View Full Version : Crows Melbourne
One word...undisciplined. Undisipline by letting melbourne get up by
6 goals at half time. Undispline by Welsh byu missing a number of
simple opputunities (as has been said here before, he cant kick
outside 30m) Undisipline by letting Leoncelli, with 5 seconds left 20
metres on his own in Melbournes 50m zone. How can you do that!! You
cant leave a plyer on his own in the forward 50 full stop..let alone
with 5 seconds left. Ayres would be spewing at that, as would the
supporters. Well done the Crows by getting back in the match. But
Melbourne deserved the win by controlling the game for three quarters
and getting up in the end.
Plus...what has happened to the crows forward line? Welsh the only
multiple goalkicker.
Where was the crowd? Only 35,000...lets here the excuses
Onto next week
We were very lucky tonight, but we did deserve the 4 points. It was good to see the Crows show some spirit. I also thought it was fitting that Leoncelli kicked the winning goal, best on ground by miles. He'll be top of our B&F at this stage.
Crows.ok
8 Apr 2001, 23:05
Originally posted by BT:
We were very lucky tonight, but we did deserve the 4 points. It was good to see the Crows show some spirit. I also thought it was fitting that Leoncelli kicked the winning goal, best on ground by miles. He'll be top of our B&F at this stage.
Sorry, but I can't agree with the notion that Melbourne "deserved" the win any more than did Adelaide. Melbourne played better during the first half. Adelaide played better during the second half. Just about every statistic (kicks, handballs, marks) was pretty damn close at the end for both teams.
Adelaide had more scoring shots than Melbourne.
What was that free against McGregor supposed to be for? Robertson (was it?) was on the ground, he dragged the ball in under, he got takled fairly (not too high), he gets the free right in front & gets a goal?
Nah, the way I saw it, it was damn close, Melbourne were plain lucky.
You might even be generous & say that Melbourne deserved to win *as much* as Crows, but no way did they deserve it outright.
As for Crows effort - well a bit better than the week before. But Crows *have* to work on disposal still - they gifted way too many balls to Melbourne.
Your entitled to your opinion as am I. However Adelaide got the better of the umpiring (in my opinion) so don't start blaming them.
Crows.ok
8 Apr 2001, 23:23
Originally posted by BT:
Your entitled to your opinion as am I. However Adelaide got the better of the umpiring (in my opinion) so don't start blaming them.
You can take it as read that I saw it as the umpiring going in favour as Melbourne just as much as you saw it as going in favour of Adelaide. The free kick tally would surely show no obvious bias one way or the other - so its a moot point. In fact - any of the stats - marks, hitouts, kicks, handballs were just about even.
Adelaide had slightly more scoring shots - Melbourne were dead lucky at the end to have a slightly bigger score.
There is just no way on Gods green earth that you can claim Melbourne "deserved it" more. It purely and simply isn't so.
And it is exceedingly annoying when either you BT or TV commentators or dimwitted Port fans try to claim otherwise, especially here on the Crows board.
It's too late too argue, I didn't come here to stir you guys up, I just offered my opinion on what I thought was a good game. I'm obviously not welcome here so I'll go, good luck you'll need it!
Originally posted by BT:
Your entitled to your opinion as am I. However Adelaide got the better of the umpiring (in my opinion) so don't start blaming them.
No way did the Crows lose because of the umpiring, but what about that goal which was touched before going through? And even though statistics show free kicks being even, its where they're given which counts, i.e. right in front of goals.
BT, feel free to post here again, but understand that after a loss, most supporters have a little sh.. on the liver.
Let me just add, melbourne did not play good in the first half, it was adelaide's pathetic disosal in the wet! we were shocking! However we showed some spirit,
P.S EDid anyone see all the deliberate out of bounds in the last 2 mins by the demons? Or how bout the goal that was touched by a crows player???
35000 was a good crowd considering rain!
Port wont get 35000 in any of there games this season, apart from the showdown
------------------
"I came here to win, I am a winner" - Denzel Washington , Remember The Titans ; 2000
MarksGirl-kbcrowgirl
9 Apr 2001, 08:08
not excuses facts!
we still had 35,000 at the game!!!!!!
Wheather was crap
Clipsal 500 on this weekend
36's playing in a final live on Fox
come on, not sure who you support, but if you are a power supporter you can hardly talk about crowd numbers. They have less members than last year and can only get about 23,000 to there home games, they had to shut there merchandise shop at west lakes cause no one was buying anything. If your a crows supporter, where you there? I hope so, cause I sure was, and yelling and cheering loudly.
Originally posted by Crows.ok:
Sorry, but I can't agree with the notion that Melbourne "deserved" the win any more than did Adelaide. Melbourne played better during the first half. Adelaide played better during the second half. Just about every statistic (kicks, handballs, marks) was pretty damn close at the end for both teams.
Adelaide had more scoring shots than Melbourne.
What was that free against McGregor supposed to be for? Robertson (was it?) was on the ground, he dragged the ball in under, he got takled fairly (not too high), he gets the free right in front & gets a goal?
Nah, the way I saw it, it was damn close, Melbourne were plain lucky.
You might even be generous & say that Melbourne deserved to win *as much* as Crows, but no way did they deserve it outright.
As for Crows effort - well a bit better than the week before. But Crows *have* to work on disposal still - they gifted way too many balls to Melbourne.
Melbourne kicked ahead early when it mattered. Crows were playing catch up football from the word go...i think i can clearly say Melbourne deserved the win. Dont start blaming the umpires...why did Ben Hart get that free that ended up with that Goodwin goal in the last minute??
The only problem was really the crows forward line, seemed to miss a few shots...and also Ayres wierd positional changes. Why have Gallagher at Full Back? And Riccuito in a back pocket? Roo is probably Adelaides best midfilder and by far the biggest kick, i thought youd have him in the middle there somewhere
Originally posted by Crows.ok:
You can take it as read that I saw it as the umpiring going in favour as Melbourne just as much as you saw it as going in favour of Adelaide. The free kick tally would surely show no obvious bias one way or the other - so its a moot point. In fact - any of the stats - marks, hitouts, kicks, handballs were just about even.
