West Coast Deserved It

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Damien
Not sure I can ever watch the replay, but my feeling all day was that we were being outplayed but somehow staying close enough to make a charge

I think part of the reason we stayed close is they weren't able to put us away, which goes to their key problem of a poor forward line.

[ScottH]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
I think part of the reason we stayed close is they weren't able to put us away, which goes to their key problem of a poor forward line.

Yep, I think they missed just as many goals as we did.

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by ScottH
Yep, I think they missed just as many goals as we did.

But not nearly as many as I expected them to.

[liz]

Originally posted by ScottH
Yep, I think they missed just as many goals as we did.

They did - but probably nothing to rival the sitters that Hall and Bolton missed. Plus Monty and Tiger's mistakes gifted them two goals, and at least three others came from pretty ordinary defensive errors by Sydney. On the other hand, the O'Keefe goal had a significant element of luck / defensive error.

Still think that West Coast were the better team but the Swans certainly managed to create enough opportunities to steal it.

[ScottH]

Originally posted by liz
They did - but probably nothing to rival the sitters that Hall and Bolton missed. Plus Monty and Tiger's mistakes gifted them two goals, and at least three others came from pretty ordinary defensive errors by Sydney. On the other hand, the O'Keefe goal had a significant element of luck / defensive error.

Still think that West Coast were the better team but the Swans certainly managed to create enough opportunities to steal it.

And ROK's smothered kick was another bad mistake, which resulted in a goal, too.

[liz]

Originally posted by ScottH
And ROK's smothered kick was another bad mistake, which resulted in a goal, too.

That was one of the three "others" that I referred too. There were a couple of other occasions where two Swans defenders went to the same contest and went to ground, leaving an Eagle to run onto an easy ball and stroll towards goal. One involved Richards and B2. The other was Mathews and someone else, maybe B2 as well. The first was probably Richards' error because I reckon B2 had the contest covered.

[The Big Cat]

You can go through all the what if's you like but as I've posted before, you change one of those and you change the whole game. You can't add up the "what ifs" because each "what if" creates more or cancels later "what ifs". If BBBH kicked the first sitter he missed, the other quoted "what ifs" don't eventuate. Besides, you can't count all the goals we kicked and then add on the misses we should have got to somehow achieve a winning total. For example - After BBBH's first miss the ball went to the wing for a fewmoments then came back in to where MOL kicked his first goal. If BBBBH kicks that first goal then MOL play doesn't happen. Perhaps if Hall kicked that goal and it goes back to the centre WCE may have kicked the next 8. Game over! Who knows? Nobody does!

[Agent 86]

Originally posted by liz
One involved Richards and B2. The other was Mathews and someone else, maybe B2 as well. The first was probably Richards' error because I reckon B2 had the contest covered.

The Richard's one hurt the most because it gifted Hunter his first (and only) goal. And it probably was the moment that changed the momentum from being with us back to even. Can't blame Ted, though (although I might change my mind if I see a replay), as I thought he was among our best & you have to back your guys to play it how they see it.

As for whether they deserved it more than us... I thought they choked in 2nd half & chokers deserve to lose. They only deserved it in that they were a point in front on the final siren - had we managed another 2 points would we "not have deserved it"?