Woofer
Debutant
I think Essendon by far are the most arrogent supporters around, but what does everyone else think
Who has the most arrogent supporters in the league
- Thread starter Woofer
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Jul 6, 2000
- 5,627
- 15
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Not AGAIN!!!
all football supporters are arrogant
- Nov 17, 2000
- 12,447
- 23
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Post Count: 125,527
Arrogant
Agressively assertive; extremely proud
Just about everyone I would think.
Agressively assertive; extremely proud
Just about everyone I would think.
Based on this year , Essendon definitely. And the ones that are most arrogant are the ones that don't go to the games!
------------------
Give me a woman who loves beer, and I will conquer the world!!!!!!!!!
------------------
Give me a woman who loves beer, and I will conquer the world!!!!!!!!!
Jethro Q Walrustitty
Team Captain
The definitive answer, as Gra-Gra used to say, is...
CARLTON
CARLTON
bluebagger
Rookie
A bit of a no-brainer really. Whoever won the premiership in the previous season.
Therefore Essendon supporters are the most arrogant, but a couple of years ago those Crows fans were unbearably arrogant.
Therefore Essendon supporters are the most arrogant, but a couple of years ago those Crows fans were unbearably arrogant.
Asgardian
Bigfooty Jedi
I guess the theme of the original post is asking which club has the worst supporters?
The answer is really pretty simple, EVERY club has its share of bad supporters, the winners are louder than the losers, so that can give a year by year impression.
Superficial supporters turn that impression into a "fact", and suddenly they say XYZ's supporters are the worst.
Shows how easily some of us can accept opinions as facts, that is sad.
------------------
Chris
The answer is really pretty simple, EVERY club has its share of bad supporters, the winners are louder than the losers, so that can give a year by year impression.
Superficial supporters turn that impression into a "fact", and suddenly they say XYZ's supporters are the worst.
Shows how easily some of us can accept opinions as facts, that is sad.
------------------
Chris
C
CrowsOK
Guest
I guess Crows fans came across as arrogant two years ago, but you must admit it was only in retaliation to claims from Victoria that their flags were somehow "soft". That claim really managed to get under peoples skin, especially when it was REPEATED in a vain attempt to somehow degrade Crows performance, which in actual fact remains the ONLY back-to-back flags won in the modern AFL.
In contrast, there is not a whisper of Kangaroos flags as being soft, even though there was two intervening years, and one flag they won against Sydney, the other they did not have to meet the years minor round top team!
You may have an impression of Crows fans as being arrogant, but surely it pales into insignificance compared with other examples of arrogance. And just maybe, considering the record-breaking aspects of the two flags Crows DID get, some of that apparent arrogance is at least partly justified.
Meanwhile, Essendon manages two flags separated by six baren years, including the most significant choke in recent memory, and when they finally come up with one, according to fans they are suddenly the greatest thing ever.
Theres the essence of arrogance, though, in plain view.
Bloodstained Angel
Premiership Player
So, CrowsOk, you are suggesting Norths 1996 Flag is somehow 'not as good' as a real flag becuase they were playing the Swans ?
Where did the Crows finish in 1996 f*ckwit ?
10th ? 11th ? - something else equally as non-discript.
For your information sunshine Sydney were Minor Premiers that year, as good an opponent to meet in the GF than any other I would have thought ?
eat sh*t and die you wretched South Australian nobody.
Where did the Crows finish in 1996 f*ckwit ?
10th ? 11th ? - something else equally as non-discript.
For your information sunshine Sydney were Minor Premiers that year, as good an opponent to meet in the GF than any other I would have thought ?
eat sh*t and die you wretched South Australian nobody.
All you supporters who think there is no chance of your team relocating/merging
And Melbourne supporters who think the name 'Melbourne' alone is reason enough to keep your club in victoria, or at least keep if merge happens
And Melbourne supporters who think the name 'Melbourne' alone is reason enough to keep your club in victoria, or at least keep if merge happens
Bloodstained Angel
Premiership Player
I don't Danni
But this time that comment just made me see red - I mean you would know what I'm getting at being a Queenslander and all - I can't believe the totally unjustified and completely gormless stupidity shown by that Crows supporter for suggesting that Norths '96 flag was 'soft' because they played Sydney ?1?!?
WTFk is this guy on ?
But this time that comment just made me see red - I mean you would know what I'm getting at being a Queenslander and all - I can't believe the totally unjustified and completely gormless stupidity shown by that Crows supporter for suggesting that Norths '96 flag was 'soft' because they played Sydney ?1?!?
