1 vs 2...

[Stealth bomber]

....but it's not the Grand Final. No, only the winner gets that far. A crock of sh*t if you ask me. Doesn't seem fair that we gotta play Carlscum again while the Dees get Norff.

My bias is showing obviously, but I severely detest this finals setup. Guess there's nothing I can do about it except hope like hell we win.

 

[servo]

See thread headed "final 8"

 

[Dan26]

It's not fair at all.

It's TOTAL bullshit at the moment.

All our great wins are irrelevant up until now, and that is unfair. We should already have been declared H&A champs. Like ManU. We are the best. And that' being unbiased too !

Carlton and the Kangaroos both lost in week one, but if they win their preliminary finals, they will be in the Grand Final. If Essendon lose ONE match this week (just like Crlton and the Kangas lost ONE match) then the Dons are out.

Work that out. It's f*cked. Not so much the knockout nature, which I have no problem with, but the fact that our great season will be deemed irrelevant.

21 wins forgotten ? Absolute bullshit.

If we lose to 8th in a quarter final and are eliminated I don't mind so much as long as we were recognized for being the best team over 6 months. (like ManU are, even if they go out in the first match of the FA Cup)

I've said it before, and i'll say it again, it is in the best interests of the competition, if the finals are a seperate tournament to the H&A, with the winner of the GF, being champions of the knockout finals series only. NOT champions of the whole year.

Imagine if it's a Blues-Roos GF. What crap. The General public wouldn't even acknowledge the winner of that match as the best anyway. The winner, would obviously be called "premiers", but it would be a meaningless title, due to the fact that the best (i.e premier) team of the competiton (Essendon) wasn't in it.

Finals are so frickin overrated it is unbelievable. I saw one of the most pathetic games of football in my life today (Carl- Bris). It was rubbish. Intensity lifts in finals does it ? What crap. Yeah, some finals are intense, but so are some H&A matches too. Finals are just a game of footy. Its a game of footy that overrides all the good work that a team strives to acheive over 6 months.

A final is no more likely to be intense or pressurized than a H&A game. It's a game of footy. I've been to over 40 finals in my life, and whilst they are exciting, the one flaw is that they deem irrelevant what a club has acheived over 22 weeks. This is an unacceptable flaw.

Strangley, I went to both finals this weekend, and when they played the national anthem, I got goose bumps. But when the game started, I just felt, "What a laod of hype. It's just a game of footy. With all the hype given to thses finals, I thought they were supposed to be good"

Fans love the "glory" and the "event" status of the Grand Final, so making it the culmination of a 4 week tournament will not undermine it's status at all. Not in the slightest. Fans don't care about being the best. They just want to glory of winning that "hyped" match, even if they're the 5th best team.

The whole system gets me so angry. Why the hell did I bother going to every match this season ? All our great wins, irrelevant....the lot of them. That sucks.

We should allready have been declared Home and away champions. How many god damn wins does it take to prove you are the comps best team ?

God the whole system pisses me off.

 

[Joel]

Settle down Dan! What you must realise that this setup where the season doesn't count in the finals has been around for a long long time. Why should it change now? Surely we can all accept the fact that if you are the best then surely you (team) should win. That is the logic. If a team aren't good enough in the finals then there is no one to blame but yourself.

[This message has been edited by Joel (edited 19 August 2000).]

 

[Dan26]

That's bullshit Joel.

Everyone knows that no matter how good you are, you are not immune from defeat. Even the best teams lose matches to lower ranked opponents. Its called an upset.

An upset has the same capacity to occur in a final as it does in a Home and Away match. I don't have a problem with that, but I DO have a major problem with that upset overriding all home and away games, and the winner of the GF being champion of the WHOLE season. (they should just be champions of the finals, because that is all they won)

That is a load of garbage that needs to be changed. I don't care how long it's been around for.

Last years Grand Final was a load of shit, and if Essendon aren't in it this year it will be shit too. It will lack all credibility if the Bombers are not in it. Did anyone seriously believe that North melbourne (who finished 1999 with the awful percentage of 115) were the years best team ? They let also-ran Carlton have the same amount of scoring shots as them in the Grand Final (29 each).

If this years winner is anyone other than Essendon, and that winner is called "premiers of the whole year" then that is utter crap and a meaningless title for that team. Essendon have proven to evryone person in Australia they are the "premier" (i.e best) team in Australia.

I was speaking to an idiot today who thinks Essendon will need a clean-out if they don't win the flag. Yeah, right. Like a 22-2 record isn't good enough or something.

