Crows Melbourne

[Dogbrick]

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 ?

 

[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.

 

[DEES RULE!]

i cannot believe that you are convincing yourself that Melbourne's win was purely luck.

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???

GO DEES!

------------------
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]

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.

 

[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?

 

[DEES RULE!]

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!

------------------
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

 

[QT]

Originally posted by dee_girl9:


hmmm it taste so sweet. oop u guys wouldnt know what that taste like yet would u now

Yes, the crows havent had success, we dont know how it feels to be successful

------------------
"I came here to win, I am a winner" - Denzel Washington , Remember The Titans ; 2000

 

[DEES RULE!]

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!

------------------
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]

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]

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]

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]

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 dickhead. 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 dickhead than i thought. If you cant admit that the crows have some problems, then you are a bigger dickhead 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?

 

[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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

 

[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.

 

[Go South]

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]

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!!!

 

[QT]

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

 

[BT]

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]

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!]

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!

------------------
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

 

[QT]

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!

To say it simple, Melbourne are SCUM,with no $$$$$ ofcourse

------------------
"I came here to win, I am a winner" - Denzel Washington , Remember The Titans ; 2000

 

[Macca19]

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]

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!]

Originally posted by QT:
To say it simple, Melbourne are SCUM,with no $$$$$ ofcourse

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!

(this one is even better than the one on melbourne board saying BOOOO :eek

GO DEES!

------------------
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