Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Is Psychological help the answer ? (Read 50095 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Is Psychological help the answer ?

Reply #45 –
Quote from: PassIt2Carrots – on
Quote from: kruddler – on
In the end, people only remember the 'potential walker free' that could've won us the match.

If you look through the goal by goal, you'll see a different story to us being a contender.

We kicked the first 4 goals of the match, to their 0.1
We kicked the last 3 goals of the match after they had got their game high lead of 21 points, 22 minutes into the last quarter and took the foot of the pedal.

In the middle of the game, they kicked 15 goals to our 6 and clearly had the game on their terms.

Yes, we nearly stole it late, but they were still a class above us.

Kruddler likes to misrepresent the stats, we actually won 3 of the 4 quarters......not to mention their run of goals was aided by some of the most shocking onse sided decisions we've seen in the game.

Carrots likes to make bold statements like 'misrepresent the stats'.

Everytime I, or someone else, puts up a stat that you disagree with, they are 'misrepresenting the stats'.
Fact is they had 15 goals to 6 in the heart of the game.

We cannot forget that.

There are not too many genuine top 4 sides that allow that kind of scoring against.

Re: Is Psychological help the answer ?

Reply #46 –
Quote from: kruddler – on
Quote from: PassIt2Carrots – on
Quote from: kruddler – on
In the end, people only remember the 'potential walker free' that could've won us the match.

If you look through the goal by goal, you'll see a different story to us being a contender.

We kicked the first 4 goals of the match, to their 0.1
We kicked the last 3 goals of the match after they had got their game high lead of 21 points, 22 minutes into the last quarter and took the foot of the pedal.

In the middle of the game, they kicked 15 goals to our 6 and clearly had the game on their terms.

Yes, we nearly stole it late, but they were still a class above us.

Kruddler likes to misrepresent the stats, we actually won 3 of the 4 quarters......not to mention their run of goals was aided by some of the most shocking onse sided decisions we've seen in the game.

Carrots likes to make bold statements like 'misrepresent the stats'.

Everytime I, or someone else, puts up a stat that you disagree with, they are 'misrepresenting the stats'.
Fact is they had 15 goals to 6 in the heart of the game.

We cannot forget that.

There are not too many genuine top 4 sides that allow that kind of scoring against.

Fact is, we won 3 of 4 quarters, and you tried to make out they dominated the major part of the game. You most certainly misrepresented the facts, as you tend to do to try and get your point across. The proof is there. We won 3 of 4 quarters. Can't argue with that.
Ignorance is bliss.

ONWARDS AND UPWARDS!

Re: Is Psychological help the answer ?

Reply #47 –
Quote from: PassIt2Carrots – on
Quote from: kruddler – on
Quote from: PassIt2Carrots – on
Quote from: kruddler – on
In the end, people only remember the 'potential walker free' that could've won us the match.

If you look through the goal by goal, you'll see a different story to us being a contender.

We kicked the first 4 goals of the match, to their 0.1
We kicked the last 3 goals of the match after they had got their game high lead of 21 points, 22 minutes into the last quarter and took the foot of the pedal.

In the middle of the game, they kicked 15 goals to our 6 and clearly had the game on their terms.

Yes, we nearly stole it late, but they were still a class above us.

Kruddler likes to misrepresent the stats, we actually won 3 of the 4 quarters......not to mention their run of goals was aided by some of the most shocking onse sided decisions we've seen in the game.

Carrots likes to make bold statements like 'misrepresent the stats'.

Everytime I, or someone else, puts up a stat that you disagree with, they are 'misrepresenting the stats'.
Fact is they had 15 goals to 6 in the heart of the game.

We cannot forget that.

There are not too many genuine top 4 sides that allow that kind of scoring against.

Fact is, we won 3 of 4 quarters, and you tried to make out they dominated the major part of the game. You most certainly misrepresented the facts, as you tend to do to try and get your point across. The proof is there. We won 3 of 4 quarters. Can't argue with that.