Finals are over-rated and over hyped. It's just a game of footy. But everyone will just believe what the AFL tells us. People just can't think for themselves.

I'm pissed off that we are in this situation. We have everything to lose and that is totally not fair. We should have already been declared Home and Away premiers.

The situation we are in is not fair. We have basically been penalised for being the best.

And Joel, if it was Collingwood, who were 21-1, I'd be saying the same thing. This issue transcends club loyalty.

 

[ArdenSt]

Agree with you 100% Joel.

 

[ArdenSt]

Dan24

Part of Footy is having yourself primed for the big one in September. It has been the aim of all Footy sides for 70 years. There have been many incidents of the team finishing on top at the end of the H&A not being premiers. That does not make it any less a premiership for the the team that ultimately wins it. (eg Essendon 1965, Carlton 1970) Get a grip. You are obviously sh!t scared of the Bombers not winning it in two weeks, but if they don't, you cannot begrudge the side that does win the flag. It means that they have timed their run perfectly, and are the best side at the right time of the year. Whichever side loses it, have maybe peaked too early.

There is no doubt that Essendon thoroughly deserve this years flag, and I doubt anyone is capable of beating them for it. However it is sour grapes for you to say that last years flag was crap. North could only beat who they played , which they did throughout the finals, so try to tell the players involved that it was crap. Your team was simply not good enough to get there last year, but I am sure they are probably going to make up for it this year. I was p!ssed off in '98, but the Crows were primed at the right time, so good luck to them.

Don't try to change 70 years of Footy tradition because it does not suit you. The play off for the Grand Final is one of the unique parts of our game which sets it apart from other sports. I admit there has been some ordinary Grand Finals in recent times, but the '96,'97,'98 Grand Finals were all good games, all in doubt until the final quarter. And going back a little further there have been some great games which have been in doubt unitl the final seconds. Think '64, '65, '66, '67, '68, '70, '71, '77, '79, '89 all decided by less than 2 goals. And others which were in doubt until late in the game. Your side came from 4 goals down at 3 QRT time in '84.

We all know your opinions on Finals so you can stop trying to convert us. We have a great game, and the uncertainty of who is going to win the premiership is one of the many great aspects of the game. leave the minor permiership to soccer which is where it belongs.

Cheers, ArdenSt

[This message has been edited by ArdenSt (edited 20 August 2000).]

 

[Dan26]

The minor premiership exists in Aussie Rules too, MR ignorant. Its allready here. Recognising it WON'T change the structure of the season.

This is not changing things that much.

Your precious GF will still be there. The team that wins it will STILL be recognised. You will still need to perform on the day to win it, and you will still get the glory of winning it (which is the only thing people want)

The only difference is that the winner will be premiers of that 4 week tournament ONLY.

So, in 1998, North would be H&A premiers, while the Adelaide Crows would be "finals series" champions.

NOT champions of the whole year. that's bullshit.

It is not in your best interests to have 95% of the seaosn deemed irrelevant. This is not good for the game.

All those years you mentioend with close Grand Final can still happen. We can still have a close GF. But there will be no ore crap where the 3rd best team peaks for 3 weeks, and the BEST team (who peaked over 22 weeks) doesn't get recognised.

I want BOTH recognised. You only want one recognised (the Grand Final), and that sucks.

It sucks bad

 

[Stealth bomber]

I still think the GF should be the most important match of the year; that shouldn't change. The Grand Final is the one for the whole ball of wax.

What should the GF be to you? To me it should be the two best teams all season playing for all the marbles. Or it should involve the two teams playing the absolute best footy over the course of the finals series.

This year's Grand Final has a very good chance of producing one of the following scenarios:

1. A rematch of a qualifying final that one side won by 125 points
2. A rematch of the other qualifying final.
3. Between two sides that both lost qualifying finals.

I think the current setup makes it way too easy for these situations to happen, and I really would hate to see a Grand Final involving any of these.

What is the point of playing qualifying finals in the first place if you have to beat that team again later in a more important game? Beating the same team twice is redundant and serves no purpose, and it's usually very disadvantageous to the team that wins the first game.

And I'm not saying this because I'm a Bomber supporter. If I was a Demons supporter I would be equally upset (especially since they barely beat Carlton the first time).

If we get a QF rematch and one of the losers wins the premiership, I'll be absolutely sickened. My biggest nightmare right now would be for North to beat Essendon in the GF.

 

[Dan26]

Stealth,

It GOT to be knockout. 1v8, 2v7, 3v6, 4v5.

