doggies4eva wrote:Cambridge Clarrie wrote:doggies4eva wrote:MST wrote:Serious question grahaml, have you have said anything positive or given credit where it's due to the opposition side when Central have been beaten?
Maybe I have a selective memory but for mine, whenever the dogs lose your posts on this site are littered with 'we didn't do this' or 'our sloppy skills allowed x to play this way'...
The dogs have been the team of the decade no doubt, but surely when thay have lost, including the 2002 and 2006 GF's, it's possible they were outplayed, no?
I know you are having a shot at GL MST but I will reply given that I am of the same mindset. It goes without saying that the team who wins plays best on the day. But the coach and players at doggyland (and probably most clubs) beleive that they have the ability to win every time they run out on the ground. When we lose we must look at what we can do to improve. What other option is there - wait for the opposition to get worse?
And as you have raised the 2002 GF, do you really think that Sturt were the best side or year? Or did the doggies choose the worst day of the year to put in their worst performance of the year?
Based on that way of thinking, why have a Grand Final? Just give the Premiership to the side that finishes top of the ladder at the end of the home and away season...
A lot of sports don't - take English soccer - their premier is what we would call minor premier and then they have the FA cup - a knock-out comp which anyone can enter.
But I still advocate a GF and I am not suggesting that Sturt were not worthy winners in 02 - they came to play on the day and we didn't. That is what the GF format tests.
I agree. Every game throughout the year is about determining who has the right to play off in a game which is meant to determine the best side that year.