Dumb punters

[Doctor J.]

Dumb punters (http://www.theage.com.au/news/geoff-mcclure/sporting-life/2006/01/31/1138590498047.html)

Can't believe what people bet on these days. This must be what is termed machine gun betting. Just place a bet on anything and some long shot is sure to surface.

Bets like this make me envious of bookies.

[mocaholic]

Originally posted by Doctor J.
Bets like this make me envious of bookies.
Esp now that KFBP is dead!

[Schneiderman]

I think there are a lot of St Kilda, Geelong and WCE fans out there still trying to find a way to console themselves.

Luck my arse.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Schneiderman
Luck my arse.
Of course there was a lot of luck.

[ScottH]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Of course there was a lot of luck. Yep, and the others didn't have it.

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Of course there was a lot of luck. You cannot win a premiership without some luck:)

[RogueSwan]

Originally posted by goswannie14
You cannot win a premiership without some luck:)
Like all the luck Magic had in shooting for goal in the GF.;)

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by goswannie14
You cannot win a premiership without some luck:) Some people prefer to shut their eyes and not believe that as they bizarrely take it as an insult to the team...

[Schneiderman]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Some people prefer to shut their eyes and not believe that as they bizarrely take it as an insult to the team...

Dont see anyone saying that it was luck that got Port, Brisbane or Essendon their premierships.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Schneiderman
Dont see anyone saying that it was luck that got Port, Brisbane or Essendon their premierships. Everyone acknowledges there was an element in luck in each of them - with better luck Brisbane would have won four flags. Given their dominating performances in H&A seasons leading up to their flags, it's hardly surprising that less luck is ascribed to them than to the Swans.

[Sanecow]

I think the word "luck" is used as an insult. What were the specifically lucky events that led to the Swans' Premiership?

[adnar]

Originally posted by Sanecow
I think the word "luck" is used as an insult. What were the specifically lucky events that led to the Swans' Premiership?

Barry Hall not being suspended for the GF?

Sport is full of luck. I think we may have been slightly luckier than other teams in recent YEARS. Not to say we didn't deserve it.

[Sanecow]

Barry Hall being reported at all was terrible "luck" forced upon the AFL by the high-pitched-scream of television commentary.

[Pommie Swannie]

There is another saying (cliche?) that 'good teams make their own luck'.

I feel this is more relevant - a good side regularly puts itself in a winnable position in games where one or two decisions / incidents can be seen as having a critical impact on the outcome of a game.

If a side is 10 goals behind going in to the last 5 minutes, a contentious decision in their favour will never be game-turning and therefore will not be highlighted and analysed to death!

[Thunder Shaker]

Originally posted by Schneiderman
Dont see anyone saying that it was luck that got Port, Brisbane or Essendon their premierships.
Only because I didn't post my analyses on RWO. No side wins a premiership without luck.

Essendon in 2000 were lucky to win the premiership. They luckily avoided injuries to key players and luckily avoided having a bad game in the finals like they did in the 1999 PF.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Sanecow
I think the word "luck" is used as an insult. What were the specifically lucky events that led to the Swans' Premiership? Injuries to two of the key West Coast midfielders for the GF.

The SF win over Geelong. - lucky that Davis kicked the goal with seconds left, lucky Geelong had injuries.

Virtually no major long-term injuries to the Swans.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Pommie Swannie
There is another saying (cliche?) that 'good teams make their own luck'. So does that mean a team decimated by injuries did not "make its own luck" and is thus somehow to blame?

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Injuries to two of the key West Coast midfielders for the GF.

More than balanced by Barry's cheekbone, Hall's shoulder, O'Loughlin's concussion and Ball's headwound.


Originally posted by NMWBloods
The SF win over Geelong. - lucky that Davis kicked the goal with seconds left, lucky Geelong had injuries.

If you are going to class goals as "luck" then by definition every game of footy is decided by luck.


Originally posted by NMWBloods
Virtually no major long-term injuries to the Swans.

Doyle, Schauble, Nicks, Maxfield, Goodes, O'Loughlin.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Sanecow
More than balanced by Barry's cheekbone, Hall's shoulder, O'Loughlin's concussion and Ball's headwound. Didn't stop or hamper their ability to play.


If you are going to class goals as "luck" then by definition every game of footy is decided by luck.
I'm not talking about his class, I'm talking about the difference a few seconds made and that Geelong was dead on their feet through lack of players.


Doyle, Schauble, Nicks, Maxfield, Goodes, O'Loughlin. Schauble couldn't get a game when fit. Maxfield wasn't adding a lot. Neither was Nicks. Jolly was a more than adequate replacement for Doyle. Goodes and O'Loughlin played nearly all season.

