The 'Gunnar Longshanks Im gloating by bringing up 1000 old threads' thread.

[Eagle87]

Re: Eagles: Are they the real deal?

Yeah, but he wasn't trolling. What did he say that wasn't fact??

This 4 goal or less thing has been done to death in threads a few months ago. Basically, the Eagles won (from memory) the most by this margin last year and the next most were Adelaide & Sydney. In other words the teams that won the most games in total also won the most games by 4 goals or less .... wow, what a revealing stat ... From memory , this "most" close wins stat would change of you shifted the margin from 24 points to 28 points ... in other words its "true" but entirely bloody meaningless.

Freo fans love stupid stats. There is a thread at Dockerland saying how the last point v Melbourne was good because it reduced the margin to 59 points which kept intact your record of not losing by more than 10 goals in 3 and half years ... I mean, really? who cares??

We win games, some by small margins, some by big margins ... we win games away from Perth (second best record next to Adelaide last year and better than them in Melbourne)...

We hardly lost to a "travel weary" Sydney ... we lost to a good side, could have won, didnt, well done Sydney....

Iscah's post is either a stupid troll or evidence of his complete lack of knowledge of anything meaningful about footy ... which perhaps helps when you follow the Dockers ....

Cheers.

 

[iscah]

Re: Eagles: Are they the real deal?

If only WCE was as consistent as Fremantle, eh?

Umm Freo actually do alright in Melbourne, something like 11 wins of our last 19 in Melbourne. Our problem has been at Subi.

The question was about WC and I am pointing out why most supporters won't rate them until they win more games convincingly (as opposed to a mountain of close finishes (16 now) in the last season and a half) and/or big games in Melbourne.

If you rely on close wins for the majority of your season to get you into the GF it is sort of cruel irony that you lose it in the same way. Even if the other team had to travel to Pluto and back whilst WC rested at Subi all the way through.

Until they move the GF to Subi as well there will always be a problem that still seems insurmountable for WC.

 

[zero]

Re: Eagles: Are they the real deal?

We hardly lost to a "travel weary" Sydney ... we lost to a good side, could have won, didnt, well done Sydney....

yeah this is pretty rich. we lost the grand final because we cant win in melbourne (more than half the time), like it had nothing to do with a kickass sydney side playing very good football

 

[wozzie]

Re: Eagles: Are they the real deal?

Do Collingwood travel, or was that just their token "away" game? Most of the high Melbourne revenue raising teams play around 4 "away" games a year if you exclude "travelling" to Geelong, so please don't give us the garbage of "away" games. The only concern of home and away games some teams have is whether they are mentioned first or second on the fixtures (big decisions MCG or the dome)
The interstate teams travel 12 times a season always including Aurora, Manuka, Carrara, next stop Alice Springs. If they win 50% of their away games it is still a great result. At the end of the day the only Stats that really count are where you finish on the ladder and who wins the big one.

 

[The Passenger]

Re: Eagles: Are they the real deal?

just quickly,

during Brisbane's ultimate reign of 2001 - 2004 they played 30 games in Melbourne, won 19, drew 1, lost 10. An overall percantage of 65%.

We are starting to move in the right direction as we're now 4 wins from 8 since the start of 2005. I'm not sure who our next opponents are in Melbourne, but given we're on top of the table it wouldn't be out there to say we would win both games..... That would make us at 60% from our last 10 games. Likewise we could be 40% from our last 10 games but we are at the top of the table so odds would say we'll win most games......

We're definetaly moving in the right direciton.

 

[Embers]

Re: Eagles: Are they the real deal?

You will find most Eagles fans are not entirely happy with our performances. We are winning but not doing it in a really impressive way yet. Our midfield is not on the top of its game, Kerr Fletcher Braun all struggling for form and our defence needs some direction, without Banfield no one has stood up and took control down there which is disappointing.

Forward is getting better and better as each game goes on. We just need a bit more experience in the team, our bench was very very young today Hurn Seaby Rosa Waters, average age of about 19 there.

 

[iscah]

Re: Eagles: Are they the real deal?

just quickly,

during Brisbane's ultimate reign of 2001 - 2004 they played 30 games in Melbourne, won 19, drew 1, lost 10. An overall percantage of 65%.

We are starting to move in the right direction as we're now 4 wins from 8 since the start of 2005. I'm not sure who our next opponents are in Melbourne, but given we're on top of the table it wouldn't be out there to say we would win both games..... That would make us at 60% from our last 10 games. Likewise we could be 40% from our last 10 games but we are at the top of the table so odds would say we'll win most games......

We're definetaly moving in the right direciton.

Would have been 4 losses in a row in Melbourne by an average of about 40 points if Essendon had either of their main players available today. Not sure how that equates to being able to play in Melbourne, but if that is the way you want to think, go for it ..

