Close matches

[King Elvis]

Great call Carl - sure, we all get frustrated by the amount of close games we lose; but that means that we rarely ever get blown away and are always in the contest.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Great call Carl - sure, we all get frustrated by the amount of close games we lose; but that means that we rarely ever get blown away and are always in the contest.

Greg Norman syndrome!

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

Great call Carl - sure, we all get frustrated by the amount of close games we lose; but that means that we rarely ever get blown away and are always in the contest.

Yep good call. I think the 7 showdowns we lost between 2000-2003 were all lost by less than 3 goals. If you compared the two teams on paper, Port should have killed us in those games. Says alot about the heart and character of the Adelaide Footy Club. There's alot to like about the AFC-if only we could sort our recruiting/trading problems out.

 

[Stiffy_18]

...However, at times we have managed to stay 'in' games that in reality we were never going to win.

That I strongly agree with. Lets take the game against Geelong at home last year. We NEVER looked like winning that game even though the final margin was something like 7 points IIRC. There are a number of games that we have fought our way back or just hang in there for an admirable loss. We rarely get blown away.

 

[smoovy]

Here's half the side:

Tippett, Griffen, McGregor, Reilly (inj), Porplyzia, Burton, McLeod, Mackay, Douglas, Rutten, Vince.

Not one of those is even close to being a better matchup on Johnson than Shirley - either too big and lumbering, or stick insect kids, or needed elsewhere.

Here's the other half:

Bock - too big, plus needed elsewhere.
Stevens - was too important up forward.
Goodwin - could have worked. Had just kicked 2 goals and was at FF.
Doughty - 7 cm shorter than Shirley, 5 kg lighter, and giving height and weight to Johnson.
Edwards - similar size issues to Doughty.

And now the half viable options.

Thompson - never seen him as a defender. IMHO a bigger risk than Shirley.
Van Berlo - groggy.
Johncock - perhaps, but always a liability 1 on 1 in a marking contest.
Bassett - blowing hard. Couldn't handle Johnson in 3Q.
Symes - a possibility, but I've never seen him in the role and couldn't comment on his ability to play it.

1/2 the side? If we were Geelong circa September 2007.

Good post Marvin .

At least you were willing to go through alternatives. One of pet hates is those who criticise without offering alternative solutions.

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

Good post Marvin .

At least you were willing to go through alternatives. One of pet hates is those who criticise without offering alternative solutions.

Johncock

 

[Crow-mo]

If we were many goals better than the opposition then I believe he could.

If it's a close game ? No!!

His history in close games including finals tells you that we will lose - and invariably due to a ridiculous match-up or a failure to match-up.

I don't think the most stupid supporter on this forum would have lined up Shirley on Johnson - madness in the mould of Massie v Franklin.

I wrote to Triggy at the end of last year saying that we have a glaring need for a strategist in the coaching box.

Nothing has changed. Nothing.

My thoughts are similar to yours, and I've made that plain before.

however, I struggle to believe that there isn't someone in the coaches boxes shouting better options - but does he listen?

 

[Crow-mo]

if welsh and hudson are in our side, we win easily

heh heh

 

[crowman_23]

I am sorry but if you are pinning your hopes on a player with questionable set shots at the best of times, then you are in trouble. Bock was never going to kick that. He was at too greater angle for him. There is a reason why he is not anywhere near as good a forward as he is a defender. This is the same sort of thinking that had people dog on Thompson for kicking it out of bounds against Hawks that led to Franklin kicking a winning goal.

It wasn't that bad an angle, or that hard a shot. I never expected him to kick it. By that stage of the game I had left my seat on the wing and was nervously walking all over the place, and was right behind that shot. It should have been put through. Pressure and all that I completely understand, and I don't blame him at all, but at AFL level you should dob them pretty easily.

 

[Geoffa32]

It wasn't that bad an angle, or that hard a shot. I never expected him to kick it. By that stage of the game I had left my seat on the wing and was nervously walking all over the place, and was right behind that shot. It should have been put through. Pressure and all that I completely understand, and I don't blame him at all, but at AFL level you should dob them pretty easily.