[Lucky Knickers]

I've asked the footy gods for a repeat of the conditions in 2005

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Didn't stop or hamper their ability to play.

Determination, not luck.


Originally posted by NMWBloods

I'm not talking about his class, I'm talking about the difference a few seconds made and that Geelong was dead on their feet through lack of players.

A well-rehearsed set play, not luck. There was a center bounce after the goal, it's not like it was after the siren.


Originally posted by NMWBloods
Schauble couldn't get a game when fit. Maxfield wasn't adding a lot. Neither was Nicks. Jolly was a more than adequate replacement for Doyle. Goodes and O'Loughlin played nearly all season.

Schauble, Maxfield, Nicks and Doyle all had long term injuries in 2005. This is the reason they underperformed or didn't make the Seniors. It's not because they suddenly forgot how to play footy.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Sanecow
Determination, not luck. Get your hand off it...


A well-rehearsed set play, not luck. There was a center bounce after the goal, it's not like it was after the siren. The play was well-rehearsed, having 2 seconds left given everything that happened, plus the Geelong players too knackered to man up or block the space effectively or to stop the ball getting there at all, plus missing their main ruckman were all good luck.


Schauble, Maxfield, Nicks and Doyle all had long term injuries in 2005. This is the reason they underperformed or didn't make the Seniors. It's not because they suddenly forgot how to play footy. It's not like any of them would have made a significant difference to the side as it was.

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Get your hand off it...

Hard to argue with such a clever argument. Hmm...


Originally posted by NMWBloods
The play was well-rehearsed, having 2 seconds left given everything that happened, plus the Geelong players too knackered to man up or block the space effectively or to stop the ball getting there at all, plus missing their main ruckman were all good luck.

Get your hand off it...


Originally posted by NMWBloods
It's not like any of them would have made a significant difference to the side as it was.

We'll have to disagree on that one. Compare Maxfield and Bevan in 2004. Still, a very odd definition of good luck.

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
O'Loughlin played nearly all season.

This is "good luck"?

"Knee tendonitis has slowed O'Loughlin. He spends every day of the week in an ice bath and training with his teammates is rarely an option."

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by NMWBloods

I'm not talking about his class, I'm talking about the difference a few seconds made and that Geelong was dead on their feet through lack of players. Souldn't this read "dead on their feet due to lack of fitness";)

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by goswannie14
Souldn't this read "dead on their feet due to lack of fitness";) No bench left.

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
No bench left.



INJURIES ? Sydney: Williams (thigh)
Geelong: King (hamstring)


Were Geelong restricted to a one-man bench?

[Piobaireachd]

Have to agree with all you say moo.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Sanecow
Were Geelong restricted to a one-man bench? They had other players who couldn't run out the game due to injuries.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Piobaireachd
Have to agree with all you say moo. Well that just about does it then - there was no luck involved and the Swans won purely because of skill and determination... hmmm so why did they not win the year before... oh well, we should win the next 3 or 4 if luck doesn't count...

[Sanecow]

I don't deny that there are elements of luck involved in football (duh) but for someone to suggest that the competition is so even that Premierships can be won due to luck is a joke.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Sanecow
I don't deny that there are elements of luck involved in football (duh) but for someone to suggest that the competition is so even that Premierships can be won due to luck is a joke.
I don't recall suggesting that.

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Of course there was a lot of luck.

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
so why did they not win the year before...

[NMWBloods]

"Of course there was a lot of luck" is not suggesting they won only because of luck. It suggests luck helped a lot and it was in response to someone who refused to believe there was luck.

"so why did they not win the year before... " - if you can't recognise sarcasm after all this time... time for :rolleyes: to return...

[Zlatorog]

Oh, Cow, you wouldn't like to contradict against people like NMWBloods. Surely he knows better than anyoneelse that the swans will grace the bottom of the ledder again. That is his righteous mission and gratification for spending his "fortune" on bets for finishing the Swans last in the competition.:p

[NMWBloods]

Oh FFS...

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
"Of course there was a lot of luck" is not suggesting they won only because of luck. It suggests luck helped a lot and it was in response to someone who refused to believe there was luck.


The question is: Did they have more "luck" than any other team in the finals? My answer is: No.


Originally posted by NMWBloods
time for :rolleyes: to return...

Suck it up, Princess.

[Eala ?ireann]

Luck doesn't exist nor does fate, destiny or any of that other pre-ordained keek.

The team that wins games and scores goals/points in the most significant numbers at the most significant times wins.