I don't think you understand what a fact is. You continue to try and debate facts, when by definition a fact is known to be true.

FACT is they scored 15 goals to 6 in the middle of the game. This is known to be true, not made up, not twisted. FACT.

I never said we didn't win 3/4 quarters. You are implying that i have been.

For completions sake.
Q1 - 25-9 (Lead by our kicking the first 4 goals)
Q2 - 21-48 (The team that rarely got a lot of goals scored against it, actually got a lot of goals scored against it)
Q3 - 19-17 (Won the quarter, true, but we kicked 3.1 to their 2.5...they had more play and scoring shots)
Q4 - 33-27 (Won the quarter by a goal, again after they took the foot off the pedal and we kicked the last 3 goals of the game)

So your 'good enough for me' comment flies in the face of 2 things you have been harping on about ad nauseum.

1. The team under Ratten was rarely had large lapses in games in which we were scored against heavily. Incorrect.
2. 3 out of 4 quarters is NOT good enough. In fact, you have said previously all you want is a 4 quarter effort from our boys.

I don't want to call you a hypocrite, but if the shoe fits....

Re: Is Psychological help the answer ?

Reply #48 –
Quote from: kruddler – on
Quote from: PassIt2Carrots – on
Quote from: kruddler – on
Quote from: PassIt2Carrots – on
Quote from: kruddler – on
In the end, people only remember the 'potential walker free' that could've won us the match.

If you look through the goal by goal, you'll see a different story to us being a contender.

We kicked the first 4 goals of the match, to their 0.1
We kicked the last 3 goals of the match after they had got their game high lead of 21 points, 22 minutes into the last quarter and took the foot of the pedal.

In the middle of the game, they kicked 15 goals to our 6 and clearly had the game on their terms.

Yes, we nearly stole it late, but they were still a class above us.

Kruddler likes to misrepresent the stats, we actually won 3 of the 4 quarters......not to mention their run of goals was aided by some of the most shocking onse sided decisions we've seen in the game.

Carrots likes to make bold statements like 'misrepresent the stats'.

Everytime I, or someone else, puts up a stat that you disagree with, they are 'misrepresenting the stats'.
Fact is they had 15 goals to 6 in the heart of the game.

We cannot forget that.

There are not too many genuine top 4 sides that allow that kind of scoring against.

Fact is, we won 3 of 4 quarters, and you tried to make out they dominated the major part of the game. You most certainly misrepresented the facts, as you tend to do to try and get your point across. The proof is there. We won 3 of 4 quarters. Can't argue with that.

I don't think you understand what a fact is. You continue to try and debate facts, when by definition a fact is known to be true.

FACT is they scored 15 goals to 6 in the middle of the game. This is known to be true, not made up, not twisted. FACT.

I never said we didn't win 3/4 quarters. You are implying that i have been.

For completions sake.
Q1 - 25-9 (Lead by our kicking the first 4 goals)
Q2 - 21-48 (The team that rarely got a lot of goals scored against it, actually got a lot of goals scored against it)
Q3 - 19-17 (Won the quarter, true, but we kicked 3.1 to their 2.5...they had more play and scoring shots)
Q4 - 33-27 (Won the quarter by a goal, again after they took the foot off the pedal and we kicked the last 3 goals of the game)

So your 'good enough for me' comment flies in the face of 2 things you have been harping on about ad nauseum.

1. The team under Ratten was rarely had large lapses in games in which we were scored against heavily. Incorrect.
2. 3 out of 4 quarters is NOT good enough. In fact, you have said previously all you want is a 4 quarter effort from our boys.

I don't want to call you a hypocrite, but if the shoe fits....

Well put Kruddler, you won that debate. The "ad nauseum" is a term that has come to my mind a number of times recently.

Re: Is Psychological help the answer ?