WTFk is this guy on ?
BSA,
I agree totally. Sydney finished on TOP, and had beaten the Roos by 78 points (in Melbourne, I might add), in their only meeting in the Home and away.
So, North had to go through "arguably" the years best team, to win the Grand Final in 1996.
The reason why people say the Crows flags were "soft", are because they only played 4 weeks of football to win the flag, and didn't seem to "earn" it as much as, say the Eagles did.
When the Eagles won in 1992, they had finished 3rd in 1990, top in 1991 (then lost the Grand Final), and finally, they won the GF in 1992. Everyone, including me, really got the feeling they had earnt their Grand Final win, since it had been a few years in the making, and it had followed consistent winning for the previous 3 seasons,
The Crows were different. Their Grand Final wins didn't follow 3 seasons of consistent winning. In fact, it didn't even follow one season of consistent winning. They won 13 games in 1997, which is "OK" but not earth shattering.
So, when they played 4 weeks of admittedly great football, most neutral people were pretty upset, because they didn't seem to have "earnt" it as much as the Roos and the Eagles, whose Grand Final wins were acheived after years of winning and finally achieving that one special moment.
That's not to downgrade the Crows excellent finals series in 1997 and 1998, but their performances two years either side in 1995-96, and also in 1999-2000 indicate that they were a 2 year flash in the pan. Other teams have played consistent winning football throiughout the Home and away, and in prior seasons on their way to winning a Grand Final.
The Crows on the other hand, not only couldn't win in 1994-95-96 and in 1999-00, but in the years that they DID win, they were not outstanding, anyway !
That's why those wins were accused of being soft. There was nothign soft about their GF performances.......but the fact they were called "premiers" (indicating they were "whole season champs",), made a lot of people think that they didn't deserve that title. I certainly only see them as premiers in "name" only. I certainly don't regard them as being the best team in either of those two years.
I agree totally. Sydney finished on TOP, and had beaten the Roos by 78 points (in Melbourne, I might add), in their only meeting in the Home and away.
So, North had to go through "arguably" the years best team, to win the Grand Final in 1996.
The reason why people say the Crows flags were "soft", are because they only played 4 weeks of football to win the flag, and didn't seem to "earn" it as much as, say the Eagles did.
When the Eagles won in 1992, they had finished 3rd in 1990, top in 1991 (then lost the Grand Final), and finally, they won the GF in 1992. Everyone, including me, really got the feeling they had earnt their Grand Final win, since it had been a few years in the making, and it had followed consistent winning for the previous 3 seasons,
The Crows were different. Their Grand Final wins didn't follow 3 seasons of consistent winning. In fact, it didn't even follow one season of consistent winning. They won 13 games in 1997, which is "OK" but not earth shattering.
So, when they played 4 weeks of admittedly great football, most neutral people were pretty upset, because they didn't seem to have "earnt" it as much as the Roos and the Eagles, whose Grand Final wins were acheived after years of winning and finally achieving that one special moment.
That's not to downgrade the Crows excellent finals series in 1997 and 1998, but their performances two years either side in 1995-96, and also in 1999-2000 indicate that they were a 2 year flash in the pan. Other teams have played consistent winning football throiughout the Home and away, and in prior seasons on their way to winning a Grand Final.
The Crows on the other hand, not only couldn't win in 1994-95-96 and in 1999-00, but in the years that they DID win, they were not outstanding, anyway !
That's why those wins were accused of being soft. There was nothign soft about their GF performances.......but the fact they were called "premiers" (indicating they were "whole season champs",), made a lot of people think that they didn't deserve that title. I certainly only see them as premiers in "name" only. I certainly don't regard them as being the best team in either of those two years.
Bloodstained Angel
Premiership Player
thanks for that Dan24
Sydney were first in 1996, and North were 2nd So to have those two square off in the big one was a pretty good result for everyone concerned I thought.
On the 'value' of the Crows flags in 97-98 hmmmm - I'm in two minds about this.
On the one hand you could argue the Crows didn't really deserve to be there, their H&A seasons were nothing special.
But they did do enough to get into the finals and from there played a brilliant 4-week tournament to walk away with two un-expected but also well deserved titles.
Its a credit to Malcolm Blight, Neil Craig (espcially Craig) and the players that they were at their absolute peak in skill, fitness and skill RIGHT where it counted (the 3rd quarter of the GF). At that precise moment Adelaide were as good as any other team and deserved to win both of those games.