Then, if you lose you're out. Hey, right now Essendon can be eliminated after one loss anyway, so what's the difference ? None !

Knockout is the fairest format. It's "basically" knockout anyway, with 7 of the 9 finals being knockout.

You think you'd be sickened if North win the GF. Well, I'll be sickened if any team other tan Essendon calls themselves "premiers". What a joke. Premiers of what ? The whole season ? No way. You can't just win one match and call yoursleves "champions of the whole season". It crap. Utter crap. It undermines EVERYTHING a club works so hard to achieve over the other 98% of the season.

 

[jod23]

Hahahh i love it all you Bombers supporters making excuses now in case you lose

 

[Rooboy 96]

Dan24, Boy do I hope Wallis does not try to run past Fraser Brown next week and Essendon miss again.
I just would not be able to put up with all your whinging for another year, its 13 months next year isn't it, shit.

Dan, let me explain it as simple as possible, if you don't win the big one you are not the best.

 

[scottstu]

Dan, you still don't understand do you. I've told you on bombertalk, that finals encapsulate all of the pressure of the h&a season.
Bottom line is Dan that finals demand all the skill and talent of a football club in a cut throat situation. Dan you are setting a huge precedent by claiming that h&a champions are the best side of the year, irrespective of whether they win the big one. What and Ian Thorpe is excused if he doesn't win gold after dominating every race before hand....what a crock of sh*t Dan.

Finals are about pressure, as opposed to h&a season which stipulates a luxury that"there's always next week". So don't give me this dribble that h&a games are as pressurised as finals. Real champions step up when the time demands it, if they don't well their not champions.

Dan...understand that finals and h&a games are different...mentallly and physically...good teams don't lose in finals due to chance..they lose it because thier not good enough. Essendon missed crucial shots under pressure last year...Carlton didn't. Difference was we never missed previously because we weren't in a position where if we missed, we couldn't redeem ourselves.

Being a champion constitutes being able to perform under pressure...whether it be in Olympics or Cuit throat finals. That involves being physically and mentally prepared. H&A fixtures never conjure such a situation....and that's all you need to know. So don't try and tell me any differently. H&A champions? = Token Champions.

Go Dons!!!

 

[sandie]

Dan24
All Essendon have done so far this year, is break records.
If they don't win the GF, then they've achieved nothing of importance.
If they win the GF they will go down in history as being the best team in 2000, by a mile, but only if they win.
Go Bombers, thrash Carlscum don't be happy with winning a close game.

------------------
Mantis

 

[RICE80SF]

Dan if we can't beat a SOS & Kouta less Carlscum then we're not worthy of shit and every player should be made to wipe Jack "Jabba the Hut" Elliott's, big, fat, pimpley arse for a month (a fate worse than death).

Having said that It would be an absolute sham if a team beaten by 125 points goes on to win the flag, while the team that beat them gets rolled by 1 point again and doesn't make the Grand Final. You can't tell me that's getting up for the finals, BULLSHIT! Oh I forgot Kanga that wasn't the REAL Roos

.

Cheers.






------------------
BOMBER BLITZ IN 2000!

 

[Rooboy 96]

Last Year must have hurt more then I realise... the scares are fairly deep... Rice It was not our fault... JUST SOMETHING TO REMEMBER...

 

[Dan26]

Rooboy 96,

This is NOT about the top team getting recognition. This is about friggin common-sense. You said this :"Dan, let me explain it as simple as possible, if you don't win the big one you are not the best."

Are you telling me, that if Melbourne beat Essendon in the GF, that means that Melbourne, are a better team than Essendon, does it ? Have you lost your marbles ?

I'm not denying that Melbourne may be better on the day. Port Adelaide beat Carlton in Round 21. They were better on the day. It doesn't mean they were a better team than Carlton overall. The Bulldogs were better than Essendon on the day in Round 21. It doesn't mean they are a better team than Essendon.

Upsets happen.

The crap you speak. You act as though whatever result happens in a final means that the winner MUST be a better team than their beaten counterparts. Well, here's a little advice. Upsets happen. They can happen in finals, just like can happen in the H&A.

For christs sake, your friggin coach (Pagan) even admitted you weren't the best side in 1999. Every coach has admitted it from time to time that the GF is won by the best side on the day. NOT the best side over the course of the year. It's no f*ckin secret.

Essendon are clearly the best side of 2000. They have proved it with a 22-1 record thus far.

Imagine if Lance Whitnall is lining up for a goal after the siren in the prelim on Staurday to win the match. Are you telling me that if he kicks the goal, Carlton "magically" become a better side than Essendon, while if he misses, Essendon magically become a better side than Carlton.

