Dragons: Are they underachievers?

[DeeGan]

Interesting to read that St George Illawarra Dragons CEO Peter Doust is already dismissing the claim that his Dragons are "underachievers" after last night's loss to the Wests Tigers a game the bookies said they should of won.

Since the 1999 GF loss to the Melbourne Storm, the Dragons have not had a successful finals campaign which is surprising given the roster they have had in recent seasons. Yes, there have been injuries in recent times, though when it comes to those in the media or public judging teams, this is forgotten in the end.

Post your vote and your reasons why you voted that way.

Are the Dragons being harshly treated here or are they simply a good football team that has once again underachieved in 2005?

Cheers

DeeGan

[Dakink]

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!!

This year is the first year they have really had all their top liners on the park for any length of time! I think they have excelled this year, considering the start they had (without a number of stars). No club can achieve with Aus & State reps on the bench.

Ohh plus I'm bias.

[Super Cronk]

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!!

This year is the first year they have really had all their top liners on the park for any length of time! I think they have excelled this year, considering the start they had (without a number of stars). No club can achieve with Aus & State reps on the bench.

Ohh plus I'm bias.

nah mate i totally agree.

Nathan brown brought up a good point last night when he said "we have done bloody good considering that we lost our halfback halfway through the season..." he then said "if any other team had lost their halfback they wouldnt have come this far"

The amount of injuries the dragons had at the start of the season lead them to be beat around a far bit but when ryles, gasnier and barrett got together on the same field they really played good.

If your judging them on their form since 99 ild prolly say they have underachieved a little bit. This year tho they played good...but at the end they didnt seem to want the GF as much as tigers.

[Moejoe]

Not at all, This years NRL competition has been the hardest competition I can remember watching ever. With 2 weeks before finals the ladder positions 6,7,8 were still undecided, It wasnt untill the last week of competition that we found the Wooden spooners for the year (You will bounce back knights fans) And every finals game I have seen this year has been absolute Quality. For the Dragons to make the top 4 in a fiercly contested year of football makes them in NO WAY underachievers.

Just to clarify things too people. I am not a dragons supporter, I follow the sharks whom are "arch nemisis" of the dragons.

Lets all hope next years comp is as good as this years

[Steve Dangerous]

They're definately chokers.

The media and fans build them up quite a lot most years, but they always fall at the final hurdles. I think they need to be less expectant and more passionate and just grit it out a bit more.

[Dakink]

They're definately chokers.

The media and fans build them up quite a lot most years, but they always fall at the final hurdles. I think they need to be less expectant and more passionate and just grit it out a bit more.

That wasnt the question grrr.....

LOL Its hard following the Dragons. I dont know whats worse. Followiing a team that can win but never does or a team like the bunnies (No offence intended) that put in but get nowhere.

[Steve Dangerous]

well chokers implies that they are capable of much better but underacheive each year. so i vote yes.

[Mavfan]

No offense to any Dragon Fan that resides on this forum, but with the team they had this year, they really should of won the comp.

I feel they are big underachievers.

[Teegy]

No offense to any Dragon Fan that resides on this forum, but with the team they had this year, they really should of won the comp.

I feel they are big underachievers.

But so should have the Rooster, Bulldogs, Panthers, Cowboy(could still do it), Broncos, Melbourne, Parra etc

just because dragons don't win the grand final each doesn't mean they are underachieving. we make the finals year after year (which is better than what i can say for other clubs) and have done it with severe injury problems.

[Shadow XL]

I am not sure, They can win, but i think the lack of football ruined it for them, if they lost in that first week and played through out the finals, they would have probably made it to the grand finial.

[roostergirl]

It must be frustrating being a dragons supporter.....i'm frustrated for you!

Individually, the players are brilliant...have probably the best team on paper, but coming together as a team....something is lacking. Synergy...my fave new word lol...where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts...is not happening. But i can't talk...my team severely underachieved...didn't cope with the loss of Freddy.

Watching the expressions on Barretts face was hard too...he felt every little mistake.

[Cliffy GC]

how about we give the tigers some credit, they were the last side to be the saints in the reg season.

Had the dragons played NQ or parra i dare say they would have won

[DeeGan]

No, they are not underachievers in my opinion.

2005 was the first season in a long, long time where the St George Illawarra Dragons had their full compliment of players to choose from and they were one win from their second ever Grand Final appearance as a joint venture. Whilst to book makers and media "experts" that may seem as underachieving, I disagree.

Nathan Brown as Sterlo said yesterday when wrapping up the afternoon said "Nathan Brown is a career coach"...agree 100%.

The Dragons since he has taken over have continually improved:

2003 - 11 wins (26 points for 10th on the ladder)
2004 - 14 wins (32 points for 5th on the ladder)
2005 - 16 wins (36 points for 2nd on the ladder)

N.B. You can take it a step further and look at FOR and AGAINST as well.

The above is not a "underachieving", the above is "continually getting better at what we do as a team".

2006 will be the last chance for Brown and his current group of players to win the title, going off their 3 year continual improvement, the smart money says a pre-season bet on the Dragons is not unfounded.

If I had to label ANY team as an underachiever, look no further than the Brisbane Broncos who have a record of 8 finals appearances, 2 wins and 6 losses since the 2000 premiership win.

[Teegy]

Great Point Deegan

[Shadow XL]

No, they are not underachievers in my opinion.

2005 was the first season in a long, long time where the St George Illawarra Dragons had their full compliment of players to choose from and they were one win from their second ever Grand Final appearance as a joint venture. Whilst to book makers and media "experts" that may seem as underachieving, I disagree.

Nathan Brown as Sterlo said yesterday when wrapping up the afternoon said "Nathan Brown is a career coach"...agree 100%.

The Dragons since he has taken over have continually improved:

2003 - 11 wins (26 points for 10th on the ladder)
2004 - 14 wins (32 points for 5th on the ladder)
2005 - 16 wins (36 points for 2nd on the ladder)

N.B. You can take it a step further and look at FOR and AGAINST as well.

The above is not a "underachieving", the above is "continually getting better at what we do as a team".

2006 will be the last chance for Brown and his current group of players to win the title, going off their 3 year continual improvement, the smart money says a pre-season bet on the Dragons is not unfounded.

If I had to label ANY team as an underachiever, look no further than the Brisbane Broncos who have a record of 8 finals appearances, 2 wins and 6 losses since the 2000 premiership win.

Don't call the first team i ever supported underacheivers.... I still go for them...But yes you are true, they get off the a greatstart all the time, then fall down hill, it is annoying specialy this year it looked like they were going to make it then boom! no wins.