Interesting you mention "winning form". The Crows played GC, GWS, WB and Port in the first 5 rounds.
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
No double up game ladder
- Thread starter Dirty Bird
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Interesting you mention "winning form". The Crows played GC, GWS, WB and Port in the first 5 rounds.
Dirty Bird
Pokémon Master
- Thread starter
- #27
Beating Sydney and Geelong were more beneficial to our form than beating any of those teams....
And you came into the Sydney game in 4-1 "winning form" thanks to those games.
- Dec 29, 2000
- 28,894
- 27,689
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Yep plus winning the NAB Cup.
Christ, if it has dawned on you clowns, Adelaide is a side to be respected and failure to do so is at your own peril.
Adelaide on every measure deserves its place in the top 4. End of story.
PS : we don't lose to bottom 4 side.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
- Jul 20, 2010
- 8,179
- 10,827
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Banned
- #30
Agree 100%. Only idiots arguing that Adelaide aren't up the top. They've proven they are right up there. Maybe they might crumble when it comes to finals, but they are young and will be right up the top end of the ladder for a few years me thinks.
- Jun 16, 2012
- 12,273
- 9,732
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Do you not think that the Crows easy draw could not have contributed to even winning one more game than if they had a harder draw? Because that could be the difference between top 2 and top 4 or top 4 and top 8. Obviously Crows have been playing well and deserve a top 4 spot at present
What part of the phrases: "every team plays all others at least once"; "No double up game ladder"; and "Crows are still top 4" did you fail to comprehend?
So? What exactly is your point?
Plenty of other teams have played four of the bottom five sides by now. Fifteen of sixteen rounds (one round has been a bye) count towards the current ladder for all sides, not just the first five rounds.
- Jun 16, 2012
- 12,273
- 9,732
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
1) the fact they still have WC and Essendon
2)They still have some double up games against easier opponents to play (against GC, Freo and Geelong)
I believe I said just such a thing:
Disregard that though
So? Point?
The Crows still had to beat Sydney at the SCG, and they did so. How does the fact that they played GWS, Port, GCS and WB before that game change that result in any way?
Neither do Crows supporters. The Crows are clearly top 4, by any measure. These different variations of the ladder are necessary only to illustrate where the Crows stand to the supporters of other clubs, such as Collingwood fans, because many of them are apparently having a lot of difficulty working out where the Crows stand without such illustrations.
Dirty Bird
Pokémon Master
- Thread starter
- #37
Ok, so I've added the extra games for this last round, and double checked everything and put excel formula in to do the maths for me to take away the risk of **** ups.
Remember, this is using the first game of the 2 as to avoid bias
Pos - team - win% - % - games left
1. COLL 84.62% 124.18% 4
2. SYD 78.57% 140.57% 3
3. ADEL 78.57% 121.07% 3
4. HAW 73.33% 157.00% 2
5. WCE 66.67% 126.36% 2
6. ESS 66.67% 119.42% 2
7. GEEL 66.67% 117.59% 2
8. NM 57.14% 108.27% 3
9. FRE 56.25% 105.06% 1
10. ST K 50.00% 114.16% 3
11. CARL 46.67% 104.11% 2
12. RICH 40.00% 104.89% 2
13. PA 35.71% 87.78% 3
14. BRIS 35.71% 87.46% 3
15. WB 31.25% 75.20% 1
16. MELB 14.29% 64.52% 3
17. GC 7.69% 58.15% 4
18. GWS 7.69% 43.97% 4
Remember, this is using the first game of the 2 as to avoid bias
Pos - team - win% - % - games left
1. COLL 84.62% 124.18% 4
2. SYD 78.57% 140.57% 3
3. ADEL 78.57% 121.07% 3
4. HAW 73.33% 157.00% 2
5. WCE 66.67% 126.36% 2
6. ESS 66.67% 119.42% 2
7. GEEL 66.67% 117.59% 2
8. NM 57.14% 108.27% 3
9. FRE 56.25% 105.06% 1
10. ST K 50.00% 114.16% 3
11. CARL 46.67% 104.11% 2
12. RICH 40.00% 104.89% 2
13. PA 35.71% 87.78% 3
14. BRIS 35.71% 87.46% 3
15. WB 31.25% 75.20% 1
16. MELB 14.29% 64.52% 3
17. GC 7.69% 58.15% 4
18. GWS 7.69% 43.97% 4
A clubs draw may get them into the Finals. They still have to be good enough to win those games though.
Red Crow
Modrarator
And Sydney were 5-0 and at home. And we beat them. Regardless of who we played before, if we were no good we would have lost.
Regardless of all that, the ladder posted above has only two changes from the actual ladder. Port and Brisbane are flipped, and Collingwood move up to top instead of fourth. Anybody who thinks the real ladder dosn't give an accurate indication of the respective teams positions is ignorant.
I have to agree with the above poster though. This ladder is meaningless.
It makes much more sense to divide the result of any team that has played twice and use that as the result. In some cases this may result in 2 points each - but that would be a more accurate depiction of reality.
Even then though, it is still pretty meaningless. What if the only 4 teams that someone is yet to play are all in the top 8, and another team only has bottom 8 teams yet to play.
The ladder is what it is. It only matters at the end of the season.
It makes much more sense to divide the result of any team that has played twice and use that as the result. In some cases this may result in 2 points each - but that would be a more accurate depiction of reality.
