Originally Posted by
Pembleton
It may well be that the Dogs are in serious trouble. I think it is fair enough to write an article saying that. However, I think the manner in which the journo has tried to add the weight of historical example to his argument is bordering on dishonest.
He has gone back to '91 to come up with one dicey example. The Eagles didn't collapse after losing in round 22. They still won 2 finals that season, and were only beaten in September by one team, which happened to be the Hawks, who at the time, knew a fair bit about how to win flags.
The '04 Demons might be a better fit, but they were never secure in the top 4 like the Bulldogs are this year. The Demons lost games that mattered, and dropped from a home qualifying final with a double chance, to an elimination final. The Bulldogs of '08 can drop n further than they have, and thats from wearing blue shorts in an MCG qualifying final, to wearing white shorts instead.
Some different examples that mught be relevant to the importance of momentum going into the finals...
The '02 Pies are ommitted as an example, despite being a team, that like the Dogs, was secure in its top 4 spot some time out from the finals. Those Pies lost 3 of 4, and 5 of 8, going into the finals. In week 1 of the finals, they played away to Port Adelaide, who were the top team and had won their last 6. The pies won, and went on to just miss out on the premiership. Pretty insightful example regarding the importance of momentum going into the finals one would think, that is, unless it suits your argument to ignore it.
The '01 Hawks lost 3 in a row and 4 of 5 going into the finals, then won 2 finals and fell just short of a GF spot.
Neither of those were premiership teams though, so here is some more examples...
The '90 Pies only managed 3-3 going into the finals, the Bombers were 5-1 in that period, but the Pies still smashed the Dons twice in the finals to win the flag.
The '93 Bombers lost momentum just as badly as the '91 Eagles supposedly did, losing in round 22 and a qualifying final, and they won the flag with a very young team. They knocked off a Carktin team that had gone 12-2 to make the GF.
The '97 Crows were inexperienced in finals and weren't flying when they got to September, losing 2 of 3, but they won the flag, beating the Saints who won 9 straight to make the GF.
In '98 the Crows didn't seem to have much momentum after the first week of the finals, but still won the flag, beating North, who won 11 straight to make the GF.
Games in the lead up to the finals are indicative of finals performance insofar as the insight they offer as to how good a team is. Perhaps there is enough evidence in our performances of late to suggest that we're not all that good. That is a reasonable argument to make. However, the idea that 'momentum' is very important, and that 'history is littered' with examples that prove it, is a myth.