A flag from nowhere

[NMWBloods]

Later season form is more important naturally given it's the business end of the season, but that doesn't mean that the early season form means little.

But - I think we are going in circles and it seems a case of semantics through misunderstanding now.

[Destructive]

Originally posted by hammo
I watched the DVD last night and had exactly the same thoughts.

We were struggling for the first third of the year, just keeping our heads above water for the second third (Collingwood win), and awesome in the run up to the finals.

I wonder if people will keep this in mind if our early season form next year is a bit scratchy??

Our motto should be: Never ever give up!

If last year proved anything, which it did, that would be in there somewhere.

[Big Al]

Originally posted by NMWBloods


Also, as I noted and it's one of the key parts of my post, it's rare for a team to turn around their form so dramatically. If you're not performing well by 2/3rds of the way through the season, the odds are you're not going to win the flag.

It's the reason I'm still pinching myself to make sure Im not dreaming. If someone had told me as I was walking out of the Dome after the Round 10 debacle that we would only lose another 3 games and win the comp I would have had them locked up in a rubber room and have the key thrown away.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Big Al
It's the reason I'm still pinching myself to make sure Im not dreaming. If someone had told me as I was walking out of the Dome after the Round 10 debacle that we would only lose another 3 games and win the comp I would have had them locked up in a rubber room and have the key thrown away.

Exactly - I still find it hard to believe! I have to convince myself that we actually won the real one and not some pretend thing like the Wizard Cup!

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Exactly - I still find it hard to believe! I have to convince myself that we actually won the real one and not some pretend thing like the Wizard Cup!

...me too

[dimelb]

Back in September I nominated five players who I thought could lift, and they all delivered in spades. Only one (RyanO) could have been considered anything like a star at that stage, and I think their contribution, along with the consistent top efforts from the usual suspects (Hall, Crouch, Leo, Davis, O'Loughlin, Kirk, Tadhg, Mathews, B1, B2, Goodes, Williams and Ball) got us to the flag. The four? LRT, Buchy, Schneider and Fosdike. It's what others have referred to as the overall consistency of the team. As (I think) Malcolm Blight said, it's not the top six who deliver you a premiership, it's the bottom six.
Although these guys were not bottom six, they were definitely lower in the pecking order, but over the last third or so of the season they played the football of their lives.

[Big Al]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Exactly - I still find it hard to believe! I have to convince myself that we actually won the real one and not some pretend thing like the Wizard Cup!

I think there were some misguided people in this forum earlier on in the year complaining about the fact we do not take the Who gives a rats Cup seriously. I dare say no one will be saying that this next year.

[SimonH]

To summarise (well, at least summarise what I think):

1. Form going into the finals is crucial. You absolutely cannot win a flag if you're not batting over 50% in the last 8 rounds of the season, and you'll struggle to win one if you're not closer to 75%. I haven't looked at all records, but I'd warrant you'd have to go back a long way to find a flag-winner who proves me wrong there. Just to go back all the way in history to the ancient times of 1996: Port in 2004 were 7/8; the Blions in 2003 were 5/8 (but losing in R16 by 8 points and R17 by 1 point means that this raw figure obscures their general good form); the Blions in 2002 were 7/8 (losing in R22); the Blions in 2001 were 8/8; the Dons in 2000 were 7/8 (their only loss for the year being R21); the Roos in 1999 were 7/8; Adelaide in 1998 were 5/8, but again two of those losses were 4 points in R16 and 1 point in R17. The closest to 'exceptions' are Adelaide in 1997 with 5/8, and North Melb in 1996 also with 5/8*, both of whom did have genuinely up and down form.

2. Performance over the first 14 rounds is, numerically, only relevant to get you to the finals in a strong enough spot to give you a decent chance of making the GF. I say 'numerically' because obviously a different team doesn't take the park for the first 14 rounds; if you're regularly getting flogged by 10 goals, it is likely to point to some structural problem in your side that will be exposed in the pressure-cooker of finals, even if you are in good form come R22.