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by Eala ?ireann
Luck doesn't exist nor does fate, destiny or any of that other pre-ordained keek.

The team that wins games and scores goals/points in the most significant numbers at the most significant times wins. You're entitled to your opinion even if it is wrong...after all you did say cricket wasn't a sport:p

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Sanecow
The question is: Did they have more "luck" than any other team in the finals? My answer is: No.
You think that Nicks and Maxfield would have been better than Braun and Kerr?

[Piobaireachd]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Well that just about does it then - there was no luck involved and the Swans won purely because of skill and determination... hmmm so why did they not win the year before... oh well, we should win the next 3 or 4 if luck doesn't count... He never said that an element of luck is not needed to win a Premiership. Oh for the love of God where is that roll eyes. And yes they did win because of skill and determination. They are a necessary component in any Premiership of any sport of any level. Thank you.

[Piobaireachd]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
You think that Nicks and Maxfield would have been better than Braun and Kerr? Well that's football isn't it.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Piobaireachd
Well that's football isn't it. Thanks genius - yes this is what football is and the circumstances where some players get injured and some don't is affected a great deal by luck.

I never said skill and determination were not involved, just not the sole reason. Luck has a major part to play, predominantly through injuries.

Sanecow said - "I think the word "luck" is used as an insult. What were the specifically lucky events that led to the Swans' Premiership?" - ie: he can't see anything lucky in the win.

Subsequently modified to "I don't deny that there are elements of luck involved in football (duh) but for someone to suggest that the competition is so even that Premierships can be won due to luck is a joke." which I didn't disagree with.

Of course, then we get some insightful observations from the peanut gallery...

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Sanecow
The question is: Did they have more "luck" than any other team in the finals? My answer is: No. I think the loss of Braun and injury to Kerr would push the luck element in favour of the Swans.


Suck it up, Princess. Ah, I can see that you're struggling now - trying schoolboy insults.

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
I think the loss of Braun and injury to Kerr would push the luck element in favour of the Swans.


I honestly think that if Ball or Kirk or Barry or Hall had the same injury he would have played on. You can call it luck, I call it determination. As Kirk said, "The reason why we won on the weekend is because we play for each other and we bleed for each other." I didn't get that impression from other teams in 2005.


Originally posted by NMWBloods
Ah, I can see that you're struggling now - trying schoolboy insults.


Originally posted by NMWBloods
Get your hand off it...


Originally posted by NMWBloods
Thanks genius

:eek: :D

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Sanecow
I honestly think that if Ball or Kirk or Barry or Hall had the same injury he would have played on. You can call it luck, I call it determination.

"Braun has a complete rupture of the bicep femeurs tendon where it was torn from the bone" - sure they would have played through that...

[Sanecow]

"Eagle Daniel Kerr has been cleared of a serious leg injury but will have precautionary X-rays. Kerr hurt his right shin in the opening minutes of the Grand Final."

I think they might have struggled through that one.

[NMWBloods]

As did Kerr, but wasn't playing close to 100%. In a game decided by less than a kick, luck counts for something and Kerr being injured was a bit of luck (as was Braun not playing).

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
As did Kerr, but wasn't playing close to 100%. In a game decided by less than a kick, luck counts for something and Kerr being injured was a bit of luck (as was Braun not playing).

We were very lucky that no Swans players were injured before or during the Grand Final and Eagles players were. I can't believe I ever failed to notice our incredible luck.

[Piobaireachd]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
As did Kerr, but wasn't playing close to 100%. In a game decided by less than a kick, luck counts for something and Kerr being injured was a bit of luck (as was Braun not playing). gee Mickey O was unlucky not to have kicked those gimme goals. pfft. /add roll eyes

[NMWBloods]

You're really struggling with the concept of luck, which is hardly surprising...

[ScottH]

Gee, I'm so lucky I read this thread.

[Sanecow]

How lucky was Craig Bolton to have his face smashed in!

[NMWBloods]

How lucky am I to try to involve Sanecow in a discussion when he is the master of the inane.

[Piobaireachd]

We really need Kylie Minogue here to enlighten us on the concept of luck.

"I should be so lucky, lucky, lucky, lucky..."

[satchmopugdog]

or the poet Yuan Hung-tao from "The Slowly, Slowly Poem," translated by Jonathan Chaves


"The Goddess of Good Luck
and the Dark Lady of Bad Luck
are with us every step we take."

[ROK Lobster]

Originally posted by Sanecow
As Kirk said, "The reason why we won on the weekend is because we play for each other and we bleed for each other." I didn't get that impression from other teams in 2005.
I just think crap like that is a load of bollocks.

