Signpost Games

[feenix67]

Only a fool would take solace from a win against a team that is losing to everyone and doesn't make finals


We would have known going into the Sydney final that we were going to get spanked because in similar games that season - away matches against top four contenders - we were 1-4. It's a pity we didn't look closely at those 5 matches and use them to guide selection, structure, tactics. Instead we took comfort in our wins at home and our wins against non-finalists and went with the team that worked in those games.

Seemed to me our midfield didn't turn up the end.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Seemed to me our midfield didn't turn up the end.

Agreed

And didn't in almost all of those key games

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

You're right.

North R1 2016 wasn't a tough match because they were a s**t team in 2016 and weren't in a winning streak at the time. They only played two finalists, one of which was Adelaide, in their 9 game streak anyway, even though the streak was irrelevant at the time we played them

Even if you take out the NM games we still had a losing record against top 8 teams overall and got smashed by Geelong and West Coast in the back half of the season in the lead in to finals. Writing was on the wall. Quibbling over whether one game should be included or not doesn't change the thrust of the thread and I don't know why you have spent so many pages doing so.

Hawthorn in R2 this year was a tough match because they finished 3rd in 2016 (H&A), it wasn't clear before we played them that they were s**t, we played them away, and we hadn't beaten them at all since 2011

Great news for Gold Coast and Essendon.

 

[feenix67]

Agreed

And didn't in almost all of those key games

So what, we should have gone to the mid season draft and got more players?

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

So what, we should have gone to the mid season draft and got more players?

There was a trade period at the end of the season which indicates that the Sydney final was another in a long line of anomalies we should place no stock in.

Let alone changes to our structure or 22 during last season. It took us until half time to consider Cameron into the midfield for instance. We didn't try this after the Geelong game because that was another anomaly where we 'just weren't switched on.'

We didn't change anything because, to us, we were going so well.

Any losses were because 'we just didn't turn up' which is actually your line above and in itself a reason for a thread of this type.

 

[feenix67]

So the changes this year include more Charlie, having had another preseason, and the injection of Hampton and knight, both of whom were injured for large portions of last season.

Why are you even talking about last season when we're on a 4-0 run having beaten the flag favs, the bogey team, the little bro and the cheats? You're almost as bad as Rabbit tbh

 

[adelaidecrows]

So the changes this year include more Charlie, having had another preseason, and the injection of Hampton and knight, both of whom were injured for large portions of last season.

Why are you even talking about last season when we're on a 4-0 run having beaten the flag favs, the bogey team, the little bro and the cheats? You're almost as bad as Rabbit tbh

Exactly. They only see failure. If we win by 10 goals they comment that we should have won by 15 goals or that if the opposition kicked straight we would have lost.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

So the changes this year include more Charlie, having had another preseason, and the injection of Hampton and knight, both of whom were injured for large portions of last season.

Why are you even talking about last season when we're on a 4-0 run having beaten the flag favs, the bogey team, the little bro and the cheats? You're almost as bad as Rabbit tbh

To be honest, I don't actually think you've actually understood the thread at all. There is no negativity here whatsoever about this season.

We've had one test so far this season - GWS in Round 1 - and passed with flying colours.

That's good. And that's all we have to go on so far. Positive but very small sample size.

There will be a handful more tests during the season that will give an indication of how we will perform in September against the best teams. These are the games that must guide our selection, team balance, tactics.

Here you're exhibiting the exact signs that have stopped us being successful. Swept up in a 4-0 run, knocking over non-finalists at will. We didn't draw any long term conclusions from getting pounded by Geelong twice last season for instance. Just fronted up the next week vowing to do better. We cannot be that dumb again.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Exactly. They only see failure. If we win by 10 goals they comment that we should have won by 15 goals or that if the opposition kicked straight we would have lost.

What?

Look at the OP. We beat GWS.

We've had one 'signpost game' and it has a WIN next to it.

 

[feenix67]

To be honest, I don't actually think you've actually understood the thread at all. There is no negativity here whatsoever about this season.

We've had one test so far this season - GWS in Round 1 - and passed with flying colours.

That's good. And that's all we have to go on so far. Positive but very small sample size.

There will be a handful more tests during the season that will give an indication of how we will perform in September against the best teams. These are the games that must guide our selection, team balance, tactics.

Here you're exhibiting the exact signs that have stopped us being successful. Swept up in a 4-0 run, knocking over non-finalists at will. We didn't draw any long term conclusions from getting pounded by Geelong twice last season for instance. Just fronted up the next week vowing to do better. We cannot be that dumb again.

You can't call any game a signpost game until later according to your own parameters, so perhaps you don't understand your own thread?

 

[NTRabbit]

To be honest, I don't actually think you've actually understood the thread at all. There is no negativity here whatsoever about this season.