I was sitting thinking it would be a "Buddy Moment" on TV it didnt look to bad a shot. One taht you dream of as a kid....

 

[Nige_Bix]

if welsh and hudson are in our side, we win easily

heh heh

and if they hadnt gone to melbourne they would have been in our side - and equating it to todays result is really frustrating - i'm not saying unacceptable, but when it comes to winning 4 points in an afl match each week theres a lot of pressure - which would have been a tad less if they were on our side - and maybe the result would not have been against us.

As has been said before Bock gets the goal and we are laughing and rohan smith and his media mates have no fairytale news item to drag on all night - but i guess it was good for the game!! Sometimes when you lose like that its hard to put that into context.

I just wish after seeing the last few WC games at Aami I could feel more confident about next week - and after that its the showdown! We will rue not getting those 4 points today - despite how good the game and the occasion was and how sporting we were today.

 

[-CG-]

Bock should have never been in that situation in the first place.

That's what I've been saying Can't blame it on Bock.

Anyway, there seems to be a lot of talk about Shirley in this thread, and I don't think it's been mentioned but Shirley appeared to have rolled his ankle or do something to his leg/foot in the 3rd quarter. I was sitting near the bench and he was limping a bit but managed to walk it off. So whether that hindered is game or not...I don't know.

 

[crowman_23]

That's what I've been saying Can't blame it on Bock.

Anyway, there seems to be a lot of talk about Shirley in this thread, and I don't think it's been mentioned but Shirley appeared to have rolled his ankle or do something to his leg/foot in the 3rd quarter. I was sitting near the bench and he was limping a bit but managed to walk it off. So whether that hindered is game or not...I don't know.

Copped a corky I believe. Was hobbling a bit beside the benches but managed to run it off.

 

[Crow-mo]

Great call Carl - sure, we all get frustrated by the amount of close games we lose; but that means that we rarely ever get blown away and are always in the contest.

of it means we lack the killer instinct to win games that ours, and rather than our efficiency in getting close, we are letting the other team catch up to us!!

it goes both ways.

maybe the games we're supposed to win by more, we always let the opposition in.

 

[PCORF]

We could have had 3, 4 or 5 premierships by now, all the blame to us for losing many of those close games. 3 times we had chances to win with last second goals and Bock missed a gettable shot that he would have nailed 8 out of 10 times. I don't like this, it makes me depressed. It all started in Round 7 of 2003 with Tarrant's goal after the siren. I thought we had that game won and was going crazy and I've now learnt my lesson ever since, that loss wrecked our 2003 season and our 2005 and 2006 finals performances. THIS HAS TO CHANGE IN 2008, 21 more games to go and we can grab some tight ones, we can win all 21 of our remaining games actually if we do everything right. Also there are no more telstra dome games until round 20 and 21. We have a lead of 3 points or less inside the last 2 minutes, we need to slow down the pace and run out some clock. An 8 point lead is never safe, not when you're this club. I was not getting carried away when we led by 8 and I was praying actually. We are capable of winning a close game by 3 points or less this year, imagine the scenario of a preliminary final at the MCG against collingwood, we trail by 5 points and McGregor has a shot after the siren from 20m out, directly in front.

 

[johnnypanther]

if welsh and hudson are in our side, we win easily

heh heh

but then perhaps Tippett & MacKay may not have got a game

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

of it means we lack the killer instinct to win games that ours, and rather than our efficiency in getting close, we are letting the other team catch up to us!!

it goes both ways.

maybe the games we're supposed to win by more, we always let the opposition in.

I think you're setting an impossibly high standard if you're suggesting that NC should have achieved a better than 65% winning record throughout 2005-07.

 

[Crow-mo]

but then perhaps Tippett & MacKay may not have got a game

true, but hardly relevant.

it was a throw away line, but it is almost certainly true.

