Next flag - Carlton, Essendon or Richmond?

[bluemahogany]

All 3 haven't even looked like winning anything since 2001.

2004 was the last time any of them won a final outside of these 3 teams playing each other.

Correct answer is: no clue

Real creative way of saying Carlton has actually won some finals recently, while Essendon haven't.

 

[Sector 7G]

Carlton kicked 64 points in round 2, on the MCG. They then kicked 57 points on the MCG in round 3.

So apparently, the rain had little impact on Carlton's scoring. Hell, let's make a wild assumption that it didn't rain, Essendon still plays like shit and Carlton scores another 30 points - they'd STILL be in the top handful of sides in terms of scores against.

So the answer to your rather uninformed question is NO, the rain at the MCG on Sunday is NOT a contributing factor to what has been a well performed Essendon defense in 2017.

What it was a big contributor to however, was Essendons ball movement and therefore ability to score; resulting in the first game of the year where we scored less than 100 points. And drastically so too, only 42 points.

I'd like to say you (the wider you, not just you) aren't getting it, but I think you kind of are and that's what's bothering you all a little bit.

Just random numbers but the reality is on a scale of one to ten Essendon has been playing at around about a 6 or 7.

Carlton are about a 3.

For this game, Essendon played at a 1 or 2. Carlton didn't get any better, Essendon just played like absolute crap. That's why the winning score was a measly 57.

That's also the reason you tend to see Essendon fans being a bit dismissive about the result. Annoying that we dropped our game so badly to lose to a lowly side, but not really indicative of how we've been travelling in a broader sense.

This is amazingly simplistic analysis. The weather wasn't the only variable between the 2 weeks. The week before we played a team likely to make finals. On the weekend we played a team without any ticker and short stepped numerous times.

When the conditions weren't bad and marking and kicking to targets was still possible EFC were outplayed and only poor goal kicking kept them in it.

Hopefully we get a dry day later in the season.

 

[OnceWeWereKings]

Not only would it be different, it'd be drastically different.

Don't get me wrong, Carlton worked hard and Essendon played like absolute fools on the weekend, but the only reason Carlton won was the significant rainfall.

Of course the result would be different - Essendon are a significantly better side. They just happen to be utter crap in the wet. Could not have beaten any one of the other 17 sides in the league on the weekend.

The inflation of opinion of the state of Carlton's list because of that game is extraordinary - a real demonstration of the goldfish memories of BigFooty.

It was a putrid game, played between two thoroughly shit sides. The classic 'someone has to won' scenario.

The major difference between the two sides however, is that Carlton are shit no matter the weather - Essendon are just downright disgraceful when it rains.

If you look up delusion in the dictionary it should have your picture as a reference in its description.

Facts are your "significantly better" side was beaten. And it was beaten in the most recent contests by a team you rate as "significantly inferior" to the team whom it lost too.

Facts are that if one side is "significantly better" than the other it should be reasonably assumed it shouldn't lose to that opposing side under any circumstance.

Fact, your claimed "significantly better" side in recent history, say the last 5 seasons, actually sits 3 / 5 in deficit in head to head games against the "significantly inferior" side.

Citing the sole reason for this defeat on a weather pattern that should be fairly expected when played during the winter season is the very eptimone of delusion. In fact it's laughable.

What are you going to come up with next?

We lost because it was too sunny? Essendon kick the ball higher, and it gets in our eyes more.

We lost because it was too windy? Essendon only play well when the wind blows under 10 knots.

We lost because its smoggy? Essendon have a number of asthmatic players whom struggle in these conditions with oxygen counts.

Facts are Essendon lost its most recent encounter against Carlton. Any claims you make about Essendon being "significantly better" than Carlton are pure rhetoric. Fact.

But rhetoric is what your good at Jade.

Facts not so much.

