We Would Have Won with a Fully Fit Team

[Windy_Hill]

Simple as that.

Fletcher, Lucas, McVeigh, Dempsey, Davey, Gumbleton - thats 25% of the team and with them in the side we would have won.

Essendon is clearly a better side than the scoreboard is showing. So lets keep an eye on reality.

[tonysoprano]

Simple as that.

Fletcher, Lucas, McVeigh, Dempsey, Davey, Gumbleton - thats 25% of the team and with them in the side we would have won.

Essendon is clearly a better side than the scoreboard is showing. So lets keep an eye on reality.

That's a bold and perhaps ridiculous statement Windy. Even with those guys in the side we still concede very big scores. Certainly we would have performed much better - but to be so convinced that "we would have won" is blind faith.

[Crazyman]

How the f*** can you put Gumby and Dempsey in that list...

Sure they have talent, but both are injury prone and have played all of a handful of games between them...

[robrulz5]

I'm just finding it funny how supporters of other clubs call us a "rabble" on talkback radio without any mention of the ridiculous amount of injuries we have.

[Windy_Hill]

Simple as that.

Fletcher, Lucas, McVeigh, Dempsey, Davey, Gumbleton - thats 25% of the team and with them in the side we would have won.

Essendon is clearly a better side than the scoreboard is showing. So lets keep an eye on reality.

That's a bold and perhaps ridiculous statement Windy. Even with those guys in the side we still concede very big scores. Certainly we would have performed much better - but to be so convinced that "we would have won" is blind faith.

Port are crap Tony...we would have held them to a 15 goal score at the Dome with the aforementioned players in the team.

[Megan]

Players like Fletch, Spike and Lucas make a difference. It's as straight forward as that.

Ugly season. Dissapointing. But one shit season doth not change the culture of the club... we are not a rabble, never have been, never will be.

Maybe we'd have won. We'll never know. Look forward to next week...

[paddyl90]

They would've made a difference to the scoreline but I don't think the result. Who knows what could've happened but the fact is they aint there so we are left to think what could've been

[Windy_Hill]

They would've made a difference to the scoreline but I don't think the result. Who knows what could've happened but the fact is they aint there so we are left to think what could've been

What could hae been is defined very clearly in the Thread Subject Line

[nathanskinner]

Port are definately not crap. The players we had missing would have helped, but to guarentee a win no way. Our biggest weakness is their biggest strength... the midfield. We could learn alot from Melbourne's effort (Never thought id say that) you may not have the talent but if their is a genuine effort from the 22 it makes it easier to accept defeat. Too many of our players were not putting in.

The only names I would bring into this side would be Lucas, McVeigh, Fletcher, Winderlich. Davey (if available) Gumbleton and Dempsey do not not warrant immediate inclusion.

[paddyl90]

They would've made a difference to the scoreline but I don't think the result. Who knows what could've happened but the fact is they aint there so we are left to think what could've been

What could hae been is defined very clearly in the Thread Subject Line

sorry i have a tendancy to state the obvious.

[Bishop Muzorewa]

We Would Have Won with a Fully Fit Team
by Windy_Hill on Mon May 05, 2008 6:22 pm

Simple as that.

Fletcher, Lucas, McVeigh, Dempsey, Davey, Gumbleton - thats 25% of the team and with them in the side we would have won.

Essendon is clearly a better side than the scoreboard is showing. So lets keep an eye on reality.


Hahahahahahaha the most delusional rubbish I have EVER read!!! Windy you should be tarred and feathered for that effort!!! Port smashed us in the clearances that is why they won (oh, and their ball use is better, oh and they have gun forwards in Ebert and Gray whom we have no one to cover with - even in that list)

Putting Gumbelton and Dempsey in that list is RIDICULOUS . Neither are proven, both are injury prone!

And you fail to mention that Port had their best player - Cornes - out too...if he had played they would have won by more!

Stop kidding yourself WIndy or I will be forced to make a complaint to Gatsid and have you banned for making highly erroneous statements!!!

[swoodley]

Rather a strange call from you on this one Windy.

Given that Port have consistently beaten us since 2001, could you prehaps add a little bit of detail in how it is you think that the players mentioned would have made up an 11 goal difference.

Last year when we played them, they were playing awful football and we had just had a few very good wins....so what happened...we played them back into form and they smashed us by about ten goals.

I just can't see what logic you're applying here.

[jimmyc1985]

I actually think we were lucky to only be done by 64 points - our remarkably accurate kicking for goal of 15.4 saved the result from being closer to 100 points. Kind of like the opposite to the Geelong game, we were beaten just as badly around the ground but kicked terribly in front of goal (6.15 with a number of OOFs as well) and copped a 99 point loss.

[BenDoolan]

I actually think we were lucky to only be done by 64 points - our remarkably accurate kicking for goal of 15.4 saved the result from being closer to 100 points. Kind of like the opposite to the Geelong game, we were beaten just as badly around the ground but kicked terribly in front of goal (6.15 with a number of OOFs as well) and copped a 99 point loss.

With Port having 93 more kicks, 78 more marks, 25 more hit outs, 22 more I50's and 19 more scoring shots, I totally agree with you.

[The Man from Bomberland]

LOL Windy come on son. We have been Port's bitches and even with those boys in the team they still would have done it comfortably. I haven't expected us to win against Port in years such has been there dominance over us.