It's fun repeatedly trying to explain to people who can't understand and don't want to, isn't it?

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

You can't call any game a signpost game until later according to your own parameters, so perhaps you don't understand your own thread?

It's not complicated. Some teams you know are going to be good prior to the season. Eg GWS, Geelong, West Coast, Bulldogs. Others might emerge during the season.

 

[feenix67]

It's fun repeatedly trying to explain to people who can't understand and don't want to, isn't it?

Like my inconvenient stat regarding Crouch bunny? Selective posting FTW!

 

[NTRabbit]

It's not complicated. Some teams you know are going to be good prior to the season. Eg GWS, Geelong, West Coast, Bulldogs. Others might emerge during the season.

No but you don't understand, Hawthorn phwoar!!!111 ergo totally different from last year, start dusting off a shelf in the cabinet

 

[Scorpus]

It's not complicated. Some teams you know are going to be good prior to the season. Eg GWS, Geelong, West Coast, Bulldogs. Others might emerge during the season.

What if none of those teams make the 8? Then surely you didn't know they were good before the season

And for the prior 8 years you could lock in Hawthorn as a "going to be good" team before the season

 

[feenix67]

It's not complicated. Some teams you know are going to be good prior to the season. Eg GWS, Geelong, West Coast, Bulldogs. Others might emerge during the season.

Ahhh I see so now it's a predictive retrospective analysis.

So our early season wins over Sydney and GWS last year weren't signpost, but our win over GWS this year is?

You're constantly shifting the signposts to suit your own rhetoric Carl.

 

[NTRabbit]

It's dismaying to see how far over your heads this threads simple concept is flying

 

[Golumless]

I agree it's too early to do this. The ladder will be the best judge of which games are signpost games, but a couple more rounds will make things more clear.

I don't buy that the Hawthorn game proves anything. Our mental weakness has been against good teams in important games. Nothing Hawthorn specific about it, other than that we have come up against them in that scenario a few times.

As for last year, it wasn't just that we lost 4/5 away signpost games. It was that we were uncompetitive. A pretty good predictor for the Sydney final.

If I recall, in 97-98 we were always competitive in difficult games, even though we didn't always win. Showed we had a backbone.

Will be interested to see how this develops over the year. Have a feeling this thread will be revisited from time to time.

It doesn't show us anything in terms of winning against the top 4 etc, however, there were hopefully a couple mental demons vanquished.

After all we were their bunnies for a long time.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

What if none of those teams make the 8? Then surely you didn't know they were good before the season

They'll in all likelihood make the 8 and therefore be teams that we will need to beat in September.

*If* Melbourne, St Kilda, Port or whoever actually step up this season and charge up the ladder then games against those teams become significant.

And for the prior 8 years you could lock in Hawthorn as a "going to be good" team before the season

Sure, and in those 8 years a win over them would have been a very good sign.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Ahhh I see so now it's a predictive retrospective analysis.

So our early season wins over Sydney and GWS last year weren't signpost, but our win over GWS this year is?

You're constantly shifting the signposts to suit your own rhetoric Carl.

Those wins over Sydney and GWS were great.

Again - check the OP. The matches are both listed with block capital WINS next to them.

Then you look at the whole picture and those two positives are more than offset by other poor results in big games.

 

[feenix67]

It's dismaying to see how far over your heads this threads simple concept is flying

No it's quite simple. When we don't win, we can look back at the games we lost and use them as examples of how we were never going to win. The wins that we did have become meaningless, and the losses enable the analyser to bemoan the lack of changes made following losses.

It's a great thread to make, because the analyser will be vindicated 99% of the time because we don't win a flag (despite good teams often not winning flags).

It's the kind of no-lose thread people like Carl like to make to elevate themselves above the sheeple.

 

[pjcrows]

We're going 22-0 so I don't know what you're all arguing about.

 

[Scorpus]

They'll in all likelihood make the 8 and therefore be teams that we will need to beat in September.

*If* Melbourne, St Kilda, Port or whoever actually step up this season and charge up the ladder then games against those teams become significant.


Sure, and in those 8 years a win over them would have been a very good sign.

So you're guessing those teams will be good just like you're guessing Hawthorn will be bad to make your contention that our win against Hawthorn wasn't significant

 

[feenix67]

Those wins over Sydney and GWS were great.

Again - check the OP. The matches are both listed with block capital WINS next to them.

Then you look at the whole picture and those two positives are more than offset by other poor results in big games.

They're offset by our form later in the season, yes. Injury, suspension, form leading into finals.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

So you're guessing those teams will be good just like you're guessing Hawthorn will be bad to make your contention that our win against Hawthorn wasn't significant

Yes.

As I said in the OP, we can add/subtract games once it becomes more obvious who are the front-runners this season.