TalkingCarlton :: View topic - Wooden Spoons and Premierships

The days of St Kilda being the leagues doormat are over,

What's an extended period at the bottom? We could easily crack the decade mark.

I'd say that years of being a loser are making you think that way. Loser in a footy sense - no comment about the rest of you.

Winning a wooden spoon means you're the worst team in an elite competition regardless of everything else. It's a woeful indicator of where you are and I hate being 16th.

If we have had a horror 5 years but come out of this to be average and then fall away... it would be a disaster.
we MUST emergence from this with enough talent to give us 10 great years .

What's an extended period at the bottom? We could easily crack the decade mark.

verbs wrote:

What's an extended period at the bottom? We could easily crack the decade mark.

What signs do you see in our list which lead you to seriously believe that?

I find it difficult to swallow the cyclical theory. Something about it just doesn't sit right with me -- probably something to with the fact none of the teams who have won the premiership have done so by being in the cycle.

Your statistical mind is kicking in there Jars.

You're neglecting the influence playing and coaching styles have on a playing list. Look at the NFL for a rough reference, running offenses, passing offenses, defenses that force the pass, etc.

Facilities, and the cash flow that funds them, do make a difference but so do the players you take on board, and every now and then you pluck a player you build a team around (eg. Fevola, Kouta, Riewoldt, etc).

Author:	bluedog [ Sun Jul 30, 2006 12:19 am ]
Post subject:	Wooden Spoons and Premierships
As far as wooden spoons go, do they actually mean as much as what they did when each team played each other twice - when the competition was actually structured fairly? An old topic of debate I know, and one that will never be rectified, but still... I suppose one could argue that premierships don't mean the same as they used to either with the structure as ridiculous as it is, even though we all know that premierships mean everything. Surely making the competition fair - that is with each team playing each other twice - has to be the first priority before anything else can be considered totally fair dinkum. Speaking of fair, when will Collingwood have to do a fair season's travelling? GO BLUES - whether the comp is fair or not. Might sound like a whinge, but FAIRNESS FIRST.

Author:	Wojee [ Sun Jul 30, 2006 12:27 am ]
Post subject:
I'm not a huge fan of winning spoons myself, but one team will win one each year, and with the current draft system there will never again be lengthy periods where one team dominates and another is completely shithouse. The days of St Kilda being the leagues doormat are over, as are the days of some teams having a virtual mortgage on playing finals.

Author:	George Harris [ Sun Jul 30, 2006 7:58 am ]
Post subject:
Wojee wrote: The days of St Kilda being the leagues doormat are over, Due to the fact that we're now admirably filling that role.

Author:	Kaptain Kouta [ Sun Jul 30, 2006 8:05 am ]
Post subject:
I agree with Wojee. While coming last in the competition is anathema to me, as it should be for any Carlton supporter, it no longer carries the stigma that it used to. Previously, the Spooner would be a crap team, with few prospects for the years to come, but in these days of the Draft, holding up the rest of the ladder is seen more as a sign that the club is a) rebuilding due to retirements, b) struck by injuries, or c) a combination of one of the above and having other teams and players hitting their peak, which effectively raises the standard of play across the whole competition, making being near the top harder to attain for clubs which are in the process of a or b. I hate it, and I'm still convinced that we'll end up above Essendon* by year's end. Pick 1, or pick 2, makes no effective difference. The foundations are being laid now for the next great Navy Blue era. I can feel it coming. As Rachel Hunter said "It won't happen overnight, but it will happen"

Author:	verbs [ Sun Jul 30, 2006 8:23 am ]
Post subject:
What's an extended period at the bottom? We could easily crack the decade mark.

TalkingCarlton http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/

Wooden Spoons and Premierships http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11686	Page 1 of 2

Author:	Kaptain Kouta [ Sun Jul 30, 2006 8:28 am ]
Post subject:
verbs wrote: What's an extended period at the bottom? We could easily crack the decade mark. What signs do you see in our list which lead you to seriously believe that?

Author:	TruBlueBrad [ Sun Jul 30, 2006 9:14 am ]
Post subject:
As long as we don't finish last with 4.5 wins and miss the PP. Last and 3.5 wins is good 15th and 4.5 wins is good

Author:	molsey [ Sun Jul 30, 2006 9:20 am ]
Post subject:
I'd say that years of being a loser are making you think that way. Loser in a footy sense - no comment about the rest of you. Winning a wooden spoon means you're the worst team in an elite competition regardless of everything else. It's a woeful indicator of where you are and I hate being 16th.

Author:	bluehammer [ Sun Jul 30, 2006 9:33 am ]
Post subject:
The first spoon is the worst spoon.