Of course you need a bit of luck to win a flag. You also need to be able to take advantage of it. Had the Weagles won, some of their fans would have been saying it is lucky Nog Ablett has no brain. We are just lucky he didn't kick across the goal twice.

Our biggest piece of luck as regards injuries was not their absence but that Maxfiled had one that kept him out for most of the year.

[ROK Lobster]

Originally posted by satchmopugdog
or the poet Yuan Hung-tao from "The Slowly, Slowly Poem," translated by Jonathan Chaves


"The Goddess of Good Luck
and the Dark Lady of Bad Luck
are with us every step we take."
Sounds like Yuan Hung knew how to pull the babes - a goddess on one arm and a dark lady on the other. Grrrr!

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
How lucky am I to try to involve Sanecow in a discussion when he is the master of the inane.

Almost as lucky as the Swans were that Bolton and Ball only received gashes to their heads and didn't hurt their shins. The most amazing good fortune was that a blow to the head didn't affect their games at all.

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by ROK Lobster
I just think crap like that is a load of bollocks.


You should rewatch the game.


Originally posted by ROK Lobster
Our biggest piece of luck as regards injuries was not their absence but that Maxfiled had one that kept him out for most of the year.

I just think crap like that is a load of bollocks.

[Sanecow]

We only won because Skylab killed Aunt Betty and not Jason Ball.


Debris was found between Esperance, Western Australia, and Rawlinna, Western Australia, 31?34?S, 122?126?E. As this area was sparsely populated, the only casualty was an Australian cow.

[Tuesday]

Originally posted by Sanecow
How lucky was Craig Bolton to have his face smashed in!

How lucky was Sampi to get away with it?

[Carolyn]

You can't win the Grand Final based purely on luck, there's got to be some skill in it as well.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Carolyn
You can't win the Grand Final based purely on luck, there's got to be some skill in it as well.
I don't recall anyone disagreeing with this view.

[Nico]

As the saying goes, "the harder you work the luckier you get".

We won 13 of our last 16 home and away games (I think they are the numbers or thereabouts) by sheer hard work (running) hence made our own luck if you like, and worked our butts off in the finals.

When we were headed in the last Q of the GF we just worked harder and turned it around.

Regardless of injuries and any other factors our work ethic won the flag because it was a few points or a fraction of a % better than the Eagles.

In the end we won the flag and the "punters" can suffer in their jocks for all I care. Particularly the whingers from StKilda. Looked at Big Footy lately?

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by Nico

In the end we won the flag and the "punters" can suffer in their jocks for all I care. Particularly the whingers from StKilda. Looked at Big Footy lately? Are those idiots still going on about being losers?:D

[ROK Lobster]

Originally posted by Sanecow
You should rewatch the game.
I guess a preparedness to bleed for each other is fine so long as each player is going to give 110% of the red stuff but only do it one week at a time.


I just think crap like that is a load of bollocks. [/B] Maybe, but there was a touch of tongue in cheek in my comment. I am not sure Brett could say the same.

[Pommie Swannie]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
So does that mean a team decimated by injuries did not "make its own luck" and is thus somehow to blame?

... or does it mean thhat the Swans made their own luck with training and recovery methods that meant no serious long-term injuries among the key player group?

I guess we'll find out this season whether it really was luck if there are numerous injuries!

[anne]

In the end we won the flag and the "punters" can suffer in their jocks for all I care. Particularly the whingers from StKilda. Looked at Big Footy lately? [/B][/QUOTE]
Yeah - it makes me really angry reading it. Sydney only won the flag by default and ST Kilda has it in the bag already for this year! Even in the general threads predicting this year's results no-one picks Sydney to win and half the people don't even pick them to make the 8! It is as though last year didn't even happy. I really hope we do well, especially at the start of the season. I hope we win our first 7 straight. Maybe that might shut them up.

[anne]

Oops - I meant didn't even happen.

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by anne

Yeah - it makes me really angry reading it. Sydney only won the flag by default and ST Kilda has it in the bag already for this year! Even in the general threads predicting this year's results no-one picks Sydney to win and half the people don't even pick them to make the 8! It is as though last year didn't even happy. I really hope we do well, especially at the start of the season. I hope we win our first 7 straight. Maybe that might shut them up. But they have to have brains to be shutup by facts, and we are talking about St Kilda supporters.

A St Kilda supporter with a brain...now there's an oxymoron. Or is that just a moron.:p

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Pommie Swannie
... or does it mean thhat the Swans made their own luck with training and recovery methods that meant no serious long-term injuries among the key player group?

