Are we Chokers?

[Koutafidamedis]

After this weekends game I was talking with friends and we were trying to remember the last time we got the points in a close one.

So I had a look over the record books to find out in the past 2 seasons how we went in games decided by 10 points or less.

2009
RD 3 VS ESSENDON LOST BY 4 POINT
RD 6 VS HAWTHORN LOST BY 4 POINTS
RD 7 VS FREO LOST BY 7 POINTS
RD 11 VS BRISBANE WIN BY 6 POINTS
RD 12 VS ST KILDA LOST BY 9 POINTS
RD 18 VS NTH MELB WON BY 10 POINTS
EF VS BRISBANE LOST BY 7 POINTS

2010
RD 13 VS FREO LOST BY 9 POINTS
RD 22 VS FREO LOST BY 6
EF VS SYDNEY LOST BY 5

2011
RD 4 VS ESSENDON DRAW

So our record stands at:
Played 11 Won 2 Draw 1 Lost 8

So I put it out there to fellow Blues fans.
Do you think we are chokers?

 

[Supishnessism]

Congrats on the OP for rasing the issue with a credible argument, reading the thread title i thought this would be another thread to bag out players.

Based on the stats you've raised, and fom what i saw on the weekend, id say that we're not chokers as such, but we tend worry ourselves out of games. Moments from the weekend such as Jeff's play on, Simmo's poor kick late in the game could be looked at as 'choking' but i don't think its the case.

TBH i was much more concerned with Waites kick back 50m's. The way we played the last 5 minutes, we were only ever going to hold on for the win, and i think that can be a bit of a dangerous mindset if it creeps in too early.

When you stop willing yourself to win and start willing yourself to not lose you start playing a dangerous game.

 

[blues4flag]

It really is ridiculous how few close games we played in last year. IIRC, our lowest winning margin was something like 6 goals (of course, had we won that elimination final...).

Fairly sure we had by far the largest discrepancy between winning and losing margin. When we were on we dominated the opposition but we also got smashed on our off days.

What rounds 3 and 4 tells me is that the discrepancy between our good and bad might have decreased, which is essential if we're to take the next step.

 

[CrippsonBlue]

It is too simplistic to classify a close game as being determined by the final margin.

I can recall one of those games against Freo was far from close despite being less than 10 points in the end - we simply kicked a few late goals when the result was already determined to make the margin more respectable.

We're a team capable of running away with it a bit at the end, and getting a few in quick succession late in the game. This means that our wins can be by a few goals, despite the overall game being close.

All this tells me is that when we do lose, we at least make it tough for the opposition.

 

[blues4flag]

All this tells me is that when we do lose, we at least make it tough for the opposition.

Couldn't have been further from the truth last year, unfortunately. Those 3 losses were all outliers, unfortunately.

19, 29, 39, 42, 48, 50, 53, 68 doesn't make for great reading.

 

[ESKIE]

See that you;re going back to 2009, there were games where we were well behind and we blitzed and won, a port adelaide game in the wet comes to mind...
So it;s swings and round-a-bouts...so I vote no

 

[Poseidon]

I think so, though I hate to use the term 'chokers'.

I just think we have too much deadweight on the playing list. Too many players who go missing when it counts, Gibbs is one who immediately springs to mind from Saturday.

However, I do think (or maybe just hope) we are getting better because the game on Saturday felt like a close one we would normally lose.

 

[Stamos]

2009
RD 3 VS ESSENDON LOST BY 4 POINT r*ped by the umps
RD 6 VS HAWTHORN LOST BY 4 POINTS Great comeback foiled by Fev hitting the post
RD 7 VS FREO LOST BY 7 POINTS We were terrible
RD 11 VS BRISBANE WIN BY 6 POINTS Great win
RD 12 VS ST KILDA LOST BY 9 POINTS Great effort against the best team in the comp, if judd wasn't injured we would have won
RD 18 VS NTH MELB WON BY 10 POINTS Played terribly, won
EF VS BRISBANE LOST BY 7 POINTS Brown and Bradshaw killed us, quite possibly choked

2010
RD 13 VS FREO LOST BY 9 POINTS Kreuzer injured, kicked terribly, killed by the umps
RD 22 VS FREO LOST BY 6 Backs against the wall, possibly choked
EF VS SYDNEY LOST BY 5 Again up against it, but we only needed 1 more goal early in the last and it was over so I would say we choked

2011
RD 4 VS ESSENDON DRAW We should have won by plenty, did stupid things late in the game = choked

So our record stands at:
Played 11 Won 2 Draw 1 Lost 8

So I put it out there to fellow Blues fans.
Do you think we are chokers?

I reckon we have choked a few times, however there are very few times that I would say we played well and got done. Especially last year, we were either on and won, or were well off and lost. Not a simple case of saying we were chokers. Worth raising the topic though.

 

[mediumsizered]

Carlton of 2010 & prior would have lost Saturday's game against Essendon, as well as the one against Richmond. Therefore I don't believe we are chokers.

 

[TNBT]

I hate to use the word "choker" but I think the original poster raises a fair point. I remember growing up as a kid in the 80's and 90's and watching the Blues play. Every week I was supremely confident that we'd win. In every close game, I never started to panic. I just sat back and waited for the boys to take control and win it. These days though, I don't have that same confidence. In all honesty, when we're in a close game, I am expecting us to lose more often than win these days.

