Remove this Banner Ad

Certified Legendary Thread Race for the flag, in squiggly lines

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Grand Final Preview 2014

z4N53cB.png


All year, Hawthorn have looked like the team in pole position, sitting comfortably closer to the mass of premiership cups than any other team. Even when Sydney edged ahead in terms of raw scores, Hawthorn remained in a historically fertile place, while Sydney were surrounded by white space, where teams often made finals but fell short of premierships.

The Swans' two finals performances, though, have given them a significant kick towards that cluster of cups. They're now in a place where a 2015 premiership wouldn't look out of place - it would sit closer to that main cluster than to the "outlier" premierships of 1994 and 2005. The Hawks no longer have that mantle of being the clearly best-positioned team.

The Hawks' consistency, charting in the same place all year (despite significant disruption), has also been impressive, but again it's become hard to knock the Swans on that score. After restarting their season in Round 5, they rocketed to an excellent position and held that for the second half of the year, before now kicking into a higher gear in the finals. So neither team is betraying any fragility or erratic movement that might suggest their current position is undeserved.

The Hawks are the most attacking team in the league and the Swans the best defensive team, although both are quite balanced compared to the top teams of years gone by. For example, last year we also had a Grand Final between the most attacking and defensive teams, but the Hawks' defence was weaker while the Dockers' attack was weaker.

In a way it feels anti-climactic to have these two face off, because they've been the most likely Grand Finallists for a while now. If Port had made it, it would have made for a more amazing story. But Grand Finals aren't for romance: Grand Finals are for the two best teams of the year to run through each other. And that's what we're getting.

Squiggle tip

The usual squiggle algorithm awards 12pts to the home team against an interstate opponent. This works well during the home & away season, allowing the squiggle to, for example, correctly tip the Hawks to beat Sydney in Melbourne, then lose to Freo away, then beat Geelong at home.

There are two little wrinkles with it, though. The first is about what happens when there's a difference between the nominal home team (the team with "home" status) and the geographic home team (the team in whose state the game is being played). This is one of those games: Sydney, by virtue of finishing 1st on the ladder, is the nominal home team, but Hawthorn is the geographic home team. Historically, in these situations, the nominal home team does better. It seems strange and counter-intuitive, but it's what happens.

Secondly, this algorithm is calibrated to tip home & away matches, not Grand Finals. It doesn't have a particularly good record at tipping Grand Finals.

So although the interactive squiggle predictor is saying Sydney 82 - 91 Hawthorn, this is only after awarding the Hawks' a 12-pt home advantage that there's little statistical evidence that it deserves.

My best Grand Final tipper, as discussed before, is the OFFDEF-75 algorithm. This awards no home ground advantage, and heavily weights recent matches, i.e. finals performances. It has a 9-1 (90%) record at picking Grand Final winners over the last 10 years, and 20-5 (80%) over the last 25 years.

Before last weekend, OFFDEF-75 liked Port Adelaide best, then Sydney, then the Hawks. After the Swans thrashed North Melbourne, they moved ahead of Port - despite the Roos not being considered the toughest of opponents, the final margin was a big one, enough to shift them significantly. This meant that for Port to pull ahead, they had to beat the Hawks by 4 goals, and for the Hawks to pull ahead, they had to absolutely demolish the Power.

Neither happened. A narrow win to Hawthorn left Sydney ahead, and so the OFFDEF-75 Grand Final tip is:

Sydney.png
Sydney 90 - 80 Hawthorn
Hawthorn.png

Algorithm details: For anyone interested in more nitty-gritty, here are some notable algorithms and their tips. Overall, 7 are tipping Sydney (by 6-18 pts) and 1 is tipping Hawthorn (by 9).

  1. OFFDEF-75. My best Grand Final picker. No home advantage. Heavily weights recent games. 25-year GF record: 80%. 10-year GF record: 90%. Tip: Sydney by 10.
  2. VENUE-81:13. Considers performances at the MCG. 25 years: 76%. 10 years: 80%. Sydney by 6.
  3. OFFDEF-88:5. 5-pt home advantage to the nominal home team. Some more weight to recent games. 25 years: 80%. 10 years: 70%. Sydney by 11.
  4. ISTATE-91:12: POWER:88. Heavily weights games against strong opposition. 25 years: 68%. 10 years: 80%. Sydney by 12.
  5. PILGRIM-91:12. Penalizes teams based on distance travelled between games. 25 years: 72%. 10 years: 60%. Sydney by 8.
  6. ISTATE-91:12. Core squiggle algorithm, using nominal home ground advantage. 25 years: 60%. 10 years: 50%. Sydney by 18.
  7. ISTATEV2F-91:12. Core squiggle algorithm, using geographic home ground advantage. 25 years: 56%. 10 years: 60%. Hawthorn by 9.
  8. HOMER. Tip the home team, i.e. the one that finished higher on the ladder. 25 years: 52%. 10 years: 50%. Sydney.
 
