Dogs won't be defined by top-four failure
Dogs to head into finals with a positive attitude...
Dogs won't be defined by top-four failure
The AFL Website | Jennifer Witham | 11 August, 2009
WESTERN Bulldogs midfielder Adam Cooney says his teammates won't head into the finals with a defeatist attitude if they fail to hold on to their top-four position.
Cooney, 23, believes the side should evaluate its campaign on what happens in September rather than the next three rounds.
He added that a tilt at ending the Dogs' 55-year premiership drought would remain on the cards, even if it had to be done from the bottom half of the eight.
"If we finish fifth to eighth and go on and even win the flag from there, you're not going to look back on the 22 rounds and say it was disappointing," he said.
"Anything can happen come finals time."
The Dogs have a difficult finish to the home and away season and are in danger of losing fourth spot to the Brisbane Lions, Carlton or Adelaide, which are all within one game.
They face the Lions at the Gabba this week, with the outcome to determine which side will see out the round in fourth.
"Everyone knows how important this week is after our disappointing loss on the weekend," Cooney said.
Click HERE to read the remainder of the article...
Re: Dogs won't be defined by top-four failure
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BulldogBelle
Dogs to head into finals with a positive attitude...
...
Cooney, 23, believes the side should evaluate its campaign on what happens in September rather than the next three rounds.
I don't know BB, almost sounds like he is making excuses or shifting focus from the last 3 games before we have played them. Obviously I don't want them to give up if they don't make top 4 but we must have a do or die attitude to the last 3 rounds
Re: Dogs won't be defined by top-four failure
Quote:
Originally Posted by
gogriff
I don't know BB, almost sounds like he is making excuses or shifting focus from the last 3 games before we have played them. Obviously I don't want them to give up if they don't make top 4 but we must have a do or die attitude to the last 3 rounds
Well gogriff we will know soon enough, perhaps he is just trying to portray that they have no intentions of giving up and will fight tooth and nail till the end of our finals campaign.
I totally agree with what you wrote with regards to the do or die attitude in the upcoming 3 games - hitting the finals with a few wins beforehand would be a massive confidence booster to them.
Re: Dogs won't be defined by top-four failure
It seemed strange to claim they wouldn't go in to the finals with a deafeatist attitude if coming from 5-8th.....kinda suggests they've already got one (hope I'm wrong)
Re: Dogs won't be defined by top-four failure
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BulldogBelle
Well gogriff we will know soon enough, perhaps he is just trying to portray that they have no intentions of giving up and will fight tooth and nail till the end of our finals campaign.
I totally agree with what you wrote with regards to the do or die attitude in the upcoming 3 games - hitting the finals with a few wins beforehand would be a massive confidence booster to them.
BB, I would rather take the positive you mention - that they will not give up! You would kinda hope that would be the case anyway - you know........that never give up Bulldog spirit! I am not accepting of a lesser effort, but I am much happier in the knowledge that the boys fight it out to the end, even if they get out-classed by a better team. ;)
Re: Dogs won't be defined by top-four failure
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Pie Man
It seemed strange to claim they wouldn't go in to the finals with a deafeatist attitude if coming from 5-8th.....kinda suggests they've already got one (hope I'm wrong)
How do you figure that? Reporter asks what they will feel like if they finish 5-8, Cooney answers by saying we won't give up = Cooney has a defeatist attitude?
Re: Dogs won't be defined by top-four failure
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Topdog
How do you figure that? Reporter asks what they will feel like if they finish 5-8, Cooney answers by saying we won't give up = Cooney has a defeatist attitude?
Because the article felt like he's almost conceding they will finish 5-8, instead of doing everything in their power to avoid it.
Personally, I would've liked more of the tried and true 'destiny's in our own hands' kind of cliche were you get the vibe they believe they'll finish top 4, which I didn't get.
Not a big issue for me, and I hope I'm not seeming disrespectful to Coons, twas just how I read it.
I think the title of the article irks me the most...'top-four failure' .... it's written like it's past tense!
We're still top 4, make sure you stay there!!!!
Re: Dogs won't be defined by top-four failure
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Topdog
How do you figure that? Reporter asks what they will feel like if they finish 5-8, Cooney answers by saying we won't give up = Cooney has a defeatist attitude?
