Autopsy 15-2-27 When will the damn wall burst?

[sr36]

As I said during the H&A season

Lost by 34 to Hawthorn
Lost by 26 to GWS
Lost by 43 to Richmond
Lost by 21 to Geelong
Beat Melbourne by 42
Lost by 35 to West Coast
Lost by 38 to Richmond
Lost by 2 to Sydney

(1-7 record against top 8 teams)

Finals:
Lost by 16 to West Coast
Beat GWS by 10
Beat Richmond by 39
Lost by 5 to West Coast

(2-2 record)

Overall its a 3-9 record against the top 8, so we certainly still have something to prove. No doubt we wouldn't of made the top 4 last year without an easy draw

Way too much was read into those losses last year.
WCE had our measure.
Geelong outplayed us on the day.
But there were extenuating circumstances to the other losses.

The Hawthorn and GWS losses occurred in March, when no team is close to end of year form. Significant for end of year ladder placement, but irrelevant in terms of season's form.
First loss to Richmond, we were in at at 3 quarter time, but not surprisingly ran out of legs due to a combination of a 4 day break and in game injuries.

2nd loss to Richmond, we were in it until injuries took a toll again.

Sydney game - When Moore got injured we were left with two blokes that had never played AFL defence before trying to stop Buddy. Not surprisingly, he ran amuck. Even then it took a fluke goal to beat us. Not concerned by that 2 point loss.

 

[PicaBoo]

Way too much was read into those losses last year.
WCE had our measure.
Geelong outplayed us on the day.
But there were extenuating circumstances to the other losses.

The Hawthorn and GWS losses occurred in March, when no team is close to end of year form. Significant for end of year ladder placement, but irrelevant in terms of season's form.
First loss to Richmond, we were in at at 3 quarter time, but not surprisingly ran out of legs due to a combination of a 4 day break and in game injuries.

2nd loss to Richmond, we were in it until injuries took a toll again.

Sydney game - When Moore got injured we were left with two blokes that had never played AFL defence before trying to stop Buddy. Not surprisingly, he ran amuck. Even then it took a fluke goal to beat us. Not concerned by that 2 point loss.

DeGoey didn't play for the first part either. No doubt that with him in the side, some of the results would have been different.
The only thing those losses show is that our first part of the season was **** , injuries did cause some ripples and it took a while to gel and find the right mix. Now that latter part shouldn't be a problem this season . By large an unchanged squad , we have addressed the depth issues and we aren't upsetting our structures too much with our new additions. We can play rookies if we want to, not because we have to.

 

[didaksrightfoot]

I cannot talk pre-1990's, which is where the old moniker came from.

But I think the experience since then is very different than just looking at the numbers. And i would answer your post with 2 points.

1. (As made above) - 3 of our last 4 losses we would've had no right winning and overachieved by just making the GF. (2011 being the exception).

2. We are too "proud" a club to actually bottom out and rebuild with top draft picks. Since 1990 we have had just 5, top 5 picks (Fraser, Didak, Thomas, Pendles and JDG - all of whom were "hits"). I just think constantly trying to rebuild on the fly, makes it much harder to get a core group of elite players to build around - especially KP's.

 

[35Daicos]

DeGoey didn't play for the first part either. No doubt that with him in the side, some of the results would have been different.
The only thing those losses show is that our first part of the season was **** , injuries did cause some ripples and it took a while to gel and find the right mix. Now that latter part shouldn't be a problem this season . By large an unchanged squad , we have addressed the depth issues and we aren't upsetting our structures too much with our new additions. We can play rookies if we want to, not because we have to.

As well as missing the first three games, De Goey missed the late season losses to Richmond and Sydney.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

There's been 123 Grand Finals played (including the 3 GF Replays):
View attachment 611386

A small bug bear of mine, and he AFL is guilty here.
If Brisbane essentially merged with Gitzroy why aren’t the stats of the two collated.
I thought in the AFL even has Brisbane bears as a separate entity.

Brisbane / Fitzroy would hence be 11 flags 6 losses for 17 grand finals at + 5.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Grand Finals we could have been wonderful burglars....

• 2018 the latest and most obvious, gutsed it out and almost got there, west coast couldn’t seal the game till so late
• 2002 the Nathan Buckley show, almost single handed with a good team carried us over the line. The wet helped.
• 1981 sort of almost, up until,the third quarter we could have pinched it from a terrific blues outfit.
• 1979 the great burglary that wasn’t quite there. Boggy conditions helped.

None of those 4 grand finals were we legitimately the better team in that year.

 

[35Daicos]

A small bug bear of mine, and he AFL is guilty here.
If Brisbane essentially merged with Gitzroy why aren’t the stats of the two collated.
I thought in the AFL even has Brisbane bears as a separate entity.