I guess we'll find out this season whether it really was luck if there are numerous injuries!

A team can do everything it needs in terms of preparation, training and discipline, but unless the team is far superior to the others, with a bit of bad luck the campaign can very quickly lose its way.

As for making your own luck with injuries, certainly it can help with some, such as soft-tissue injuries, but it's hardly going to help if a guy falls and does his knee or breaks a leg.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Sanecow
Barry Hall being reported at all was terrible "luck" forced upon the AFL by the high-pitched-scream of television commentary. Hall was always going to be reported for punching a guy in the stomach. We were lucky that we had footage to get him off. We were also lucky that there was no footage of the Grant incident a couple of years ago or there would have been no good behaviour discount.

[Sanecow]

There's no proof Hall even touched the guy. A total dive. Worse happens every game of every week.

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
As for making your own luck with injuries, certainly it can help with some, such as soft-tissue injuries, but it's hardly going to help if a guy falls and does his knee or breaks a leg.

In-game luck summary:

Swans:
Ball: Head wound
C. Bolton: Shoulder to the nose.
J. Bolton: Head wound
Crouch: Ankle (tore ankle ligaments at the start of last quarter).
O'Loughlin: Concussion

West Coast:
Kerr: Boo boo on the shin.

Pre-game luck:




Melbourne's Herald Sun on Tuesday (Sept. 27) on page 85 listed the Sydney players who played the Grand Final under "difficulties" ...

Leo Barry: triple cheekbone fracture (knock to the face would have meant emergency surgery).
Barry Hall: AC joint injury (unable to raise left arm the week of the Grand Final), played with painkillers.
Jude Bolton: AC joint injury after dislocating shoulder in Round 19 (has had two painkilling injections every game since).
Adam Schneider: triple cheekbone fracture (knock to the face would have needed surgery).
Ben Mathews: pinched nerve in his foot (had painkilling injections for the past 16 weeks to play).
Craig Bolton: chronic knee injury had painkilling injections for the past 10 weeks to play).
Darren Jolly: broken hand (played on painkillers for four weeks before finals).

Source (http://footystats.freeservers.com/Archive/Review05-R26.html)

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Sanecow
West Coast:
Kerr: Boo boo on the shin. No bias there... And Braun couldn't possibly have played with his injury, so don't make ridiculous comparisons.

Playing through injuries as the Swans did is an amazing feat, but it's something that most other players in other teams do too. However, there are certain injuries you can't.

The most amazing Swan wrt injuries is Crouch, however he is quite exceptional.

[Sanecow]

Of course I'm biased. I don't recall any in-game injuries to Eagles other than Kerr. Do you?

Braun couldn't play, Doyle couldn't play. Luck shmuck.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Sanecow
Braun couldn't play, Doyle couldn't play. Luck shmuck. Yeah, that's a sensible comparison - how can I argue with that...

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Yeah, that's a sensible comparison - how can I argue with that...

Both injured seniors. Sorry Braun isn't a ruckman so you can dig up some stats. :rolleyes:

[NMWBloods]

They're both people too...

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
They're both people too...

You have failed to put forward a convincing argument that the Swans had any more luck than the Eagles. It's been nice toying with you.

[Xie Shan]

Originally posted by Sanecow
You have failed to put forward a convincing argument that the Swans had any more luck than the Eagles. It's been nice toying with you.

What, not even a "Happy Birthday, Bloods"? :D

[NMWBloods]

With arguments like Doyle is comparable to Braun, "luck schmuck", "boo boo on shin", Swans players could continue with a tendon ripped from the bone, Skylab didn't kill Ball, and Hall didn't touch Maguire, plus the masterful and cogent arguments in support from Piobaireachd and Zlatorog, how could I compete. Of course there was no luck in the premiership win...

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by sydfan83
What, not even a "Happy Birthday, Bloods"? :D

I sent roses already.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Sanecow
I sent roses already. I assumed they were an early Valentine's Day present.

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
With arguments like Doyle is comparable to Braun,

If you want to underrate our squad or overrate the opposition, knock yourself out. It's quite trendy.


Originally posted by NMWBloods
"luck schmuck", "boo boo on shin",

"Get your hand off it".


Originally posted by NMWBloods
Swans players could continue with a tendon ripped from the bone,

I was referring to Kerr.


Originally posted by NMWBloods
Skylab didn't kill Ball

Fact.


Originally posted by NMWBloods
and Hall didn't touch Maguire

The footage was inconclusive.


Originally posted by NMWBloods
, plus the masterful and cogent arguments in support from Piobaireachd and Zlatorog, how could I compete. Of course there was no luck in the premiership win...