 

[jezzajay]

Essendon lost the game because they are;

a) shit in the wet
-and-
b) treated the game with disrespect

In regards to This debate I would have it
Richmond
Essendon
Carlton
In order of who would be closest to a flag with current lists and where they're at in progress.

But with your reasoning for Essendon losing to Carlton...no decent team would drop a game like that for those reasons. It just puts you guys back with the mid range pack.
Carlton deserves more credit for winning than that.

 

[Jobe Watson]

Agree to disagree, but hardly lunacy given that Murphy and Gibbs have been A graders for 10 years or so, but there you go. Interesting what neutrals would say.

They have? Gibbs and Murphy have how many All-Australians between them in the last 5 years?

 

[jezzajay]

Then you have absolutely lost your marbles.

A starting midfield of Heppell, Merrett, Watson, Parish is much, MUCH better.

if so good then why did we win on the weekend? And don't use the wet as an excuse for not getting their hands dirty! I know there's plenty of other players on the ground but it was clear our midfield beat yours on the weekend. Clearly shown in clearances and effectiveness. Yet your midfield is superior...pffffttt....

 

[Jobe Watson]

yeah but he's not wrong, its arguable either way when comparing top mids.

explain why your mids are better please

- All-Australians in the previous 5 years: Essendon 3 (Watson x2, Heppell), Carlton 0.
- AFL Player's Top 50: Heppell (26), Merrett (28), Cripps (32), Watson (41). Murphy & Gibbs (N/A).
- ChampionData Midfield Rankings: Essendon 13th, Carlton 16th.

We also have the better young midfielders in my opinion: Parish was 4th in the Rising Star last year, McGrath was the #1 pick and hasn't put a foot wrong so far in his AFL career, Merrett and Heppell are both A-graders who are under 25.

 

[FairKouta]

- All-Australians in the previous 5 years: Essendon 3 (Watson x2, Heppell), Carlton 0.
- AFL Player's Top 50: Heppell (26), Merrett (28), Cripps (32), Watson (41). Murphy & Gibbs (N/A).
- ChampionData Midfield Rankings: Essendon 13th, Carlton 16th.

We also have the better young midfielders: Parish was 4th in the Rising Star last year, McGrath was the #1 pick and hasn't put a foot wrong so far in his AFL career, Merrett and Heppell are both A-graders who are under 25.

Lels but you lost on sunday. So all this means jack because remember you lost.

 

[Thrawn]

If you look up delusion in the dictionary it should have your picture as a reference in its description.

Facts are your "significantly better" side was beaten. And it was beaten in the most recent contests by a team you rate as "significantly inferior" to the team whom it lost too.

Facts are that if one side is "significantly better" than the other it should be reasonably assumed it shouldn't lose to that opposing side under any circumstance.

Fact, your claimed "significantly better" side in recent history, say the last 5 seasons, actually sits 3 / 5 in deficit in head to head games against the "significantly inferior" side.

Citing the sole reason for this defeat on a weather pattern that should be fairly expected when played during the winter season is the very eptimone of delusion. In fact it's laughable.

What are you going to come up with next?

We lost because it was too sunny? Essendon kick the ball higher, and it gets in our eyes more.

We lost because it was too windy? Essendon only play well when the wind blows under 10 knots.

We lost because its smoggy? Essendon have a number of asthmatic players whom struggle in these conditions with oxygen counts.

Facts are Essendon lost its most recent encounter against Carlton. Any claims you make about Essendon being "significantly better" than Carlton are pure rhetoric. Fact.

But rhetoric is what your good at Jade.

Facts not so much.

Beautiful.

 

[Beer n Skittles]

2004 was the last time any of them won a final outside of these 3 teams playing each other

By which you mean Essendon & Richmond haven't won a final in over a dozen years while Carlton have won finals against both teams

 

[Dangerousfield]

The current top teams, as in those that were at the top in 2016, have as much youthful list profile, sheer talent and more depth than the three in question. By the time the young talent on their lists starts to consistently produce, a number of their current stars will be retired. That means they cannot overhaul those a the top now.