Brisbane / Fitzroy would hence be 11 flags 6 losses for 17 grand finals at + 5.

The AFL's stance is (from the AFL Record Season Guide):
BRISBANE/FITZROY
Following the merger of the Brisbane Bears and Fitzroy at the end of 1996, statistical records for the Brisbane Bears and the Brisbane Lions will be classified as one set for Brisbane. This position also applies to match records (highest scores, lowest scores, club v club records etc.). The AFL's view is that Simon Black is the games record-holder for Brisbane (322) and Kevin Murray (333) the games record-holder for Fitzroy. A statistical history of Fitzroy appears in this publication.
==========================================================================================================================
The wonderful AFL Tables says this on the topic "1997 - The Brisbane Lions are considered a new team, statistically distinct from its co-founders, the Brisbane Bears and the Fitzroy Lions". This obviously contradicts the official stance.

I certainly believe the records for Brisbane and Fitzroy need to be kept separate, and consider Brisbane to have been the same club all the way through. In this case I don't see any real point in arguing with the AFL's official view, so the records I keep match that.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

The AFL's stance is (from the AFL Record Season Guide):
BRISBANE/FITZROY
Following the merger of the Brisbane Bears and Fitzroy at the end of 1996, statistical records for the Brisbane Bears and the Brisbane Lions will be classified as one set for Brisbane. This position also applies to match records (highest scores, lowest scores, club v club records etc.). The AFL's view is that Simon Black is the games record-holder for Brisbane (322) and Kevin Murray (333) the games record-holder for Fitzroy. A statistical history of Fitzroy appears in this publication.
==========================================================================================================================
The wonderful AFL Tables says this on the topic "1997 - The Brisbane Lions are considered a new team, statistically distinct from its co-founders, the Brisbane Bears and the Fitzroy Lions". This obviously contradicts the official stance.
I certainly believe the records for Brisbane and Fitzroy need to be kept separate, and consider Brisbane to have been the same club all the way through. In this case I don't see any real point in arguing with the AFL's official view, so the records I keep match that.

Vale Fitzroy.

The great irony ofcourse is Fitzroy we’re a brutal enemy of ours at the beginning of VFL football.
A nasty opponent. The Gorillas were the enemy.

Now their demise is tinged with sadness.

 

[BEEG]

We just don't win them I don't know why.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

We just don't win them I don't know why.

Technically we’ve won 15 of them

 

[sr36]

We just don't win them I don't know why.

Heaps of those losses were in years where we did extremely well to make the grannie. A couple of times we stuffed up and lost grand finals that we should have won, but most of our losses occurred because we came up against a better team.

 

[gopies1981]

These figures show the number of years in which clubs have played finals, played Grand Finals, won Grand Finals etc.:
View attachment 611408
Two of Essendon's premiership wins came in the years when no Grand Final was played (1897 & 1924).

Should it read that Collingwood have played in 44 grand finals as 2 draws were replayed the next week in 1977 and 2010

 

[35Daicos]

Should it read that Collingwood have played in 44 grand finals as 2 draws were replayed the next week in 1977 and 2010

If you look just two posts up from that one (#39) I've posted a table that shows the win-loss etc. record for all Grand Final appearances (including the replays). So that has us with the 44 GF games played.

The table that you're referring to shows only the number of seasons in which we've played in Grand Finals (among other things), so that has us making the GF in 42 seasons (replays aren't taken into account for that table). Even though we've played all 122 seasons in the competition's history, as there were two years where there was no GF played (a round-robin series was used to determine the premier in 1897 & 1924) it means we've made the GF 42 times out of a possible 120 (35%)!

 

[doppleganger]

It's an interesting thread but sometimes some of the truths around the VFL/AFL do grow legs. The influence of the country zones which ran from 68-86 fit that group.

I think there is no doubt Hawthorn in particular did well with the growth of the Mornington Peninsula population and their metro zone being the green leafy suburbs with all the private schools as well. Carlton also benefited from the Bendigo area but that alone goes nowhere near explaining their successes from 1968.

Country zoning came in in 1968 when the country leagues were divided into 12 zones and clubs picked a zone out of the premiership cup. They were meant to rotate after 3 seasons but this didn't happen. We had the Western border area which wasn't much of a zone but did give us Billy Picken. Someone above mentioned the Western District as our area which isn't correct, most of that area was in Fitzroy zone.

Richmonds flag success in 67,69, 73 and 74 had little to do with their zone. Even by 74 only Merve Keane and Daryl Cumming came from the Sunraysia area. In fact given it only came round at the end of 68 I think we can conclude it really had little to do with Carlton and Richmond winning all the flags between 67-74. You could argue Lee and Weightman helped Richmonds 80 flag but the Sunraysia wasn't a big advantage to the Tigers.

