West Coast Eagles Are they really that Good ?

[markfarmer]

Firstly, I'm not trying to bash the Eagles because I am a Dockers Supporter.

But really...... They LOST quite a few quarters of Football for the Home and Away Season last year(2006)..Some against bottom eight sides..

The Kangaroos, Geelong, Carlton(at Subi) Hawthorn even Essendon come to mind where the Eagles looked the losers but came in the last quarter... through individual performances....
Not to mention the Hiding they got from Freo..and Collingwood.

I Predict that with the GF win, they will have a little of the big head syndrome or the let the other team mate do it..and finish OUT OF THE TOP FOUR for the 2007 Season...

I Honestly think their 2005 Performance as a Team was better that their 2006 Performance..

but I guess it comes down to when you win not how you win.. Its all in the Timing...

 

[Embers]

Firstly, I'm not trying to bash the Eagles because I am a Dockers Supporter.

But really...... They LOST quite a few quarters of Football for the Home and Away Season last year(2006)..Some against bottom eight sides..

The Kangaroos, Geelong, Carlton(at Subi) Hawthorn even Essendon come to mind where the Eagles looked the losers but came in the last quarter... through individual performances....
Not to mention the Hiding they got from Freo..and Collingwood.

I Predict that with the GF win, they will have a little of the big head syndrome or the let the other team mate do it..and finish OUT OF THE TOP FOUR for the 2007 Season...

I Honestly think their 2005 Performance as a Team was better that their 2006 Performance..

but I guess it comes down to when you win not how you win.. Its all in the Timing...

The sore loser/I cant accept fact board

 

[bushie]

Oh dear Marky...this is going to hurt.

Brace yourself my son.

 

[Bernie L]

yes they are that good. have an even better engine room that brisbane had a few years back.

 

[Father Jack]

an anti-troll

you may be right, its just a pity we don't care.

 

[Carnthe]

yes they are that good. have an even better engine room that brisbane had a few years back.

very true but brisbane would have had them covered in most other areas.

 

[UpTheGuts]

Pretty darn good.

Better than Port was in 04, and I think better than the Swans in 05.

They do lack a dead set legend FF or CHF, but then again you look at the Hawks in the 80's and think, who was their ruckman? Point being, even the best sides don't have Brownlow chances in every position.

Ideal side for the times - hard, skillful, excellent disposers of the footy and with multiple true matchwinners. Surely a flag chance for the next 4-5 years if their list stays together. Even if not, they have some real quality coming through - Morton, Hurn etc.

I;m not about to start comparing them with those best ever sides, but deserved flag winners and as for how history will judge them, we'll see

 

[Dan26]

As far as premierships teams go, they are about average.

West Coast in 2006 is pretty much the "average" quality you get from a premiership team. Certainly not a stand-out.

Just your typical 17 win, 5 losses premiership side that loses a few games as well. Certainly not the type of team that would be in "best ever" talk or anything like that.

In fact, for much of the season (including the finals) they did NOT dominate at all, and were forced to conjure come from behind miracles just to get the 4 points, let alone win convincingly.

 

[markfarmer]

Thats what I'm talkin' bout ...Dan

 

[Embers]

As far as premierships teams go, they are about average.

West Coast in 2006 is pretty much the "average" quality you get from a premiership team. Certainly not a stand-out.

Just your typical 17 win, 5 losses premiership side that loses a few games as well. Certainly not the type of team that would be in "best ever" talk or anything like that.

In fact, for much of the season (including the finals) they did NOT dominate at all, and were forced to conjure come from behind miracles just to get the 4 points, let alone win convincingly.

Winning by 100+ pts every game gets ya nowhere. Just look at Adelaide. Dominating the H&A season isnt needed nowadays IMO as Sydney showed last year

 

[Dan26]

For what it's worth I would be half expecting a mini-premiership hangover. They will make the finals, because the Eagles always do, but 5-8 is about where they will be in 2007. They "could" have been around that mark in 2006, had they not got out of jail a few times. They were a driven team in 2006, and I doubt they will be as driven in 2007.