Adelaide had slightly more scoring shots - Melbourne were dead lucky at the end to have a slightly bigger score.
There is just no way on Gods green earth that you can claim Melbourne "deserved it" more. It purely and simply isn't so.
And it is exceedingly annoying when either you BT or TV commentators or dimwitted Port fans try to claim otherwise, especially here on the Crows board.
No obvious bias one way?? Crows had 20 free kicks, Melbourne had 14. 6 Free kicks is quite a large difference if you ask me. How the hell can you say the crows deserved the win? When the game was there to be won, in the first half, the crows went missing...a number of Big name crows players did nothing in the first half...and they had to play catch up football again for the rest of the night. Melbourne led all game, and deserved to win. YOU are the one that needs to take the rose coloured glasses off. Yes, Adelaide did extremly well to come back from 6 goals down at 1/2 time...but they SHOULDNT of been 6 goals down at half time.
Originally posted by Crow54:
No way did the Crows lose because of the umpiring, but what about that goal which was touched before going through? And even though statistics show free kicks being even, its where they're given which counts, i.e. right in front of goals.
BT, feel free to post here again, but understand that after a loss, most supporters have a little sh.. on the liver.
Stop being so one eyed. LOOK at the statistics. Both sides only got 1 goal from a free kick. ADELAIDE got 4 free kicks in the forward 50, to Melbournes 3. ADELAIDE had SIX more free kicks than Melbourne.
That loss would of been heartbreaking...Every team has lost like that. And of course some fans will be upset, or angry after that sort of loss...BUT at least be objective about it.
Originally posted by QT:
Let me just add, melbourne did not play good in the first half, it was adelaide's pathetic disosal in the wet! we were shocking! However we showed some spirit,
P.S EDid anyone see all the deliberate out of bounds in the last 2 mins by the demons? Or how bout the goal that was touched by a crows player???
35000 was a good crowd considering rain!
Port wont get 35000 in any of there games this season, apart from the showdown
35000 a GOOD crowd. Youve got to be ****ing joking. You have 43,000 members, and you think 35,000 is a good crowd. How did i know there would be excuses galore for the crowd. Dont you EVER complain about Port having a low crowd again, or you will be classed as a HYPOCRIT. Port got 27,000 last week...we have 31,000 members. Thats 5000 that didnt show up. Crows have 43,000 members, 35000 went, thats 8000 that didnt show up. Stop making excuses for your damn crowd, its getting beyond a joke. I reckon if the crows got 2000, to a game youd find a good excuse for it
Originally posted by MarksGirl-kbcrowgirl:
not excuses facts!
we still had 35,000 at the game!!!!!!
Wheather was crap
Clipsal 500 on this weekend
36's playing in a final live on Fox
come on, not sure who you support, but if you are a power supporter you can hardly talk about crowd numbers. They have less members than last year and can only get about 23,000 to there home games, they had to shut there merchandise shop at west lakes cause no one was buying anything. If your a crows supporter, where you there? I hope so, cause I sure was, and yelling and cheering loudly.
your glad at 35,000!!! Typical. Dont complain about Ports crowd. Ports crowd last week compared to membership figures was more respectable than yesterdays Crows game. 4000 of our supporters didnt show up...8000 of yours didnt show up.
You can come up with a billion excuses for why crows didnt show up. Clipsal 500? That finishes at about 4:30...5...the game started at 7. The rain...well TRUE supporters should be there rain hail or shine. Live 36ers on tele...most people own vcr's...i wouldnt say 8000 people stayed home to watch the 36ers play on tele.
Just admit it...gone are the days where the crows get 40,000 each and every home game. Crows crowds have progressivly gone down by an average of 2000 each year since 1998. These are the FACTS. 35,000 is NOT a good crowd compared to 43,000 members.
Just remember...Crows have 12,000 more members than Port...they should get 12,000 more supporters each week than Port. Only excuse i can see for Crows low crowd yesterday was...noone likes to see a losing side. If the crows end up in the bottom 3 this year...lets just see how good your crowdws are by say round 16 or so. Dont bag Port supporters, when Crows fans are just as bad
DEES RULE!
9 Apr 2001, 10:32
well look i can see why you are upset and you are allowed to have an opinion but a few things:
1. That goal from Yze wasn't touched and i think the goal umpire was the closest to the action so you gotta trust what he says
2. That free kick to Robertson was fair as was the one to the crows over Yze (so its equal so far)
3. Melbourne were the better team on the day and they had a cleaner play all throughtout the game, credit must be handed out to the crows though for trying so hard and really shrinking the margin.
Overall Melboure had a good game expecially seeing as all throughout their pre-season they trained in 40 degree heat not pouring rain and the fact that they didn't have a large supporter base.
GO DEES! http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/smile.gif
------------------
Footy. It was just a sport.
But now it's also a business.
However, according to the fans it's a religion,where the people rule!
The Mighty Melbourne Demons- My passion, My obsession!
#24
Go South
9 Apr 2001, 10:49
Originally posted by DEES RULE!:
1. That goal from Yze wasn't touched and i think the goal umpire was the closest to the action so you gotta trust what he says
I'm not using this as an excuse - there were a ton of factors why we lost last night (namely, our lack of effort in the second quarter), but that goal was 100% touched, at least a foot before the line. They showed the replay probably 8 times, and it was touched by a country mile.
Originally posted by DEES RULE!:
3. Melbourne were the better team on the day and they had a cleaner play all throughtout the game
That's also crap - you went missing in the last half. I'd say you were better for about one quarter - that being the second, in which we played like absolute shite, and Melbourne dominated. The first quarter was fairly even, and the Crows were on top for most of the last half.
I wouldn't be getting too carried away if I were you - Your last half was shithouse. Last year's grand finalist -just- scraping in against the wooden spoon favourite, isn't really something to ride home about at all.
Meanwhile, our second quarter was one of the most pathetic efforts I have seen - it rivals last week's performance ::P
I was pretty happy with the fightback in the second half, but I don't understand why after we kicked *that* goal, we didn't flood their forward line, to prevent them from scoring. Instead, we left it completely open, and they took advantage of it - shocking.
------------------
'...and we won't give up, till the premiership cup is safely in our hands...'