Author:	Synbad [ Sun Jul 30, 2006 9:46 am ]
Post subject:
molsey wrote: I'd say that years of being a loser are making you think that way. Loser in a footy sense - no comment about the rest of you. Winning a wooden spoon means you're the worst team in an elite competition regardless of everything else. It's a woeful indicator of where you are and I hate being 16th. Does it really matter ? Were in the bottom 2 teams. whats important is when we come out of this .. its not some half assed half baked team we have that does not have enough to give itself a chance of winning a flag. No stone should be left unturned in returning the club (through being shit- because thats what the AFL hasd created) as a powerhouse inside 3 or 4 years. If we have had a horror 5 years but come out of this to be average and then fall away... it would be a disaster. we MUST emergence from this with enough talent to give us 10 great years .

Author:	TheSheik [ Sun Jul 30, 2006 10:44 am ]
Post subject:
Synbad wrote: If we have had a horror 5 years but come out of this to be average and then fall away... it would be a disaster. we MUST emergence from this with enough talent to give us 10 great years . GROUND ZERO + DRAFTING YOUTH = SUSTAINED SUCCESS

Author:	verbs [ Sun Jul 30, 2006 1:25 pm ]
Post subject:
I raised an eyebrow the other day when I noticed Hawthorn are third last.

Author:	Wojee [ Sun Jul 30, 2006 1:28 pm ]
Post subject:
verbs wrote: What's an extended period at the bottom? We could easily crack the decade mark. St Kilda spent the best part of a century on or near the bottom. That will never happen again. We might crack the decade mark this time around, but that's due to poor list management coupled with draft sanctions. The system is designed to be cyclical so a club that embraces the draft and doesn't trade high picks for washed up hacks shouldn't spend years on the bottom. I just pray that Carlton will use the draft properly and rebuild sensibly. There's no quick fix to a list that contained but a handful of aging stars mixed in with a helluva lot of chaff.

Author:	Crusader [ Sun Jul 30, 2006 1:31 pm ]
Post subject:
Kaptain Kouta wrote: verbs wrote: What's an extended period at the bottom? We could easily crack the decade mark. What signs do you see in our list which lead you to seriously believe that? The fact that we're half way there...

Page 1 of 2	All times are UTC + 10 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	verbs [ Sun Jul 30, 2006 1:39 pm ]
Post subject:
I find it difficult to swallow the cyclical theory. Something about it just doesn't sit right with me -- probably something to with the fact none of the teams who have won the premiership have done so by being in the cycle.

Author:	Jarusa [ Sun Jul 30, 2006 3:29 pm ]
Post subject:
verbs wrote: I find it difficult to swallow the cyclical theory. Something about it just doesn't sit right with me -- probably something to with the fact none of the teams who have won the premiership have done so by being in the cycle. Agreed, it is yet to be proven. All the draft does IMO is give every club over time lists that are very even (this has not happened yet as the draft has not been taken seriously for long enough by enough clubs). Once the draft has its full effect (another 5-10 years) we will have 16 very similar lists, then IMO factors such as facilities, coaching, culture etc. will become even more important than they are now in determining premiership success.

Author:	Wojee [ Sun Jul 30, 2006 3:32 pm ]
Post subject:
verbs wrote: I find it difficult to swallow the cyclical theory. Something about it just doesn't sit right with me -- probably something to with the fact none of the teams who have won the premiership have done so by being in the cycle. No, there's been other factors at play like salary cap concessions. In a pure system where every club has equal access to the draft ie. No father son picks, and no larger salary cap for individual clubs the system would have to be cyclical. The draft is less than a generation of players old. There hasn't been time for a true pattern to form.

Author:	jimmae [ Sun Jul 30, 2006 3:39 pm ]
Post subject:
Your statistical mind is kicking in there Jars. You're neglecting the influence playing and coaching styles have on a playing list. Look at the NFL for a rough reference, running offenses, passing offenses, defenses that force the pass, etc. Facilities, and the cash flow that funds them, do make a difference but so do the players you take on board, and every now and then you pluck a player you build a team around (eg. Fevola, Kouta, Riewoldt, etc).

Author:	Jarusa [ Sun Jul 30, 2006 4:07 pm ]
Post subject:
jimmae wrote: Your statistical mind is kicking in there Jars. You're neglecting the influence playing and coaching styles have on a playing list. Look at the NFL for a rough reference, running offenses, passing offenses, defenses that force the pass, etc. Facilities, and the cash flow that funds them, do make a difference but so do the players you take on board, and every now and then you pluck a player you build a team around (eg. Fevola, Kouta, Riewoldt, etc). You're kidding right!

Author:	verbs [ Sun Jul 30, 2006 4:08 pm ]
Post subject:
If only it was as simple as spending a few years at the bottom and then spending a few years at the top. Alas, it is not. Who can explain Adelaide being the top team having never won a wooden spoon, missing the finals four times, and winning two premierships in the past ten years? Or Fremantle's spoon (and bottom two x2) years, yet only one finals apperance in ten years? Or Collingwood being down then up then down again and now up again? It's not that cylical at all...more random.