Even then though, it is still pretty meaningless. What if the only 4 teams that someone is yet to play are all in the top 8, and another team only has bottom 8 teams yet to play.
The ladder is what it is. It only matters at the end of the season.
- Jun 16, 2012
- 12,273
- 9,732
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
It is only as meaningless as the claim that "Adelaide have only got to equal top because of their soft draw".
Adelaide have only actually played two sides twice (note that the sides one plays twice is the only thing that differentiates one teams draw from another's).
The two sides that Adelaide have played twice are Port and GWS. In each case the margin in the second encounter was considerably higher than the margin in the first encounter. If this "no return match ladder" did as you suggest, and "divided the result of any team that has played twice and use that as the result" then Adelaide would be higher still on this ladder, but people would still be able to complain that Adelaide's higher position only came about because of Adelaide's draw, and the teams that Adelaide have played twice.
Opening up the "no return match ladder" to that criticism would defeat the whole point of calculating the "no return match ladder"in the first place.
Agreed entirely. The Official ladder is the only one that counts for anything, and even then it only counts insofar as setting up the draw for the finals.
Tell that to the people who are trying to claim that Adelaide's draw is giving them a ladder position which they do not deserve. The one and only point of calculating this "no return match ladder" is to silence such claims. If such claims were not being made, then there would be no point at all to this "no return match ladder", and no need at all for this discussion thread.
Dirty Bird
Pokémon Master
- Thread starter
- #44
sorry, disadvantages 15 teams and it gives Richmond too much advantage.
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
The ladder is to illustrate Adelaide's position which isn't affected by richmond.
Dirty Bird
Pokémon Master
- Thread starter
- #46
taking away GWS and GC games allows Richmond to make up 1 game. That 1 game could be the difference between 8th and missing finals.
I think Adelaide fans should stop taking things to heart and realise footy fans try and wind people up for a laugh.
And OK Crows has taken the bait.
Most people I know in Adelaide just don't know how to take footy banter.
Massive small man sydrome in Adelaide, especially Crows supporters.
Everything seems to be a conspiracy against Adelaide. Maybe you should stop listening to Cronesy and Rowey and realise nobody in Melbourne really gives a shit about them.
We all hate Carlton, Essendon and Hawthorn and other Melbourne teams. Adelaide aren't on the radar apart from winding up people like you who will take the bait.
And OK Crows has taken the bait.
Most people I know in Adelaide just don't know how to take footy banter.
Massive small man sydrome in Adelaide, especially Crows supporters.
Everything seems to be a conspiracy against Adelaide. Maybe you should stop listening to Cronesy and Rowey and realise nobody in Melbourne really gives a shit about them.
We all hate Carlton, Essendon and Hawthorn and other Melbourne teams. Adelaide aren't on the radar apart from winding up people like you who will take the bait.
This is a fair post. Though I like to think no one listens to Cornesy and Rowey.
Crows have been playing well and seem to be inspired by the fresh faces in the coaching box. No doubt playing Gold Coast, GWS and Port twice have made them look better but you can only beat whoever is put in front of you. Regardless, they've beaten Sydney, West Coast and Geelong convincingly and pushed Collingwood, clearly deserving of a top 4 spot. Don't think they've got what it takes to go all the way but they're in with a shot.
I do think that the season should have been cut back to only play each team once with two double up games allowing for rivalries; Sydney to play GWS twice, Brisbane to play Gold Coast twice then Gold Coast and GWS to play twice for a few years until they are competitive, then reverting back to 22 rounds. Understand that this is impossible however with the tv rights and blockbusters that couldn't happen (2 of Coll v Carl, Coll V Rich, Coll V Ess, Coll V Geel for example)
As it stands the fixture is completely unfair and is a disgrace for a major sporting league. It is simply not fair to have the big wigs picking and choosing who plays who twice based on potential monetary gain with such disparity in the difference of travel between teams. Either play each team once or work out some fairer way of deciding on the double ups but as it stands the system is farcical. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
How are clubs like Port and North going to draw more fans playing Sunday twilight games against each other with little to no free to air exposure while clubs like Collingwood and Carlton playing at the MCG every second Fri/Sat night in these blockbuster rivalries against the other big clubs?
I do think that the season should have been cut back to only play each team once with two double up games allowing for rivalries; Sydney to play GWS twice, Brisbane to play Gold Coast twice then Gold Coast and GWS to play twice for a few years until they are competitive, then reverting back to 22 rounds. Understand that this is impossible however with the tv rights and blockbusters that couldn't happen (2 of Coll v Carl, Coll V Rich, Coll V Ess, Coll V Geel for example)
As it stands the fixture is completely unfair and is a disgrace for a major sporting league. It is simply not fair to have the big wigs picking and choosing who plays who twice based on potential monetary gain with such disparity in the difference of travel between teams. Either play each team once or work out some fairer way of deciding on the double ups but as it stands the system is farcical. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
How are clubs like Port and North going to draw more fans playing Sunday twilight games against each other with little to no free to air exposure while clubs like Collingwood and Carlton playing at the MCG every second Fri/Sat night in these blockbuster rivalries against the other big clubs?
- Mar 25, 2003
- 35,681
- 28,351
are you counting the first game between the teams or the second?? i would rate the second as being more important as that is closer to finals. the game between the teams in round 19 is more important than the game between the same team in round 3 because it's more indicative of form at the right time of the year when teams need it most.
