Who had the worst round 1 loss?

[Tiger2709]

I know, low drawing clubs at home shows the AFL are trying to hold us back.

Ah well looks like they have made up you finally play them away last game this year, that game may decide which of your two teams make the 8.

 

[Some Idiot]

Weren't as bad as Sydney or collingwood in terms of expectation, but it was an insipid performance from the dogs.

 

[Riccardo11]

We are coming from a long, long way back, but we look a different outfit to last year. Anyone with half a brain can see that.

I'm not particularly familiar with Melbourne, but apart from the coach, I'm not certain I saw a whole lot of change going on.

There were the raw, young new recruits and second-club veteran players that every rebuilding club naturally gets, but apart from that I actually saw precious little change in personnel or playing style, apart from the first 7-8 minutes when you jumped us, that was, admittedly, pretty great. But it was same old same old after that.

Not trying to cause trouble, just curious as to where this vast difference actually is.

 

[BEEG]

I never insinuated Melbourne were a threat for the flag. We are coming from a long, long way back, but we look a different outfit to last year. Anyone with half a brain can see that.

But whatever, please continue to point out other clubs deficiencies if it's going to help you deal with your own clubs pathetic display.

Really looking forward to Collingwood's "responce" this week. Good luck to them; it looks really strange seeing them on the very bottom of the ladder.

Different team to last year yeah lets go out and call that in round 1 after being well beaten by the Saints

I am looking forward to watching Dee supporters talk about draft picks and how good you guys will be next year in about a months time

 

[Kaboodleer]

1. Sydney
2. North
3. Collingwood

 

[Oneiros]

Think the Dogs are getting a bit of unfair treatment here - a lot of the expectation was because people were genuinely forgetting how extensive the Eagles injury crisis at the end of last year was, so they just remember those horrific beatings at the end by Adelaide, Geelong, Collingwood, and the loss to the doggies, and just figured that that was the team that was going to play this year.

Erm, no. Not quite.

 

[Blues_Man]

Ok now the round is complete lets take a look at the losers :

Collingwood V Freo Expected a Freo win but not by any great margin ...they absolutely smashed the Pies. Terrible thrashing for a side that expects to play finals this Year.

Sydney V GWS Expected a comfortable Sydney win..however they were beaten easily. Shock upset that nobody saw coming.

Richmond V Suns, Suns have had the wood on the Tigers in the past but Tigers are touted as a top 4 side this year...Suns won comfortably. Some Fingers need to be pointed at the Tigers.

Carlton V Port Expected a close hard fought contest, which it was for 3 Quarters...Port ran away to a very comfortable win. Hardly a surprise result. Carltons inability to run the Game out needs to be questioned.

Cats V Crows Expected the Cats to win a close one at home ..they won easily in the end . No shocks there

Hawks V Lions Expected a thrashing of the Lions by the Hawks , however the Lions took it up to the reigning premiers for most of the Game ..Hawks broke it open in the last . No real surprises there

Essendon V Roos Expected two very even Teams to fight it out to the Wire, Roos disapointed and were well and truly outplayed . Some questions need to be asked of the Roos who many pundits have in their top four finishers.

Saints V Dees Expected a Demons win over a depleted saints outfit ...however the Dees had their forward line decimated and the Saints kids got them over the line . No real surprises there .

Eagles V Dogs Expected a comfortable West Coast win at home, and that's what occurred .

So in the wash up IMO, it's the Sydney Swans who had the worst first round loss, followed closely by Collingwood, North and Richmond.

But we need to remember it is only round one.

 

[JohnnyFontane90]

Think the Dogs are getting a bit of unfair treatment here - a lot of the expectation was because people were genuinely forgetting how extensive the Eagles injury crisis at the end of last year was, so they just remember those horrific beatings at the end by Adelaide, Geelong, Collingwood, and the loss to the doggies, and just figured that that was the team that was going to play this year.

Erm, no. Not quite.

west coast were impressive but dogs were equally dreadful. while it's been bolstered a bit this year the but midfield is still eagles supposed weak link and dogs got total destroyed in the contested ball, stoppages and clearances. the looked inept in possession and stagnant players all over the field. take nothing away from eagles but that was very disappoint from what is a supposedly up and coming team.

 

[Scott lastname]

So in the wash up IMO, it's the Sydney Swans who had the worst first round loss, followed closely by Collingwood, North and Richmond.

But we need to remember it is only round one.

I tend to agree, although I think Richmond maybe don't deserve to be on your list. GC will compete for the eight this year, I reckon.

 

[Blues_Man]

I tend to agree, although I think Richmond maybe don't deserve to be on your list. GC will compete for the eight this year, I reckon.

Yeah, i guess only time will tell.

 

[WinmarToLockett]

Not trying to cause trouble, just curious as to where this vast difference actually is.