Originally posted by DEES RULE!:
1. That goal from Yze wasn't touched and i think the goal umpire was the closest to the action so you gotta trust what he says
ARe you ****ing serious????
------------------
"I came here to win, I am a winner" - Denzel Washington , Remember The Titans ; 2000
dee_girl9
9 Apr 2001, 12:43
Originally posted by Macca19:
One word...undisciplined. Undisipline by letting melbourne get up by
6 goals at half time. Undispline by Welsh byu missing a number of
simple opputunities (as has been said here before, he cant kick
outside 30m) Undisipline by letting Leoncelli, with 5 seconds left 20
metres on his own in Melbournes 50m zone. How can you do that!! You
cant leave a plyer on his own in the forward 50 full stop..let alone
with 5 seconds left. Ayres would be spewing at that, as would the
supporters. Well done the Crows by getting back in the match. But
Melbourne deserved the win by controlling the game for three quarters
and getting up in the end.
Plus...what has happened to the crows forward line? Welsh the only
multiple goalkicker.
Where was the crowd? Only 35,000...lets here the excuses
Onto next week
well done macca. for a port supporter u have brains.(perculiar) i agree with u 100%. keep up the good work champ! http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/biggrin.gif
------------------
I would like to say that i believe in God and i believe in karma. why i exist beats the %$#^ out of me !!!
DEES RULE!
9 Apr 2001, 12:50
That goal WAS NOT touched!
You wanna talk about unfairness how about that free kick they gave you against Collins which gave you a goal?
We were the better side and everyone i talked to (except one minded Crows supporters) said that it was true.
No one will argue your fight back was impressive but from our ruck to our forward line and even our backline which is not the best we just had the game in control and if you don't think so maybe you should take off that blind fold you are all wearing and watch the game again (i did 3 times and the only thing Adelaide did well was work under pressure!)
GO DEES! http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/smile.gif
------------------
Footy. It was just a sport.
But now it's also a business.
However, according to the fans it's a religion,where the people rule!
The Mighty Melbourne Demons- My passion, My obsession!
#24
dee_girl9
9 Apr 2001, 12:51
Originally posted by QT:
Let me just add, melbourne did not play good in the first half, it was adelaide's pathetic disosal in the wet! we were shocking! However we showed some spirit,
P.S EDid anyone see all the deliberate out of bounds in the last 2 mins by the demons? Or how bout the goal that was touched by a crows player???
35000 was a good crowd considering rain!
Port wont get 35000 in any of there games this season, apart from the showdown
EXCUSES EXCUSES http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif turn it up QT. i thought i would get this from a crows supporter. u r basically saying that melbourne didnt win, adelaide lost. This is pathetic, u dont give credit to the team that won the game. typical crows supporters its always the way.
35,000 - pft what a crowd. where was everyone else? in the new shed watching it, so they dont get wet. geez. tough it out a little bit crows supporters. u gotta live a little. i think from last night, its plain to see that the crows r on the slide, and without ALL there supporters behind them, they will keep on sliding. ~~~~WHOOSH~~~~ all the way to the bottom, with their new best friends FREO. lol maybe youll see mods down there http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/tongue.gif
------------------
I would like to say that i believe in God and i believe in karma. why i exist beats the %$#^ out of me !!!
Hey dee, enjoy every win you can, coz 10 years time the Scum called the Demons will be gone $$$$$ http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/biggrin.gif
------------------
"I came here to win, I am a winner" - Denzel Washington , Remember The Titans ; 2000
dee_girl9
9 Apr 2001, 14:40
Originally posted by QT:
Hey dee, enjoy every win you can, coz 10 years time the Scum called the Demons will be gone $$$$$ http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/biggrin.gif
OH HA BLOODY HA QT. GOD U CRACK ME UP. unlike your side we r on the up, and u will notice that in 10 years time we still be around. that is all i have to say on that subject.
it was actually a weak attempt at trying to spoil the taste of victory. hmmm it taste so sweet. oop u guys wouldnt know what that taste like yet would u now http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/tongue.gif
------------------
I would like to say that i believe in God and i believe in karma. why i exist beats the %$#^ out of me !!!
DEES RULE!
9 Apr 2001, 14:59
dee_girl9 you couldn't have said it better.
There is nothing lower than winging and sooking and making excuses. http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif
QT you better make your words more tender coz you never know when you'll have to chew on them so dont give me that crap about melbourne not sticking around in 10 years coz you know nothing about my club and i doubt u know much about yours.
Melbourne won and they were the better side on the night and while it might hurt i can assure you there is no better remady to cure this pain than a win so start thinking forward and don't dwell upon the past as it won't help.
GO DEES! http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/smile.gif
------------------
Footy. It was just a sport.
But now it's also a business.
However, according to the fans it's a religion,where the people rule!
The Mighty Melbourne Demons- My passion, My obsession!
#24
Crows.ok
9 Apr 2001, 16:55
Originally posted by DEES RULE!:
Melbourne won and they were the better side on the night and while it might hurt i can assure you there is no better remady to cure this pain than a win so start thinking forward and don't dwell upon the past as it won't help.
GO DEES! http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/smile.gif
Believe if you want to that Melbourne were the better side on the night, but it just wasn't the case. Melbourne were the better side for about 10 minutes, where they put on four unanswered goals. For the remainder, Crows were the better side.
Even though Crows had a lot of players out, had to endure through poor positional placings (the worst being Hart benched for the entire first half), had no real marking forward and did not handle the wet conditions well (gifting Melbourne the ball on many occassions), still they played better than Dees for all but 10 minutes.
And Crows are supposed to be the wooden spoon favourites!
As I say, believe if you want to that Melbourne were the better side, but I think you will be in for much disappointment this season.
Crows OTOH will surely use this narrow loss as a spur to better performances.
Originally posted by Crows.ok:
Believe if you want to that Melbourne were the better side on the night, but it just wasn't the case. Melbourne were the better side for about 10 minutes, where they put on four unanswered goals. For the remainder, Crows were the better side.
BULL SH!T!!! Melbourne had control for the WHOLE of the first half. Youd think the way you were talking that Melbourne was lucky to win it. NEWSFALSH...they were 6 goals up at 1/2 time. That is a domination. Melbourne OBVIOUSLY were the better side on the night...they won the game didnt they?
