Last season's win/loss ratio

[The Man from Bomberland]

For some reason I found myself scanning our 2006 year. Hard to believe we only won 3 games in the entire H&A season. I counted 9 games we lost by 3 goals or less and 11 games we lost by under 4 goals. What a mofo frustrating season for the club. I didn't rate our list that much, but with the injuries we've had maybe we didn't do so badly. A loss is still a loss, but we were competitive in so many matches only to fall short at the death.

Maybe we weren't as bad as everyone said?

[robrulz5]

We had plenty of chances to win matches but didn't take them. The younger players have gained that experience of being close and now they will want to do better in those sort of matches.

[BenDoolan]

For some reason I found myself scanning our 2006 year. Hard to believe we only won 3 games in the entire H&A season. I counted 9 games we lost by 3 goals or less and 11 games we lost by under 4 goals. What a mofo frustrating season for the club. I didn't rate our list that much, but with the injuries we've had maybe we didn't do so badly. A loss is still a loss, but we were competitive in so many matches only to fall short at the death.

Maybe we weren't as bad as everyone said?

Interesting equation. I'll put forward the total opposite end of the spectrum - in 2001 we made the Grand Final and lost by 4 goals due to a red hot day and a red hot Brisbane plus our mistake of taking in so many injured players. In the 25 matches we played in 2001, we only lost 6 games. 7 of our wins were decided by 4 goals or less with 5 of them by 2 goals and under. That's half the season of games not won or not convincingly won.

Maybe we weren't as good as everyone said?

I guess we will guage how "well" we actually did last (this) season by our performances next year. Personally, I think we didn't do too bad considering the circumstances of injuries to key players, the poor form of most senior players, and the incompetence of others. I believe we have weeded out a good portion of our weaknesses, and have recruited a good batch of potentially good players, and will regain key players for next season. We will improve, but it's a matter of "how much".

[CameronClayton]

You also need to dissect those close losses to see how so called 'honourable' they in fact were. The loss against the Saints was a close hard fought contest that went down to the line.

But the close losses to the Hawks & the Demons I wouldn't call honourable. The Hawks absolutely belted us in the 1st quarter when the heat was on, then they just cruised for the rest of the day & let us sneak close to them. And the Dees game was close on the 1st half, they flogged us in the 3rd quarter to get 6 goals up & then they cruised again in the last quarter in what I would call practice match conditions (no close checking or intensity, just keeping-offs basketball end to end stuff).

So there's 3 close losses for the year I can think of off the top of my head, where in my eyes, only 1 was so called honourable, & 2 were from teams that could really have belted us but for whatever reasons took their foots off the pedal.

[jimmyc1985]

We need to find consistency, more than anything else. Both in 2005 and 2006, there's been a huge margin between our better performances and our poor ones - i'd say that in both years we've been the team in the bottom 8 that has the largest gap between our good form and our poor form.

For example, this year we played quite well against St. Kilda, West Coast and Collingwood. But that's countered by some atrocious performances against Hawthorn in the 1st half, Adelaide, Port Adelaide and Carlton.

I still think we're a better team than the Kangaroos, Carlton or Brisbane. But close losses don't count for much, as has been said, and until such time as we're capable of playing consistently near our best, we'll languish in the bottom 6.

[nomolos]

For some reason I found myself scanning our 2006 year. Hard to believe we only won 3 games in the entire H&A season. I counted 9 games we lost by 3 goals or less and 11 games we lost by under 4 goals. What a mofo frustrating season for the club. I didn't rate our list that much, but with the injuries we've had maybe we didn't do so badly. A loss is still a loss, but we were competitive in so many matches only to fall short at the death.

Maybe we weren't as bad as everyone said?

Interesting equation. I'll put forward the total opposite end of the spectrum - in 2001 we made the Grand Final and lost by 4 goals due to a red hot day and a red hot Brisbane plus our mistake of taking in so many injured players. In the 25 matches we played in 2001, we only lost 6 games. 7 of our wins were decided by 4 goals or less with 5 of them by 2 goals and under. That's half the season of games not won or not convincingly won.

Maybe we weren't as good as everyone said?

I guess we will guage how "well" we actually did last (this) season by our performances next year. Personally, I think we didn't do too bad considering the circumstances of injuries to key players, the poor form of most senior players, and the incompetence of others. I believe we have weeded out a good portion of our weaknesses, and have recruited a good batch of potentially good players, and will regain key players for next season. We will improve, but it's a matter of "how much".

How many of those losses came after the Nth Melbourne comeback game??

[gringo]

No team comes out and gets thumped every week. Carlton had a few hidings, but many of their losses were also by reasonably small margins. All those statistics tell me is that we can't get it done when it counts. Teams basically toy with us for three and half quarters, and then when the game needs to be won, they win the game. It happens all the time in sporting contests. It's like good tennis players easing their way through the early rounds of a grand slam.

