Most pundits might have been reluctant to go hard on the dogs in case we got most of the best 22 on the park, made a run for it in the back half of the season and made them look silly. They should have been watching our games more closely, because that would have shown them that the issues went way beyond that.
I don't think we've really played a good four quarters against any half-decent team this year, the closest would've probably been Sydney Rd 3 but even then atrocious goal kicking kept them in it until late in the game. The Pies win looks like a good one now they sit high on the ladder, but otherwise we've been pretty consistently better than the bad teams and poorer than the good ones.
I think Montagna called the dogs "flaky" at some point early on, but I'm not sure that's right. Yes, the best can be really good within one quarter or so but most teams can look good when they get a run on. We have personnel, coaching/tactical and match committee issues that have compromised this season to greater or lesser degrees (depending on your viewpoint) and are just an average team right now. I'd doubt that we're going to lose by 8-10 goals to the Saints and then come out and beat Melbourne - that would be flaky. More likely that the Saints game will be close, and then we'll get comfortably beaten by the dees. That's not flaky, that's playing to your level.
My guess is this will be the beginning of a media pasting, because there could be some embarrassing losses in the next month that will trigger some opinion pieces that will question Bevo's coaching, Bont's captaincy, the list build and everything else. Nothing that most of us haven't said in here either, but it'll all get a good airing in due course.
