-
AFLW 2024 - Round 9 - Indigenous Round - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Undeserved premership players
- Thread starter jc67
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Dave
Premium Platinum
Essendon Player Sponsor 2024 - Archie Perkins and Nic Martin
Veteran
Essendon Player Sponsor 2023 - Archie Perkins and Nic Martin
10k Posts
Essendon Player Sponsor 2022 - Anthony McDonald-Tipungwuti and Archie Perkins
Podcaster
Sensible Type
Essendon Player Sponsor 2021 - Anthony McDonald-Tipungwuti and Archie Perkins
Went in under a cloud having hurt it earlier in the finals series. Took Charmans spot - very stiff jamie. BM, underserved.
Dave
Premium Platinum
Essendon Player Sponsor 2024 - Archie Perkins and Nic Martin
Veteran
Essendon Player Sponsor 2023 - Archie Perkins and Nic Martin
10k Posts
Essendon Player Sponsor 2022 - Anthony McDonald-Tipungwuti and Archie Perkins
Podcaster
Sensible Type
Essendon Player Sponsor 2021 - Anthony McDonald-Tipungwuti and Archie Perkins
Hard men win grand finals.
Which goes a long way to explaining the past two seasons.
- Oct 9, 2003
- 46,893
- 45,901
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Eagles (NFL), Suns (NBA)
Jesus christ ! Where did you dig that stat out from ?
Bruce ? Is that you ?
Originally posted by marcuz
I knew you would bite..posted it just for you topdon
FWIW i still believe he was an average footballer but he definately wasn't underserving as he played in nearly every match that year.
I bite!
Paul Hills wasn't the greatest footballer, but he did contribute greatly to that Premiership.
The only thing bloody ridiculous, is your above quote there. The 22 rounds are designed to find the 8 finalists. The FINALS are what I am claiming should be total knockout. Once the finals begins, there is no excuse to give teams a second chance if they lose.
I mean, bloody hell, the whole concept of the Grand Final is "perform on the day." All finals should be knockout - that's what finals are about; performing when you need to.
Stop being deliberately, and unashamedly biased. Over 22 rounds, teams have their share of both luck and misfortune. Even if the Crows were unlucky in that one instance, who is to say that, that one incident was the reason why you lost a 120 minute football game? Hell, if the Bombers beat the Crows at Football Park in round 12 that year (Adelaide won by two points), you'd have been 12-10. You can't go around blaiming umpires, claiming they cost you matches.
Losing a game you should have won against North is irrelevant. Playing in Perth in round 22 is irrelevant. The finals system (in which you finished 5th) doesn't know you lost a close game, or played in Perth in round 22. The final system only recognises that you finished 5th, and therefore had to play 4th.
And for some idiotic reason, the 5th and 6th placed teams that season were, under the rules at the time, allowed to lose and still play on. I hate double chances but I can see how it's acceptable in some ways for the loser of the 1v4, and 2v3 qualifying finals under the current system to continue. They are playing against other top teams, and it could be argued they deserve a second chance.
But under the 1998 system, the top 4 played the bottom four. There is no excuse for allowing 5th and 6th to still play on after they have lost to 4th and 3rd respectively. No excuse whatsoever. If 5th loses to 4th, they deserve to be eliminated.
It's ironic to note, that in '98, 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th, were all eliminated from the finals after one loss, without receiving a second chance. Now that you know that, have you ever seen a more persuasive argument for getting rid of double chances?
The NFL conclude their season with a knockout game (Superbowl which is the Grand Final equaivalent.) That match is preceded by two knockout conference games (Preliminary Final equivalent.)
See the similarity? The knockout concept is identical, the only difference being they have it knockout the whole way through (as it should be of course.) The reason the NFL example is so persuasive is because they conclude their season identically the way the AFL does. But for some stupid and moronic reason, the AFL have double chances in the first week. God knows why? The top teams can be eliminated after one loss in the PF and GF anyway, so what the hell, other than money, is to be gained by giving teams second chances?
Adelaide, were a team who was allowed to continue after finishing 5th and losing to a higher ranked opponent, and deserved to have been eliminated at that point. Just as my club deserved to be eliminated in '96 (we finished 6th) after our one point loss to the 3rd-placed Bears.
Needless to say, I dispute vehemently every single word you posted here.
The only possible exception is your bit about not using umpires as an excuse. Normally I would agree with that.
If the Crows had played better, the fact that they were penalised about six holding-the-ball decisions to none against North in the last quarter of a close match would not have mattered. Even considering that there wouldn't normally be six such decisions in a whole game.
However, you talked about what was "deserved". North did not "deserve" to win that game. North did not "deserve" to be seen as home & hosed favourites before the GF game. This is the sticking point. The only reason you thought North were "deserving" was because of gifts from the umpires. Open your eyes Dan.
Anyway, most especially, the Crows did not deserve to be eliminated in round 1 of finals in '98 more than the two sides who were eliminated. Those two sides lost also in round 1 of finals & they both finished lower on the final ladder than the Crows did.