I think they'll probably win 13-14 games in 2007. Will be a bit like 1993, for them, when everyone thought they were unbeatable and they finished 6th... same in 1995 when everyone though they were unbeatable after '94, but they finished 5th.

 

[Arcadion]

the new Ripper/Pav for AA/iscah???
Tell me, which team performed better than us this year?

 

[sydney eagle]

Are they that good ? That's perhaps for history to judge. They were good enough to win last season's premiership, which in the end is all that counts. Were Sydney "that good" the previous year ? Who knows ! What we DO know is that West Coast were good enough to win last years premiership, as Sysney were good enough to win the year before. They were as good as they needed to be, WHEN they needed to be !

 

[Dan26]

Winning by 100+ pts every game gets ya nowhere. Just look at Adelaide. Dominating the H&A season isnt needed nowadays IMO as Sydney showed last year

You're missing the point.

The come from behind wins indiate that the Eagles are not a stand out premiership side (compared to other premiership sides)

No one is disputing that you "only need to win by a point" to win each and every game, That goes without saying. Of course all you need to do is win, whether it be by 1 point or 100.

But West Coast's battles in 2006 for much of the season (including the finals) indicate to me that theu are NOT a runaway "awesome" "best ever" type side, which is what the thread is about. They are not "that" good.

They are just a good solid, normal premiership team. Adelaide wre unlucky, by the way. They have been the best team of the last two years and had it not been for injuries they would have ben 2006 premiers.

 

[bushie]

I told you Mark!!

Here they come!!

Be prepared for the spit and dribble. They are pretty harmless really.

But oh so touchy!!

 

[ditto]

I don't think the Eagles are "really that good" compared to alot of other premiership sides.

More to the point, they are a team consisting of 3-4 bona fide stars with about 18-22 average to above average players that play their guts out every week to a designated game plan.

As much as Woosha cops a pasting every now and then for what appears to be a 1-D game plan, he is backing his players to do their bit.

Having said that, one thing the team has in abundance is self belief and pride in the club.

 

[Embers]

You're missing the point.

The come from behind wins indiate that the Eagles are not a stand out premiership side (compared to other premiership sides)

No one is disputing that you "only need to win by a point" to win each and every game, That goes without saying. Of course all you need to do is win, whether it be by 1 point or 100.

But West Coast's battles in 2006 for much of the season (including the finals) indicate to me that theu are NOT a runaway "awesome" "best ever" type side, which is what the thread is about. They are not "that" good.

They are just a good solid, normal premiership team. Adelaide wre unlucky, by the way. They have been the best team of the last two years and had it not been for injuries they would have ben 2006 premiers.

Id say winning close game after close game shows more talent and character then being a good and solid team. Those comebacks show alot of skill. You can say "How did they get that far behind", or you can focus on what was the final result and think, "Gee what a comeback".

Were not as good as Brisbane were back then but 1st on the ladder (should of been first on the ladder last year). Cant argue with that consistency

 

[Arcadion]

But West Coast's battles in 2006 for much of the season (including the finals) indicate to me that theu are NOT a runaway "awesome" "best ever" type side,

errr who is saying we are???

 

[patsmith]

We are premiers. That's how good we are. Nothing else is relevant.

 

[Dan26]

I don't think the Eagles are "really that good" compared to alot of other premiership sides.

More to the point, they are a team consisting of 3-4 bona fide stars with about 18-22 average to above average players that play their guts out every week to a designated game plan.

As much as Woosha cops a pasting every now and then for what appears to be a 1-D game plan, he is backing his players to do their bit.

Having said that, one thing the team has in abundance is self belief and pride in the club.

Very true.

In fact, if you look at 2006 overall, Adelaide were the best team by so far, it is almost insulting to put West Coast, Sydney and Freo in the same breath as them. Until the injuries, we were looking at one of the all-time great seasons from a team, ever.