Hawks overall were the big winners.

As to North getting Carey and Longmire they were NSW players zoned to Sydney who Greg Millar at North was astute enough to trade for with giving little away. Nothing to do with the zones.

I think I am agreeing with you for the most part.

The point was that ‘culture’ especially a ‘winning culture’ is just a wank.

The zones were far from equitable, and the teams with strong zones refused to rotate them.

Hawthorn’s zone was ridiculous, they were given a ‘country zone’ that basically overlapped with the booming Melbourne metropolitan area.

At the same time the VFL was building Waverley Park as they recognised it was in Melbourne’s growth corridor!!

Baffles the mind how they thought giving a team two leagues that basically overlapped Melbourne’s growth fringe was equitable in comparison with Pies getting Western Border league.

Even just practicality of scouting, head to Chelsea or Cranbourne / Berwick for the Hawks compared to fecking going to Portland or Hamilton for the Pies!

No surprise that the Hawks then went on a golden run through the 70s-80s, and the VFL tried to amend their original mistake and carve off some of the Hawks initial zone, but if I have read correctly it landed them a guy called L.Matthews from their ‘country zone’ of fecking Chelsea!!

Just as WC having ridiculously generous start-up concessions helped them for all of the 90s.

Lions having salary concessions enabled them to pull together a super team.

If you go through most teams with a ‘winning culture’ they usually just took advantage of an advantageous hand dealt to them by the league that enables them to compile better lists than the rest.

North we’re not given Carey and Longmire by the league, but getting those two in the door for nothing was a big reason why the Roo’s then dominated...despite Carey himself almost tearing the club apart.

Even we had an edge during the 2000s, as we were spending more than everyone else on our footy department. But the AFL then stopped that too!

Hopefully now we have taken advantage of the ‘academy points’ system that is currently being used!!

 

[Kappa]

I think I am agreeing with you for the most part.

The point was that ‘culture’ especially a ‘winning culture’ is just a wank.

The zones were far from equitable, and the teams with strong zones refused to rotate them.

Hawthorn’s zone was ridiculous, they were given a ‘country zone’ that basically overlapped with the booming Melbourne metropolitan area.

At the same time the VFL was building Waverley Park as they recognised it was in Melbourne’s growth corridor!!

Baffles the mind how they thought giving a team two leagues that basically overlapped Melbourne’s growth fringe was equitable in comparison with Pies getting Western Border league.

Even just practicality of scouting, head to Chelsea or Cranbourne / Berwick for the Hawks compared to fecking going to Portland or Hamilton for the Pies!

No surprise that the Hawks then went on a golden run through the 70s-80s, and the VFL tried to amend their original mistake and carve off some of the Hawks initial zone, but if I have read correctly it landed them a guy called L.Matthews from their ‘country zone’ of fecking Chelsea!!

Just as WC having ridiculously generous start-up concessions helped them for all of the 90s.

Lions having salary concessions enabled them to pull together a super team.

If you go through most teams with a ‘winning culture’ they usually just took advantage of an advantageous hand dealt to them by the league that enables them to compile better lists than the rest.

North we’re not given Carey and Longmire by the league, but getting those two in the door for nothing was a big reason why the Roo’s then dominated...despite Carey himself almost tearing the club apart.

Even we had an edge during the 2000s, as we were spending more than everyone else on our footy department. But the AFL then stopped that too!

Hopefully now we have taken advantage of the ‘academy points’ system that is currently being used!!

That's not even taking account the best teams of the 80s and 90s were normally just the ones who cheated the salary cap the best. Lots of that great Hawthorn team was getting huge payments outside the cap

 

[Brad Goodman]

Disregarding in-game situations, I'm not sure there are many we've lost that we should have actually won.

 

[HeathySure]

WE have won the "minor Premiership" 19 times of which we won the flag 9 times. That suggests we are probably 3 or 4 premierships down on what we should have over time.
Since i have barracked for the pies (i remember back to about 72) i think we were the best side only in the years 1990 (and only at the end of the season) 2010 and 2011 if you take the whole season into account and not the last part where we dropped off. we were stuck between the dominant North (10 year rule) and Carlton (cheats of course) sides in the 70s and 80s and Farken Richmond were way better in 80, I think we came from 5th that year and won 3 finals. Thats a pretty good effort in my book
There are countless years i remember where we won finals when we shouldnt have, when we didnt make the grand final. The prelim where the bombers won by 130 was one of those years. We were not a good side yet we won 2 finals.