He could have said 'we are determined not to let that happen', 'we believe we are playing well enough not to have to worry about that', 'we are confident as a group that we can finish higher'
Hopefully this is just semantics and they do play like everything is on the line
Re: Dogs won't be defined by top-four failure
Does anyone think we could win it from 5th or 6th?
Even from 4th we would have to play the Saints first up
Does someone have a stat on the current finals system...has it always been won by teams that finished 1-2-3?
Here another side note. I was sitting at the Dogs/Dees game this season, and some d'head Dees supporter a few rows back was having a go at one of our supporters for his lack of support (said he didnt have pride becuase he didnt have any apparal), but another one of his comments that really pissed me off was the "at least my club doesnt promise so much every year and deliver nothing"
Argh...lets pray and hope that things can turn around this year, and hope it wont be a repeat of 2008, 2006, 1997, 1998, 1985, 1992 etc
Re: Dogs won't be defined by top-four failure
After what i have seen in the last couple of weeks,I think they will be hopefull that they finish in the top 4.
Re: Dogs won't be defined by top-four failure
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dog House
Even from 4th we would have to play the Saints first up
Why should us or anyone fear the Saints in the finals? When Collingwood limped into the top 4 in 2002 after losing most of their last 8 games during H&A, were they scared to travel interstate and knock off top-of-the-ladder Port? I hate this mentality of preferring to finish outside the top 4 because of a perceived easier game in the first week of the finals. If we are serious about September in 2009, we're going to have to beat 3 of the top teams in the competition regardless. As far as I'm concerned, if we finish 4th we are presented with a golden chance to go straight to a prelim.
By all means respect them, but we should not fear any team we encounter in September.
Re: Dogs won't be defined by top-four failure
Top 4 is infinitely preferable to 5-8.
The whole point of the double chance is that the Prelim should be a foregone conclusion, as you only need to win one game in September to be guaranteed a spot in the penultimate week. From 5-8, you have to win a minimum of 2 games.
In the top 4, if you lose first week (to the Saints, lets say), we play a 5-8 team in the second week (possibly someone like Essendon or Port or Brisbane) and should roll over them, then have a crack at another top 4 side in the Prelim, probably Geelong, unless they've lost. This means you don't play the Saints (if they keep winning) until the GF, and anything can happen then.
On the other hand, finishing 5-8 means if you win the first week, you'll face a top 4 team in the second week smarting from their defeat the week before, and it's 50/50 then whether we get to the Prelim.
---
The more pertinent question is, is 2nd or 3rd preferable to 4th? I don't think so. If you finish 2nd or 3rd, the loser of the first week who makes it through to the Prelim guarantees you a date with the side that finished 1st (assuming all goes to form) so you're more likely to get knocked out in the Prelim (which is what happened to us last year). The side that finishes 4th, however, and loses in the first week but wins in the second week will in the Prelim meet the winner out of the 2nd vs 3rd match, meaning a higher likelihood of making it to the GF. So the irony of the system is, if you're not going to finish 1st, aim to finish 4th (as you'll get the same protection as the 1sts would if they lost).
Re: Dogs won't be defined by top-four failure
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dog House
Does someone have a stat on the current finals system...has it always been won by teams that finished 1-2-3?
Crows 1998 are the only team to do it since the conception of the top 8 IIRC.
Not easy to do, but when the competition is as even as it is this year, besides St Kilda, it is really anyones game. Top 4 has to still be highly preferred but it is not completely out of the realms of possibility from 5 or 6.
Re: Dogs won't be defined by top-four failure
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Griffen#16
Crows 1998 are the only team to do it since the conception of the top 8 IIRC.
Not easy to do, but when the competition is as even as it is this year, besides St Kilda, it is really anyones game. Top 4 has to still be highly preferred but it is not completely out of the realms of possibility from 5 or 6.
The Crows winning that flag was the catalyst to re-structure the finals system - they never should have progressed past the belting Melbourne gave them in week one.
It's a good system now (1v4 etc instead of 1v8)
Re: Dogs won't be defined by top-four failure
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Pie Man
It's a good system now (1v4 etc instead of 1v8)
System came in a year too late for us in 1999 - under the current system we would have played 1st placed Essendon first week of the finals instead of 5th placed West Coast, and had we lost to the Bombers our second final would have been guaranteed in Melbourne - instead we were forced to travel to the Gabba in week 2 and were duly bundled out in straight sets.
