Solace from small losses?

[borissey]

I have this strange fascination with Richmond. Not sure why, maybe it's because my brother in law follows them and I have seen the hurt on his face.

There was an article in the Age about how Miller was talking up the list as you do at this time of year. The journalist talks about injuries in 2007 as a valid excuse for a poor 2007 but then says that of Richmonds losses last year 9 of them were less than 4 goals as some big sign that Richmond was close to the finals. I did some research and Carlton had 9 losses of less then 5 goals. Does anyone care about this? If you lose you lose and if you lose by alot it is terrible, but does anyone really think that with a bit of luck last year either team was anywhere near the finals? Isnt this just stupid?

I dont mean this thread to be a pro_miller or anti-Miller thread, I was just interested in the point.

 

[Blue Dawn]

Yes both Carton and Richmond were sh*t last year - although Richmond were indeed sh*tter.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

We have had some years where we lost a lot of winnable games. The ability to close out a match is just as important as any other attribute and we have lacked that during our lean period. We show we have ability for 2-3 quarters but no consistency. Lack of consistency, lack of stamina, not knowing how to win games ... all equates to being undeserving and not very good.

It is little solace when you only win 4 games or less.

 

[Kramer1]

Strongly agree ODN.

Was it 06 when we had the huge halftime lead over the Eagles?

And last year we we were in contention in a lot of games at 1/2 or 3/4 time (cue f'wits with inane tank jibes)

Knowing how to control the tempo of the game, when to shut a game down, or when to keep attacking is crucial, and we simply haven't had the old wise heads that know how to do this.

 

[Brighton_Diggins]

thats why judd can see ten wins.
we have our base 4 wins to improve on and 6 out of nine
games (that were close) we can hopefully get over the line.
Not a big ask.

I'd love to see the blues pound a team for once.
10 goals or more.
No stress, just sit back and watch the show.
and... maybe, 3 in a row.
We've got the guns in the rack...just need to start
using em.

 

[Beloved]

It's obviously better to lose by 5 goals than 15, but in the end, a loss is a loss, whether it be by 2, 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, so on and so forth points.

 

[The Blueseum]

Interesting to see that over the last few years, the games which we have won, together with draws and 'close losses' show a similar pattern:

http://www.blueseum.org/tiki-index.php?page=Wins+and+Losses:+2002+to+2007

2002 has actually been our best year for this. In 15 of our 22 games, we won, drew or lost by less than 30 points. 2003 was our worst year, only doing so 9 times. From 2004, despite the 10 wins, out to 2007, we basically were 'in the game' only 12-13 times each year.

Whether close losses mean anything or not, the Blues have barely been 'in the game' for half the games played since 2003.

From the Blueseum

 

[HBF]

I have this strange fascination with Richmond. Not sure why, maybe it's because my brother in law follows them and I have seen the hurt on his face.

There was an article in the Age about how Miller was talking up the list as you do at this time of year. The journalist talks about injuries in 2007 as a valid excuse for a poor 2007 but then says that of Richmonds losses last year 9 of them were less than 4 goals as some big sign that Richmond was close to the finals. I did some research and Carlton had 9 losses of less then 5 goals. Does anyone care about this? If you lose you lose and if you lose by alot it is terrible, but does anyone really think that with a bit of luck last year either team was anywhere near the finals? Isnt this just stupid?

I dont mean this thread to be a pro_miller or anti-Miller thread, I was just interested in the point.

Care about it - no, but what it does mean is that we weren't that far away in those games, and if you add Judd & Stevens to those teams, it certainly makes you wonder how many of those we could have in fact won. Food for thought.

 

[judd5]

It's not that we have been unlucky to lose lots of the close games we have played in, it is more to do with the fact we didn't have the fitness base and ability to run out the game.
Definetly no coincidence.

 

[Bluebear]

I have this strange fascination with Richmond. Not sure why, maybe it's because my brother in law follows them and I have seen the hurt on his face.

There was an article in the Age about how Miller was talking up the list as you do at this time of year. The journalist talks about injuries in 2007 as a valid excuse for a poor 2007 but then says that of Richmonds losses last year 9 of them were less than 4 goals as some big sign that Richmond was close to the finals. I did some research and Carlton had 9 losses of less then 5 goals. Does anyone care about this? If you lose you lose and if you lose by alot it is terrible, but does anyone really think that with a bit of luck last year either team was anywhere near the finals? Isnt this just stupid?

I dont mean this thread to be a pro_miller or anti-Miller thread, I was just interested in the point.

Interesting point.

I firmly believe that our main issue last year was depth.
Without Stevens and Cloke we struggled to cover those positions with any quality and got exposed.
With Stevens and Cloke I think we would have beaten the Lions (round 5?), Adelaide, Roos at Carrara, Saints (10 point loss) and possibly one or both of the Pies games in which we were equal most of the way through then got blown away. Stevens run in the fourth would have been very important.
Finals? Probably not, but hey, most of these "wins" would have been in the first half of the year, and if you go into round 12 with 7-8 wins rather than 4 I'd suggest your young players might have a bit more pep in the step.

It's a game of inches.........everyone thinks Geelong were the best team by a mile last year and many are finding it hard to see them beaten this year.........yet one straight kick in the prelim and they wouldn't have made the GF......for such a good TEAM, if Ottens hadn't of had the blinder he did, or if the Pies had of had one decent ruck option then the result might have been very different.

If's, but's, maybe's............when you lose it all sounds like excuses, but its what gives you hope for the next year.........maybe we weren't so bad after all.

 

[Bluebear]

Interesting to see that over the last few years, the games which we have won, together with draws and 'close losses' show a similar pattern:

http://www.blueseum.org/tiki-index.php?page=Wins+and+Losses:+2002+to+2007

2002 has actually been our best year for this. In 15 of our 22 games, we won, drew or lost by less than 30 points. 2003 was our worst year, only doing so 9 times. From 2004, despite the 10 wins, out to 2007, we basically were 'in the game' only 12-13 times each year.

Whether close losses mean anything or not, the Blues have barely been 'in the game' for half the games played since 2003.

From the Blueseum

Interesting stats.
I was discussing this after the weekend about how "in the game" teams have been.

Our 34 point loss to the Hawks was called a flogging, despite that beingt he margin at 3/4 time and having the chance to overun the Hawks in the last.

The Hawks stick with the Crows all night but falter to hand then a 31 point win and they were close but unlucky.............

I like stats.

 

[HBF]

Interesting stats.
I was discussing this after the weekend about how "in the game" teams have been.

Our 34 point loss to the Hawks was called a flogging, despite that beingt he margin at 3/4 time and having the chance to overun the Hawks in the last.

The Hawks stick with the Crows all night but falter to hand then a 31 point win and they were close but unlucky.............

I like stats.

The final margin might not have constituted a flogging, but the way the Hawks played in the 1st half, and had they not rested Franklin in the second half, who knows what the final margin might have been.

 

[johnsy14]

Who cares about last year now? Had a few of the close losses been victories then I don't think we'd have much to look forward to in 08. No Judd or Kruezer. No light at the end of the tunnel. Or perhaps Judd but 3 or 4 of our better young players gone.

What is the point in looking backwards - except only to learn from your mistakes - nothing else.