Nah, just staying humble.OK looks like you're just full of hot air and no substance
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 4 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Nah, just staying humble.OK looks like you're just full of hot air and no substance
Sentinel holds the official 2021 Breath Holding Championship - Western Suburbs division.Don't hold your breath.
Bontempelli's 'inconclusive at best' overturning was clear as day to anyone not a Bulldogs supporter apparently. They don't have optometrists in the Western suburbs?Three blatantly wrong decisions that could have got brissie over the line, Gardner free kick which resulted in a Brisbane goal when he clearly got the ball, Daniel deliberate out of bounds, which was a mis kick from mid air, which resulted in a Brisbane shot on goal and bontempelli’s overturned goal which was inconclusive at best, luckily the bulldogs were too good for Brisbane and the refs influence and won in spite of that
No friend my argument was even more simplistic than that, it was without the VFL morphing into the AFL nobody was picking an underperforming poorly supported club from western Melbourne to enter the AFL
you got there by DeFault
Hence the ”Homer” quote you owe your existence to the two greatest words in the English language De-Fault
Mate seriously......Lol what on earth are you on about? The vfl morphed into the afl in 1990.. 65 years after we had already entered the vfl. We already had our supporter base. What are you trying to claim you nuffy?
You’ve gone from dogs throwing, to dogs flopping, to dogs getting financial assistance to dogs getting more financial assistance than port to some weird idea about default selection lol.
To make you look even dumber - default is one word, not two.
Please make more sense.
Mate seriously......
Homer: Default? The two sweetest words in the English language! De-FAULT! De-FAULT! De-FAULT!
look up the Simpsons episode "Deep Space Homer" ffs
I started the argument about the Dogs being an AFL team by Default you interpreted my statement of standing on your own two feet to mean finances not me,
given your obvious own goal above maybe have a lay down friend
It only makes no sense to you mateYet still nobody knows what you’re on about regarding a “default” club haha…makes absolutely no sense.
Better to leave you be before you embarrass yourself some more. Strange unit.
It only makes no sense to you mate
Your club was in the VFL, the VFL morphed into the AFL if it wasnt for that and the AFL formed by ANY and I mean any other criteria you were being left right out
That's what I mean by default, now it seems you cant win anything without dodgy decisions going your way
Just sad and pathetic really
Here's the table that didn't show in the post above for those that are too lazy to click on, which are probably all the idiots on here that just look at free kick tallies and whinge
So Bigfooty thinks a team that gets a few more frees than their opposition on average are winning games purely because of the Umps, when there have been multiple teams win games this year purely from incorrect decisions at the death, which would have inarguably changed the result. /facepalm
Long reply alert, so feel free to ignore. There is a TL;DR at the bottom.Usually when you lost it means you're second to the ball on most occasions. it was obvious last night that second to the ball for the Bulldogs means nothing to the umpires when they paid Bontempelli a mark and shot on goal for being the second set of hands in a marking contest in the second half.
It's also telling that the 2 clubs people complain get the rub of the green the most are clear 1 and 2 on the free kick differential for the entire season, as well as severely getting the rub of the green so far in the finals:
View attachment 1227233
Here's the table that didn't show in the post above for those that are too lazy to click on, which are probably all the idiots on here that just look at free kick tallies and whinge
Still melting, beautifulDo we have the one from the 2016 Grand final handy?
100% it. great post.You know what I am starting to realise? I probably already knew this, but it’s pretty evident at this moment.
I believe that people’s complaints on here (specifically neutrals) about Bulldogs’ positive free kick differential is driven by the Tall Poppy Syndrome and not people’s desire for true equity in the game. Why you ask? Well, I don’t see calls for a ‘Royal Commission’ into the following free kick differential (Richmond)
Adelaide +7
Essendon +5
Bulldogs +4
North Melbourne +3
Hawthorn +1 (overall)
—————————
St Kilda -5 (overall)
Melbourne -7
Gold Coast -7
Fremantle -8
Collingwood -8
Geelong -9 (overall)
Brisbane -10 (overall)
Carlton -10
Port Adelaide -10
West Coast -10
Sydney -10
GWS -12 (overall)
-86 is a large differential and a bigger outlier than Bulldogs’ +72 in 22 rounds, but you probably won’t find calls for a review into this from many neutrals. Only from Richmond fans and maybe some impartial neutrals. And yes, I am fully aware that I am a Richmond supporter posting about Richmond in a thread about Bulldogs, but I am doing that because this is actually the best current example for what I’m trying to convey. This isn’t just about Richmond - you can use Hawthorn, Essendon, Fremantle, Sydney, GWS and St Kilda as examples for this over the years as well.
