I actually think Cronulla's slump goes back to at the very least during the Origin period, not after it. A combination of byes, not playing decent teams at full strength, missing players through Origin itself, and of course the injuries you mentioned, have obscured this point. After they beat Melbourne, they got flogged by Canterbury (obviously missing Carney and Gallen), had their first bye, lost to Parramatta despite having a full strength line-up, very unconvincingly beat the Titans with both sides missing a wealth of talent, scraped home against the Warriors without Gallen and Graham, had another bye, unconvincingly beat the baby Broncos (who were missing far more quality and quantity than the Sharks), drew with the Roosters while missing Gallen and Smith, lost to the Dragons and got flogged by Canberra, again without Gallen and Smith, and lost to Penrith without Gallen and Graham. I think you can make the case that Gallen is the biggest part of all this and in fact, the slump as I date it shows Gallen has played only 1 game in that 10 week period. It's not their fault that they firstly, had injuries, and secondly played rubbish teams who were often missing a lot of players either through Origin or injury - that certainly doesn't discredit them but likewise it certainly doesn't warrant praise. I mean you can't say "well, the recent losses are just a result of injuries in the post Origin period, but look at us before that" - You have to go all the way back to the Storm game in Rd10 to see them actually beat a quality side on a level playing field. The whole Origin period up until today's game is void afaic, with regard to judging Cronulla's actual ability as a side. It's not at all intuitive or instructive. In other words, it concerns me that you can't really say it's analogous to, say, the Storm, who've clearly been in a post Origin slump, because the Storm were actually beating quality teams before and during the Origin period, and then of course went downhill afterwards. Why would a supposed premiership contender like Cronulla lose to a hopeless Eels side despite being at pretty much full strength? That was the next time the Sharks were at full strength after beating the benchmark team, Melbourne, in Rd10. They go from beating the top side, to losing to the bottom side. It doesn't bode well for their credentials as premiership contenders. And as I said, the Origin and post Origin period is somewhat void for me so that's what I go back to. End of the day, Cronulla will become genuine contenders in my mind, if they finish the season in the top 4. Doing so is vital because as we know, it's near-impossible to win a comp from outside it. Look at the premiers since the NRL began. 2011 - 2nd 2010 - 1st 2009 - 4th 2008 - 2nd 2007 - 1st 2006 - 3rd 2005 - 4th 2004 - 2nd 2003 - 1st 2002 - 4th 2001 - 3rd 2000 - 1st 1999 - 3rd 1998 - 1st I really can't see this Cronulla side being the first ever to win the comp from outside the top 4. Which is what I think they'll have to do because I think the draw against the Chooks is what will keep them from making it. They have a harder run than the teams ahead of them (Manly and Melbourne.) They've got the Knights in Newcastle, Souths at Toyota (who will have Inglis, Luke and Asotasi back), Melbourne in Melbourne, and the Cowboys at Toyota. The last match of the season could well be a play-off for a top 4 birth. So apart from the fact that I just don't think Cronulla are one of the best three sides in the comp, I can't consider them contenders until I see them finish top 4.
Great logic mate, so if the Sharks play really good games for the rest of the season against good competition and lose in a close game to the Cowboys in Rnd 26 to finish 5th, that puts them out. Why don't you just look at how good the teams play instead of arbitrary numbers? See this is how you came up with retarded notion that Brisbane were a premiership contender just because of their position on the ladder when anybody with half a brain could see that they would struggle towards the end with the team they had. Even the Titans could finish 7th and be considered a solid contender if they prove it the next few games.
I have looked at them. I've looked at them for months on end. And as you'll notice I mentioned that I don't happen to think they're one of the top 3 teams. Where did I say anything remotely like that? And where did I say anything that could be interpreted as being derived from that? I said Brisbane are only contenders if Wallace starts firing again on all cylinders. They clearly have the pack and the finishers to be a contender if their halves start playing as they did earlier in the year. Anyone with half a brain? Like people such as yourself who said the Cowboys were serious contenders......when anyone with half a brain (or someone whose been analysing them for the last 5 years) knows they're utterly hot and cold, can't tackle, and can't win away from home. Good call that one. And boy haven't they pushed their credentials over the last month.
