PJ in strife.

swoodley · Post by **swoodley** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 5:17 pm

Essendon4eva wrote:And Melbourne beat Collingwood early in the season aswell. Your point?
What you've proven is that anytime on their worst day can get beat by a team that is not as good.

And what did your comment re the huge gap prove given the point you've just made about Melbourne?

Essendon4eva · Post by **Essendon4eva** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 5:20 pm

What did I just say? If one tema doesn't play their best they can get beat by 15 other clubs. What makes one team better than another is where the place after 22 games. A team like Melbourne or Richmond, for what ever reason have not brough their best for enough games. It is why we have 9 wins and Richmond has 2.

swoodley · Post by **swoodley** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 5:22 pm

Essendon4eva wrote:What did I just say? If one tema doesn't play their best they can get beat by 15 other clubs. What makes one team better than another is where the place after 22 games. A team like Melbourne or Richmond, for what ever reason have not brough their best for enough games. It is why we have 9 wins and Richmond has 2.

So there is not a huge gap between 13th and 14th at all. It's just how a team performs on the day?

Essendon4eva · Post by **Essendon4eva** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 5:23 pm

Know there is a huge gap between the bottom three and the teams in top 8 contention. However if oen team doesn't bring their best they can get knocked off. However I beleive Essendon's best is better than Melbourne, Carlton and Richmond's best.

swoodley · Post by **swoodley** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 5:31 pm

Essendon4eva wrote:Know there is a huge gap between the bottom three and the teams in top 8 contention. However if oen team doesn't bring their best they can get knocked off. However I beleive Essendon's best is better than Melbourne, Carlton and Richmond's best.

Carlton beat Essendon so their best was better than ours on the day.

We beat Richmond and Melbourne by a combined total of ten points (including a goal after the siren against Richmond and another about 10 seconds before the siren to beat Melbourne). There ain't no huge gap there my friend

Essendon4eva · Post by **Essendon4eva** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 5:33 pm

If you think we played our best. You obvious have a problem reading. Against Richmond we played very bad untill Hird made a few good efforts and the 'hands in the back' rule went in our favour. Also we only played well in the first half against the Dee's.
Understand? Or should I draw a diagram?

swoodley · Post by **swoodley** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 5:40 pm

Essendon4eva wrote:If you think we played our best. You obvious have a problem reading. Against Richmond we played very bad untill Hird made a few good efforts and the 'hands in the back' rule went in our favour. Also we only played well in the first half against the Dee's.
Understand? Or should I draw a diagram?

I admit to having trouble reading...generally when I'm trying to read your posts with all the typo's and spelling mistakes....I sometimes wonder what language I'm trying to read.

Your argument is full of shit...the facts are that against Carlton, we lost and struggled to late wins against the other two.

Those are actual facts, not supposition about where we stand in terms of our best versus their best.

In actual head to head contests, we have been beaten by Carlton and narrowly beaten Richmond and Melbourne and played as well as our opponents let us on the day.

But you continue to live in your fantasy world where all things are rosy with the EFC and we are way better than our actual position on the ladder shows.

At present, we are probably the worst team in the comp.

Essendon4eva · Post by **Essendon4eva** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 5:46 pm

You are such a twit. What did I say? Our best is better than the three bottom teams. However what I added was that if one team doesn't bring their best anda nother does they can get knocked off. What is so hard to understand about that?

If you'r belief is that win's and losses is what makes a team good or bad, good luuck trying to rank the teams. Geelong is on top, but the Kangas beat them. Are the Kangaroo's better than Geelong? Under your theory they are.

At the moment we are playing the worst, but we have seen our best and it is 10 times better than what we have shown. THAT is the point I've made.

swoodley · Post by **swoodley** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 5:57 pm

Essendon4eva wrote:You are such a twit. What did I say? Our best is better than the three bottom teams. However what I added was that if one team doesn't bring their best anda nother does they can get knocked off. What is so hard to understand about that?

