Rumours and Stuff

[Parra Pride]

Unfortunately we weren’t lucky enough to win those.

A lack of luck isn't why we lost those three. We didn't turn up to play any of them until the game was decided.

 

[T.S Quint]

A lack of luck isn't why we lost those three. We didn't turn up to play any of them until the game was decided.

We were unlucky to play teams who were so much better than us.

 

[lucablight]

We were unlucky to play teams who were so much better than us.

Upsets happen in sports all the time. All of those games were winnable. We just weren’t good enough to make it happen.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

The statement you’re quoting is hyperbolic but it has absolutely been posited that our relative lack of success is because we don’t have as many resources as other clubs. I think that’s a pretty weak argument when the likes of the Dragons, Raiders, Sharks, Bulldogs, Knights, Sea Eagles, Rabbitohs, Cowboys and even the Tigers (I won’t include the giant clubs in the Roosters, Storm, Broncos and Panthers) have won premierships during our drought. You don’t have to be the biggest. You just have to have enough (which I would argue we have had).

We do have enough, but the difference between one win (some of the clubs mentioned) and zero wins (us and some other clubs) is accounted for by a difference in fortune. For example, we have made three grand finals in the NRL era, which is almost the average. With slightly more luck we would have made four grand finals, which is better than average. This tells me we are probably a club with average strength/resources. As for grand final wins, the average of three grand finals would be either one or two wins (because you can't win 1.5 games). We have zero, which is below average, but a sample of three is small, and bad luck (again) accounts for the difference between zero and one win.

The NRL era has been going for 27 years, and we have had a lot of scapegoats in that time, so blaming individuals would be lazy. We are either an average strength club that has been unlucky, or a below average strength club that has had an average share of luck. That's the only logical conclusion. Blame Brad Arthur, Mark O'Neill or your other favourite scapegoat of the era is just cope.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

We have had enough resources to win a premiership.
We’ve made three grand finals in the last 23 years.
Unfortunately we weren’t lucky enough to win those.

Any team can have some luck and win a GF. It’s the teams that have the most resources that allow them to have continued success which offers them more chances at winning.

Of all those teams you mentioned, how many of them have won multiple premierships over the last 20 years?

That’s right, only the teams you yourself described as “the giant clubs” have done that.

FFS why do I waste my time!?!?

 

[Poupou Escobar]

If we’ve had sufficient resources to win a competition then the statement about our lack of success because of our relative lack of them is demonstrably false. I always talk about how important decision making is and the “giant clubs” argument proves my point as well. Apart from the Storm those giant clubs have also captured wooden spoons during that time. The whole resources argument is pretty ad hoc then isn’t it?

Wooden spoons are absolutely about a lack of luck. Teams only run last with severe injury tolls and/or off field dramas. But weaker clubs need less misfortune to run last than stronger clubs.