(Note: I've stolen this idea off a Hawthorn messageboard, but it's my messageboard so I'm allowed
)
Hawthorn beat Collingwood by a goal in Round 1. After the game on the radio, on the Sunday footy shows, and in the wrap-ups in the paper, the prevailing wisdom was that Hawthorn were a) poor, b) lucky and c) overrated, because Collingwood got so close to them.
Essendon beat Collingwood by eight points yesterday. I saw both games, and Collingwood played no better yesterday than they did in Round 1. But now the focus is "Oh, weren't Collingwood good? Aren't Collingwood going to be a good team?"
My question is - where's the dissection of Essendon? Were Essendon poor? Lucky? Are Essendon overrated?
Maybe I'm biased (!) but it seems a bit inequitable that two very comparable performances against Collingwood could be treated so differently by the media.
Hawthorn beat Collingwood by a goal in Round 1. After the game on the radio, on the Sunday footy shows, and in the wrap-ups in the paper, the prevailing wisdom was that Hawthorn were a) poor, b) lucky and c) overrated, because Collingwood got so close to them.
Essendon beat Collingwood by eight points yesterday. I saw both games, and Collingwood played no better yesterday than they did in Round 1. But now the focus is "Oh, weren't Collingwood good? Aren't Collingwood going to be a good team?"
My question is - where's the dissection of Essendon? Were Essendon poor? Lucky? Are Essendon overrated?
Maybe I'm biased (!) but it seems a bit inequitable that two very comparable performances against Collingwood could be treated so differently by the media.