I am waiting on the immense list of injuries sustained by the Eagles in the Grand Final.

[NMWBloods]

Obviously you don't think WC losing one of their key midfielders before the game is a piece of good luck for the Swans.

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Obviously you don't think WC losing one of their key midfielders before the game is a piece of good luck for the Swans.

I believe they used another player. Like the Swans using a ruckman with a broken hand to replace Doyle.

[NMWBloods]

Losing Doyle, he who has played 40 games in 6 years plus only 1 game in 2005, and replacing him with either of Ball or Jolly, who had both played all year, was hardly a major negative.

Braun, had played every game averaging 22dpg, and was replaced by Sam Butler, who had 2 handballs in the GF, and is only in his second season and managing 12dpg.

Not really an even exchange. But no benefit of luck there.

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Losing Doyle, he who has played 40 games in 6 years plus only 1 game in 2005, and replacing him with either of Ball or Jolly, who had both played all year, was hardly a major negative.

Braun, had played every game averaging 22dpg, and was replaced by Sam Butler, who had 2 handballs in the GF, and is only in his second season and managing 12dpg.

Not really an even exchange. But no benefit of luck there.

You have a very twisted perspective on luck. The Swans lost their #2 ruckman in round 1 while the Eagles had Braun until the Preliminary Final. Which is more fortunate?

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Sanecow
You have a very twisted perspective on luck. The Swans lost their #2 ruckman in round 1 while the Eagles had Braun until the Preliminary Final. Which is more fortunate? The combination of Ball, Jolly and Goodes was very effective in the ruck, plus Doyle has not been a critical element of the Swans' success. Who do you think would have been left out of the side if Doyle had played?

The only way our team could have been stronger is for Maxfield to have replaced Bevan.

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
The combination of Ball, Jolly and Goodes was very effective in the ruck, plus Doyle has not been a critical element of the Swans' success. Who do you think would have been left out of the side if Doyle had played?

Possibly Jolly (broken hand) in the Grand Final or an earlier game. Who knows.


Originally posted by NMWBloods
The only way our team could have been stronger is for Maxfield to have replaced Bevan.

With 100% fit squad:
In: Nicks, Maxfield, Doyle (?).
Out: Dempster, Bevan, Jolly (?).

Butler (16 possessions), played better than Braun (8 possessions) in round 17 when the Swans played the Eagles so I don't think it was that much of a loss for them.

[Piobaireachd]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
With arguments like Doyle is comparable to Braun, "luck schmuck", "boo boo on shin", Swans players could continue with a tendon ripped from the bone, Skylab didn't kill Ball, and Hall didn't touch Maguire, plus the masterful and cogent arguments in support from Piobaireachd and Zlatorog, how could I compete. Of course there was no luck in the premiership win... Oh shut up duckhead and stop bringing me in to your argument.

I said my piece early on by saying I agreed with Sanecow, you took offence to it and threw a hissy fit. You then go on to continually rubbish me in front of every viewer with your sarcastic wit. How droll \rolleyes. Just where do u get off? My guess is right in front of your keyboard.

You want to have a go at me you do it via PM.

I do not appreciate being personally attacked on these or any forums. Naturally, I will respond. If the mods don't like what I have to say in retaliation... well stiff! That's what the banning rule is there for. But just remember, it takes two to tango. There's too much favouritism that goes on in this forum anyway. Rules that apply to one person never seem to apply to others.

Thank you.

[Pommie Swannie]

Perhaps of greater impact for the eagles was the loss of Matera, given their inability to convert?

[Bleed Red Blood]

Originally posted by Pommie Swannie
Perhaps of greater impact for the eagles was the loss of Matera, given their inability to convert?

They should have played him.

Crouch stopped Judd. If Matera was there Crouch would have had to play on the little guy.

[floppinab]

Originally posted by anne
I hope we win our first 7 straight. Maybe that might shut them up. [/B]

Won't happen, you're forgetting our obligatory 3 game or greater losing streak between rounds 3 and 9.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Piobaireachd
stop bringing me in to your argument. Then don't jump into my argument as you so often do.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Pommie Swannie
Perhaps of greater impact for the eagles was the loss of Matera, given their inability to convert? I was wondering about Matera. He has struggled badly in finals, but he may have been a useful option in such a low-scoring game and been a distraction for Crouch who was badly needed on Judd.

[Pommie Swannie]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
I was wondering about Matera. He has struggled badly in finals, but he may have been a useful option in such a low-scoring game and been a distraction for Crouch who was badly needed on Judd.