 

[Buckley is my hero]

For some reason our better players seem to go missing in the Grand Finals . Pendles, Sidebottom, Treloar and Grundy chose the worse day of the year to have there "off" day. Swan played below his average in all his grand finals, Pendles not his best in 2011, etc etc. Maybe elevating our stars to Demi Gods by our supporter base could be playing a part.

I totally dispute that opinion. Treloar played well. Grundy and Pendles held their own despite not dominating. Sidebottom had a down day with Simpson having several players latching onto him and despite that, he was able to impose himself on the game in the third quarter. Grand Finals are pressure cooker games with opposition coaches doing all sort of things to contain their opponent star players. That's why you need your second and third tier players playing their roles and unfortunately that day we weren't able to maintain our run and got overrun in the last couple of minutes of the game. That won't happen this year if we get into the same situation as last year because we have options now we didn't have then.

 

[Carringbush2010]

There's been 123 Grand Finals played (including the 3 GF Replays):
View attachment 611386

Apologies, but the concept of my post is pretty clear. One less GF is of little relevance

 

[Carringbush2010]

Grand Finals we could have been wonderful burglars....

• 2018 the latest and most obvious, gutsed it out and almost got there, west coast couldn’t seal the game till so late
• 2002 the Nathan Buckley show, almost single handed with a good team carried us over the line. The wet helped.
• 1981 sort of almost, up until,the third quarter we could have pinched it from a terrific blues outfit.
• 1979 the great burglary that wasn’t quite there. Boggy conditions helped.

None of those 4 grand finals were we legitimately the better team in that year.

Actually 81 we had a very good team, star studded the likes of Bahram, Picken, Moore, Davis, Kink, The Macedonian Marvel himself, the Shaw bros, Choco Williams.

I am not dismissing the blooz either, but it's a hard argument to suggest they were better than us - not on paper at least. There was a large part of the media at the time that would agree with that too.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Actually 81 we had a very good team, star studded the likes of Bahram, Picken, Moore, Davis, Kink, The Macedonian Marvel himself, the Shaw bros, Choco Williams.

I am not dismissing the blooz either, but it's a hard argument to suggest they were better than us - not on paper at least. There was a large part of the media at the time that would agree with that too.

Daicos kicked 76 goals or so that year too.

On reflection we weren’t too shabby.
Picken such an under rated star especially in finals.


(Under rated by non magpie people)

 

[adammania9]

The result in ‘64 was cruel. This was before even my parents were born, and still watching the footage of Crompton slotting his first goal of the season to win Melbourne the game is a real dagger.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

2010 was interesting.

We were in a GF that we should have put away by even half time.
Poor kicking is poor football.
St Kilda crawled over broken glass to work their way back into the game.
Head flog BJ certainly helped them.

Yet we got out of jail by not tossing the flag away.
The next week, we trumped them, big time.

One year when we didn’t lose a close one.

 

[Gone Critical]

2010 was interesting.

We were in a GF that we should have put away by even half time.
Poor kicking is poor football.
St Kilda crawled over broken glass to work their way back into the game.
Head flog BJ certainly helped them.

Yet we got out of jail by not tossing the flag away.
The next week, we trumped them, big time.

One year when we didn’t lose a close one.

Good point

All of 60, 64 and 66 which I didnt see were close and we could have won.

Seen all since then. In 70, 77, 79, 81, 02, 11 and 18 we were right in the match and at times got what could have been winning breaks. We never caught much luck in those situations. 18 hurts as much as most, maybe not like 70 and 77, because things did line up for us. I think luck went our way in 2018 and we were far from the best side but we could have pinched one. Fate owes us a bit and she was pretty cruel in 2018 dashing it from our lips. Hopefully we kick on and get the improvement we need in 19 and are on the verge of some good years. Still they are so hard to win 18 might grow and grow as a chance missed.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Good point

All of 60, 64 and 66 which I didnt see were close and we could have won.

Seen all since then. In 70, 77, 79, 81, 02, 11 and 18 we were right in the match and at times got what could have been winning breaks. We never caught much luck in those situations. 18 hurts as much as most, maybe not like 70 and 77, because things did line up for us. I think luck went our way in 2018 and we were far from the best side but we could have pinched one. Fate owes us a bit and she was pretty cruel in 2018 dashing it from our lips. Hopefully we kick on and get the improvement we need in 19 and are on the verge of some good years. Still they are so hard to win 18 might grow and grow as a chance missed.

That might be the final sting on the 18 tail.
Without success this year or next couple of years, 18 will be the opportunity lost.
To be fair, we likely were only 3rd best team of the season.
Richmond and West Coast the 2 better teams.

(The only very slight salvation, it is a missed opportunity for Richmond, one that they stuffed up all by themselves.
With a little help from us and poor old Dusty carrying injury.)