so far this season we havent been beaten...

[penga]

we have lost...

i strongly believe that this year's losses have come from our inabilities and not the opposition blowing us away... therefore we have lost not been beaten... if that makes sense???

this was highlighted in the first half yesterday, our inaccuracy lead to our loss. we shouldve blown them to smitherines but left the door wide open... i looked at the result on the net before watching the tape and with the dominance that we showed in the first half i thought that they had got it wrong or something...

the losses to the kangaroos, hawthorn, adelaide and fremantle were all in the same vein IMO, which brings me to think we can beat everyone!

thoughts?

[snajik]

I have stated this previously, therefore I agree with you.

[Nico]

Yes you are probably right Penga, and we haven't really been towelled.

But I suggest that the top 6 could say the same, and throw in the odd match changing umpiring decisions, and 5-6 sides could say they should not have lost a game. The Kangas have every right to be peeved by the umpiring against WCE. ( McLaren again)

If goods sides lose a close one, it could be argued that they do so by their own mistakes.

[RogueSwan]

If this is the case then we do not win any games, the other teams lose them. Did we beat Brisbane? No, Brisbane lost. All the games that we have won, the other team has lost. It was their inabilities that caused the result.
The eveness (if that is a word) of the comptition means that the team that doesn't come to play loses, they beat themselves.

[liz]

Don't really agree with this.

Against the Crows, Hawks, Dockers and Roos we were clearly the second best team out their on the ground on those days. The only game out of the five that you can maybe look at and say "what if" is this weekend's, simply because we were so good in the opening term apart from conversion for goal. If we had gone into the first change 5 goals up then maybe it would all have been different. But then again, the Power would have probably gotten better in any case and still might have run over us in the second term.

In none of the games can you look to a single incident that was out of character with the rest of the game and cost us. And although we haven't been towelled up by anyone, nor have any of the losses been that close.

Any team can claim that if they'd played to their 100% best they'd have won. And in most cases it would probably be true. Had the Lions played to their potential against us they would certainly have won. But so what?

[Bart]

at least we haven't had any heartbreakers this season!

[scurrilous]

39 points IS a towelling in those conditions. I know about the last two BS goals, but even 27 points is a damn good win in that weather. Port just knew how to play better wet weather football than us. Hopefully we learnt from this game that u must play in front and side in conditions like that.

[snajik]

Don't forget the 50 metre penalty for shoving, that's 3 BS goals.

Apologies, I forgot about the North game. They were clearly the better team.

All other defeats were a result of hair-brained decision-making or tragic kicking for goal when the game was ours to be won. As for the Brisbane game, we nullified their pristine midfield and didn't allow them to play well.

[NMWBloods]

I think Adelaide and the Kangaroos were superior teams to us on the day, and possibly Fremantle too. Against Hawthorn we were in the box seat early, but they hammered us after that. To some degree the same against Port. We had a chance for a good start, which we blew, and then they looked superior for most of the second half.

As for the complaints about the last two goals, the last one wasn't a free kick, but second last one was a mark to Lade. The commentators didn't explain what Barry's 50m penalty to give the Tredrea the goal was for.

[Jon]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
I think Adelaide and the Kangaroos were superior teams to us on the day, and possibly Fremantle too. Against Hawthorn we were in the box seat early, but they hammered us after that. To some degree the same against Port. We had a chance for a good start, which we blew, and then they looked superior for most of the second half.

As for the complaints about the last two goals, the last one wasn't a free kick, but second last one was a mark to Lade. The commentators didn't explain what Barry's 50m penalty to give the Tredrea the goal was for.

Agree with all of this.

This comp is so even...you can llok good even when you are a rabble ladder-postion-wise (Western Builldogs a case in point this year).

Just think back to last year (shudder) we were in SO many games, then just let things slip through poor form, lack of confidence, and bad decision making...whatever. But who would suggest we were top four material that year?

[floppinab]

but second last one was a mark to Lade

Can *not* agree with that one NMW, can't remember who the Swans player was the replay clearly IMO shows the Swans player having a fair bit of the first grab at the ball, certainly enough for the mark not to be paid.

Let's face it Port were given around 3 or 4 gift goals (a number of Port supporters have commented to me wrt the umpiring in the last 3 quarters) which would have still resulted in a Port win but put the overall margin as a much closer reflection of the amount of play dominated by each team.

[NMWBloods]

Can *not* agree with that one NMW, can't remember who the Swans player was the replay clearly IMO shows the Swans player having a fair bit of the first grab at the ball, certainly enough for the mark not to be paid.

It was Warfe, and they grabbed it about the same time. Warfe did not really get any control over it, it simply hit his hands at the same time as Lade's. Unless a player gets a substantial grab on the ball, that it's touched in a pack before a player marks it is not taken into account.

Let's face it Port were given around 3 or 4 gift goals (a number of Port supporters have commented to me wrt the umpiring in the last 3 quarters) which would have still resulted in a Port win but put the overall margin as a much closer reflection of the amount of play dominated by each team.

Oh, I agree with that. I thought the umpiring was generally poor and a final margin of 4-5 goals was a more accurate reflection of the game. The thing I found frustration with the umpiring was the amount of times, particularly in the 3rd qtr, when Port players would try to break through a tackle and either given enough time to do so or allowed to drop the ball or given a ball up. I think we were given one holding the ball decision for the game.

[floppinab]

mmmmm, still thought he had enough of it before Lade's hands came on the scene........... anyway......

and either given enough time to do so or allowed to drop the ball or given a ball up

and worse given holding the man after clearly dropping the ball, then being pulled off it. This happened in a number of games on the weekend and really gave me the ****s.

The worst one of all was Wanganeens in the back in the 3rd q. The replay clearly shows the umpire being blinded by other players but he still payed the free. Grrrrrr.

[NMWBloods]

and worse given holding the man after clearly dropping the ball, then being pulled off it. This happened in a number of games on the weekend and really gave me the ****s.

What is it with holding the ball these days?!? More often than not there is a ball up or the players seem to be allowed to drop it. When they do drop it they get given a free kick for holding the man. While if you have been holding the ball for a little while and do a few things and get tackled, then it's holding the ball even if you dispose of it immediately and correctly.

The worst one of all was Wanganeens in the back in the 3rd q. The replay clearly shows the umpire being blinded by other players but he still payed the free. Grrrrrr.

This was ridiculous. Kennelly had clearly fallen into Wanganeen's side. Typically the commentators said very little.