him.

We actually have a great record for games when Bucks is out.

 

[SCRAY72]

Originally posted by Mcchawk
StKilda's list is awesome if they can take that to the field, I'll predict them to have a Hawthorn like dynasty in the 80's. Big wrap but, it can happen. The draft was supposed to even thing's up but hasn't evened things up at all.If you sacrifice the year ie finish 12 to 16 for a few seasons then you'll achieve success over the next 10 for those few years sacrificed. beware of st.kilda

As I said Mcchawk I hope they do some of my best mates are Saints members and they deserve success after some lean years.
It would be good to see some different teams in the finals but I judge footy sides like my own and Freo, StKilda and Geelong like the racehorses I bet on. The formline should read.
"Wait till they show something" just like the Cats did last season.

 

[Mcchawk]

Originally posted by SCRAY72
As I said Mcchawk I hope they do some of my best mates are Saints members and they deserve success after some lean years.
It would be good to see some different teams in the finals but I judge footy sides like my own and Freo, StKilda and Geelong like the racehorses I bet on. The formline should read.
"Wait till they show something" just like the Cats did last season.

Must agree on this, teams mentioned if they can pull something from the bag could be anything probably except Freo who need to win on the road more.

 

[snakebite01]

Originally posted by Ronaldo
RONNIE BURNS IS A HACK, LIKE COLLINGWOOD GETTING EXCITED AT TEH ARRIVAL OF WILLIAMS FROM WEST COAST

MY LADDER IS

1.pies
2. cousinshaggers
3.ex fitzroy
4. port scum
5. tweed jacket wearers
6. hawthorn spiceboys
7.essenscum
8.children eaters (tigers)
9. handbags
10.western suburbs filth
11. weagles
12. trihard eagles
13. sth easern bogans
14. sydney chardonnay sippers
15, norf
16. tin rattlers

SENZA CALCIO NON C'E VITA

In English please ...

 

[Fall Out Boy]

Originally posted by NICK THE PIE MAN

We actually have a great record for games when Bucks is out.

I think the Pies have a marginally worse record without Nathan.