I thought during last year that maybe time had partly healed how bad the late 80's and early 90's sides were and that despite how woeful we were 2004 still wouldn't compare to those dark times. Well after stumbling across that footygeek stats site last night I was right about 2004 not comparing - it was actually worse
.
Now if you compare the lists, despite both eras having no depth and being mostly full of duds, surely the 2004 was still far superior to say any list we had from 87-93. We had a list full of young mostly country kids lead by the Flea back then and despite how we rate our senior players now, 2004 should have never been the Club's worst season or close enough to on record. Alot of this blame must come back to the former coaching staff.
You would reckon, despite having roughly the same core group this year as last, that just having Terry and co leading the way we should see substancial improvement in 2005. We still will probably finish bottom 4 due to our deficiencies but I can't see if we play some positive footy us ending up again with a percentage of only 69% on the back of numerous hidings and pathetic totals ourselves.
What improvement we see under Wallace in his first year is yet to be seen but just from those stats if we focussed on the simple idea of trying to put the ball between the sticks at every opportunity and moreso than opposition which after all is the whole point of the game then that would be a good start. I'd guess Wallace is fully aware of this with his comments of aiming for 16 goals a game.