OFFDEF-75. My best Grand Final picker. No home advantage. Heavily weights recent games. 25-year GF record: 80%. 10-year GF record: 90%. Tip: Sydney by 10.
Sorry if it's been answered but what are the few tips this one has got wrong in the past?
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Sorry if it's been answered but what are the few tips this one has got wrong in the past?
Incorrect GF tips by OFFDEF-75 in the last 25 years:
  • 2008 Hawthorn, which defied every law of football of which I am aware
  • 2003 Brisbane: tipped Collingwood
  • 1998 Adelaide: tipped North Melbourne
  • 1997 Adelaide: tipped St Kilda
  • 1992 West Coast: tipped Geelong
 
Incorrect GF tips by OFFDEF-75 in the last 25 years:
  • 2008 Hawthorn, which defied every law of football of which I am aware
  • 2003 Brisbane: tipped Collingwood
  • 1998 Adelaide: tipped North Melbourne
  • 1997 Adelaide: tipped St Kilda
  • 1992 West Coast: tipped Geelong

So, basically it tipped the teams that couldn't kick straight no the day for at least 3 of those (not sure about 92)
 
Incorrect GF tips by OFFDEF-75 in the last 25 years:
  • 2008 Hawthorn, which defied every law of football of which I am aware
  • 2003 Brisbane: tipped Collingwood
  • 1998 Adelaide: tipped North Melbourne
  • 1997 Adelaide: tipped St Kilda
  • 1992 West Coast: tipped Geelong
Would I be right in saying all five of those premiers were underdogs going into the game?
 
Incorrect GF tips by OFFDEF-75 in the last 25 years:
  • 2008 Hawthorn, which defied every law of football of which I am aware
  • 2003 Brisbane: tipped Collingwood
  • 1998 Adelaide: tipped North Melbourne
  • 1997 Adelaide: tipped St Kilda
  • 1992 West Coast: tipped Geelong

Interesting, so that means each time the Swans have appeared in a grand final, the predictor has correctly tipped the outcome.
 
Adelaide shouldn't have gone b2b especially against North who were an absolute powerhouse at that time. They shouldn't of even beaten St Kilda. The 2003 tip was fair because of the trouncing the Pies gave the Lions in the QF.

I remember bits of the saints/north/crows gfs and Adelaide shouldn't have won them but they did. All I remember is North kicked themselves out of the game.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Adelaide shouldn't have gone b2b especially against North who were an absolute powerhouse at that time. They shouldn't of even beaten St Kilda. The 2003 tip was fair because of the trouncing the Pies gave the Lions in the QF.

I remember bits of the saints/north/crows gfs and Adelaide shouldn't have won them but they did. All I remember is North kicked themselves out of the game.

Adelaide finished 2 games behind ST Kilda in 1997 (with a superior percentage) and had more scoring shots in the Grand Final (30 to 29). They deserved to win the 1997 Premiership
 
Adelaide finished 2 games behind ST Kilda in 1997 (with a superior percentage) and had more scoring shots in the Grand Final (30 to 29). They deserved to win the 1997 Premiership
With that last quarter for sure. I just checked the scores - 8 straight to the crows to win by 6. Both gfs they trailed at half time from wasteful teams and dominated the 2nd halves in both games. Just think that had north taken their chances as well as st Kilda, north would have been the team of the 90s and saints would have 1 premiership in the last 20 years.
 
So, basically it tipped the teams that couldn't kick straight no the day for at least 3 of those (not sure about 92)

I'm not sure how Geelong were ahead of West Coast in '92 given West Coast comfortably handled Geelong in the major Semi Final (which was the biggest final of the old final 6).

Anyway as for scoring shots:

1992 - West Coast 33 v Geelong 27
1997 - Adelaide 30 to St Kilda 29
1998 - Adelaide 30 to North Melbourne 30
2003 - Brisbane Lions 34 to Collingwood 24
2008 - Geelong 34 to Hawthorn 25

So 2008 aside, the teams with the higher scoring shots have won the premierships where the squiggle has been beaten.

1998 is often mentioned as a premiership Adelaide shouldn't have won but they were far more impressive than North on the day. They equalled North for scoring shots, won the game by 6 goals and ran North ragged with handball (which was a pretty amazing achievement given they had 4 successive finals on the road).

The '98 Crows had a very similar Preliminary Final to the '14 Swans
 
With that last quarter for sure. I just checked the scores - 8 straight to the crows to win by 6. Both gfs they trailed at half time from wasteful teams and dominated the 2nd halves in both games. Just think that had north taken their chances as well as st Kilda, north would have been the team of the 90s and saints would have 1 premiership in the last 20 years.

1997 was a very even year, it wasn't that much of a surprise that Adelaide won the premiership. That season the Crows played the Saints once, at home and defeated them by 11 points.

The 1998 result was the out of the box flag
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Interesting, so that means each time the Swans have appeared in a grand final, the predictor has correctly tipped the outcome.

That's very interesting. I would have thought the Swans were significant underdogs in 2005 and 2012. And a bit surprised they weren't the tip in 2006 when they went down to the Weagles.
 