Dogbrick
10 Apr 2001, 04:10
Originally posted by Crows.ok:
Believe if you want to that Melbourne were the better side on the night, but it just wasn't the case. Melbourne were the better side for about 10 minutes, where they put on four unanswered goals. For the remainder, Crows were the better side.
Even though Crows had a lot of players out, had to endure through poor positional placings (the worst being Hart benched for the entire first half), had no real marking forward and did not handle the wet conditions well (gifting Melbourne the ball on many occassions), still they played better than Dees for all but 10 minutes.
By this logic, Melbourne played better for 10 minutes, Adelaide played better for 90 minutes.
Who won ?
When a game is won by only 3 points, it's ridiculous to say that the winner dominated the play. Obviously both teams were able to dominate patches of play. Melbourne was lucky to win in the end. If the Crows had won, THEY would have been the lucky team. The winning team in this case was LUCKY, not dominant.
And Melbourne supporters, don't forget this is the CROWS board. If you don't wish to get criticized, don't come here and gloat.
As for crowd numbers... it'll be interesting to see how many people attend the Melb/Crows game later in the season at the MCG.
DEES RULE!
10 Apr 2001, 12:23
i cannot believe that you are convincing yourself that Melbourne's win was purely luck. http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/eek.gif
Melbourne dominated the first half, Crows dominated the second half (only because Melbourne were stupid enough to believe that they won the game and ease the pace a lot), and Leoncelli kicked the winning goal which sealed Melbourne's victory.
You think your team was lacking players?
How about Melbourne? Farmer, Green, McDonald, Whealan, Simmonds, Johnstone, Powell want some more?!
considering the fact that Jeff White had to work alone for 99% of the night seeing as Simmonds is injured and Darren Jolly played his first AFL match and considering the fact that Brad Green pulled out a few hours before the game and don't forget the fact that Melbourne played at YOUR home ground in conditioned they didn't experience even once this pre-season you can hardly tell me that Melbourne did not dominate and were not the better side on the day. Even your Captain admited it so why can't you??? http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/confused.gif
GO DEES! http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/smile.gif
------------------
Footy. It was just a sport.
But now it's also a business.
However, according to the fans it's a religion,where the people rule!
The Mighty Melbourne Demons- My passion, My obsession!
#24
Macca19
10 Apr 2001, 14:13
Originally posted by Crow54:
When a game is won by only 3 points, it's ridiculous to say that the winner dominated the play. Obviously both teams were able to dominate patches of play. Melbourne was lucky to win in the end. If the Crows had won, THEY would have been the lucky team. The winning team in this case was LUCKY, not dominant.
And Melbourne supporters, don't forget this is the CROWS board. If you don't wish to get criticized, don't come here and gloat.
As for crowd numbers... it'll be interesting to see how many people attend the Melb/Crows game later in the season at the MCG.
When a team leads for the whole game except for 27 seconds then that team deserves to win. When a team gets 6 goals up at half time, whether its due to them playing great, or the opposition playing extremly poor, then they deserve the win. When the team goes defencive in the last half, and hang on, they deserve to win. When a team wins, they DESERVE it. You are saying that Adelaide played better than Melbourne...yet Melbourne had the better of the first two quarters..the third was fairly even, and Adelaide was on top for the last quarter. U are absolutly kidding yourself if you believe Adelaide DESERVED to win that game. U were behind for all but 27 seconds of gametime, and you think you deserved it. If the game was close all along, then yeah, your probably right. But when you spend half the game 4-5-6 goals behind then, no you dont deserve to win it. Melbourne was not lucky to win in the end..Adelaide were lucky to get so close, that Melbourne had yet another last half fadeout.
Macca, I never said the Crows deserved to win. I said they would have been lucky if they had won. I never said they played better than Melbourne. I said both teams played well in patches.
If two teams have a draw, which played better? If a team is up by 5 or six goals and then the opposition catches up, why is the first team better than the second? If they are so good, surely they shouldn't let the second team catch up?
DEES RULE!
10 Apr 2001, 16:57
look i agree Melbourne should have never let you catch up and i am sure they will be looking seriously at that but still that doesnt mean you should have won or were the better team or even equally as good coz if melbourne wouldnt have let its guard down the result would have been a far bigger margin.
GO DEES! http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/smile.gif
------------------
Footy. It was just a sport.
But now it's also a business.
However, according to the fans it's a religion,where the people rule!
The Mighty Melbourne Demons- My passion, My obsession!
#24
Originally posted by dee_girl9:
hmmm it taste so sweet. oop u guys wouldnt know what that taste like yet would u now http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/tongue.gif
Yes, the crows havent had success, we dont know how it feels to be successful http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif
------------------
"I came here to win, I am a winner" - Denzel Washington , Remember The Titans ; 2000
DEES RULE!
10 Apr 2001, 17:53
yeah QT learn to read... it says YET you know meaning you haven't experience any success so far this season... gee people you jump to conclusions way too fast!
GO DEES! http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/smile.gif
------------------
Footy. It was just a sport.
But now it's also a business.
However, according to the fans it's a religion,where the people rule!
The Mighty Melbourne Demons- My passion, My obsession!
#24
dees*gal
10 Apr 2001, 17:55
Originally posted by BT:
Your entitled to your opinion as am I. However Adelaide got the better of the umpiring (in my opinion) so don't start blaming them.
hey, all i can say, is that the dees were the better team at the time, and thats that!!!
but i must say, you crows did a good job at getting back, just no good enough!
GO DEES!!!
------------------
I luv shane woewodin. and the mighty dees whether or not you like it!!!
dee_girl9
10 Apr 2001, 18:01
GEEZ u adelaide people take things a bit too seriously. relax and take a chill pill. i said YET meaning not this season. like u havent won THIS YEAR!!!! man its going to be a long grey winter in the old town this year.
And what is with the media over here, u guys r getting roasted. u were the flavour of the town until now. man i glad im not a crow. (that wasnt having a dig, that was feeling sorry for u guys) <----- seriously
Crows.ok
10 Apr 2001, 20:49
Originally posted by Crow54:
Macca, I never said the Crows deserved to win. I said they would have been lucky if they had won. I never said they played better than Melbourne. I said both teams played well in patches.