We have a young and improving list, but we are still miles away from finals football. Anyone conned by those stats needs to get out and watch/participate in some sporting contests.

[Windy_Hill]

I guess the upshot of all this is you have to have more points than your opponents to win games

[BenDoolan]

For some reason I found myself scanning our 2006 year. Hard to believe we only won 3 games in the entire H&A season. I counted 9 games we lost by 3 goals or less and 11 games we lost by under 4 goals. What a mofo frustrating season for the club. I didn't rate our list that much, but with the injuries we've had maybe we didn't do so badly. A loss is still a loss, but we were competitive in so many matches only to fall short at the death.

Maybe we weren't as bad as everyone said?

Interesting equation. I'll put forward the total opposite end of the spectrum - in 2001 we made the Grand Final and lost by 4 goals due to a red hot day and a red hot Brisbane plus our mistake of taking in so many injured players. In the 25 matches we played in 2001, we only lost 6 games. 7 of our wins were decided by 4 goals or less with 5 of them by 2 goals and under. That's half the season of games not won or not convincingly won.

Maybe we weren't as good as everyone said?

I guess we will guage how "well" we actually did last (this) season by our performances next year. Personally, I think we didn't do too bad considering the circumstances of injuries to key players, the poor form of most senior players, and the incompetence of others. I believe we have weeded out a good portion of our weaknesses, and have recruited a good batch of potentially good players, and will regain key players for next season. We will improve, but it's a matter of "how much".

How many of those losses came after the Nth Melbourne comeback game??

We won the previous two games by less than 3 goals, and then we lost the next two games by 7 points. The next game we lost after that was the GF.

[nomolos]

hmmm... Interesting


That game the was the demise of the superteam, and ill stand by it.

[BenDoolan]

hmmm... Interesting


That game the was the demise of the superteam, and ill stand by it.

Well the sign was during that game really. How do you get 69 points down half way through the 2nd quarter against a team that didn't comprise Wayne Carey and Mick Martyn? We alll know what an amazing comeback that was, but the team's invincibility was haemoraging during the season. We did only scrape over the line in the Prelim v Hawthorn as well.

[andrewb]

Core problems from last season:

1. Lloyd's injury: fixed.
2. No CHB: patched up - remains to be seen whether fletcher can play CHB but he should be ok. Otherwise we have a couple of options and keps got some good time down there last year. Having Michael will make everyone walk taller, too - he's bigger than solomon and far less of a loose cannon.
3. Inexperience meaning that we couldn't close out games: Lloyd and Michael should do wonders for the kids.
3. Midfield skills (particularly kicking): Big question mark still. The club has been spouting off about extra skills training for the youngsters but that doesn't mean much. More game time from campo and nash and injection of monfries into the midfield for stints could help, but stanton, JJ, pev and watson don't inspire confidence.
4. Lack of mid-tier leaders: Still the thorn in our side. 25-28 year olds are the life blood of a club and ours are still average.

Reasons to be excited about this season

1. We can expect Ryder and Dempsay to exert a little influence.
2. We can expect more games from Laycock and expect a trimmer Bradley to have a bigger impact.
3. We should start to see Lee start to get some game time down back.
4. We have a lot more depth than last year.
5. CJ breakout year?
6. Can't wait to see some of these rookies, esp. Houli and Gumby (but don't expect much!)
7. Sheedy contract year.

Reasons to be worried about this season.

1. Hird, Fletcher and Campo are really old and we can expect more injuries.
2. Lucas, Lloyd, JJ, MJ and Michael are getting old and we can expect at least some injuries.
3. Houli might accidently say "I've always wanted to be a Bomber" in a press conference.

In summary? We should be a lot better than last year (all things remaining equal) but we're a fair way off a premiership and making the finals will be hard work.[/b]

[billyduckworth]

Good summary, andrewb.

Your point about "mid-tier leaders" is an interesting one. I guess they tried to attack this problem by making David Hille acting captain this year. Not sure whether it worked or not, though.

[tom9779]

I am excited about 2007.

I feel it will be a 'handover' year between generations.

Our new recruits in the national draft all to get good game time.

I think our engine room will be the quiet achievers of the comp.

No footy commentators really rate dyson/watson/stants/winders, but I think all players are coming along nicely.
And with likely types in Jetta and Hislop joining the club, I reckon anything could happen.

The attention is going to be at both ends(Michael/Fletcher down back and Lucas/Lloyd/Johns up front), but it will be the maturing of our midfield group which will dictate our success in 07.

[nmgilbert]

Now I haven't really had a massive think about this comment so there is a good chance that i'm wrong - but i'd say that nearly every club doesn't have a great dearth of talent in that 23-27yr age range. Is it possible that this age group of players just wasn't that good? I'd be interested to see the draft picks from this period and how many of those guys have come on to be A grade players.

[andrewb]

23-27 is the 1997-2001 drafts. There are some damn good players in there - we just haven't got many of them!