Therefore none of those three teams are capable of a flag so the original question doesn't need an answer.

GWS will dominate for the next 5-6 years, thanks AFL!

 

[Bomberblitzer]

If you look up delusion in the dictionary it should have your picture as a reference in its description.

Facts are your "significantly better" side was beaten. And it was beaten in the most recent contests by a team you rate as "significantly inferior" to the team whom it lost too.

Facts are that if one side is "significantly better" than the other it should be reasonably assumed it shouldn't lose to that opposing side under any circumstance.

Fact, your claimed "significantly better" side in recent history, say the last 5 seasons, actually sits 3 / 5 in deficit in head to head games against the "significantly inferior" side.

Citing the sole reason for this defeat on a weather pattern that should be fairly expected when played during the winter season is the very eptimone of delusion. In fact it's laughable.

What are you going to come up with next?

We lost because it was too sunny? Essendon kick the ball higher, and it gets in our eyes more.

We lost because it was too windy? Essendon only play well when the wind blows under 10 knots.

We lost because its smoggy? Essendon have a number of asthmatic players whom struggle in these conditions with oxygen counts.

Facts are Essendon lost its most recent encounter against Carlton. Any claims you make about Essendon being "significantly better" than Carlton are pure rhetoric. Fact.

But rhetoric is what your good at Jade.

Facts not so much.

A side of VFL top-ups, retirees and young guys completely dismantled Carlton 4 games ago. Yes, the Blues are the inferior side without doubt when you consider the state of each list and the quality contained within.

That doesn't mean upsets won't happen. Especially in an incredibly even year.

 

[Bulldog1954]

Why are so many Essendon fans seemingly unperturbed about losing to Carlton simply because it rained? Seems strange to dismiss a performance just because it rained. What if it rained in a final?

 

[Bomberblitzer]

Why are so many Essendon fans seemingly unperturbed about losing to Carlton simply because it rained? Seems strange to dismiss a performance just because it rained. What if it rained in a final?

Less because of the rain, more because it was clear that we underperformed massively. And credit to Carlton, they played better footy than us and honestly would've beaten a few sides the way they set up and attacked the ball.

But an upset win in dire conditions isn't much of an indicator. This weekend against Adelaide will be much more informative.

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

Cripps and SPS over Merrett, Parish and McGrath?

Have you been part of Carlton's recruiting staff at any point during the last decade? It might explain a few things...

Think the Carlton boys overpower the Essendon young kids. Granted they are a good crop but I think Cripps and SPS both have higher ceilings and better X factor. Add in Charlie Curnow who just needs an extended run at it after having Glandular fever. Tough to carry three sub-180cm blokes no matter how talented they are, especially when it comes to in close footy like last weekend or a final.

Our blokes can play in all conditions as well which is a huge plus.

 

[pinot]

Essendon is soft and showed in the wet

 

[Bomberblitzer]

Think the Carlton boys overpower the Essendon young kids. Granted they are a good crop but I think Cripps and SPS both have higher ceilings and better X factor. Add in Charlie Curnow who just needs an extended run at it after having Glandular fever. Tough to carry three sub-180cm blokes no matter how talented they are, especially when it comes to in close footy like last weekend or a final.

Our blokes can play in all conditions as well which is a huge plus.

On what planet would anyone take Charlie Curnow over McGrath? I know your opinion is influenced by the team you support but seriously that is just silly.

Cripps and SPS might have 'higher ceilings' but if you're looking at actual performance to date Merrett and Parish are better.

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

On what planet would anyone take Charlie Curnow over McGrath? I know your opinion is influenced by the team you support but seriously that is just silly.

Cripps and SPS might have 'higher ceilings' but if you're looking at actual performance to date Merrett and Parish are better.

I wasn't comparing McGrath and Curnow individually but the groups as a collective.