If two teams have a draw, which played better? If a team is up by 5 or six goals and then the opposition catches up, why is the first team better than the second? If they are so good, surely they shouldn't let the second team catch up?
Crow54, don't bother with this Macca guy. He is such a pretzel head he seems to think that its all-important exactly when you have a period of good form and when you don't.
When Crows had fade outs at then end of the first rounds last year, that was a sure sign they were bad. It didn't matter that Crows won more games than Port last year, because Port finished in good form and Crows good form was mid-year, so that of course means that Port are going to do well this year and Crows are slipping.
Last year it was bad that Crows lost games they were leading by fading out in the last quarter. That was significant - bad signs for Crows. This year its not taking advantage of early dominance - again a bad sign. It all seems in Maccas mind to have something to do with when things happen- forget the actual results, hey?
On reflection though, its not so much when there is bad for for Crows its just if there is any sign of bad form ... Macca is totally compelled to harp on about it.
Any similar sign of bad form for Port though .... thats not important. And with Port it doesn't matter when it happens we can safely ignore it. Last quarter fade-outs against Sydney in A/C and brisbane in round 1 - not a worry. No show at all against Bombers - not problem compared with a three point loss by Crows!
In short Macca - grow a brain or piss off - your choice.
Macca19
11 Apr 2001, 08:33
Originally posted by Crows.ok:
Crow54, don't bother with this Macca guy. He is such a pretzel head he seems to think that its all-important exactly when you have a period of good form and when you don't.
When Crows had fade outs at then end of the first rounds last year, that was a sure sign they were bad. It didn't matter that Crows won more games than Port last year, because Port finished in good form and Crows good form was mid-year, so that of course means that Port are going to do well this year and Crows are slipping.
Last year it was bad that Crows lost games they were leading by fading out in the last quarter. That was significant - bad signs for Crows. This year its not taking advantage of early dominance - again a bad sign. It all seems in Maccas mind to have something to do with when things happen- forget the actual results, hey?
On reflection though, its not so much when there is bad for for Crows its just if there is any sign of bad form ... Macca is totally compelled to harp on about it.
Any similar sign of bad form for Port though .... thats not important. And with Port it doesn't matter when it happens we can safely ignore it. Last quarter fade-outs against Sydney in A/C and brisbane in round 1 - not a worry. No show at all against Bombers - not problem compared with a three point loss by Crows!
In short Macca - grow a brain or piss off - your choice.
I think your the one that needs to grow a brain. Hows your 13 wins going?? Looking great so far isnt it!
It is important WHEN you fade out in a game ********. If your up by 6 goals with 10 minutes left in a game, you can afford to let off the pedal a bit...no point still going hard at it, you might get an unneccesary injury. When your fadeouts are b efore half time, or in the crows case last year, being 8 goals down at 1/4 time on a number of occasions, the it IS a problem. Or are you just to plain stupid to realise this?? Id much rather have a fadeout at the end when WINNING, than be 6-7-8 goals down at 1/4 or 1/2 time. There is a BIG difference.
The only reason the crows got back into games last year was because the opposition LET THE FOOT OFF THE GAS.
Id rather have the advantage of being able to let the foot off while 6 goals up, than have to work hard to get back into the game after half time.
What would you rather??
Last year, the crows were ****ed before half time on numerous occasions.
Some examples
Carlton 8.1 - 0.2
Carlton let the foot off, and crows kicked 6 goals to 3 in the last quarter to make the score semi respectable.
North were 43 points up during the last quarter...took key players off, and only won by a few points
Western Bulldogs 7.1 to 1.3 at quarter time...they refused to let the foot off and kicked 8.2 to 3.3 in the last
Geelong - 7.2 to 3.4 at 1/4 time. Geelong were 6 goals up in the last, let the foot off crows ended up within a goal.
The Port game...9.6 to 1.1 at 1/4 time. Port let the foot off, crows got into the game, Port kicked 7.3 to 2.0 in the last.
Crows go missing for periods of games, in which the opposition takes advantage of, and kicks away to a massive leave. Good on the crows for fighting back and making the score respectable...but who wants to be behind by 7 goals at 1/4 time?? Who wants to be 6 goals behind at half time??
Everyone reckons the crows were unlucky to lose...they were damn lucky that Melbourne let the foot off the pedal in the last quarter.
You say "it is bad that crows lost games while leading in the last quarter" i dont think that happened...maybe once or twice, more like the crows had to work their arse off to get back into the game by the last quarter.
Maybe if the crows were competent enough to play 4 quarters of football, you might win a large amount of games this year. Last year, and this year, you only play a half, or 3/4 of games...that is a problem. If you dont believe t hat is a problem, than you really are a bigger brainless ******** than i thought. If you cant admit that the crows have some problems, then you are a bigger ******** than i thought.
Port had problems, they were shonky for 3/4 of the year last year...they didnt fade out...they didnt have anything to fade from..theyd play crap from start to finish. They have rectified that...we are kicking 15 goals a game, and have done for about 8 games in a row now. Crows have not rectified there gaps where they go missing.
If you want to kid yourself again that the crows are going fine, then do so. But again, id much rather fade from being 5 goals up, than fade before half time and being 6 goals down at the break.
What would you rather?
Macca, the same can be said for Port against Essendon last week. Everyone was saying how Port did so well to kick 15 goals and get within 38 points, well you were damn lucky Ess. the foot completely off the pedal and allowed you to make it look respectable. Port were pathetic last week but if Port people want to believe they were okay last match then good on them.
Also Macca, you forgot to mention the Essendon game last year against the Crows where we led by 20 points in the 3rd quarter before taking the foot off the pedal as well. Now, the Bombers were damn lucky we took the foot off the pedal otherwise they would not have won by 48 points. http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/smile.gif Or even the 93' prelim. final, where we took the foot off the pedal after leading by 42 points at half time, they were damn lucky to comeback and win. http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/biggrin.gif http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif
On some occasions Macca, teams don't let the other team get back into it, they increase their level of play and force their way back. Conversely, sometimes teams do relax a bit as you've said. I believe last Sat. night was a case in point for the former.