How good a side is, is proved over 22 weeks. Unfortunatley, those 22 weeks are deemed irrelevant by the AFL. That's not our fault. But mark my words, Essendon are the best side of 2000, regardless of what happens in any "upset" in the finals.

 

[Dan26]

To Scottstu and Sandie

Welcome to Bigfooty Scottstu!

I've gone over this so many times, but I feel obliged to respond. No doubt the regulars here will be pulling their hair out, but I don't care.

You said this : "Dan you are setting a huge precedent by claiming that h&a champions are the best side of the year"

Just read my above post directed at Rooboy96. It speaks for itself. Suffice to say, if you think ONE match agaisnt a one-off opponents determines whether you are the YEAR'S best team, then you've lost your marbles like Rooboy. Denis pagan even admitted his side wasn't the best last year. Look, just reads the post to Rooboy. It's no precedent. It's acknowledged be every coach right now, that the best team of the year doesn't necessarily win the Grand Final.

You said this "What, and Ian Thorpe is excused if he doesn't win gold after dominating every race before hand....what a crock of sh*t Dan."

If Iam Thorpe doesn't win the Gold medal, he will be disappointed. But at least he RETAINS his number one ranking in the world. Pete Sampras retains his number one ranking in the world even if he loses a one-off match to a one-off opponent at Wimbledon. When Tiger Woods loses a golf tournament he will RETAIN the number one ranking. Do you think that when Tiger loses a tournament, the winner should automatically become the number one player ? Apparently you do ! You probably would think that Tiger didn't perform under pressure, while the winner did, so tye winner mist be a better player. Sometimes the best palyer on the day isn't necessrily the most talented player overall.

In the AFL, Essendon should retain their ranking as H&A premiers. Similar to how Manchester United are called premiers when they finish on top of the ladder. If another team wins the FA CUP, that team is caled FA CUP champions. They are not champions of the whole season. In the AFL you should be able to win the H&A premiership, and the 4 week finals series tournament. Both being seperate. It sucks the way it is now.

You said this : "Finals are about pressure, as opposed to h&a season which stipulates a luxury that "there's always next week". So don't give me this dribble that h&a games are as pressurised as finals."

This is just the response I expect from someone who is sucked in by the hype. When are you going to realise that finals don't live up to the hype. Yeah sure....some have pressure and intensity, but so do some (most) H&A games. there are also heaps of finals that lack intensity. I saw two finals this weekend that were just "normal" games of footy. Yeah sure, we all get sucked in my the goose bumps when the national anthem is played, but I soon realised that it was just a game of footy.

When was the last Grand Final that lived up to the hype ? I go to over 30 games a year, and I've seen about 200 games live in my life so I know what I am talking about. I don't just believe what people tell me. I obsere and come up with, what I believe is correct.

You've also got to understand something. To finish on top of the ladder over 22 weeks, a team has to have a number of qualities. They have to have skill, determination, a will to win, the ability to play under pressure etc etc

Over the course of a gruelling 6 month season, your ability to play under pressure will come up. Essendon has been magnificent under pressure all year. They failed against the Bulldgos, but every other time they have been under pressure, we have responded and triumphed.

22 weeks also tests your consistency.....a consistency to keep winning games. Finals don't, and never have done this

In the finals you only need to peak over 3 weeks, not 22 weeks. 22 weeks is MUCH more gruelling, and the long season will test all. The season will throw up many factors. If a team can finish top, with all these factors thrown at them, then that is a great achievement.

it truly sucks that that achievement doesn't get recognised at the moment.

You also said this :"good teams don't lose in finals due to chance..they lose it because thier not good enough"

What a load of crap. Good teams occasionally DO lose in finals. We were a good team last year, and we lost. Going by your flawed logic, Carlton were a better team than us over 1999. Even Carlscum supporters don't admit that !

You can lose a close final due to luck, just like you can lose a close H&A match due to luck. Upsets happen.

Because the AFL says that the final are the "be all and end all", that leads you to say the crap you did. Now technically finals ARE the be all and end all, because the override all the H&A games. Unfortunatley, that's the way the AFL does it. This doesn't "magically" make the finals higher standard games.

I'm not denying how it is. I'm just sayiing it SHOULDN'T be that way.

What if the 4 weekks finals series was a seperate tournament to the H&A ? If this was the case, you'd still have to perform in cut-throat knockout matches. You' still have to perform under prssure in these matches.