So 2008 aside, the teams with the higher scoring shots have won the premierships where the squiggle has been beaten.
Good for the Hawks. They average more scoring shots than the Swans. Hawks have also kicked more goals than behinds in all but 2 games this season. Swans, less than half of theirs.
 
I'm not sure how Geelong were ahead of West Coast in '92 given West Coast comfortably handled Geelong in the major Semi Final (which was the biggest final of the old final 6).

Anyway as for scoring shots:

1992 - West Coast 33 v Geelong 27
1997 - Adelaide 30 to St Kilda 29
1998 - Adelaide 30 to North Melbourne 30
2003 - Brisbane Lions 34 to Collingwood 24
2008 - Geelong 34 to Hawthorn 25

So 2008 aside, the teams with the higher scoring shots have won the premierships where the squiggle has been beaten.

1998 is often mentioned as a premiership Adelaide shouldn't have won but they were far more impressive than North on the day. They equalled North for scoring shots, won the game by 6 goals and ran North ragged with handball (which was a pretty amazing achievement given they had 4 successive finals on the road).

The '98 Crows had a very similar Preliminary Final to the '14 Swans
You mean you're not sure why OFFDEF-75 had Geelong ahead? I had a look and it actually has an interesting answer.

It comes down to a match between West Coast (4th) and Footscray (2nd) in the second-last round of the year. For whatever reason, it was incredibly low-scoring: West Coast didn't kick a single goal in the first three quarters, and wound up losing 53-23. We all know how the squiggle loves a defensive effort, so this hugely boosted Footscray's stocks: they jumped from 3rd to 1st in OFFDEF-75's rankings.

The next round, Footscray put away Brisbane 131-74, which was not nearly as defensive, and so they slid, but they were still rated very highly on the defensive scale for their following encounter, which was their first final versus Geelong. Well, the Cats unloaded 26 goals in that match, winning 172-111. So what the squiggle saw was Geelong going up against an extremely good defence and completely obliterating it. This sent Geelong's OFFENCE soaring and gave them a large buffer over West Coast.

The Eagles' victory over the Cats wiped that buffer out, and put them on rough level pegging. But that was it for West Coast finals: they were straight into the Grand Final under the system at the time.

The Cats, by contrast, had to play another final. And their opponent was... Footscray again! And again, Geelong smashed them, winning 149-85. And again, the squiggle saw the Cats raining goals against a defence that had only recently restricted West Coast to 23 points.

I don't know what happened in that low-scoring Eagles/Dogs game, but it was that plus the fact that Geelong got two cracks at the Dogs afterwards and killed them both times: that was enough to convince OFFDEF-75 that the Cats were the team to beat.

Edit: Wikipedia says: "In Round 23 following torrential rain at the Western Oval, West Coast kicked only 0.2 (2) to three-quarter time. This is the lowest three-quarter time score since 1953."
 
Last edited:
You mean you're not sure why OFFDEF-75 had Geelong ahead? I had a look and it actually has an interesting answer.

It comes down to a match between West Coast (4th) and Footscray (2nd) in the second-last round of the year. For whatever reason, it was incredibly low-scoring: West Coast didn't kick a single goal in the first three quarters, and wound up losing 53-23. We all know how the squiggle loves a defensive effort, so this hugely boosted Footscray's stocks: they jumped from 3rd to 1st in OFFDEF-75's rankings.

The next round, Footscray put away Brisbane 131-74, which was not nearly as defensive, and so they slid, but they were still rated very highly on the defensive scale for their following encounter, which was their first final versus Geelong. Well, the Cats unloaded 26 goals in that match, winning 172-111. So what the squiggle saw was Geelong going up against an extremely good defence and completely obliterating it. This sent Geelong's OFFENCE soaring and gave them a large buffer over West Coast.

The Eagles' victory over the Cats wiped that buffer out, and put them on rough level pegging. But that was it for West Coast finals: they were straight into the Grand Final under the system at the time.

The Cats, by contrast, had to play another final. And their opponent was... Footscray again! And again, Geelong smashed them, winning 149-85. And again, the squiggle saw the Cats raining goals against a defence that had only recently restricted West Coast to 23 points.

I don't know what happened in that low-scoring Eagles/Dogs game, but it was that plus the fact that Geelong got two cracks at the Dogs afterwards and killed them both times: that was enough to convince OFFDEF-75 that the Cats were the team to beat.

Out of curiosity what was the gap between Sydney and Hawthorn using OFFDEF-75 in the lead up to the Preliminary Final. I understand the Swans were in front, but by how much?

This finals series has been quite unique in that we haven't had an opportunity to compare and contrast how the Grand Final qualifiers coped in the QF and PF against the opposite opponent. So there is an element of uncertainty surrounding the form / preparation of the two qualifiers.

I'm not building a case for Hawthorn to beat Sydney, I agree with the squiggle the Swans deserve to go in 2 goal favourite...
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Certified Legendary Thread Race for the flag, in squiggly lines

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top