Macca19
11 Apr 2001, 15:45
Originally posted by ant:
Macca, the same can be said for Port against Essendon last week. Everyone was saying how Port did so well to kick 15 goals and get within 38 points, well you were damn lucky Ess. the foot completely off the pedal and allowed you to make it look respectable. Port were pathetic last week but if Port people want to believe they were okay last match then good on them.
Also Macca, you forgot to mention the Essendon game last year against the Crows where we led by 20 points in the 3rd quarter before taking the foot off the pedal as well. Now, the Bombers were damn lucky we took the foot off the pedal otherwise they would not have won by 48 points. http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/smile.gif Or even the 93' prelim. final, where we took the foot off the pedal after leading by 42 points at half time, they were damn lucky to comeback and win. http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/biggrin.gif http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif
On some occasions Macca, teams don't let the other team get back into it, they increase their level of play and force their way back. Conversely, sometimes teams do relax a bit as you've said. I believe last Sat. night was a case in point for the former.
Im proud of how Port played against Essendon. I was expecting a thumping, im very happy we got within 6 goals, im happy we kicked 16 goals. Are skill level was down and we made a few basic skill errors. I thought port did ok. If Port were pathetic against Essendon then what can be said about Adelaide vs Sydney?? Same thing would go there surely.
Obviously Macca, Crows were disgraceful against Sydney and for a good part of the Melb. game. When it was mentioned after the Sydney game that we kicked 3.8 in the last quarter I thought immediately that it was pointless because the game was well and truly lost already.
I was simply speaking about your theory that every time a team comes back from a deficit it's because the other team took the foot off the pedal. I think this can almost always be applied when the game is definitely over, eg. 60 point margin being cut to 20 or 30 in the last quarter, but isn't applicable when the game is still in the balance and both teams are realistic chances of winning.
Go South
11 Apr 2001, 17:20
Originally posted by DEES RULE!:
That goal WAS NOT touched!
You weren't even at the game...
Take your blinkers off for a minute, for gods sake. Yes, you played better - Yes, you deserved to win, but there is no doubt whatsoever that the goal was touched - even your own supporters have admitted it.
------------------
'...and we won't give up, till the premiership cup is safely in our hands...'
Blues_Girl
11 Apr 2001, 17:24
Originally posted by Go South:
You weren't even at the game...
Take your blinkers off for a minute, for gods sake. Yes, you played better - Yes, you deserved to win, but there is no doubt whatsoever that the goal was touched - even your own supporters have admitted it.
AGREED!!!
Originally posted by Blues_Girl:
AGREED!!!
I agree even more!
------------------
"I came here to win, I am a winner" - Denzel Washington , Remember The Titans ; 2000
Originally posted by Go South
Take your blinkers off for a minute, for gods sake. Yes, you played better - Yes, you deserved to win, but there is no doubt whatsoever that the goal was touched - even your own supporters have admitted it.
I think it was McGregor right? His arm was in front of the line but he missed the ball!!!!! The other Crow player touched it but he was BEHIND the line. In other words perfectly legal goal!
On the subject of blinkers we'll take our off when you take yours off!
Crows.ok
11 Apr 2001, 17:57
Originally posted by ant:
Obviously Macca, Crows were disgraceful against Sydney and for a good part of the Melb. game. When it was mentioned after the Sydney game that we kicked 3.8 in the last quarter I thought immediately that it was pointless because the game was well and truly lost already.
I was simply speaking about your theory that every time a team comes back from a deficit it's because the other team took the foot off the pedal. I think this can almost always be applied when the game is definitely over, eg. 60 point margin being cut to 20 or 30 in the last quarter, but isn't applicable when the game is still in the balance and both teams are realistic chances of winning.
This is the entire point ant. crows weren't out of the game, they still had a chance to win going into the last quarter, and they were taking that chance, and threatening to overrun melbourne for the entire quarter. Yet Macca sees it as Melbourne taking its foot off the pedal? If they did they would have to be thought of as purely crazy. If Dees did slack off they certainly can't be thought of as playing the better footy of deserving to have won! It just doesn't fit the definitions, does it?
Also, in this game, there were two periods were one of the teams got 4 consecutive goals. Melbourne did it earlier, in the second quarter, Crows did it later, in the last quarter.
If these two bursts of 4 goals had just happened to occur within the one quarter, then Macca would have been calling it as a close game. But because the two bursts were separated by a quarter, and hence Melbourne had a lead for quite some period in the game, Macca thinks Melbourne were dominant, and deserved to win.
Macca is soooooo easily fooled by timing of events.
The when is all important to him, so much so that he doesn't see the "how much".
Adelaide were not disgraceful for a good period of the Melbourne game. Just for one period. Early on, the Crows were dominant but missed opportunities, and Melbourne had much less of the play but did convert opportunities, with Melbourne finishing slightly ahead on the scoreboard. Melbourne had a good second term, and during this period Crows were indeed disgraceful. (One quarter is not my idea of a good part of the game ... but it may fit your definition). But then the Crows won the last two quarters, and in the end, despite Maccas best efforts to decry their efforts, in fact crows played pretty much just as well as Melbourne, and were unlucky to have lost the game.
Oh, Macca, BTW ... the bit about Crows fading in the last Q last year ... check out four of the first five games.
You are right that some of Crows games last year they were right out of it ... not competitive at all. Not as many of these sort of games for Crows last year as their were for Port, though!
DEES RULE!
11 Apr 2001, 18:56
yeah yeah go have a cry... whinge some more at the end of the day melbourne won and there isn't anything you can do about it and all you are doing is slagging melbourne, judging the umpires and beating yourself over a lose in a word... unsportsmenship like!
GO DEES! http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/smile.gif
------------------
Footy. It was just a sport.
But now it's also a business.
However, according to the fans it's a religion,where the people rule!
The Mighty Melbourne Demons- My passion, My obsession!
#24
Originally posted by DEES RULE!:
yeah yeah go have a cry... whinge some more at the end of the day melbourne won and there isn't anything you can do about it and all you are doing is slagging melbourne, judging the umpires and beating yourself over a lose in a word... unsportsmenship like!