If you're looking at performance to date well I'll take Powell Pepper over the lot of them. Young players are largely judged on potential and even so our young mids out did yours on Sunday.

Wouldn't be surprised if it was SPS' first ever game in the rain and he looked like he was in the dry. Cripps is currently just under JPK as the best contested mid in the game. Very happy with our group.

 

[Rack Watts]

if so good then why did we win on the weekend? And don't use the wet as an excuse for not getting their hands dirty! I know there's plenty of other players on the ground but it was clear our midfield beat yours on the weekend. Clearly shown in clearances and effectiveness. Yet your midfield is superior...pffffttt....

If our team was better, why would we lose to you?

Let's shut up the betting markets now lads, he's got a great point.

 

[Bomberblitzer]

I wasn't comparing McGrath and Curnow individually but the groups as a collective.

If you're looking at performance to date well I'll take Powell Pepper over the lot of them. Young players are largely judged on potential and even so our young mids out did yours on Sunday.

Wouldn't be surprised if it was SPS' first ever game in the rain and he looked like he was in the dry. Cripps is currently just under JPK as the best contested mid in the game. Very happy with our group.

You certainly would be happy with those guys. SPS in particular was fantastic.

Cripps has been off his best due to that preseason injury but he'll come good too. I'm hoping we get to see each group at their best later on in the season.

 

[pinot]

On what planet would anyone take Charlie Curnow over McGrath? I know your opinion is influenced by the team you support but seriously that is just silly.

Cripps and SPS might have 'higher ceilings' but if you're looking at actual performance to date Merrett and Parish are better.

We have not finished our rebuild yet

You need to compare like for like 23 and under for the following players which is our core for next two years at least

Docherty (starter)
Weitering (starter)
Marchbank (starter
Plowman (starter)
Macreadie (backup/starter)
Williamson (backup/starter)
Graham (backup)
Cunningham (backup)
Boekhorst (backup)
SPS (starter)
Jaksch (backup)
Slvagni (starter)
Curnow (starter/backup)
McKay (backup)
Fisher (backup)
Polsen (backup)
Pickett (starter/backup)
Byrne (starter/backup)
Kerr (backup)

19 players as core by end of this year should be 23-25 (more than half the list will be under 23) that will move forward together. A-grade free agents to come.

 

[SkyhorseTamer]

- All-Australians in the previous 5 years: Essendon 3 (Watson x2, Heppell), Carlton 0.
- AFL Player's Top 50: Heppell (26), Merrett (28), Cripps (32), Watson (41). Murphy & Gibbs (N/A).
- ChampionData Midfield Rankings: Essendon 13th, Carlton 16th.

We also have the better young midfielders: Parish was 4th in the Rising Star last year, McGrath was the #1 pick and hasn't put a foot wrong so far in his AFL career, Merrett and Heppell are both A-graders who are under 25.

What an idiotic measuring stick to use, aside from the obvious that those All australians don't really count because well yourplayers were on drugs when they won them... everyone knows the all australian team is essentially a popularity contest and not a good reflection. Certainly doesn't account for coaching, injuries and the quality of the rest of the team.

 

[Rack Watts]

What an idiotic measuring stick to use, aside from the obvious that those All australians don't really count because well yourplayers were on drugs when they won them... everyone knows the all australian team is essentially a popularity contest and not a good reflection. Certainly doesn't account for coaching, injuries and the quality of the rest of the team.

We don't have Dennis Armfield, Liam Jones or Rhys Palmer on our list.

I'll just leave that there.

 

[SkyhorseTamer]

We don't have Dennis Armfield, Liam Jones or Rhys Palmer on our list.

I'll just leave that there.

Yep...

 

[chunkylover53]

Hey you can have that opinion.

I mean, you're wrong, so very, very wrong, but that's cool.

You really are such a condescending, smug campaigner Jade, and are quickly becoming one of the shittest posters on this site.

Hit the showers for a few weeks champ.