And you always want to write off everything relating to history as coincidence. There's a reason why no team outside the 4 has ever won a premiership. It's much more difficult to do when you haven't got the luxury of playing at home. It's absurd to suggest that at least one of the top 4 teams always happens to be better than all of the bottom 4, and that such a phenomenon is derivable from analysis. How is writing off the Dogs because of their halves by saying you can't imagine a team with such halves ever winning the GF, any different? You can't tell me that is purely derived and applicable analysis and not relating to your preconceived knowledge of history.
It has a hell of a lot more to do with how unlikely it is for the best side to finish below fourth than how hard it is to win from those positions. Finishing in the top four and winning the premierships are both likely results of the same phenomena; one doesn't cause the other. If you went back in history and reversed or randomised all the top eights then I reckon we'd still end up with the same premiers more often than not.
At some point towards the end of the season you were pointing out that they hadn't won or only won once iirc against another top 4 side.
That's actually a much better reason to write a side off than where they finish AFAIC because it goes to how good they are against top quality opposition rather than misinterpretation of data or voodoo.
I never said otherwise. I'm simply saying the latter is significant enough to play a role in determining whether a marginally above average side ought to be considered contenders or not. Look at the comp right now. You don't like the Dogs. You don't like Manly. You don't like the Broncos. You know the Cowboys would be a fluke. And surely you can't think the Storm are morals any more (if you ever did). Given Cronulla's pack and halves, and your previous comments, I'm assuming you think they are genuine contenders, perhaps even more so than Canterbury. If that's the case, and please do tell me if it's not, in the event that they finish outside the top 4, I'll bet you $50 they don't win the comp. The former has a significant bearing on the latter afaic. Huge advantages are proffered to teams that make the top 4, and especially the top 2. You can finish top 2 and despite the fact that you may be the best team, you don't even have to play even remotely as the best team to make the GF from that position. You play one less game. You play both at home. You play against the worst sides of the 8 (generally speaking). None of that relies on being the best team in the comp. Well, I just disagree completely. I think you'd see a huge change based on home ground advantage alone. Never mind having to play one less game, and against crappier opposition.
I don't think Cronulla will win the comp regardless of where they finish FTR. I certainly think they have more chance than Brisbane though and probably Canterbury too, and if Brisbane and Canterbury finished 1st and 2nd (can't happen now obv - but if they did) it would not change my opinion in the slightest.
lol at labelling home ground advantage and playing two games to make the GF instead of three, against weaker opposition, "voodoo." I'm not sitting here saying Cronulla can't win because they're 40-year-old virgins ffs. I'm saying there are very good reasons based on what we know about the game, to think winning it from outside the 4 is infinitely more difficult than from inside it.
I'd honestly find it awesome if Canterbury won the comp though. They'd have successfully revolutionised the game in order to do so, in a way that's attractive to watch too despite pretty unstructured and uncreative halves (which is something I never thought I'd say). I'd be a great thing to have witnessed. I'm just a bit conservative I suppose in that I think such an unusually successful style of play could come a bit unstuck under the higher intensity and pressure of finals footy. I do hope I'm wrong, but I think even the Sharks pose more of a threat. Brisbane to me have been absolutely no hope all year. Even when they were flying here I really didn't rate them much of a chance at all.
How is the first week of the final series played against weaker opposition if you finish in the top four? You do realise we changed systems, right?
Wow. You sure you want to word it like that? I mean I could understand you saying you think Cronulla are a better side than the other two regardless of where they finish, but to say they'd be a greater chance of winning it? I find that very surprising, I must say. If Canterbury finish 1st and Cronulla end up 5th, you'd be a fool to back the Sharks from there afaic. I don't care if the Dogs halves are Ben Roberts and Shane Perry Canterbury would waltz over the Titans down in Sydney and go straight through to the Prelim. Cronulla would probably play Manly or Melbourne away from home. Then, assuming they surmount that tremendously difficult task, they'd be playing either the Cowboys or Broncos. After that, they'd have to face the Dogs away from home to make the GF, in which they'd probably face the one other remaining top 4 side. Yeah...............good luck with that.
It's irrelevant to our discussion anyway, regarding the importance of home ground advantage and so on. Gonna laugh so hard if the first year that they introduce the new system, a non-top 4 side wins it.