 

[Eagle87]

Re: Eagles: Are they the real deal?

Who knows but its not crucial to our success. We only play there a couple of times a year at most. WC play plenty of games in Melbourne, and since this is your first of the year I suspect their is plenty more this season. So its a serious question, and I'm sure there are plenty of Eagles supporters wondering about the same thing.

Havent got the fixtures in front of me, but we have 7 further away games with 1 further game in Adelaide and 1 in Brisbane. That would leave 5 against Vic sides.

1 in Geelong and 4 in Melbourne (unless we play someone in Tassie).

So we have 4 games maximum to go + 1 more in Geelong .

Just confirmed we have Hawthorn(MCG), St Kilda(TD), Collingwood(TD) & Richmond (MCG) remaining in Melbourne.

 

[The Passenger]

Re: Eagles: Are they the real deal?

Would have been 4 losses in a row in Melbourne by an average of about 40 points if Essendon had either of their main players available today.

how do you figure that?? that must be an incredible crystal ball you've got....

 

[oc37]

Re: Eagles: Are they the real deal?

Havent got the fixtures in front of me, but we have 7 further away games with 1 further game in Adelaide and 1 in Brisbane. That would leave 5 against Vic sides.

1 in Geelong and 4 in Melbourne (unless we play someone in Tassie).

So we have 4 games maximum to go + 1 more in Geelong .

Just confirmed we have Hawthorn(MCG)( easy win), St Kilda(TD)( big loss), Collingwood(TD)( big loss) & Richmond (MCG)(narrow upset loss) remaining in Melbourne.

....

 

[imright]

Re: Eagles: Are they the real deal?

Umm Freo actually do alright in Melbourne, something like 11 wins of our last 19 in Melbourne. Our problem has been at Subi.

The question was about WC and I am pointing out why most supporters won't rate them until they win more games convincingly (as opposed to a mountain of close finishes (16 now) in the last season and a half) and/or big games in Melbourne.

If you rely on close wins for the majority of your season to get you into the GF it is sort of cruel irony that you lose it in the same way. Even if the other team had to travel to Pluto and back whilst WC rested at Subi all the way through.

Until they move the GF to Subi as well there will always be a problem that still seems insurmountable for WC.

Nothing wrong with winning the close games. Its a test of character really. At the end of the day you can only count the number of games you win in a season.

Is last year's WCE record of 17 wins 5 losses OK with you?

 

[FuManchu]

Re: Eagles: Are they the real deal?

You will find most Eagles fans are not entirely happy with our performances. We are winning but not doing it in a really impressive way yet. Our midfield is not on the top of its game, Kerr Fletcher Braun all struggling for form and our defence needs some direction, without Banfield no one has stood up and took control down there which is disappointing.

Forward is getting better and better as each game goes on. We just need a bit more experience in the team, our bench was very very young today Hurn Seaby Rosa Waters, average age of about 19 there.

maybe, you aren't as good as you think you are. Sydney may have dinted your confidence too much. just maybe, your time has passed you by

lol

 

[iscah]

Re: Eagles: Are they the real deal?

WC performance the last 2 weeks confirm that they are

1) Hard to beat at Subi
2) Still very poor in Melbourne
3) Riding the crest of a wave in close finishes (16 of last 26 wins by 24 points or less)

Question is does that win a premiership ? The jury is still out and so this is a fair question by the starter of the thread.

 

[monarch4]

Re: Eagles: Are they the real deal?

WC performance the last 2 weeks confirm that they are

1) Hard to beat at Subi
2) Still very poor in Melbourne
3) Riding the crest of a wave in close finishes (16 of last 26 wins by 24 points or less)

Question is does that win a premiership ? The jury is still out and so this is a fair question by the starter of the thread.

And Fremantle have what to show in their time in the AFL

 

[Ari]

Re: Eagles: Are they the real deal?

Passed nice little character test today.

You beat 16th..

Lynch and Hansen finding some form.

Mate, Hansen played on Bolts!!!!!!

 

[Jeremias]

Re: Eagles: Are they the real deal?

west coast are the real deal. i think we have known this for about a year and a bit now.

 

[Eagle87]

Re: Eagles: Are they the real deal?

Umm Freo actually do alright in Melbourne, something like 11 wins of our last 19 in Melbourne. Our problem has been at Subi.

The question was about WC and I am pointing out why most supporters won't rate them until they win more games convincingly (as opposed to a mountain of close finishes (16 now) in the last season and a half) and/or big games in Melbourne.

If you rely on close wins for the majority of your season to get you into the GF it is sort of cruel irony that you lose it in the same way. Even if the other team had to travel to Pluto and back whilst WC rested at Subi all the way through.