If you'r belief is that win's and losses is what makes a team good or bad, good luuck trying to rank the teams. Geelong is on top, but the Kangas beat them. Are the Kangaroo's better than Geelong? Under your theory they are.

At the moment we are playing the worst, but we have seen our best and it is 10 times better than what we have shown. THAT is the point I've made.

So the fact that occasionally we put a good game together means we are good....that our best makes us better than what we are? Nice theory but basically meaningless.

Here's some of my logic for you...Geelong have won 13-14 on the trot and are the best team in the comp at present. If they lose the GF to Sydney for example, then Sydney are the best team in the comp because they will have won the only game that really matters.

Essendon4eva · Post by **Essendon4eva** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 5:59 pm

Now, the fact that our best is better than the teams below us. I rate our best, better than those three teams, by a long way.

You got my 'theory' wrong again. Hopeless.

tonysoprano · Post by **tonysoprano** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 6:04 pm

Essendon4eva wrote:Now, the fact that our best is better than the teams below us. I rate our best, better than those three teams, by a long way.

You got my 'theory' wrong again. Hopeless.

we haven't seen "our best" since 2000

Essendon4eva · Post by **Essendon4eva** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 6:18 pm

Our 200 side is different to this side. So 200 was that teams best, not this team's best. You amaze me. What a tool.

swoodley · Post by **swoodley** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 6:18 pm

Essendon4eva wrote:Now, the fact that our best is better than the teams below us. I rate our best, better than those three teams, by a long way.

You got my 'theory' wrong again. Hopeless.

My theory is that you've spent too long with your head up your arse.

You never give ground or, heaven forbid, admit that you might be wrong. You've rattled on all afternoon and proven nothing except that you have theory that we are better than we are.

Well, here's some news for you sunshine....everyone's best is better than their average/normal performance. But the only thing that matters is the performance on each given day...not what could happen if all the stars fall into alignment. And there is no disputing that Carlton beat ius earlier this year and so their performance (best or not) was better than ours.

tonysoprano · Post by **tonysoprano** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 6:19 pm

Essendon4eva wrote:Our 200 side is different to this side. So 200 was that teams best, not this team's best. You amaze me. What a tool.

200? would that be BC or AD?

Essendon4eva · Post by **Essendon4eva** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 6:21 pm

You realy are a tool. It is obvious I was referring to 2000. Again you tried to make me look like an idiot (referring to 200 being our best), I prove you'r a tool and you avoid the topic again.

I hope, not everyone from Perth is as moronic as you.

swoodley · Post by **swoodley** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 6:22 pm

tonysoprano wrote:
Essendon4eva wrote:Our 200 side is different to this side. So 200 was that teams best, not this team's best. You amaze me. What a tool.
200? would that be BC or AD?

Definitely the 200 AD team...they gave the Romans a fearful thrashing in the GF that year. One of the last games played at the colosseum

swoodley · Post by **swoodley** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 6:23 pm

Essendon4eva wrote:You realy are a tool. It is obvious I was referring to 2000. Again you tried to make me look like an idiot (referring to 200 being our best), I prove you'r a tool and you avoid the topic again.

I hope, not everyone from Perth is as moronic as you.

No one tries to make you look like a tool....you do that all on your own

Essendon4eva · Post by **Essendon4eva** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 6:26 pm

He di try to, I proved him wrong, so he went to the typo instead of stay on the issue. SO it directs the attention away from his moronic statement.
Another idiot fomr Perth. You are not giving your state a good image.

swoodley · Post by **swoodley** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 6:28 pm

Essendon4eva wrote:He di try to, I proved him wrong, so he went to the typo instead of stay on the issue. SO it directs the attention away from his moronic statement.
Another idiot fomr Perth. You are not giving your state a good image.

Well typed and excellent use of the kazakhstani language....oh sorry, you were trying to write in English again were you?

It must be hard with it obviously not being your native tongue

Essendon4eva · Post by **Essendon4eva** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 6:32 pm

Again staying away from the opinion and picking on 'typographical errors'. That is like picking on someone's appearance during a debate.