Crows Melbourne

[Go South]

Originally posted by DEES RULE!:
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!

1. Learn to spell.
2. Piss off back to your own board
3. How was she wrong, in saying that Melbourne have no "$$$"? If my memory serves me correctly, you were this close --><--- to merging with Hawthorn, to get out of debt?

You get your facts straight, before you come to another board spouting crap.

------------------
'...and we won't give up, till the premiership cup is safely in our hands...'

 

[ant]

You see Macca, Port was only 1 and a half games behind the Crows last year because we took the foot off the pedal, we had the choice of going defensive and cruising the rest of the way or trying to win more games and get better percentage. Port were pathetic til into the second half of the year when they had no choice but to go all out attack. The Crows relaxed, took the foot off the pedal and by the time we realised what was happening Port were within 1 and a half games. That's why you got so close to us.

 

[DEES RULE!]

Originally posted by Go South:
1. Learn to spell.
2. Piss off back to your own board
3. How was she wrong, in saying that Melbourne have no "$$$"? If my memory serves me correctly, you were this close --><--- to merging with Hawthorn, to get out of debt?

You get your facts straight, before you come to another board spouting crap.

Take the word WERE process it in your mind if your brain capacity will allow and discover that it is a term used in PAST tense. Now what was in the past should stay there and that goes to the game on Saturday too.
I don't remember who you are playing this week but i am sure there is plenty you can talk about regarding that game so why not move on?!
I will go back to my own board but it seems as though the only hot topic you have on your board is the one regarding another team!

Oh yeah and thanks for boosting my post count, i am really looking forward to my 1000 post!

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 ant:
You see Macca, Port was only 1 and a half games behind the Crows last year because we took the foot off the pedal, we had the choice of going defensive and cruising the rest of the way or trying to win more games and get better percentage. Port were pathetic til into the second half of the year when they had no choice but to go all out attack. The Crows relaxed, took the foot off the pedal and by the time we realised what was happening Port were within 1 and a half games. That's why you got so close to us.

If you say so Ant...if you say so

 

[Crows.ok]

Macca writes:
I think Melbourne did take the foot off the pedal yes, but by the time they sorted themselves out again they were being overrun.

But Macca also wrote, at the very beginning of this thread:
But Melbourne deserved the win by controlling the game for three quarters and getting up in the end.

Now Macca is scrambling for cover when it is pointed out to him that Melbourne did not "control the game" for three quarters. There was one period in the game when Melbourne definately did control it, the second quarter. The first quarter was fairly even with Melbourne a little more accurate. Crows effectively controlled the game for the entire second half, although they didn't really have a strong control until the last quarter.

Now it is true to say that Melbourne "had the lead" for nearly the entire game. That is NOT the same as "controlling the game" though. The team that has the momentum and is doing more of the scoring for any given period (regardless of which team is leading during that period) is the team that is "controlling the game" for that period.

Macca, how do you reconcile the notion that Melbourne were "controlling the game for three quarters" with the fact that Melbourne were outscored (at a rate of two to one or more) for half of the game? If you are being outscored, even if you are in front, then you do not have "control of the game". If you at least maintain a good margin, then I guess you could stake a claim of control of the game, but if your margin is being reduced, you are not in control.

In the example of Essendon, in the last quarter against Port, they rested some players, and managed to maintain a fairly respectable margin, but nevertheless Port made ground on Essendon and I would say that meant that Essendon were not "in control" of the actual play, but you could say they had the lead and had the win in their keeping.

Macca is also struggling to reconcile his two contradictory statements quoted above: "Melbourne did take the foot off the pedal" and "Melbourne deserved the win".

If they slacked off, either at half time or especially when they weren't that far in front in the last quarter, then clearly they didn't deserve to win.

Don't keep trying too long and hard to make these statements of yours all make sense at the same time, Macca, it can't be done.

 

[Macca19]

Originally posted by Crows.ok:
Macca writes:
I think Melbourne did take the foot off the pedal yes, but by the time they sorted themselves out again they were being overrun.

But Macca also wrote, at the very beginning of this thread:
But Melbourne deserved the win by controlling the game for three quarters and getting up in the end.

Now Macca is scrambling for cover when it is pointed out to him that Melbourne did not "control the game" for three quarters. There was one period in the game when Melbourne definately did control it, the second quarter. The first quarter was fairly even with Melbourne a little more accurate. Crows effectively controlled the game for the entire second half, although they didn't really have a strong control until the last quarter.

Now it is true to say that Melbourne "had the lead" for nearly the entire game. That is NOT the same as "controlling the game" though. The team that has the momentum and is doing more of the scoring for any given period (regardless of which team is leading during that period) is the team that is "controlling the game" for that period.

Macca, how do you reconcile the notion that Melbourne were "controlling the game for three quarters" with the fact that Melbourne were outscored (at a rate of two to one or more) for half of the game? If you are being outscored, even if you are in front, then you do not have "control of the game". If you at least maintain a good margin, then I guess you could stake a claim of control of the game, but if your margin is being reduced, you are not in control.

In the example of Essendon, in the last quarter against Port, they rested some players, and managed to maintain a fairly respectable margin, but nevertheless Port made ground on Essendon and I would say that meant that Essendon were not "in control" of the actual play, but you could say they had the lead and had the win in their keeping.

Macca is also struggling to reconcile his two contradictory statements quoted above: "Melbourne did take the foot off the pedal" and "Melbourne deserved the win".

If they slacked off, either at half time or especially when they weren't that far in front in the last quarter, then clearly they didn't deserve to win.

Don't keep trying too long and hard to make these statements of yours all make sense at the same time, Macca, it can't be done.

You cant have it both ways Crowok. If The first quarter was "even" then so was the third. If Adelaide had contorl of the third quarter, then Melbourne had control of the first. I actually thought Melbourne went defencive thats why they were getting outscored. Yes Adelaide had control of the last quarter.

All im trying to say Crowok is Adelaide did not deserve to win the game. When your 6 goals down at halftime, and play as bad as Adelaide did in the first HALF, then you dont necessarily deserve to win. In the end Melbourne won, so they deserved the win

(there goes your record QT)