3. Accepting that Blighty's "bottom six" argument is actually right, the thing about Sydney was that it was such an even contribution by the whole team that it was very difficult to work out who the bottom six were. Bucky would have well and truly been in them at the start of the year, and ultimately was a crucial difference between success and failure, and finished 4th in the B&F. LRT would have been at #22 in most fans' list of 22 performers after about round 10, but improved out of sight and was one of our best in the GF. Similar things could be said about any other 'bottom 6' candidate: Schneider, Dempster, Fosdike, LAblett, the unlucky Vogels. Only really Bevan kept his powder dry for 2006, but in such a stable side he wasn't required to play any more than a pinch-hitting role. By way of contrast, almost all other teams have at least 3 players who keep getting a game due to the lack of a superior alternative, but whose contribution is pretty marginal: they're clear "bottom 6" players.

* Actually, The Myth of Carey, coupled with good performances before and after 1996, makes people believe that the Roos were the standout side of 1996, but looking at the results, it was a more even year than 2005. You could throw a blanket over the top 7 teams: 3 games between 1st and 7th at the end of the year, and 2 games between them after R21. Sydney would have finished 4th if it had lost its final round game to WCE. The Bears (that's right, the Bears) were the true form team of the comp, having won 7 in a row to reach top after R21. They dropped to 3rd only because they choked in the final round against a Collingwood team that was out of the running to make the finals. That was their death-knell. The Bears then beat 6th placed Essendon by 1 point in a meaningless final, before demolishing 5th placed Carlton by 97 points. However, under the old system, finishing 3rd and winning 2 finals in a row did no good for you-- and playing experienced finals campaigners North, away from home, with an extra week's rest under North's belt, was always going to be too much.

[Gary]

Good analysis.
With regard to "bottom 6" contemplations, I'm still trying to work out what was different about Fosdike when he came back mid / late season. He played so consistently for the rest of the year, with occasional brilliance that suggested a new man.
He did look a bit bigger to me...bu whatever, I still don't think he has received the plaudits due to him.

[TheHood]

Not much has been said about it, but we benefited hugely from the inconsistent seasons that the rest of the comp had.

If you weren't in the bottom 8, then you got into the top 8 with some patchy form yourself, ie Port, Geelong, St Kilda, Dees & Roos.

Each of those teams suffered from sudden losses or long losing streaks.

The consistent teams over the majority of the season were the Eagles, the Crows and Sydney to a lesser extent. But even when we had the odd loss, we got the benefit of another loser above us.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by TheHood
Not much has been said about it, but we benefited hugely from the inconsistent seasons that the rest of the comp had.

Definitely correct there. I haven't mentioned it here, but it's actually been a consistent theme of mine over the past three years. The flag has been fairly open for much of that time due to general inconsistency and/or lack of genuine talent of most sides at most times. This was why it was so great we took advantage of it this year before the competition improved again.

[punter257]

we took advantage of the window of opportunity thats for sure

i'm just glad that it can't be taken away from us now and personally its going to be a weird feeling next season if we exit the finals in straight sets - i dont think i'm going to stress out about it as much and let it give me the depressions

i'm just bloody happy that I got to witness a flag but I'm hopeful there may be another one in 06

[giant]

Originally posted by liz
Methinks we're going round in circles here but...

hence my comment that it's more relevant the form a team is in at the end of the season than at the start of the season.

Bulldogs should've been premiers on that count. On a similar vein, suggesting you need to be in top nick leading into the finals is somewhat negated by the Eagles who were awful in July/August but lost the flag by 4 pts.

In short, being in the right place at the right time & having the right mix of skill, luck & desperation are the best chance you can have of winning a flag.

[dawson]

How come no one has mentioned the Round 3 game against Brisbane????

After the match Tim says to Malcom, "Seasons are built on wins like that."

Malcolm agrees.

I have watched that final quarter over and over and over again and still can't believe we won.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by giant
In short, being in the right place at the right time & having the right mix of skill, luck & desperation are the best chance you can have of winning a flag.

Agreed.

Originally posted by dawson
How come no one has mentioned the Round 3 game against Brisbane????

Because it was 'fairly meaningless' in the overall scheme of things, except it was a win.

We barely managed to beat a side that really struggled in the first half of the season. And then we continued to struggle for the rest of the first half as well.

Of course, some people prefer to be rude than think...