Endeavour, game plan, morale. That two goal burst from St. Nick in the third probably would have opened the floodgates to a shellacking last year. A three goal loss on a ground we totally suck at with depleted forward structures isn't too embarassing- last year we were routinely and systematically flogged all around Etihad, regardless of who we played. In fact, not just last year- we haven't won there since 2006. We held onto the ball quite a bit, and even though we didn't take home a victory, how often in the last couple of seasons did we win the possession count, or the inside 50 count, or end up with more scoring shots than the opposition? Watts played a great game in his Midfield role, he hasn't played anywhere near that level under Craig, or Neeld, or Bailey. And while it's not an excuse- we used our sub early and had Tom McDonald playing on one leg.

It's just my opinion but to say Melbourne embarrassed themselves because we lost by under three goals to a team that was pre-season spoon favourites is ridiculous. It's Round 1. Food for thought, but maybe St Kilda aren't actually that bad?

 

[chunkylover53]

Obviously Sydney by the length of the Flemington straight.

Then I think both North & Richmond. Both have extremely high expectations for this year, for some reason North have been the most talked up team since Carlton 2011, and many have Richmond finishing 4th.

GC are a good team but Richmond still played pretty poorly.

North lost to a good side also but their effort was simply horrific. At least some of Richmonds players had a crack (gotta love Cotchin).

North for mine.

Carlton played ok in patches and simply got overrun by a superior side. Not many surprises in this game
Collingwood got smashed by a very experienced, bigger, stronger side coming off a Grand Final loss.
Adelaide battled, as did Brisbane.
Bulldogs were underwhelming but WCE were clinical.
Melbourne was always 50/50, they'll take some time to notch up a few wins under Roosy.

 

[Riccardo11]

Endeavour, game plan, morale. That two goal burst from St. Nick in the third probably would have opened the floodgates to a shellacking last year. A three goal loss on a ground we totally suck at with depleted forward structures isn't too embarassing- last year we were routinely and systematically flogged all around Etihad, regardless of who we played. In fact, not just last year- we haven't won there since 2006. We held onto the ball quite a bit, and even though we didn't take home a victory, how often in the last couple of seasons did we win the possession count, or the inside 50 count, or end up with more scoring shots than the opposition? Watts played a great game in his Midfield role, he hasn't played anywhere near that level under Craig, or Neeld, or Bailey. And while it's not an excuse- we used our sub early and had Tom McDonald playing on one leg.

It's just my opinion but to say Melbourne embarrassed themselves because we lost by under three goals to a team that was pre-season spoon favourites is ridiculous. It's Round 1. Food for thought, but maybe St Kilda aren't actually that bad?

I don't recall indicating you were embarrassed in any way, but Melbourne were heavy favorites to win against a St Kilda side without it's major ball winners, and to lose in the manner you did would surprise many. I am going to sound like a broken record if I keep going on about it, but I'd hardly be crowing about winning the hand ball or inside 50 counts - therein lies your problem, for mine.

With a full St kilda midfield cutting through the middle of the ground, that could have easily gone from 17 to 27, 37, even 47 or more points, I think.

You aren't totally gone, but I'd hardly be encouraged by Saturday nights performance.

 

[aussierulesrules]

Food for thought, but maybe St Kilda aren't actually that bad?

I think you may be on to something there.

Most dropped off us big-time after our very poor loss to GWS in the NAB Challenge, but there were a few significant things going against us in that game, such as having a handful playing their first games of the year, compared to GWS who had a very settled and almost full strength team throughout the whole NAB Challenge, such as us rumoured to be coming off a very hard training phase, including apparently a big sprint session just 3 days prior to the game (which could explain why we looked almost disinterested and very lethargic for much of the game) and then of course the winning margin was blown out by the extra 21 points they got from their incredible 7 "super-goals".

After that game everyone probably thought GWS were pretty much "still GWS" and that we must consequently be horrid, but given how easily they dispatched Sydney last week, they are looking a hell of a lot better this year, so our loss to them was almost certainly no-where near as bad from that POV as most thought, before taking into account any other factors, such as the ones I mentioned above.

We then came out and kicked 7 goals in the first quarter against Port Adelaide, in Adelaide, the following week and fought hard until the end, to only lose by a small margin, so I think the hysteria about how awful we are going to be has been way overblown, just like how I think it has been with Brisbane.

I know it doesn't mean a whole lot, given two of them were last year, but we've now won our last 3 games by an average of over 40 points, and that's possibly because games of footy are played out on a football field, not on a pice of paper and we still have plenty in our team who have played multiple grand finals and as such know how to win games of footy and will be imparting that knowledge and belief into the younger ones in the team.

 

[theflea]

Just to clarify, Collingwood (6th in 2013) got pumped by 70, Sydney (4th in 2013) were comfortably beaten by 2013's wooden spooners, Richmond (5th in 2013) were beaten by a new expansion club.... and North Melbourne (10th in 2013) were beaten by 9th and we somehow had the worst lost?

wat

That expansion team has won 8 from 11 at home to be fair. Wont be easy to win up there from now on.

 

[loki04]

That expansion team has won 8 from 11 at home to be fair. Wont be easy to win up there from now on.

They both will get better and quickly with the amount of talent they have, people need to re adjust their "perceptions" of them.

 

[PieBeast]

Purely based on rational expectations has to be Sydney, Collingwood based on the manner of the loss.