GO DEES! http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/smile.gif
To say it simple, Melbourne are SCUM,with no $$$$$ ofcourse
http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/tongue.gif
------------------
"I came here to win, I am a winner" - Denzel Washington , Remember The Titans ; 2000
Macca19
11 Apr 2001, 21:29
Originally posted by Crows.ok:
This is the entire point ant. crows weren't out of the game, they still had a chance to win going into the last quarter, and they were taking that chance, and threatening to overrun melbourne for the entire quarter. Yet Macca sees it as Melbourne taking its foot off the pedal? If they did they would have to be thought of as purely crazy. If Dees did slack off they certainly can't be thought of as playing the better footy of deserving to have won! It just doesn't fit the definitions, does it?
Also, in this game, there were two periods were one of the teams got 4 consecutive goals. Melbourne did it earlier, in the second quarter, Crows did it later, in the last quarter.
If these two bursts of 4 goals had just happened to occur within the one quarter, then Macca would have been calling it as a close game. But because the two bursts were separated by a quarter, and hence Melbourne had a lead for quite some period in the game, Macca thinks Melbourne were dominant, and deserved to win.
Macca is soooooo easily fooled by timing of events.
The when is all important to him, so much so that he doesn't see the "how much".
Adelaide were not disgraceful for a good period of the Melbourne game. Just for one period. Early on, the Crows were dominant but missed opportunities, and Melbourne had much less of the play but did convert opportunities, with Melbourne finishing slightly ahead on the scoreboard. Melbourne had a good second term, and during this period Crows were indeed disgraceful. (One quarter is not my idea of a good part of the game ... but it may fit your definition). But then the Crows won the last two quarters, and in the end, despite Maccas best efforts to decry their efforts, in fact crows played pretty much just as well as Melbourne, and were unlucky to have lost the game.
Oh, Macca, BTW ... the bit about Crows fading in the last Q last year ... check out four of the first five games.
You are right that some of Crows games last year they were right out of it ... not competitive at all. Not as many of these sort of games for Crows last year as their were for Port, though!
I think Melbourne did take the foot off the pedal yes, but by the time they sorted themselves o ut again theywere being overrun.
If both Melbourne and Adelaide kicked 4 goals each in the second quarter, and it was only 1 or 2 goals in it, then that would be COMPLETLY different. That means the game is still in the balance....when a team is up by 6 goals at half time, the have complete control of the game. And they also have the choice to choose a path for the last half...they can go defencive and hang onto the laed, they can continue to attack and see if they can get a bit of percentage. The behind team has one choice...all out attack. Melbourne went defencive in the last half, they dropped one or two players back and went the defence...thats why Adelaide got back in the game, Melburne werent attacking. You say Melbuorne had the lead for "quite some period" in the game. Do you realise that Melbourne led the whole game but 27 seconds? Thats not "quite some period"..thats basically the whole bloody game!!
When IS important idiot. If both teams kicked 4 goals in the second, then the game would of been evenly spread at half time...but it wasnt, there is no point in saying "if adelaide kicked 4 goals then the game would of been even"...of course it bloody would be. Adelaide didnt, Melbourne were 6 goals up at half time...they controlled the first quarter, they controlled the second quarter. They had a big lead...6 goals is a large lead to have at half time! If the first quarter was even in your view, then so was the third quarter. You cant have it both ways.
Thats crap about the Port and Crows part at the end of your post there. On about 7 or 8 occasions, the crows were out of the game at 1/4 time or half time.
Looking at Ports games...Port were above 3 goals behind at 1/4 time on 6 occasions...we won 2 of those games (West Coast and Richmond).
Port Adelaide got thumped (over 8 goals) on 5 occasions. The rest of Ports losses, Port were competitve the WHOLE game, and the 1/4 by 1/4 scores prove that. So your point about Port being thumped more than crows is i believe wrong.
The crows were behind by more than 3 goals on 8 occasions. Crows got thumped on 4 or 5 occasions as well.
Crows only lead at 1/4 time on something like 3 of the last 11 games. Crows were also behind at 3/4 by 5+ goals on a large number of occasions.
Keep in mind...Crows were only 1 1/2 wins better than Port last year. The way you were speaking, youd think the crows only just missed a finals spot, and port were lucky not to be wooden spooners. 1 1/2 wins...not all that much.
Macca19
11 Apr 2001, 21:31
Originally posted by Crows.ok:
You are right that some of Crows games last year they were right out of it ... not competitive at all. Not as many of these sort of games for Crows last year as their were for Port, though!
Crow.ok....you look at 1/4 by 1/4 stats of the port and crows games, and tell me if this is true. You tell me how many times port were being thumped at 1/4 and 1/2 time compared to crows. I will put money on it that the crows have more of these occasions
DEES RULE!
12 Apr 2001, 11:12
Originally posted by QT:
To say it simple, Melbourne are SCUM,with no $$$$$ ofcourse http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/tongue.gif
to say it even simpler you are an idiot you know NOTHING i repeat NOTHING about Melbourne and you surprise me everytime with your incredable combacks! http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif
(this one is even better than the one on melbourne board saying BOOOO :eek http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/smile.gif
GO DEES! http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/smile.gif
------------------
Footy. It was just a sport.
But now it's also a business.
However, according to the fans it's a religion,where the people rule!
The Mighty Melbourne Demons- My passion, My obsession!
#24
Go South
12 Apr 2001, 11:20
Originally posted by DEES RULE!:
to say it even simpler you are an idiot you know NOTHING i repeat NOTHING about Melbourne and you surprise me everytime with your incredable combacks! http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif
(this one is even better than the one on melbourne board saying BOOOO :eek http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/smile.gif
GO DEES! http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/smile.gif
1. Learn to spell.
2. Piss off back to your own board
3. How was she wrong, in saying that Melbourne have no "$$$"? If my memory serves me correctly, you were this close --><--- to merging with Hawthorn, to get out of debt?
You get your facts straight, before you come to another board spouting crap.
------------------
'...and we won't give up, till the premiership cup is safely in our hands...'