Very few teams have dominated a season like Adelaide in 2006 until they were f****d by injuries. And make no mistake, they were absolutely voilated by injures like no team in their position has ever been. They were so good, that no other team really came close to them. They were just a mile in front of everyone else.

It's just a pity from their point of view, that when you look at the GF winner (West Coast) no one will remember or judge them (Adelaide) to be the best, except the intelligent fans who remember and analysed the season. Oh well, I don't feel sorry for them. I hate Adelaide, lol. They can suffer.

 

[skipper kelly]

Very true.

In fact, if you look at 2006 overall, Adelaide were the best team by so far, it is almost insulting to put West Coast, Sydney and Freo in the same breath as them. Until the injuries, we were looking at one of the all-time great seasons from a team, ever.

Very few teams have dominated a season like Adelaide in 2006 until they were f****d by injuries. And make no mistake, they were absolutely voilated by injures like no team in their position has ever been. They were so good, that no other team really came close to them. They were just a mile in front of everyone else.

It's just a pity from their point of view, that when you look at the GF winner (West Coast) no one will remember or judge them (Adelaide) to be the best, except the intelligent fans who remember and analysed the season. Oh well, I don't feel sorry for them. I hate Adelaide, lol. They can suffer.

Looks like you will be the only one to remember them Dan.
The rest of us mere mortals are just dumbasses.

 

[Dan26]

Id say winning close game after close game shows more talent and character then being a good and solid team. Those comebacks show alot of skill. You can say "How did they get that far behind", or you can focus on what was the final result and think, "Gee what a comeback".

Are you for real?

If you were a 5 goal better side than what you actually were in 2006, the close games you won, wouldn't have been close in the first place.

If you look at Essendon in 2000 as an example, they won 24 games, lost one and had a percentage of 163%. They didn't win any close games because all of the 24 wisn were by 13 point or more, with most being by around 10 goals. Because they were so good.

If the Eagles were a better side in 2006, you wouldn't have made theose games close in the first place. Most of the Eagles opponents weren't that far away from them in 2006.

Not that it matters - they won the flag. But the quuestion is, "Were they that good?" not "Did they win the flag?" and the answer to the first part is no, they are not "that" good.

They are just a pretty good, solid, normal premiership side, who won 17 H&A games (about average for your typical premiership side)

 

[Dan26]

Looks like you will be the only one to remember them Dan.
The rest of us mere mortals are just dumbasses.

Okay you've made your point. You are an intelligent fan, who remembers that Adelaide was far and away the best 2006, until injuries ruined their chances.

You don't have to be sarcastic about it. Even though we don't always get along I am aware that you watch football and are capable of remembering things "other" than the Grand Final. I know you're not stupid.

 

[Arcadion]

Are you for real?

If you were a 5 goal better side than what you actually were in 2006, the close games you won, wouldn't have been close in the first place.

If you look at Essendon in 2000 as an example, they won 24 games, lost one and had a percentage of 163%. They didn't win any close games because all of the 24 wisn were by 13 point or more, with most being by around 10 goals. Because they were so good.

If the Eagles were a better side in 2006, you wouldn't have made theose games close in the first place. Most of the Eagles opponents weren't that far away from them in 2006.

Not that it matters - they won the flag. But the quuestion is, "Were they that good?" not "Did they win the flag?" and the answer to the first part is no, they are not "that" good.

They are just a pretty good, solid, normal premiership side, who won 17 H&A games (about average for your typical premiership side)

I'll ask again, who is saying we are as good as Brisband 2001-2003 or Essendon 2000?
Hahahah do you honestly believe Adelaide was the better performing side than us this year?

 

[skipper kelly]

Okay you've made your point. You are an intelligent fan, who remembers that Adelaide was far and away the best 2006, until injuries ruined their chances.

You don't have to be sarcastic about it. Even though we don't always get along I am aware that you watch football and are capable of remembering things "other" than the Grand Final. I know you're not stupid.

No better than StKilda when they went on their 10 game winning streak. Adelaide peaked early. West Coast and Sydney peaked late.

What you really need to ask is which teams best is the best.