That would keep you happy. We'd both win. I'd get the best team of the year recognsed after 22 weeks. Then, the "exciting, knockout, pressure-filled tournament begins.

You see, I acknoweldge, that the FA CUP in Engalnd throws up different matches to the "premiership" matches. One of them is knockout, while the other tests how consistently adept you are at winning over 6 months.

Because they are both DIFFERENT, they make them seperate tournaments. Sometimes, the team that is consistently the best at winning matches (eg ManU) loses in the knockout cup. Similarly, sometimes the best team in the AFL can lose a final in an upset. But ManU are not ridiculed for losing an FA CUP final. Fittingly, they are still regarded as "premiers' because they finished on top.

That's why we should reward the H&A champion, and the "final seires" champion seperately. This way, you will win. You'll get to keep your precious knockout, pressure-filled final matches.

But, they won't override and deem irrelevent 22 weeks of consistency.

Please, stp being so emotional, and think with your head.

 

[Dan26]

Don't get me wrong. I love Grand Final day.

I want to win the Grand Final BAD

I don't want to win to prove we are the best, because we've already proven that.

I want to win, for the "glory" and "bragging rights" that a Grand Final win gives.

The Grand Final is an event, and nothing matches the "glory" associated with winning it. Just like the FA CUP. The winner of the FA CUP is not champions of the whole year, but they don't care. They got the "glory" and bragging rights that an FA CUP win provides.

That's why I love the Grand Final.

 

[servo]

OK by definition the teams are playing for a premiership. Therefore the only entirely successfull team is the one that wins the Grand Final.

They are not necessarill the best team over the year but the most succesful given the criteria under which they all play.

Damn I promised myself I wouldn't get into this discussion again. Bugga Bugga Bugga Bugga Bugga Bugga Bugga Bugga

 

[Rooboy 96]

servo, how more right can you be????

Dan24, I think I have worked out why you hate finals so much. It goes back to when you were a lad of 14, and Collingwood beat Essendon in 1990 Grand Final. If your system was in place, Essendon would not be the team that let Collingwood win their only premiership in 42 years.

Dan24, I think it is an ESSENDON thing, now be honest.

 

[Dan26]

Rooboy,

I don't hate finals. I love them. I just don't like how the Home and away season is forgotten.

Oh, and if my system was in place in 1990, Collingwood would have won their first Grand Final for 32 years. Nothing changes. The GF still exists.

But Essendon would have been Home and Away champions that year too.

It's NOT an Essendon thing. Not at all. I can only prove that to you, when Essendon don't finish top, and I continue to crap on. That will prove it to you. But, Essendon are so good that they keep finishing top, making you think I am only saying this because of Essendon.

Servo is right. The best club doesn't always win, and in the CURRENT system, the team that wins the GF is premiers. "Premiers" means best, so I think the title "premiers" SHOULD (repeat "should") be reserved for the top of the ladder team, while the terms "finals series champions", or something of that ilk is reserved for the team that wins the Grand Final itself.

Yeah I know it's NOT that way now....but it SHOULD be.

 

[Peter]

Essendon was the "best performed" team in 1999, but fell short when it mattered. As they were in 1990 when they were better than Collingwood over the season. That year turned our to be one of the Magpies greatest.(North also failed when it mattered in 1998). The culture of our game is that the the whole season is just a prelude to the Grand Final. This will never change. Essendon have 2 more games to win. If they don't they might as well have finished last. John Elliot said it all before last years Grand Final. "The worst year Carlton has is when we lose the Grand Final - worse than finishing last." Or words to that effect. This is how it is, and how every Club approaches every year. If a few of you can't feel this way you will remain in a tiny minority. The Essendon Football Club will not think anything of the year if they lose in the next two weeks.
You nervous Bomber fans should not start making excuses about the finals draw before the games are played. Have faith, and hope they win. If they don't, too bad, you lose, have a depressing cricket season, worry about next year. I hope they do lose,only because I hope the Roos win, but I acknowledge that they have put together a mighty team, and seem to be unbeatable. There are no guarantees, and that is what makes the Footy so exciting. I am excited, and hopeful, and don't want it any other way. If we win again it will be so sweet this year because it is so unlikely.
Can't wait for Friday night. GO ROOS!!!!
Peter.

[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 22 August 2000).]

 

[sandie]

Rooboy can you believe it, the Roos have a fan in Sydney. looks like the move worked.

------------------
Mantis

 

[Rooboy 96]

Sandie, I would expect that crap from someone that is proud his club was caught cheating, how dumb is that.