What planet are you from, Dan ?
How could you possibly justify a conclusion that the Crows "deserved" to be eliminated when the rules at the time said they didn't, and THERE WERE TWO OTHER SIDES WHO DESERVED MORE TO BE ELIMINATED after round 1 of finals that year.
What part of that don't you understand ?
It is not that hard Dan. Think a minute (well maybe quite a few minutes for Dan), ponder away, and one day perhaps next millenia it just might dawn on you.
.
.
What is your excuse for your Round 21 1998 loss at Football Park?
I am not going to get into a stupid argument about who deserved to win one particular H&A match. You know as well as I do, that luck evens out over a period of time. You know as well as I do that North would have and did receive their share of bad calls in that match. Using one bad decision (out of hundreds of decisions over the season) as a means of justifying that the Crows didn't deserve to be eliminated in the finals is crazy.
Well done captian obvious. Of course the two sides who were eliminated were lower placed. Duh! That is not in dispute. What is being stated is that the Crows, who finished 5th, deserved to be eliminated after losing to 4th. The fact that 8th and 7th lost and deserved to be eliminated does not magically mean that the Crows didn't deserve to be.
The fact 8th and 7th were eliminated has no relevance to what the Crows deserved fate was. None. If you finish 5th and lose to 4th, you deserve to be eliminated. If 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th all lose, they all deserve to be eliminated, and the top 4 teams deserve to progress to play each other in semi-finals (or what we strangely call, Preliminary Finals.)
We operate under a system which is knockout from the 2nd week onwards. We operate under a system where the top teams routinely face elimination after one match without getting a second chance on PF day and GF day. Therefore, in a system such as ours which is heavily based on knockout, any team that loses in my opinion deserves to be eliminated. The FIFTH placed team, absolutely deserves to be eliminated if they lose. I mean you could mount an argument that 1st or 2nd deserved to get a second chance should they lose. You can't mount a realistic argument that 5th (yes 5th) deserves a second chance after losing to 4th, in a system as heavily based on knockout as ours. Hell, 1998 was a year in which 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th all went out, deservedly, after one loss. Fifth, should they lose, absolutely and categorically DESERVE to be eliminated, under what is essentially a knockout based system.
Originally posted by Hit And Rum
Can someone explain to me why Sheedy rated Wallis so much? I am not having a go at him but just interested in why he thought he was so crucial to the team? Are there any Essendon affocianados out there who can comment? Is there anyone out there whounderstands Sheedy's thought processes that can comment?
Go ask Mil Hanna (93) and Brad Green (2000).
Judd, you are a w@nker, most of us know that. BUT, you have managed to say something completely correct, I can't believe I'm saying this! The Bullies were ROBBED in the prelim, crows didn't deserve to be there in the first place. It should've been a WB vs Stk GF...and Malcolm "round of golf?" Blight is a weirdo! Freaky coaching techniques that only a w@nka team could understand, thats why the crows got so far. The saints were the best team over the entire year.
And Adelaide is the most boring city!
In the NFL the best 4 teams skip the first week and there are 12 teams in the playoffs. Hardly a realistic comparison. Plus the team with the better record will play at home until the superbowl. Hardly a fair comparison. Of course this would leave you with three weeks of finals if you kept the eight. Or yoiu would have to have a final 10 where the best two have the first week off! Use you brain before you start saying it should be knockout all the way. It can't and won't happen. The curent system (double chance for the top four) is the best and much better than the double chance being available to 6 or 7.
- Thread starter
- #91
I was always a fan, only mentioned him beacause joffas troll hadOriginally posted by DaveW
Ellen kicked 5 goals in the 1997 GF and presumably would have featured prominently in the NSM voting.
edit: Well this was a reply to the mention of Shane Ellen in original post which has subsequently been edited out.
A bloke called Carey
The Crows won the games that they had to win in order to win the flag that year...simple as that. They deserved it.
The Dogs weren't robbed...they chocked harder than Port Adelaide ever has.
Turn it up would you.
Through a fault in the system you got an easier run into a Grand Final you didn't deserve to make, after being totally beaten senseless.
It should have been Adelaide-North and Melbourne-WB in the PF's, which would have been the case from 99 on.
Regardless, I digress, I was cheering for the Crows on Grand Final day, cos it meant we beat the Premiership side in the Finals.
Nathan Buckley.... oh, wait, he isn't a premiership player.
It wasn't funny the first time.
Dearie me. Are you still wound up about Essendon getting knocked out of the 1999 finals by a team that lost in the first week?
There's no logical reason why all finals must be knock-out games. That's just your stubborn way of thicking.
Carlton's shock entry to the Grand Final was four years ago. Get over it.
No one deserves a flag. They are earned, in accordance to the rules set down by the Governing Body.
PS. If they were playing in a knockout final the result of that game may have been different. They may have won by 9 goals. Maybe they were flat knwoing they would most likely live to fight another day.
