Is Crossy correct?

Just looking at some stats over the history of the force to determine if Crossy is indeed correct in his assumption that the force can't win those close games.

Here are some pertinent stats*:

Force lost by one point 7 (agonising times)
Force won by one point 6 (glorious occasions)
Force lost by 7 points or less 16 times
Force won by 7 points or less 12 times
Drawn 5 (golden rings)
Total 71 games

Crossy is obviously wrong with the single point margins which are pretty close...but...

A stunning 47% of our games have been within 7 points and 25% within a point. When the games are within 7 points we only win 36% of them.

Makes for some exciting games!

*Stats have been manually compiled and may not be 100% reliable...all care was taken

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stone Cold

Makes for some exciting games!

---

Interesting. Got any stats on how long a glass can remain half full before it becomes half empty? :banghead:

From
When the force were announced until last Saturday.
Posted via Mobile Device

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shasta

Interesting. Got any stats on how long a glass can remain half full before it becomes half empty? :banghead:

---

Forever. Faith manages.

What I find ironic is that the last one point loss before this year that I can remember is the Hurricanes game in 2009 (I don't know how I haven't repressed that). Both Crossy and Drew Mitchell (whose last minute tackling was atrocious) have moved on and been replaced by two players in Willie Ripia and David Smith who were on the winning side of that game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stone Cold

Forever. Faith manages.

---

Yep. Just trying to make light of the situation. Might be time to bring back "the sign" as an avatar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shasta

Interesting. Got any stats on how long a glass can remain half full before it becomes half empty? :banghead:

---

Apparently Five years and six games

our bunch use to blame john mitchel for not instilling enough of the "steel" spirit you need to get over all those close humps.

maybe we were wrong?

it's pretty annoying not to be putting winnable games to bed.

I think it is an experience and a cohesion thing. If we hold on to the majority of our players for next year (and get a decent tighthead prop in to replace Fairbrother) those 1 point losses will turn into wins. We could be sitting on 4 wins and 2 losses at the moment which would put us around the top 6.

@StoneCold
Can you do the same analysis for those matches that Cross was playing in to see if he contributed to a worse performance in close games?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James

I think it is an experience and a cohesion thing. If we hold on to the majority of our players for next year (and get a decent tighthead prop in to replace Fairbrother) those 1 point losses will turn into wins.

---

I think it is anything but. To me it sounds very much like a team that a) tries to shut up shop the moment they get ahead and frequently pays the inevitable price, and b) does a good job of staying in touch against better teams, without knowing when or how to take the chance to pinch it at the end. It is a philosophical thing, that clearly applies regardless of the personnel. We can keep the same players or get some others, but the same philosophy will have the same outcome.

I suspect a similar analysis for some of the top teams at half times would look similar, with teams generally close after 40 minutes. But it would then be quite different at full time when, having got on top, they push the knife home and make a bloodbath of it. And it'll be that way because it is a defining characteristic of a top team...no fear, no mercy. Call it a philosophy or culture, it is why year after year, change the players, change the coach, have an earthquake, the one constant is that the Crusaders are the benchmark.

Anyone see the Crusaders-Bulls game? That was precisely what I was talking about.