Comeback Kings

[swantastic]

At the end of 2005 most on here would have said, "So what! We have wone the flag!"

I still say the same,i dont give a @@@@ just as long as we win.

[NMWBloods]

At the end of 2005 most on here would have said, "So what! We have wone the flag!"

Hence my comment - Good for win rate, not as good as a spectacle. The whole game plan so nearly came unstuck with no flag though!

[Industrial Fan]

Lions had a pretty similar run during their reign at the top. The games they lost were close, but they could always pile on goals. In most cases they came up just short. I'd be interested to see their record under the same circumstances.

[DeadlyAkkuret]

It also almost won us 2 flags.

Critisise Our Style Thread #2338

[573v30]

Basically, don't let the Kangas kick 6 goals in quick succession in the first quarter and the Swans should win the game.

[ScottH]

Basically, don't let the Kangas kick 6 goals in quick succession in the first quarter and the Swans should win the game.

OR

Basically, don't let the Kangas kick 6 goals in quick succession in the first quarter and the Swans should win the game.

[573v30]

"Edited for accuracy" is much simpler.

[NMWBloods]

Lions had a pretty similar run during their reign at the top. The games they lost were close, but they could always pile on goals. In most cases they came up just short. I'd be interested to see their record under the same circumstances.

Lions 2001-2004, WL record and games scoring > 100 points against top 8 sides (incl finals), and comebacks based mainly on end of quarter scores, where BL are behind 20 pts / 30 pts and the W/L record when they are behind.


2004: 7-6, 5. 0 / 2, 0-2

2003: 8-6, 6. 2 / 1, 0-3

2002: 8-5, 9. 2 / 1, 1-2

2001: 9-4, 7. 1 / 2, 0-3

So much better record against top 8 teams and scoring against them (32/53 = 60%, 27/53 > 100 pts = 51%), but only 1 win from 11 times falling behind 20 or more points (at a qtr break).

Moral of the story - don't fall behind!*

And again I can only point to...

So the big moral of the story is "get ahead by quarter time" FFS!!!!!!!

* Interesting my comment that we don't come back when down because we don't score enough is wrong - no one typically comes back. However, not scoring enough may be the reason we fall well behind nearly 1 in 4 games. As I say, still not bad from a winning percentage, but could be a little better (the old kick > 12 goals a game will give us one or two more wins per year, or whatever it was).

[sharp9]

Unfortunately I have no notion of how to get ahead by quarter time...and win the game. My main point, however, is that when the commentators say (as they nearly always do) "you can't count these Swans out just yet, anything could happen, they never give up" etc, etc, etc, in actual fact they are wrong (well, alright we never give up!) because as far as WINNING the game goes (as opposed to keeping face) we aren't actually a threat once we fall behind.

Even the games we won from behind last year were against Carlton, Hawthorn early doors and Freo at home. As soon as anyone who is any good get ahead of us we are gooooooone!

I would love to see us turn it around, though.

[BSA5]

I've said this 100 times (but I'm not sure it was ever on here), but since we fell 1 point short against the Eagles in the 2006 GF after what looked like a standard comeback for us, it's like we've forgotten how to come back. We always fight back, but, just like in the 06 GF, it's never quite enough. Perhaps some mental scars?

[connolly]

Spin it as "blue-collar" and "bloods-like", promote your less talented players at all opportunities (including making public their begging letters after being delisted, their rugby (league) heritage, the fact that they could not get another game with another club), have your more talented players make public statements (on and off the field) of the importance of team, the spirit at the club and the like, and publically shame any individual who does not tow the line - or perhaps creates the perception of not always towing the line - (regardless of talent), and count the cash.

And don't forget win a premiership and get within a point in another. Shocking!

[connolly]

A big reason we don't get down by a lot is, as I noted above, we lock the game down against top 8 sides so neither side score a lot. Having said that, it happens more than you'd think, and we usually lose (as per Sharp9's OP).

Based mainly on end of quarter scores, where we are behind 20 pts / 30 pts and our W/L record when we are behind.

2008: 1/1
W-L: 0-2

2007: 1/7
W-L: 0-8

2006: 3/3
W-L: 0-6

2005: 4/3
W-L: 2-5

Er most teams lose against the top teams. Thats why they are the top teams. And no we don't have shoot outs. Apart from those two stunning conclusions your point was?