 

[SBYM]

I see a choker more as a person or team that can't handle the pressure of having a lead and/or the resultant expectation to win. We most certainly choked against Brisbane in the final in 09.

Generally though, I think our problem in recent years has stemmed more from an inability to perform at a decent level when the pressure is on. I'd have to agree with a few others who said that a few years ago, we would have rolled over against Arsendon on Saturday. We're definitely on the improve, but there's a long way to go.

God, I remember the day Fev hit the post against the Hawks so well. My brother and I were sitting directly behind him on the HFF. My brother went ape shit as soon as it left the boot, started off dead centre of course. Had a job telling him it hit the post. Thanks (sort of) for the trip down memory lane from the OP.

 

[blueblood25]

Not chokers, just not very good.

Form needs to be there for the full four quarters to win a game and ours has simply not been consistent enough...

 

[40yearBLUE]

Nice thread.

I think this phase of the development is what I would call top dead centre.

5 years ago we were being hammered by huge margins every week, lets call that 9 o'clock. Then as we improved we got to the stage where we were losing every week but not by such a huge margin, call that 10 o'clock. Last year we were very up and down, capable of inflicting huge losses and losing games by a lot some weeks, but not nearly as often as the past, and reflected in our positive percentage as well as win loss record. Call that 11'o'clock. Now we are going to win a few close ones, lose a few close ones win a few by huge margins but rarely if ever get absolutely spanked. We lost to the team that beat us by 10 goals last year (twice) by only 5 and that in just a 5 minute lapse. That is top dead centre or 12 o'clock. Next year we will hardly lose a close one and hardly lose a game but not win by that much, 1 o'clock, the year after we will start really spanking sides and rarely lose a game, 2 o'clock and then 3 o'clock is winning every game by very comfortable margins etc.

A natural progression given where we were and where we are going. Nice thread, nice argument, nice stats.

 

[Sin City]

There are so many variables that help determine the result/results, you'll never get a true answer.

 

[thylacine60]

Nice thread.

I think this phase of the development is what I would call top dead centre.

5 years ago we were being hammered by huge margins every week, lets call that 9 o'clock. Then as we improved we got to the stage where we were losing every week but not by such a huge margin, call that 10 o'clock. Last year we were very up and down, capable of inflicting huge losses and losing games by a lot some weeks, but not nearly as often as the past, and reflected in our positive percentage as well as win loss record. Call that 11'o'clock. Now we are going to win a few close ones, lose a few close ones win a few by huge margins but rarely if ever get absolutely spanked. We lost to the team that beat us by 10 goals last year (twice) by only 5 and that in just a 5 minute lapse. That is top dead centre or 12 o'clock. Next year we will hardly lose a close one and hardly lose a game but not win by that much, 1 o'clock, the year after we will start really spanking sides and rarely lose a game, 2 o'clock and then 3 o'clock is winning every game by very comfortable margins etc.

A natural progression given where we were and where we are going. Nice thread, nice argument, nice stats.

Couldn't you have started at 6 so that our premiership year was 12? Just for us anal-analyser types?

 

[lionel_luthor]

We seem to lack that killer instinct to put teams away, like Collingwood does. Last year's final in Sydney we should have won, we didn't choke but wasted our oppotunities when we had the Swans on the rack.

 

[jj1978]

Don't think we're chokers.. more of a lack of team awareness and tactical nouse.

As mentioned by all... where was the run and spread for Simpson when he had the ball and had no option but to hit a target on the boundary. Why did Waite go so far back? Why did Gartlett run on and not just ice the clock and perhaps seal the victory...

To me it's not choking.. it's just that we are still raw in our experience in close games... look at most of our team... prior to 2008 we were battered from pillar to post and our experience in close games was virtually nothing (as we were smashed week in week out)... you need to learn these things in a real game... and as pointed the last few years we've been in the position to play and learn from close games... although painfully it appears we're taking a little longer to learn our lessons than perhaps a Geelong or Collingwood might... we're learning these invaluable lessons now and we are slowly improving.

 

[Alpha1]

South Africa are chokers, but you (op) have made some interesting points, food for thought.

 

[steveo898]

Unfortunately it seems that way. But that is something the team will improve on with more experience and maturity.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I don't think we choke in that we are worried out of it by the opposition. I just think we change our mindset slightly, and maybe take a moment to rest and bring the play back to a 50/50 situation, instead of keeping our foot on the opposition's throat.

Mental lapses definitely but more our own issues than fear of the opposition.

 

[CFC16]

Good sides win close matches and Carlton is not.

 

[TNBT]

Good sides win close matches and Carlton is not.

We're not winning close matches or we're not a good side? We certaily aren't winning close matches, but to say we are not a good side is just crazy.

 

[RobGal]

I remember hearing somewhere that professional punters stay away from any game that involves Carlton. The reason why I hear you ask? Because the difference between their best and their worst is miles apart. They don't know which Carlton will turn up on the day and their results are so erratic. They will not usually bet on any game that involves Carlton, either for or against them.

Suffice to say, this would most likely mean that our winning/loosing margins are more often not in the "close game" realm.

Chokers...well that is a matter of opinion rather than being able to substantiate it through facts and figures.

I know that I am now more weary of any game that we play and to always expect the unexpected!

 

[Koutafidamedis]

Thought I'd give this a little bump after last night.
Maybe I put the mozz on the close game loses!

Lets hope we can continue winning the close ones

 

[Supishnessism]

nice bump, need to keep winning the close ones