TalkingCarlton :: View topic - The great train wreck of 1878

well, who knows, the hawks losing by 117 pts..........with our form we will beat the bullies and be sitting pretty in 15th.

the tragic gulf between winning 3.5 games and taking our winning ratio to 24% (19 from 79)......................... and remaining 16th with the chance of a priority pick.

:roll:

Thats why the PP rules are absolutely ridiculous. Compare that stat to Melbourne's use of the pick to nab McLean and you can understand why it should be changed.
McLean still really irks me.

At that stage Melb was rabble and Danihers job was on the line. Credit to the club for turning it around.
I'll tell you what, take McLean out of that team, they'll still be sitting second

molsey wrote:

Thats why the PP rules are absolutely ridiculous. Compare that stat to Melbourne's use of the pick to nab McLean and you can understand why it should be changed.
McLean still really irks me.

Get over it. Thats the rules at the time. At that stage Melb was rabble and Danihers job was on the line. Credit to the club for turning it around.
I'll tell you what, take McLean out of that team, they'll still be sitting second

Author:	camel [ Fri Jun 17, 2005 11:43 pm ]
Post subject:	The great train wreck of 1878
Hmm, a bit down in the dumps with our form? A bit down trodden that we're looking at just our second wooden spoon? A bit upset that our list really does appear to be beyond crap? Well, here's something that will cheer you up... ...On this week's episode of On the couch it was revealed that Carlton has won just 18 of it's past 78 games. 23% Oh boy, things can only get better ... surely!

Author:	Speakers [ Fri Jun 17, 2005 11:53 pm ]
Post subject:
Mate, you need to look on the bright side

Author:	camel [ Fri Jun 17, 2005 11:57 pm ]
Post subject:
Haha, yeah I usually do, but that stat gave me a hell of a fright. If you don't think about our win/loss ratio you can kinda get through the day, but having it spelt out like that was a bit of a shock I have to say.

Author:	london blue [ Fri Jun 17, 2005 11:58 pm ]
Post subject:
well, who knows, the hawks losing by 117 pts..........with our form we will beat the bullies and be sitting pretty in 15th. the tragic gulf between winning 3.5 games and taking our winning ratio to 24% (19 from 79)......................... and remaining 16th with the chance of a priority pick.

Author:	verbs [ Sat Jun 18, 2005 12:00 am ]
Post subject:
Over the past three years we were pretty much neck and neck with Richmond at the start of this year. Both teams last made the finals in 2001 also. Interesting.

TalkingCarlton http://talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/

The great train wreck of 1878 http://talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3046	Page 1 of 1

Author:	molsey [ Sat Jun 18, 2005 1:02 pm ]
Post subject:
london blue wrote: well, who knows, the hawks losing by 117 pts..........with our form we will beat the bullies and be sitting pretty in 15th. the tragic gulf between winning 3.5 games and taking our winning ratio to 24% (19 from 79)......................... and remaining 16th with the chance of a priority pick. Thats why the PP rules are absolutely ridiculous. Compare that stat to Melbourne's use of the pick to nab McLean and you can understand why it should be changed. How about a rule that says you get a PP if you've won less than 30% of your main season games in the last 3 years - makes a lot more sense than ths current rule. McLean still really irks me.

Author:	buzzaaaah [ Sat Jun 18, 2005 1:07 pm ]
Post subject:
molsey wrote: Thats why the PP rules are absolutely ridiculous. Compare that stat to Melbourne's use of the pick to nab McLean and you can understand why it should be changed. McLean still really irks me. Get over it. Thats the rules at the time. At that stage Melb was rabble and Danihers job was on the line. Credit to the club for turning it around. I'll tell you what, take McLean out of that team, they'll still be sitting second

Author:	BlueWorld [ Sat Jun 18, 2005 1:18 pm ]
Post subject:
buzzaaaah wrote: At that stage Melb was rabble and Danihers job was on the line. Credit to the club for turning it around. I'll tell you what, take McLean out of that team, they'll still be sitting second They weren't a rabble 12 months earlier, nor 12 months later and you're right it had nothing to do with McLean. When you can have one bad season and get rewarded for it that easily there's something very wrong.

Author:	london blue [ Sat Jun 18, 2005 1:33 pm ]
Post subject:
didn't they pick McLean after Walker?

Author:	1AW_rules [ Sat Jun 18, 2005 5:06 pm ]
Post subject:
london blue, McLean was pick #5

Author:	molsey [ Sun Jun 19, 2005 11:44 am ]
Post subject:
buzzaaaah wrote: molsey wrote: Thats why the PP rules are absolutely ridiculous. Compare that stat to Melbourne's use of the pick to nab McLean and you can understand why it should be changed. McLean still really irks me. Get over it. Thats the rules at the time. At that stage Melb was rabble and Danihers job was on the line. Credit to the club for turning it around. I'll tell you what, take McLean out of that team, they'll still be sitting second Of course its the rules at the time chump - your points have nothing to do with my point so take a breather. Melbourne was able to get a PP a year after coming top 6, and then used that on the rebound as they are now. How is that fair? Should the PP reward teams for having an off year or for being serially undermanned? Think about it.

Page 1 of 1	All times are UTC + 10 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/