Given the amount of times the ball failed to stick inside 50 for the eagles, I think having Matera crumbing around would have caused the Swans defence a totally different problem. The eagles were just too one-dimensional up front on the day.

[Piobaireachd]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Then don't jump into my argument as you so often do. I have as much right to state my opinion as you do u sanctimonious little man

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Piobaireachd
I have as much right to state my opinion as you do u sanctimonious little man
Then don't complain and say "stop bringing me in to your argument". Whenever I am involved your opinions are negative toward me, and have been since you joined, so don't cry "poor me I've been personally attacked".

BTW - 'u' is not a word.

[Sanecow]

I think Matera's omission was a massive mistake. I haven't re-watched the game but I thought the switch to a smaller forward line turned the game in the favour of the Eagles in the last quarter of the QF. I might be misremembering though, I don't have quarter-by-quarter stats at hand.

[Pommie Swannie]

Originally posted by Sanecow
I think Matera's omission was a massive mistake. I haven't re-watched the game but I thought the switch to a smaller forward line turned the game in the favour of the Eagles in the last quarter of the QF. I might be misremembering though, I don't have quarter-by-quarter stats at hand.

I agree, but I think the biggest mistake was holding out for as long as possible before pulling him from the 22. It seemed to me that they didn't plan for Matera not being available. Consequently when he had to be withdrawn they didn't really have a replacement and therefore had to change their game plan at the last minute.

[ROK Lobster]

Originally posted by Sanecow
I think Matera's omission was a massive mistake. A stroke of luck by jove.

[ROK Lobster]

Originally posted by Piobaireachd
I have as much right to state my opinion as you do u sanctimonious little man You do not have that right. Neither does he. It is just that there is no prohibition against it. Completely different things.

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by ROK Lobster
A stroke of luck by jove.

I believe it was a decision made by the Eagles' match committee. Unless their methods involve the tossing of a coin then it has nothing to do with luck.

[ROK Lobster]

Originally posted by Sanecow
I believe it was a decision made by the Eagles' match committee. Unless their methods involve the tossing of a coin then it has nothing to do with luck. But isn't it luck for the Swans? If you go through a red light (on the red light) camera that has mistakenly been switched off isn't that a little lucky?

[Sanecow]

Fair enough. If you define every skill error and poor decision made by the opposition as "lucky for the Swans" then you can consider the Grand Final win lucky. Strange definition though.

[ROK Lobster]

Originally posted by Sanecow
Fair enough. If you define every skill error and poor decision made by the opposition as "lucky for the Swans" then you can consider the Grand Final win lucky. Strange definition though. Luck helps, that's all. To say that the Swans had a bit of luck in winning the Premiership is not to say that they were lucky to win it.

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by goswannie14
You cannot win a premiership without some luck:) Which takes us back to where the discussion started;)

[Sanecow]

I just disagree with a definition of luck that reduces the game to events that are always classed as lucky for one of the teams. Dumb punters indeed.

[ROK Lobster]

Why cow? I thought West Coast had some luck too. Week 1 of the finals, Nog's kick across the face of goal. I think of luck as things that go your your way thjat you have no control over. If you don't have any of that, or even enough of that, you wont win flag. That is not to say that with enough of it you will win a flag.

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by ROK Lobster
I think of luck as things that go your your way that you have no control over.

I think of luck more as things that go your way that nobody has control of. This includes: gusts of wind, seagulls, the bounce of the loose ball and (some) injuries but excludes selection of players, inaccurate kicking and other skill errors.

[ROK Lobster]

Originally posted by Sanecow
I think of luck more as things that go your way that nobody has control of. This includes: gusts of wind, seagulls, the bounce of the loose ball and (some) injuries but excludes selection of players, inaccurate kicking and other skill errors. So do you think that any element off good luck has to have a corresponding element of bad luck? So if something is just poor management on one side it cannot be good luck on the other?

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by ROK Lobster
So do you think that any element off good luck has to have a corresponding element of bad luck? So if something is just poor management on one side it cannot be good luck on the other?

That's the way I see it. Poor management or skills from the opposition isn't luck, it's just sub-standard opposition.

[ROK Lobster]

Originally posted by Sanecow
That's the way I see it. Poor management or skills from the opposition isn't luck, it's just sub-standard opposition. So the traffic example above is not good luck, just poor standard policing?

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by ROK Lobster
So the traffic example above is not good luck, just poor standard policing?

The camera was off; it was never going to take your picture. It's no luckier than running a red and the intersection having no camera.

If the camera was defective and worked intermittently then maybe.