Reply #49 –
Quote from: kruddler – on
So your 'good enough for me' comment flies in the face of 2 things you have been harping on about ad nauseum.

1. The team under Ratten was rarely had large lapses in games in which we were scored against heavily. Incorrect.
2. 3 out of 4 quarters is NOT good enough. In fact, you have said previously all you want is a 4 quarter effort from our boys.

I don't want to call you a hypocrite, but if the shoe fits....

Those weren't the points I was trying to make. You've tried to deflect from the original debate and attempted to discredit me instead, something else you seem to be doing a lot of. With regards to that, playing a four quarter effort doesn't equate to winning four quarters even the dominant sides get scored against at times. The effort was well and truly there as the quotes represent, every poster was impressed with the effort.

But all that has got nothing to do with the fact we played better for a larger portion of the game, which is what the original discussion centred around. Everyone said we should have won the game, so you're on your own there. Everyone knows we were rolled by the umps and a large portion of their run on came from that (ie. Davies double goal, Shuey caught bouncing the ball play on called and a goal). The fact we should have won suggests we were in fact the better side, so once again you're wrong. Sort of makes.....

Quote
In the end, people only remember the 'potential walker free' that could've won us the match.

If you look through the goal by goal, you'll see a different story to us being a contender.

We kicked the first 4 goals of the match, to their 0.1
We kicked the last 3 goals of the match after they had got their game high lead of 21 points, 22 minutes into the last quarter and took the foot of the pedal.

In the middle of the game, they kicked 15 goals to our 6 and clearly had the game on their terms.

Yes, we nearly stole it late, but they were still a class above us.

look a just a little stupid. Which is the point I was trying to make. Cheers. ;)

@Bratblue

You are a backslapper of epic proportions, kudos to you!
Ignorance is bliss.

ONWARDS AND UPWARDS!

Re: Is Psychological help the answer ?

Reply #50 –
Quote from: kruddler – on
Quote from: PassIt2Carrots – on
Quote from: kruddler – on
Quote from: PassIt2Carrots – on
Quote from: kruddler – on
In the end, people only remember the 'potential walker free' that could've won us the match.

If you look through the goal by goal, you'll see a different story to us being a contender.

We kicked the first 4 goals of the match, to their 0.1
We kicked the last 3 goals of the match after they had got their game high lead of 21 points, 22 minutes into the last quarter and took the foot of the pedal.

In the middle of the game, they kicked 15 goals to our 6 and clearly had the game on their terms.

Yes, we nearly stole it late, but they were still a class above us.

Kruddler likes to misrepresent the stats, we actually won 3 of the 4 quarters......not to mention their run of goals was aided by some of the most shocking onse sided decisions we've seen in the game.

Carrots likes to make bold statements like 'misrepresent the stats'.

Everytime I, or someone else, puts up a stat that you disagree with, they are 'misrepresenting the stats'.
Fact is they had 15 goals to 6 in the heart of the game.

We cannot forget that.

There are not too many genuine top 4 sides that allow that kind of scoring against.

Fact is, we won 3 of 4 quarters, and you tried to make out they dominated the major part of the game. You most certainly misrepresented the facts, as you tend to do to try and get your point across. The proof is there. We won 3 of 4 quarters. Can't argue with that.

I don't think you understand what a fact is. You continue to try and debate facts, when by definition a fact is known to be true.

FACT is they scored 15 goals to 6 in the middle of the game. This is known to be true, not made up, not twisted. FACT.

I never said we didn't win 3/4 quarters. You are implying that i have been.

For completions sake.
Q1 - 25-9 (Lead by our kicking the first 4 goals)
Q2 - 21-48 (The team that rarely got a lot of goals scored against it, actually got a lot of goals scored against it)
Q3 - 19-17 (Won the quarter, true, but we kicked 3.1 to their 2.5...they had more play and scoring shots)
Q4 - 33-27 (Won the quarter by a goal, again after they took the foot off the pedal and we kicked the last 3 goals of the game)

So your 'good enough for me' comment flies in the face of 2 things you have been harping on about ad nauseum.