Point is that it’s convenient for a ‘neutral’ to raise awareness and demand action against a successful Bulldogs having a large positive differential (or a successful West Coast having a large positive differential at home) because it weakens the authenticity of their success in many people’s eyes. This leads many to be more open to conspiracy theories about how this differential came to be.
However, it’s not as convenient for a ‘neutral’ to do the same for a club (especially if they are successful) on the other end of the differential because that may weaken your club’s achievements over that club. Therefore, ‘neutrals’ largely don’t care about that and will apply Occam’s Razor on the large negative differentials (e.g. put it down to discipline or gamestyle).
Why does this occur? From my observations, I think it’s because many supporters of the game are driven by the Tall Poppy Syndrome and not actual equity. Equity is an argument they’ll only use until their team gets what Bulldogs have now. That’s when they’ll start to base it on “gamestyle” and “discipline”.
An objective analyser would address both negative and positive outliers regardless of whether it helps or impacts their club.
Bottom line - and let’s be honest - is that:
1. Many neutrals on this thread are only complaining about Bulldogs and their ‘ride’ because their team is not receiving it.
2. Many Bulldogs fans are not complaining because it’s their team that is receiving it.
3. Many Richmond fans are complaining about the negative differential because their team is impacted by it.
4. Many neutrals don’t care about Richmond’s differential because their team is not the ones impacted by this.
I feel like these 4 things remain a constant on this website. It’s just the team and the supporter base that changes depending on what category they fall in.
TL;DR - I believe that many non-Bulldogs supporters calling out Bulldogs’ differential aren’t actually driven by equity. Rather, I believe that they’re driven by the Tall Poppy Syndrome.
Having said that though, we definitely send cheques to Gil to filter down to the umps officiating our games each week. It's the only explanation. Long may it continue.100% it. great post.
Unfortunately the Dogs are making some other teams look bad, and some supporters with extreme insecurity who tie their personal worth to the standing of their football club cannot hack it. Need to find some excuse for the Dogs performance to ensure their fragile egos are not shattered.
I’ve literally said the same thing but not as well expressed as this ^ well saidIt is a FACT that the Dogs have a high positive free kick differential. They've had it for years.
Dogs fans say this is a result of discipline - and they are right, to a degree.
The Dogs play a style that is very popular at AFL House - based on fast ball movement, so the "flicking it around" stuff aka throwing doesn't get come down on like it would if their style were about manic contest footy.
By definition manic contest footy risks giving away frees. Indeed, it is predicated on it - bash your opposition for long enough until you win by physical dominance.
Thing is there multiple Dogs players who enter contests looking to win the free as much as the ball - Daniel, Weightman and Hunter especially. You see that when they go in and DON'T get the free, they just bounce back up and keep going.
That is infuriating for lots of fans. It is quite nuanced, all players will stage at times. Ben Cunningtonm will fall forward at the knees when tackled from behind if he can't get it out any other way.
But Cunners - like Cripps and so many others - enters every contest looking to win the ball and risk giving away a free in the process. Too many Dogs enter the contest looking to get a free.
When you add this to the Superstar Room that Bont gets (like a few others) to hang on to the ball in the tackle for hours, it gives the imnpression of a team that's really looked after.
And they are looked after because they play the style that AFL House wants teams to play.
And it works for them, so why would they change?
Thing is there multiple Dogs players who enter contests looking to win the free as much as the ball - Daniel, Weightman and Hunter especially. You see that when they go in and DON'T get the free, they just bounce back up and keep going.
I’ve literally said the same thing but not as well expressed as this ^ well said
It is a FACT that the Dogs have a high positive free kick differential. They've had it for years.
Dogs fans say this is a result of discipline - and they are right, to a degree.
The Dogs play a style that is very popular at AFL House - based on fast ball movement, so the "flicking it around" stuff aka throwing doesn't get come down on like it would if their style were about manic contest footy.
By definition manic contest footy risks giving away frees. Indeed, it is predicated on it - bash your opposition for long enough until you win by physical dominance.
Thing is there multiple Dogs players who enter contests looking to win the free as much as the ball - Daniel, Weightman and Hunter especially. You see that when they go in and DON'T get the free, they just bounce back up and keep going.
That is infuriating for lots of fans. It is quite nuanced, all players will stage at times. Ben Cunningtonm will fall forward at the knees when tackled from behind if he can't get it out any other way.
But Cunners - like Cripps and so many others - enters every contest looking to win the ball and risk giving away a free in the process. Too many Dogs enter the contest looking to get a free.
When you add this to the Superstar Room that Bont gets (like a few others) to hang on to the ball in the tackle for hours, it gives the imnpression of a team that's really looked after.
And they are looked after because they play the style that AFL House wants teams to play.
And it works for them, so why would they change?