You see Macca, Port was only 1 and a half games behind the Crows last year because we took the foot off the pedal, we had the choice of going defensive and cruising the rest of the way or trying to win more games and get better percentage. Port were pathetic til into the second half of the year when they had no choice but to go all out attack. The Crows relaxed, took the foot off the pedal and by the time we realised what was happening Port were within 1 and a half games. That's why you got so close to us. http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/smile.gif http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/biggrin.gif
DEES RULE!
12 Apr 2001, 15:38
Originally posted by Go South:
1. Learn to spell.
2. Piss off back to your own board
3. How was she wrong, in saying that Melbourne have no "$$$"? If my memory serves me correctly, you were this close --><--- to merging with Hawthorn, to get out of debt?
You get your facts straight, before you come to another board spouting crap.
Take the word WERE process it in your mind if your brain capacity will allow and discover that it is a term used in PAST tense. Now what was in the past should stay there and that goes to the game on Saturday too.
I don't remember who you are playing this week but i am sure there is plenty you can talk about regarding that game so why not move on?!
I will go back to my own board but it seems as though the only hot topic you have on your board is the one regarding another team! http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/tongue.gif
Oh yeah and thanks for boosting my post count, i am really looking forward to my 1000 post! http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/biggrin.gif
GO DEES! http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/smile.gif
------------------
Footy. It was just a sport.
But now it's also a business.
However, according to the fans it's a religion,where the people rule!
The Mighty Melbourne Demons- My passion, My obsession!
#24
Macca19
12 Apr 2001, 15:46
Originally posted by ant:
You see Macca, Port was only 1 and a half games behind the Crows last year because we took the foot off the pedal, we had the choice of going defensive and cruising the rest of the way or trying to win more games and get better percentage. Port were pathetic til into the second half of the year when they had no choice but to go all out attack. The Crows relaxed, took the foot off the pedal and by the time we realised what was happening Port were within 1 and a half games. That's why you got so close to us. http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/smile.gif http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/biggrin.gif
If you say so Ant...if you say so http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/biggrin.gif
Crows.ok
12 Apr 2001, 17:14
Macca writes:
I think Melbourne did take the foot off the pedal yes, but by the time they sorted themselves out again they were being overrun.
But Macca also wrote, at the very beginning of this thread:
But Melbourne deserved the win by controlling the game for three quarters and getting up in the end.
Now Macca is scrambling for cover when it is pointed out to him that Melbourne did not "control the game" for three quarters. There was one period in the game when Melbourne definately did control it, the second quarter. The first quarter was fairly even with Melbourne a little more accurate. Crows effectively controlled the game for the entire second half, although they didn't really have a strong control until the last quarter.
Now it is true to say that Melbourne "had the lead" for nearly the entire game. That is NOT the same as "controlling the game" though. The team that has the momentum and is doing more of the scoring for any given period (regardless of which team is leading during that period) is the team that is "controlling the game" for that period.
Macca, how do you reconcile the notion that Melbourne were "controlling the game for three quarters" with the fact that Melbourne were outscored (at a rate of two to one or more) for half of the game? If you are being outscored, even if you are in front, then you do not have "control of the game". If you at least maintain a good margin, then I guess you could stake a claim of control of the game, but if your margin is being reduced, you are not in control.
In the example of Essendon, in the last quarter against Port, they rested some players, and managed to maintain a fairly respectable margin, but nevertheless Port made ground on Essendon and I would say that meant that Essendon were not "in control" of the actual play, but you could say they had the lead and had the win in their keeping.
Macca is also struggling to reconcile his two contradictory statements quoted above: "Melbourne did take the foot off the pedal" and "Melbourne deserved the win".
If they slacked off, either at half time or especially when they weren't that far in front in the last quarter, then clearly they didn't deserve to win.
Don't keep trying too long and hard to make these statements of yours all make sense at the same time, Macca, it can't be done.
Macca19
12 Apr 2001, 17:58
Originally posted by Crows.ok:
Macca writes:
I think Melbourne did take the foot off the pedal yes, but by the time they sorted themselves out again they were being overrun.
But Macca also wrote, at the very beginning of this thread:
But Melbourne deserved the win by controlling the game for three quarters and getting up in the end.
Now Macca is scrambling for cover when it is pointed out to him that Melbourne did not "control the game" for three quarters. There was one period in the game when Melbourne definately did control it, the second quarter. The first quarter was fairly even with Melbourne a little more accurate. Crows effectively controlled the game for the entire second half, although they didn't really have a strong control until the last quarter.
Now it is true to say that Melbourne "had the lead" for nearly the entire game. That is NOT the same as "controlling the game" though. The team that has the momentum and is doing more of the scoring for any given period (regardless of which team is leading during that period) is the team that is "controlling the game" for that period.
Macca, how do you reconcile the notion that Melbourne were "controlling the game for three quarters" with the fact that Melbourne were outscored (at a rate of two to one or more) for half of the game? If you are being outscored, even if you are in front, then you do not have "control of the game". If you at least maintain a good margin, then I guess you could stake a claim of control of the game, but if your margin is being reduced, you are not in control.
In the example of Essendon, in the last quarter against Port, they rested some players, and managed to maintain a fairly respectable margin, but nevertheless Port made ground on Essendon and I would say that meant that Essendon were not "in control" of the actual play, but you could say they had the lead and had the win in their keeping.
Macca is also struggling to reconcile his two contradictory statements quoted above: "Melbourne did take the foot off the pedal" and "Melbourne deserved the win".
If they slacked off, either at half time or especially when they weren't that far in front in the last quarter, then clearly they didn't deserve to win.
Don't keep trying too long and hard to make these statements of yours all make sense at the same time, Macca, it can't be done.
You cant have it both ways Crowok. If The first quarter was "even" then so was the third. If Adelaide had contorl of the third quarter, then Melbourne had control of the first. I actually thought Melbourne went defencive thats why they were getting outscored. Yes Adelaide had control of the last quarter.
All im trying to say Crowok is Adelaide did not deserve to win the game. When your 6 goals down at halftime, and play as bad as Adelaide did in the first HALF, then you dont necessarily deserve to win. In the end Melbourne won, so they deserved the win
(there goes your record QT)