 

[Crow-mo]

I think you're setting an impossibly high standard if you're suggesting that NC should have achieved a better than 65% winning record throughout 2005-07.

no. that's just twisting things in a different direction. the discussion centred around, we should be happy the games are always close. the reason being our ultra-competitiveness. this doesn't stand up to scrutiny though.

games like the hawthorn final, as an example, it was only close because we pissed it all away. that has nothing to do with our competitiveness. and because we ****ed away, we had no momentum in the last moments - which is not about luck.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

no. that's just twisting things in a different direction.

What different direction is that? You'd suggested that we were turning games that we should have won comfortably into tight struggles. In other words that it is our own poor play rather than any competitive spirit that is causing these close losses. Bearing in mind that NC has had a 65% winning record from 2005-07 and following your point to its natural conclusion, you are in essence saying that NC should have achieved a higher winning percentage.

the discussion centred around, we should be happy the games are always close. the reason being our ultra-competitiveness. this doesn't stand up to scrutiny though.

No, the reason being that we are always giving ourselves a chance to win matches! You're right that there is no solace in "honourable losses," but surely if we keep creating opportunities for ourselves we will take one sooner or later.

Greg Norman kept putting himself in the mix deep into major tournaments. For the many times he fell short he gained the label of a choker, but he has also finished with two majors to his name.

games like the hawthorn final, as an example, it was only close because we pissed it all away. that has nothing to do with our competitiveness. and because we ****ed away, we had no momentum in the last moments - which is not about luck.

Not much credit to the Hawks there. And too much credit to the ability of our 2007 line up too. We won the last three minor round games to fall into the final 8. We surprised a young, finals-inexperienced Hawks line up early and had neither the class nor the ability to hold on.

 

[UL NVR WLK ALN]

Not much credit to the Hawks there. And too much credit to the ability of our 2007 line up too. We won the last three minor round games to fall into the final 8. We surprised a young, finals-inexperienced Hawks line up early and had neither the class nor the ability to hold on.

That game could have gone either way. Really hard to single out anyone from that game and I wont begin but Jason Torney should have been a match winner that day and the ball really should have been handled alittle bit more carefully and securely in the dying seconds if you know what I mean.

 

[Crow-mo]

What different direction is that? You'd suggested that we were turning games that we should have won comfortably into tight struggles. In other words that it is our own poor play rather than any competitive spirit that is causing these close losses. Bearing in mind that NC has had a 65% winning record from 2005-07 and following your point to its natural conclusion, you are in essence saying that NC should have achieved a higher winning percentage.

you know very well how you're trying to twist the argument away from the point being discussed. don't be coy now.

so are you saying that all close games are as a result of our scraping our way into contests that we should've been out of??

that's as silly as it sounds.

as for the 65% winning record. well 1. it's a short sample. 2. 50% gets you sacked. 3. that deliberately obfuscates the issue of margin which is the topic in hand!!

I don't know why you are trying to bring the wider range of results into a discussion of small margin results. what is the % for games where the margin was 2 goals or less - and the % when the margin is 4 goals or greater.

I'd suggest that might be far more useful if you are so determined to expand beyond the point being discussed. don't widen it without having reason or focus.

No, the reason being that we are always giving ourselves a chance to win matches! You're right that there is no solace in "honourable losses," but surely if we keep creating opportunities for ourselves we will take one sooner or later.

for a start there is no one reason. that's just crazy to think you know. there are many different sides, and one of the sides is that have let not close games become close. are you seriously saying that's not the case?

your argument centres on the false and invalid premise that all close losses are games we battled back from defeat to be a in position to win. and sure, stealing an occasional win, from certain defeats would be a good thing. IF that were the actual choices being faced. conveniently just assuming it is, doesn't validate the circumstance. it is plainly not true to suggest all close games are honourable losses.

giving yourself a chance to win a match, you should have already won - is not the same as giving yourself a chance to win a match you should've probably won.

your argument fails to recognise the mutual exclusivity of twin situations. sure it's simple, and easier to presume they are all one way.

but hell, we can boil it down to this: are the doggies so good, it's a game we shouldn't expect to win? did we have to employ every ounce of effort and ingenuity to stay close? were we above ourselves til the final gasp?

no. to my mind this game falls in between the 2 extremes. it's just another close game. an average opponent, and an opportunity missed. that happens from time to time, when they start to stack up, it's reasonable to scratch your head.
But equally it goes to show, for me anyway, that it's wrong to characterise all close games as being of one type. the valient, honourable struggle.