1. The team under Ratten was rarely had large lapses in games in which we were scored against heavily. Incorrect.
2. 3 out of 4 quarters is NOT good enough. In fact, you have said previously all you want is a 4 quarter effort from our boys.

I don't want to call you a hypocrite, but if the shoe fits....

That's one game. You can't use that as evidence that we it "flies in the face" of us putting in 4 quarter efforts in in the past. Idon'tremember if we did but this example doesn't refute anything. No teams always put in 4 quarter efforts. UnderMalthoise it's a rare occurrence. Especially in the past 18 games 

Re: Is Psychological help the answer ?

Reply #51 –
Quote from: ItsOurTime – on
That's one game. You can't use that as evidence that we it "flies in the face" of us putting in 4 quarter efforts in in the past. Idon'tremember if we did but this example doesn't refute anything. No teams always put in 4 quarter efforts. UnderMalthoise it's a rare occurrence. Especially in the past 18 games

That is not 'one' game. That is 'THE' game that everything before or since is being judged against.

Carrots brings it up as 'proof' that we peaked under Ratten and were close enough to being a top 4 side.

I'm simply showing that some of his major beefs with the club now, existed then and how he contradicts himself in order to show his displeasure for Malthouse and the current situation.

He tells half-truths, and complains when i call him on it.

@Carrots...
I was impressed with the effort we put in that game.

I was also impressed with the effort we put in when we were 0-3 last year. However at the same time you said effort was not good enough, only wins mattered.

None of this changes the fact that we were not a top 4 side then, or now. Doesn't matter how pretty you try and paint that picture, we were not good enough under Ratten. You can cite whatever examples you want to during the game, we still had 15 goals to 6 kicked against us when it mattered, which a top 4 side doesn't do. Umpires are not responsible for that.

Re: Is Psychological help the answer ?

Reply #52 –
Quote from: kruddler – on
Carrots brings it up as 'proof' that we peaked under Ratten and were close enough to being a top 4 side.

I'm simply showing that some of his major beefs with the club now, existed then and how he contradicts himself in order to show his displeasure for Malthouse and the current situation.

He tells half-truths, and complains when i call him on it.

What an absolute load of BS that is, you said we were never in the game, we got outscored in one quarter and won every other one. Nothing you spin can prove otherwise, everyone agrees we should have won. FFS get your hand off it for once admit that either you were wrong, or you tried manipulate the stats is a sly way to support your argument. And stop trying to deflect to something totally different, it proves exactly what kind of poster you are.

Ignorance is bliss.

ONWARDS AND UPWARDS!

Re: Is Psychological help the answer ?

Reply #53 –
Quote from: PassIt2Carrots – on


@Bratblue

You are a backslapper of epic proportions, kudos to you!

Thanks Carrots. I guess I've lost respect for your opinions because of your anti MM dogma. I was never against Ratts as a coach and likewise I'm not against MM and am prepared to give him time to make his mark on the team. To me the constant critizism of the coach has worn thin.

Is there a facility on this forum to add people to an ignore list?

Re: Is Psychological help the answer ?

Reply #54 –
No there is not so you're stuck with me. :)

You're still a backslapper. Everyone loves the guy that goes 'yeah, he's right because I agree'. The funniest thing being this debate has nothing to do with Malthouse.
Ignorance is bliss.

ONWARDS AND UPWARDS!

Re: Is Psychological help the answer ?

Reply #55 –
Quote from: PassIt2Carrots – on
No there is not so you're stuck with me. :)

You're still a backslapper. Everyone loves the guy that goes 'yeah, he's right because I agree'. The funniest thing being this debate has nothing to do with Malthouse.

Say what you will Carrots but you'll get no backslappin from me,,,,,,,,,,,,,,unless you try much harder. haha

Re: Is Psychological help the answer ?