As to whether they actually deserved to be there in the first place - well, the debate continues on that one.
I think the example of the Crows 97-98 is good eveidence to support your pet theory (which I happen to agree with) about how a teams performance over the whole season should count for more when it comes to determining the premier.
cheers
Sydney were first in 1996, and North were 2nd So to have those two square off in the big one was a pretty good result for everyone concerned I thought.
On the 'value' of the Crows flags in 97-98 hmmmm - I'm in two minds about this.
On the one hand you could argue the Crows didn't really deserve to be there, their H&A seasons were nothing special.
But they did do enough to get into the finals and from there played a brilliant 4-week tournament to walk away with two un-expected but also well deserved titles.
Its a credit to Malcolm Blight, Neil Craig (espcially Craig) and the players that they were at their absolute peak in skill, fitness and skill RIGHT where it counted (the 3rd quarter of the GF). At that precise moment Adelaide were as good as any other team and deserved to win both of those games.
As to whether they actually deserved to be there in the first place - well, the debate continues on that one.
I think the example of the Crows 97-98 is good eveidence to support your pet theory (which I happen to agree with) about how a teams performance over the whole season should count for more when it comes to determining the premier.
cheers
G
Guest
Guest
BSA,
You said that the crows just happened to be at their peak at the right time (or words to that effect), but isn't that the whole point. I know it's not what Dan's advocating but under the current system, like an olympic swimmer, sides knows they can't peak for extended periods and must know when to take the foot off the pedal slightly and when to go flat out.
That's what make Essendons performance so great this year as they were able to stay hot for most of the year.
In '97 the crows were top after round 19 so were travelling pretty hot at that time and just eased off for the finals. I'll stop now because I'm in the wrong thread..Sorry!!
BTW, BSA now you know how we crows fans feel when our 97/98 performances don't get any credit. Pretty damn jacked off!!!
You said that the crows just happened to be at their peak at the right time (or words to that effect), but isn't that the whole point. I know it's not what Dan's advocating but under the current system, like an olympic swimmer, sides knows they can't peak for extended periods and must know when to take the foot off the pedal slightly and when to go flat out.
That's what make Essendons performance so great this year as they were able to stay hot for most of the year.
In '97 the crows were top after round 19 so were travelling pretty hot at that time and just eased off for the finals. I'll stop now because I'm in the wrong thread..Sorry!!
BTW, BSA now you know how we crows fans feel when our 97/98 performances don't get any credit. Pretty damn jacked off!!!
Bloodstained Angel
Premiership Player
yeah thats basically the point I'm making Spogs
Don't get me wrong - I think the Crows certainly deserved the 97 flag no doubt about that one at all. 98 ? - hmmmmm you did lose a final (badly too) so to my way of thinking you should have been out when you lost that one.
As I said - you can look at both ways, I think the brains trust at West Lakes brilliantly exploited the anomalies of the system by ensuring the Crows were just good enough to get in - then once they were in then it was 'pedal to the metal' and full steam ahead for 4 weeks in which you carried everything before you.
good luck to you - it may not have been exactly 'fair' (according to Dans system anyway) but it sure as hell was effective.
BTW - In the light of that idiotic little comment by CrowsOK - yes I know what you guys have to deal with.
cheers
Don't get me wrong - I think the Crows certainly deserved the 97 flag no doubt about that one at all. 98 ? - hmmmmm you did lose a final (badly too) so to my way of thinking you should have been out when you lost that one.
As I said - you can look at both ways, I think the brains trust at West Lakes brilliantly exploited the anomalies of the system by ensuring the Crows were just good enough to get in - then once they were in then it was 'pedal to the metal' and full steam ahead for 4 weeks in which you carried everything before you.
good luck to you - it may not have been exactly 'fair' (according to Dans system anyway) but it sure as hell was effective.
BTW - In the light of that idiotic little comment by CrowsOK - yes I know what you guys have to deal with.
cheers
And while you lot are all of on your 'whose was the most deserved GF' tack, please spare a thought for those of us that have yet to taste such success.
I can imagine all Brisbane fans being branded arrogant once we finally win a flag! But will I care? NO, all I will care about is that we got the flag, Finally!
I can imagine all Brisbane fans being branded arrogant once we finally win a flag! But will I care? NO, all I will care about is that we got the flag, Finally!
based on expirience i would have to say Carlton. Essendon are also pretty bad but i guess they are not so bad considering they are a really good team!
