You need to be a member of 1Eyed Eel to add comments!
This reply was deleted.
More stuff to read
"I can't see any scenario where Moses lets Galvin sign for 300k less than the tigers offer unless he genuinely believes Galvin can help break the Parra drought and become a Parramatta immortal "
"Gus may be a liar but one thing with gus is he knows success and he makes the hard calls and doesn't tolerate bullshit. He fears no one in the game he doesn't care who's toes he steps on to get what he wants.
Every successful person has to have that…"
Every successful person has to have that…"
"Hopgood should make sure he has his brains with him and not left out in the locker room. His silly dumb penalties and 6 agains are already irritating if not infuriating. This goes the same with Tualagi!"
"The tigers have zero leverage unless they are willing to get cleaned out in the courts over the bullying, they have absolutely no chance of winning that case."
Replies
The main trouble I have with the current top 8 structure is, historically teams 1 & 2 don't have much of a hit out before a major qualifier. Look how different we had it in 2001 & 2005, both our first finals games were training runs and we never really lifted back to where we were. This year is looking different, esp if we and/or Tigers & Rabbits make it. All are carrying momentum, but if none make it the bottom half will be out of form in a big way!
In 2001, we were the best team by far. We set records in attack and defence that I doubt we'll see replicated for a very long time. We won the minor premiership by 6 points, yet we lost the GF!
Nobody gives a flying about Newcastle's 2001 season - they were also-rans - yet history will tell you they were the 'best' team of 2001.
Don't get me wrong - I understand that any finals system could lead to the inequity of 2001, however, I feel that the fewer teams competing in the finals, the more likely we'll see the most deserving GF winner emerge.
A top 6 would be a reasonable compromise at this stage.
I have no problem with us losing in 2001. We had our chance, we should have won but we didn't produce on the day. Newcastle came third so they would have beaten us top five, top six, top eight.
We play in a tough, physical sport where some teams are forced to deal with disruption and missing players for 2 months of the year due to the rep season.
The first 12 rounds do count. It's pretty bloody difficult to come back from where we were at. We're going to have a tougher path through the finals and we've been in basically sudden death for two months leading it.
The aim is to arrive at the best team by the end of the September. The team that has been able to traverse a years' worth of ups and downs and still be strong at the end of the year and then ultimately deliver when it matters.
By your logic, the Dragons should just be given the premiership now. As I said, why bother with finals at all?
If it was a top 5 system now, Parra's season would now be over and we wouldn't have any of this excitement we have right now, for this reason alone, the top 8 is great, it gives hope to the fans that a miracle can still happen even if you didn't start the season too well, and at the end of the day the best two teams no matter how they got there usually end up in the grandfinal anyway.
Sure, I am stoked that the Eels have a shot for the finals, and it gives you more enjoyment to see a win, but are we that shallow that we need an incentive to enjoy a win by our own team? I am happy enough to see us winning and giving us hope for the future. The finals are just a bonus that are still far away yet.
I'd love us to have the fairytale ending this season - i.e. qualifying in 7 or 8 and end up winning the GF, but even in the extreme unlikelihood that occurs, I will maintain that we weren't the best team in season 2009. I've been consistent on this issue for several years, arguing this very point on the old Official forum as well.
Hands up who thought the Tigers were a better team than either Parra or St George in 2005??
I don't buy into that 'underdog' bullshit that mainstream Australians seem so fascinated with! I'd prefer to see the most consistent teams rewarded over some little upstart that 'got it right on the day'!
You can't just get it right on the day. Let's assume Parramatta make the eight on 29, we'll have won seven of our last eight games. We'll then have gone in against one of the premiership elites and beat them, we'll then backup against likely another top four team, and another before having the shot at the grand final. That would have meant we have needed to win 11 out of our 12 games and in all likelihood seven of those games will have been against top four sides.
If we can do that, I'm not going to listen to anyone tell me we weren't deserving Premiers!
If you have a crap start to the season, you need to do something extraordinary - just as the Tigers did - to win the Premiership and thats the way it should be.
It's worth remembering that when the competition was a top five, there were only 12 teams. The very first competition had a top 4 but only 9 teams. So throughout the game's history, the cutoff mark has always been around about the half way mark.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next