Reply #56 –
Quote from: PassIt2Carrots – on
Quote from: kruddler – on
Carrots brings it up as 'proof' that we peaked under Ratten and were close enough to being a top 4 side.

I'm simply showing that some of his major beefs with the club now, existed then and how he contradicts himself in order to show his displeasure for Malthouse and the current situation.

He tells half-truths, and complains when i call him on it.

What an absolute load of BS that is, you said we were never in the game, we got outscored in one quarter and won every other one. Nothing you spin can prove otherwise, everyone agrees we should have won. FFS get your hand off it for once admit that either you were wrong, or you tried manipulate the stats is a sly way to support your argument. And stop trying to deflect to something totally different, it proves exactly what kind of poster you are.

I love how you can speak for EVERYONE.

Someone disagrees with you, so you bring in your mate, EVERYONE and that is that.

Again you bring up manipulating the stats. How? I wave a magic wand and TADA. They are there for all to see, i showed your winning of the 3 quarters too. But yes, manipulating them somehow.

There is no deflection, there is simply correcting some half-truths. You don't like being called on it, and when you do, you lash out as evidenced above. You even have a go at brat blue for agreeing with me. Apparantly he isn't included in your magical EVERYONE mate you keep referencing.

Your own ally in IOT, an ironic name when you think about it, even states that using this 1 game as proof of anything is a stretch...but you do so anyway.

In short, we KNOW your thoughts. Some people disagree with them and are entitled to say as much. You may not like it, or certainly won't agree with it. Doesn't matter how many times you say it, does not make it true and does not change peoples opinion.

Re: Is Psychological help the answer ?

Reply #57 –
Yep but no amount of spin or deflection will change the fact that we won 3 out 4 quarters and should have won the game which makes your original comments (the ones that ignited the debate) absolute BS. That was my point. And I've proven it. If you want to try and bring up other stuff, start a thread, I'll be happy to respond.
Ignorance is bliss.

ONWARDS AND UPWARDS!

Re: Is Psychological help the answer ?

Reply #58 –
Quote from: PassIt2Carrots – on
Yep but no amount of spin or deflection will change the fact that we won 3 out 4 quarters and should have won the game which makes your original comments (the ones that ignited the debate) absolute BS. That was my point. And I've proven it. If you want to try and bring up other stuff, start a thread, I'll be happy to respond.

Sigh.

If that makes you happy so be it.

I suppose i don't need to point out that winning a number of quarters (unless its 0, or 4) has no definitive bearing on the result of a game.
I suppose i don't need to point out that the whole concept of quarters is essentially just an arbitrary breakdown of time and holds no actual significance.


If we break the game down into say, 9 minute blocks and they win more than us, does that make them a more worthy winner than the were considering the only won 3 out of 4 quarters? The way the game is broken down into time period (in this case quarters) is essentially irrelevent.

To prove how irrelevent that is, i broke the game down into different time periods. Rather than quarters, i broke the quarters down into quarters and came up with 16 time periods. Essentially, 9 minute blocks.

What was the result?
Eagles won 8 (9 minute blocks)
We won 7 (9 minute blocks)
and there was one drawn 9 minute block.

Oh no, but we won 3 out of 4 quarters?!

Proof that quarters won is irrelevant. EQUALLY as irrelevant as 9 minute periods, or any other time period.

Eagles won, we lost.

Re: Is Psychological help the answer ?

Reply #59 –
Why the focus on one game in 2011?
The team who beat us finished stone motherless last the year before and 10th the year before that, and last week they had their pants pulled down by Geelong who are past their best.
Could've, should've, would've, but the bottom line is that we didn't, and haven't.
The least we can do as supporters is give Malthouse a chance, we gave Ratten over five years after all and it got us nowhere.
The only thing in this world worth more than a hill of beans is the Carlton Football Club.