Greg Norman kept putting himself in the mix deep into major tournaments. For the many times he fell short he gained the label of a choker, but he has also finished with two majors to his name.

and as you know, golf is an iterative game whose nature is very different to many others. a dominant golfer cannot expect to win every tournament because his efforts have a less dramatic, direct effect on the opponent. it's a game, relatively speaking, where all opponents operate in parallel. whereas Roger Federer can impose his own ability onto an opponent, and direct affect their winning chances, even Tiger woods can only do so in a very limited context.

Roger Federer would be slated for finishing top 5 so often, Greg Norman was a regular winner of the vardon trophy and Byron nelson award -because of the nature of the sport. because a player cannot hope to win more than a small % of the tournaments they enter, due to the nature of the game, they measure scoring average. how is that relevant to a game in which you can impose yourself on an opponent?

if you finish second in every golf tournament, you're no.1 in the world. if you finish second in every tennis tournament, you're a highly ranked, (albeit rich) failure and choker.
if you finish second in every AFL match, you're a wooden spooner.

Greg Norman has no place in this discussion, as it's not apples with apples.

Not much credit to the Hawks there. And too much credit to the ability of our 2007 line up too. We won the last three minor round games to fall into the final 8. We surprised a young, finals-inexperienced Hawks line up early and had neither the class nor the ability to hold on.

utter nonsense. we comfortably lead an opponent we had destroyed earlier in the season. it was ours to lose, and we did. we had form on our side (unlike our opponent), we had experience (unlike our opponent), and we had a 6 goal lead and momentum (unlike our opponent), we dropped intensity (unlike our opponent), we made crucial match up errors (unlike our opponents), and we let it slip (unlike our opponents).

frankly i can't believe you want to call that match an honourable loss.

 

[Crow-mo]

Carl,

I just read something that, if accurate, is an interesting comparator to your "65%" claims.

that since, 2005, in games decided by 12 points or less.

NB. I have not checked this, but on the presumption that this is fairly easily verifiable.

2008: 0 wins 2 losses
2007: 2 wins 5 losses
2006: 3 wins 5 losses
2005: 6 wins 4 losses

Also, not entirely sure about counting the NAB cup final, but seeing as so many people here wanted to claim it was as important as a 4 point game, I'm leaving it in. it doesn't change the overall picture.

that's 11 wins and 16 losses, in games decided by 2 goals or less.

65% overall, 40% in close games.

that is a massive swing, when you consider that our true winning percentage - of games decided by greater than 2 goals MUST be considerably higher than 65% to normalise the 40% in the close ones.

a rough stab (and it's very rough) is that these 27 games would be 1/3 of our games in that time. that would broadly equate to a winning % of 80% in games over 2 goals, and 40% under 2 goals.

if that is true, and it's rough calculations on some stats I haven't checked, but lets repeat that again:

Margin > 2 goals winning percentage approx 80%
Margin <= 2 goals winning percentage approx 40%

that is something worth discussing in anyone's language.

 

[Freddy Bassett]

I think Craigy should get some stats on the teams that do win close games more often than not and study what they do in the last 5 minutes. Its not rocket science. I think the dogs were destined to win, they were lucky and Johnson is an out and out champion and it probably didnt matter who stood him they were going to get a bath. I love the irony of people suggesting Massie should of stood him. Could you imagine the complaints if he did and the same result occured?

 

[Damp Squarie]

Anyway, there seems to be a lot of talk about Shirley in this thread, and I don't think it's been mentioned but Shirley appeared to have rolled his ankle or do something to his leg/foot in the 3rd quarter. I was sitting near the bench and he was limping a bit but managed to walk it off. So whether that hindered is game or not...I don't know.

In doubt for this week and didnt train today according to news reports.