Was 2004 a fluke?

[Big_Tazz]

cat fans, surely our 2004 season was not a fluke, and just a great playing style. we had no forward line then, and king was basically out only ruckman. which means we should have been even better this year, your thoughts..

 

[martyk]

cat fans, surely our 2004 season was not a fluke, and just a great playing style. we had no forward line then, and king was basically out only ruckman. which means we should have been even better this year, your thoughts..

Answer - In 2004 the team was almost free of egos, and full of young players who were desperate for a game and would play for each other. Most of the current list will not see the success of 2004 again.

 

[thejester]

There was an argument I saw sometime last week that suggested Bomber had built the team on the Brisbane model - played hard, physical, in close football, something we still do well to an extent (ie aren't we leading the league for contested possessions/hardball gets?). In 2004 that style of football still had a lot of currency...but in the last two years that's changed. Now we've got a core of experienced midfielders (Ling, Bartel, Corey, Enright) who aren't particularly fast and don't have great disposal - so we're trying to weld pace on through a few individuals (Woja, Tenace). In the end, that's what kills us: failure in the midfield means the defenders get swamped in the fast break, and the forwards get terrible delivery to a flooded area.

'Course, that's only one explanation, and there are plenty of others: the team at times looks outright disinterested, and King's comments now seem to have been his, not the teams; that opposition teams have our measure and Thompson couldn't coach himself out of a paper bag; total lack of leadership and responibility in the team; simple lack of confidence. But I think there's a lot to be said for the idea that the list was structured to play a certain form of football that's now looking outdated, and we're playing catch-up in both the list, structure and game plab.

 

[Barabbas]

Maybe he's following the Sydney "slow-start-to-the-season" model now.

 

[thehoff]

Maybe he's following the Sydney "slow-start-to-the-season" model now.

Lets bloody hope so!

 

[Big_Tazz]

There was an argument I saw sometime last week that suggested Bomber had built the team on the Brisbane model - played hard, physical, in close football, something we still do well to an extent (ie aren't we leading the league for contested possessions/hardball gets?). In 2004 that style of football still had a lot of currency...but in the last two years that's changed. Now we've got a core of experienced midfielders (Ling, Bartel, Corey, Enright) who aren't particularly fast and don't have great disposal - so we're trying to weld pace on through a few individuals (Woja, Tenace). In the end, that's what kills us: failure in the midfield means the defenders get swamped in the fast break, and the forwards get terrible delivery to a flooded area.

'Course, that's only one explanation, and there are plenty of others: the team at times looks outright disinterested, and King's comments now seem to have been his, not the teams; that opposition teams have our measure and Thompson couldn't coach himself out of a paper bag; total lack of leadership and responibility in the team; simple lack of confidence. But I think there's a lot to be said for the idea that the list was structured to play a certain form of football that's now looking outdated, and we're playing catch-up in both the list, structure and game plab.

Thats all true. Come to think about it, the side we got now, wont win a premiership for a few years i think, unless bomber does something, a miracle!

 

[chapmanmagic35]

Nope, not a fluke at all. We played tough, accountable and hard football. Our game was based around physicality and tackling. We also had Ben Graham presenting at CHF, a much underrated part of our season.

 

[GeeCat]

Agree with just about all accounts thus far.

Was it a fluke? No.

Hardly a perfect gameplan or team we possessed, but importantly it was effective and efficient during the times.

To repeat what others have said, ego's weren't an issue, we played hard, tough, physical, accountable, team football (and just on the last post, yes indeed, Graham was an underrated commodity at CHF).

which means we should have been even better this year, your thoughts

Logic is flawed in this: I personally believe a slightly tweaked gameplan to suit current times would have sufficed, but in any case our improvement has not taken place at the resounding speed many expected it to. Additionally, there is the factor of improvement from other teams, which continues to grow exponentially by the year (or so it seems).

 

[-Junior-]

Maybe he's following the Sydney "slow-start-to-the-season" model now.

a round one loss is hardly a slow start...if 2004 was a fluke what about 2005?? 3 seconds away from beating the eventual premiers. last year had a lot to do with the players believing they were going to win everygame no matter what, and before they new it the season was lost!!

we should have learnt from these mistakes and now need to build our season up from here..carlton should be a confidence booster BUT they have to realise that just because they can beat carlton it will not mean automatic victories over other sides. i believe we are more then capable skill wise and physically but mentally the players seem to get ahead of themselves..we will have to see what happens.