 

[verypoorboy]

Has gotta be us. It's amazing we only lost by 39pts. Pretty much worse effort since playing Freo last year and WC the year before that.

I'd give second to the Pies. They sucked. Bulldogs 3rd.

 

[WinmarToLockett]

I don't recall indicating you were embarrassed in any way, but Melbourne were heavy favorites to win against a St Kilda side without it's major ball winners, and to lose in the manner you did would surprise many. I am going to sound like a broken record if I keep going on about it, but I'd hardly be crowing about winning the hand ball or inside 50 counts - therein lies your problem, for mine

Your problem for mine is that you fail to acknowledge the points that I've made. You admit you don't watch Melbourne, and then ask where the "vast difference" comes from. I answered this; it's the endeavour, the composure, the morale of the team. I'm not crowing about statistics. If the manner we lost in surprised anyone, they're idiots. Most reasonable judges of football would have seen the teams were fairly even on paper and the result more or less reflected this. Despite whoever it is you're missing from your team, you still couldn't win by more than three goals against a team that has only beaten two non-expansion sides in two entire seasons.

Don't underestimate how patently horrendous we have been. I'm not saying we looked good, but we looked better.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Feel bad for Richmond.

GC have gone past them.

Maybe true but in all fairness do you think they would have won against us at the MCG? I doubt it, and for them to have gone past us, they need to do that.

 

[TBoyleSuperstar]

I'm not particularly familiar with Melbourne, but apart from the coach, I'm not certain I saw a whole lot of change going on.

There were the raw, young new recruits and second-club veteran players that every rebuilding club naturally gets, but apart from that I actually saw precious little change in personnel or playing style, apart from the first 7-8 minutes when you jumped us, that was, admittedly, pretty great. But it was same old same old after that.

Not trying to cause trouble, just curious as to where this vast difference actually is.

Melbourne had no tall forward of note, and this is why they went sideways so often. Had more posessions, more inside 50s, more scoring shots, but lacked a guy that could take a mark up forward. You put Riewoldt in a Melbourne jumper and they win. Riewoldt was the only decent forward on the ground and won the game for his team.

Melbourne will be a much better side this year. Despite losing, I actually think there were a lot of positives to come out for Melbourne.

Worst lost, for me is North. So much was spoken about them, so much expected, and they put in arguably the most limp-wristed performance of the weekend. They were woeful.

 

[LeverPuller]

I don't recall indicating you were embarrassed in any way, but Melbourne were heavy favorites to win against a St Kilda side without it's major ball winners, and to lose in the manner you did would surprise many. I am going to sound like a broken record if I keep going on about it, but I'd hardly be crowing about winning the hand ball or inside 50 counts - therein lies your problem, for mine.

With a full St kilda midfield cutting through the middle of the ground, that could have easily gone from 17 to 27, 37, even 47 or more points, I think.

You aren't totally gone, but I'd hardly be encouraged by Saturday nights performance.

Last year we would have been blown away by that burst halfway through the third. We held the Saints to a lower score than any side at any point in 2013 - by more than 3 goals. We won the possession count when we had been losing it by 150-200 touches. We actually had a fair few I50s and won the stat, don't think we did in 2013 once.

There are still issues. But we are lots better thus far.

 

[jko'neal]

Maybe true but in all fairness do you think they would have won against us at the MCG? I doubt it, and for them to have gone past us, they need to do that.[/
I would say until they win more games than us in a season, they haven't gone past us.

 

[David the Cat]

Some here are judging the result rather than the performance….

On performance, Collingwood. Western Bulldogs and North would be in a photo finish IMO.

 

[Vindicater]

I think you may be on to something there.

Most dropped off us big-time after our very poor loss to GWS in the NAB Challenge, but there were a few significant things going against us in that game, such as having a handful playing their first games of the year, compared to GWS who had a very settled and almost full strength team throughout the whole NAB Challenge, such as us rumoured to be coming off a very hard training phase, including apparently a big sprint session just 3 days prior to the game (which could explain why we looked almost disinterested and very lethargic for much of the game) and then of course the winning margin was blown out by the extra 21 points they got from their incredible 7 "super-goals".

After that game everyone probably thought GWS were pretty much "still GWS" and that we must consequently be horrid, but given how easily they dispatched Sydney last week, they are looking a hell of a lot better this year, so our loss to them was almost certainly no-where near as bad from that POV as most thought, before taking into account any other factors, such as the ones I mentioned above.

We then came out and kicked 7 goals in the first quarter against Port Adelaide, in Adelaide, the following week and fought hard until the end, to only lose by a small margin, so I think the hysteria about how awful we are going to be has been way overblown, just like how I think it has been with Brisbane.

I know it doesn't mean a whole lot, given two of them were last year, but we've now won our last 3 games by an average of over 40 points, and that's possibly because games of footy are played out on a football field, not on a pice of paper and we still have plenty in our team who have played multiple grand finals and as such know how to win games of footy and will be imparting that knowledge and belief into the younger ones in the team.

No.

Anyone watching the game on the weekend could see that it was a battle for 17th/18th.