Delusional Pearlers II

[Doss]

Essendon 8W-1L

North Melbourne 4W-5L.

That is the difference, Old Skool.

But but but...the meatgrinder!!! Best young midfielders in history!!!111oneone

 

[Old Skool]

I'd say the bigger issue was getting so far behind in the first place you had to play catch up. For such an in depth and astute judge thats an incredibly simplistic way of looking at it.

No doubt.

We played very poorly for 50% of that game, used the ball poorly for 25% of that game, and have been very ordinary for most of this year.

However, the fact that we stormed all over Essendon (a supposed premiership contender) when the game was on the line, and cost ourselves the win after the siren, cannot be dismissed by any sober judge.

 

[Summer Nights]

The difference between North and Essendon is 2 metres.

Incorrect. It's far less than that. It's more like 5cm... on the ladder. But I know that can seem like a long way. Richo's skinny posts theory 'n' all that.

 

[Doss]

Stating the obvious, the 'difference' between two sides can't be quantified just by the games between the two clubs.

Using that logic, you could have said Essendon was better than Geelong in 2011. Or St Kilda (x2) in 2010.

The big picture is what counts.

 

[Slattery_20]

North Melbourne beat Geelong, at Kardinia, in 2007.
That [strike]cannot be dismissed by any sober judge.[/strike] means **** all really because Geelong were clearly the better side.

 

[Kong]

.. In round 1, no less.

Irrespective, a one on one match up is almost irrelevant in the overall scheme of two teams' fortunes throughout an entire season (and finals, if applicable).

We dominated Collingwood for 3 quarters last year with around 10 first choice players not playing. Meant nothing when they finished 6 positions and 8 games ahead of us.

 

[Lord Nicholson]

However, the fact that we stormed all over Essendon (a supposed premiership contender)

Only after the fact.

Also, Adelaide clearly was far better than Hawthorn last year, going by the same logic.

 

[The Speaker]

No doubt.

We played very poorly for 50% of that game, used the ball poorly for 25% of that game, and have been very ordinary for most of this year.

However, the fact that we stormed all over Essendon (a supposed premiership contender) when the game was on the line, and cost ourselves the win after the siren, cannot be dismissed by any sober judge.

So what would you make of Port Adelaide storming all over you when the game was on the line and winning?

 

[Old Skool]

Stating the obvious, the 'difference' between two sides can't be quantified just by the games between the two clubs.

Using that logic, you could have said Essendon was better than Geelong in 2011. Or StKilda (x2) in 2010.

The big picture is what counts.

Not really.

Norths coach is on record as stating he isn't primarily coaching to win games. He is coaching to make the side a genuine top 4 side.

I can't say I am a big fan of his philosophy.

We are better right now than we have been performing.

So what would you make of Port Adelaide storming all over you when the game was on the line and winning?

Scott promotes strict offensive possession based football.

Any club could hold up a 32 point lead with 15 minutes to go if they really wanted to do that.

 

[Slattery_20]

Round 1 form is matters not, even in May, let alone September.
On that note, what have you got scheduled in September, Mario?

 

[Kong]

Also, Gold Coast led us in the final quarter of our clash this year.

 

[Old Skool]

Also, Gold Coast led us in the final quarter of our clash this year.

This supports my view beautifully.

 

[VelvetSledge]

Not really.

Norths coach is on record as stating he isn't primarily coaching to win games.

I can't say I am a big fan of his philosophy.

We are better right now than we have been performing.



Scott promotes strict offensive possession based football.

Any club could hold up a 32 point lead with 15 minutes to go if they really wanted to do that.

How do you astutely judge that?

As far as I'm concerned the only way to judge how well a team is playing is by their win loss ratio.

We heard Tigers posters saying "Best 1-4 side" a lot, and while it may be true, it means bugger all in the big scheme of things.

 

[Lord Nicholson]

This supports my view beautifully.

Perhaps games against the same opposition at the same ground would be a better point of reference.

Our respective performances against Brisbane, for example.

 

[Old Skool]

How do you astutely judge that?

We don't flood and play chip football to protect leads.

Like I stated, i'm not a fan of this philosophy.

As far as I am concerned, North should go out to play in the finals every year.

 

[Slattery_20]

The real winner here is the attention seeker who has our attention.

 

[Doss]

Not really.

Norths coach is on record as stating he isn't primarily coaching to win games. He is coaching to make the side a genuine top 4 side.

I can't say I am a big fan of his philosophy.

We are better right now than we have been performing.



Scott promotes strict offensive possession based football.

Any club could hold up a 32 point lead with 15 minutes to go if they really wanted to do that.

He's in his third year as coach, for crying out loud. If he isn't coaching primarily to win games, then what the hell is he doing?

And if "any side could defend a 32 point lead", yet North failed to, that is pretty damning of North's hunger- or lack there of.

Either that, or Scott has an inability to switch his side into lockdown mode.

 

[Lord Nicholson]

The real winner here is the attention seeker who has our attention.

Or whoever is more amused and entertained.

 

[The Speaker]

We don't flood and play chip football to protect leads.

Like I stated, i'm not a fan of this philosophy.

As far as I am concerned, North should go out to play in the finals every year.

Alright, you've said your bit, you can leave now.

 

[Old Skool]

He's in his third year as coach, for crying out loud. If he isn't coaching primarily to win games, then what the hell is he doing?

This is a question I would also like answered. He has this idea that when the side masters his game plan we will be a premiership contender.

And if "any side could defend a 32 point lead", yet North failed to, that is pretty damning of North's hunger- or lack there of.

They simply don't have the tanks to play 120 minutes of strict offensive football.

Either that, or Scott has an inability to switch his side into lockdown mode.

His ability to do that remains unknown as he doesn't even have the inclination to do it in the first place.

I am not a fan. It shits me to tears.

 

[Kong]

The real winner here is the attention seeker who has our attention.

I've come to realise that a few of the North supporters on here see it their role to stoke the fire, and "keep the rivlary alive", or keep their club relevant somehow.

They get a response out of us, so kudos.

Means nothing once I log off and think about the footy, though. North are still as much an afterthought to me as Brisbane and St Kilda are.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

No doubt.

We played very poorly for 50% of that game, used the ball poorly for 25% of that game, and have been very ordinary for most of this year.

However, the fact that we stormed all over Essendon (a supposed premiership contender) when the game was on the line, and cost ourselves the win after the siren, cannot be dismissed by any sober judge.

so you're just going to ignore the injuries we had from the first minutes of the game, the two on the bench for most of the game, which meant we couldn't rotate and that's why you were able to "storm home"?

Come on mate...

 

[Burzum]

I forget North are even in the league sometimes (srs)

 

[loopy_cam]

Maybe Melbourne aren't trying to win either.

...actually, they probably aren't.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

Scott promotes strict offensive possession based football.

Any club could hold up a 32 point lead with 15 minutes to go if they really wanted to do that.

So what is it that the Kangaroos Football Club really wants to do then, because it's clearly not winning games.

How do you astutely judge that?

Not by staring vainly in the mirror, that's for sure.