Until they move the GF to Subi as well there will always be a problem that still seems insurmountable for WC.

So all 4 goal games are close?

I guess your game v Hawthorn in Round 1 was close as you got within 4 goals?

This is a stupid statistic that proves nothing. As pointed out, last year Freo for example had wins by 25, 27 & 35 (with a last minute goal) but these aren't "close wins" because you draw the line at 24. Eagles had wins by 22,19, 24, 23 & 17. So if you in stead drew the line at say 2 goals or 15 points (which is much more of a close result) then 5 of those "close games " disappear.

Absolute BS stat that means nothing.

As for your comment on away losses in Melbourne by average of 40 points, again what does this mean??

We lost to Geelong (which isnt in Melbourne anyway) and to the Bulldogs when we were guaranteed first or second place already and were resting injured players and running our guys hard at training in prep for the finals. So the losses were meaningless ....

But keep trying to focus on us and ignore your own teams deficiencies

Clown.

 

[iscah]

Re: Eagles: Are they the real deal?

how do you figure that?? that must be an incredible crystal ball you've got....

Why ? The previous 3 matches in Melbourne for WC were losses by ..

Bulldogs 53 points
Geelong 76 points
Sydney 4 points
Essendon ??

 

[greenpike]

Re: Eagles: Are they the real deal?

Yes, I totally agree with all the non-Weagles fans here.

There is NO way the Eagles can win the premiership this year. It is impossible with our Vic problems and forward line.

Please direct your close attention to all the other teams in the 8, especially Collingwood, as all of them have a much better chance than we do. Bit of an accident that we're on top at the mo based on star signs and some of the concessions we got in '86. Means nothing.

 

[McDougallcankick5]

Re: Eagles: Are they the real deal?

WC performance the last 2 weeks confirm that they are

1) Hard to beat at Subi
2) Still very poor in Melbourne
3) Riding the crest of a wave in close finishes (16 of last 26 wins by 24 points or less)

Question is does that win a premiership ? The jury is still out and so this is a fair question by the starter of the thread.

So how does our 21 point win compare to Adelaides loss to Richmond?
Winning games interstate is hard work no matter who you are playing. Our first ever win against the Bombers at Telstra Dome, and I am very happy. Good, tight game, top of the ladder, with 2 out of our next 3 at Subi and a big test against Geelong coming up in a few weeks.

I don't think the majority of Eagles supporters would be worried about the margin of our wins, just looking forward to passing some more tests, like we did today.

 

[Milkman]

Re: Eagles: Are they the real deal?

You beat 16th..

And did you play like a 16th placed side?

If so, why are you "bloody proud of 'em"?

 

[iscah]

Re: Eagles: Are they the real deal?

So all 4 goal games are close?

I guess your game v Hawthorn in Round 1 was close as you got within 4 goals?

This is a stupid statistic that proves nothing. As pointed out, last year Freo for example had wins by 25, 27 & 35 (with a last minute goal) but these aren't "close wins" because you draw the line at 24. Eagles had wins by 22,19, 24, 23 & 17. So if you in stead drew the line at say 2 goals or 15 points (which is much more of a close result) then 5 of those "close games " disappear.

Absolute BS stat that means nothing.

As for your comment on away losses in Melbourne by average of 40 points, again what does this mean??

We lost to Geelong (which isnt in Melbourne anyway) and to the Bulldogs when we were guaranteed first or second place already and were resting injured players and running our guys hard at training in prep for the finals. So the losses were meaningless ....

But keep trying to focus on us and ignore your own teams deficiencies

Clown.

Not ignoring Freo's deficiencies at all. This thread was about WC and 'are they the real deal ?'.

I am pointing out that IMO they have probably got ahead of themselves as good teams do not rely on winning so many games by such small margins. At some time they may overcome their problems in Melbourne but today's effort will just raise more questions than it answers.

 

[woosh_era]

Re: Eagles: Are they the real deal?

At some time they may overcome their problems in Melbourne but today's effort will just raise more questions than it answers.

Im sure the rest of the competition is glad you are here to remind them of that.

Again... and again. and again.

Really - thanks. I dont know what they would do without you.

 

[de_LICA_ish18]

Re: Eagles: Are they the real deal?

And did you play like a 16th placed side?

If so, why are you "bloody proud of 'em!".

You lost to Collingwood last year at the G when we were 16th and could have lost to Essendon today. It has to be a big concern.

The Eagles are a great team, but this is a weakness they must overcome.

PA was the top team for a long time but they didn't win the premiership until they started winning in Melbourne.

 

[FuManchu]

Re: Eagles: Are they the real deal?

PA was the top team for a long time but they didn't win the premiership until they started winning in Melbourne.

like that last game at the "G" in 2004