[Tuesday]

Originally posted by goswannie14
Which takes us back to where the discussion started;)

Quoting yourself is the first sign of madness.

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by Tuesday
Quoting yourself is the first sign of madness. So is posting on RWO;)

[Zlatorog]

Is this thread still about Dumb Punters or about Dumb RWO Posters?:D

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by Zlatorog
Is this thread still about Dumb Punters or about Dumb RWO Posters?:D You're leading with your chin on that one!:p

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Zlatorog
Is this thread still about Dumb Punters or about Dumb RWO Posters?:D I don't think you became the subject of the thread...

[Zlatorog]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
I don't think you became the subject of the thread...

I know, it's all about you, isn it?

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Zlatorog
I know, it's all about you, isn it? Wrong again!

[Sanecow]

It's about the vibe.

[cressakel]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Injuries to two of the key West Coast midfielders for the GF.

The SF win over Geelong. - lucky that Davis kicked the goal with seconds left, lucky Geelong had injuries.

Virtually no major long-term injuries to the Swans.

Shall we even these so-called LUCKY events out against being extremely UNLUCKY in 1997 when the following occured -

1. The King (Paul Kelly) doing his knee in Round 17 against Port Adelaide when the Swans were flying at 12 wins/4 losses and Kelly was killing em' throughout the season
2. Lockett, Schwass and Cresswell all sustaining injuries towards the end of the season that made them either below there best or out the team thus robbing the Swans of midfield strength and a key forward
3. Adelaide winning the flag from fifth after losing there first final and playing against injury-riddled teams the likes of Sydney and St.Kilda.

In my opinion, 1997 was the year that slipped through our hands via a combination of UNLUCKY events, whereas 2005 was the year that was meant to be through a combination of LUCKY events.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by cressakel
In my opinion, 1997 was the year that slipped through our hands via a combination of UNLUCKY events, whereas 2005 was the year that was meant to be through a combination of LUCKY events. Yep. '98 was a bit unlucky too.

[cressakel]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Yep. '98 was a bit unlucky too.

Actually, you are correct. It was 1998 that all the events mentioned happened, not 1997. I am still so delirious from the events of this year that the previous years seem all as one heap of dissapointments.....

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by cressakel
Actually, you are correct. It was 1998 that all the events mentioned happened, not 1997. I am still so delirious from the events of this year that the previous years seem all as one heap of dissapointments.....
I thought that may have been the case, but I sometimes get the two years confused. As I recall though, we had a bad start to '97 too with Stafford being injured and missing much of the pre-season. Still, I think our dismal finish in '97 may have been our own fault.

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
I thought that may have been the case, but I sometimes get the two years confused. As I recall though, we had a bad start to '97 too with Stafford being injured and missing much of the pre-season. Still, I think our dismal finish in '97 may have been our own fault. The game against Footscray was a shocker...I took Dad as his Fathers Day present...sorry Dad!!

Princess Diana was buried that same night, and I split up with the ex-wife during that week. It is a week I would rather forget but it just isn't possible.:frown

[Nico]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Yep. '98 was a bit unlucky too.


Forget about luck. How many times have you heard a racing scribe say a horse was unlucky last or ran without luck, then pick it to win, and it doesn't.

Life is a numbers game, pure and simple.

[ROK Lobster]

This thread named a 'one of the great sporting debates' by SMH (sort of)...

A MAJOR review of the AFL's reporting and tribunal system has done little to settle one of the great sporting debates: whether Swans full-forward Barry Hall was lucky to escape a suspension that would have kept him out of the grand final - and perhaps cost the Swans their historic flag.
Sauce (http://www.smh.com.au/news/afl/new-guidelines-prove-hall-was-innocent--sort-of/2006/02/06/1139074167375.html)

[goswannie14]

According to this definition from the same article he still would have got off;
As part of a series of changes for 2006, the definition of "behind play" has been altered to incidents that do not occur "within close proximity to the ball or occurs at a location which could not reasonably be regarded as an option for the delivery of the ball".

He was regarded as an option to receive the ball, and if a senior AFL player can't kick 30 metres (which is about the distance Barry was from the ball), they shouldn't be playing.

[liz]

Originally posted by goswannie14
According to this definition from the same article he still would have got off;

He was regarded as an option to receive the ball, and if a senior AFL player can't kick 30 metres (which is about the distance Barry was from the ball), they shouldn't be playing.

Furthermore, they've downgraded the activation points for the in-play / behind the play designation, meaning that even if the incident had been deemed to be behind the play he would get the same number of points for that incident in 2006 that he finally landed up with in 2005.