Thread starter
#1
I've seen a lot of posts suggesting Eagles would have beaten us if fully fit.
I actually think our record against Eagles over past few years is very good and I don't agree at all with that assumption.
We lost a tight game against them in Subiaco in 2004 (Kelly broke his leg)
We beat them easily at home in 2005 (NAblett's debut) after losing to them earlier that year (when Woji did his knee)
We should have beaten them at home in 2006 (except for superhuman performances by Cousins and Kerr and some extremely dubious umpiring)
We beat them comfortably at home in 2007 while Judd was still fit
So the statement that fit eagles are better doesn't stack up against previous results
I actually think our record against Eagles over past few years is very good and I don't agree at all with that assumption.
We lost a tight game against them in Subiaco in 2004 (Kelly broke his leg)
We beat them easily at home in 2005 (NAblett's debut) after losing to them earlier that year (when Woji did his knee)
We should have beaten them at home in 2006 (except for superhuman performances by Cousins and Kerr and some extremely dubious umpiring)
We beat them comfortably at home in 2007 while Judd was still fit
So the statement that fit eagles are better doesn't stack up against previous results
