RookiePick
Brownlow Medallist
- Aug 13, 2014
- 26,477
- 47,117
- AFL Club
- West Coast
2/2 at AO for Port vs WCE this year...food for thought.
Certified Legendary Thread Squiggle 2017
- Thread starter Final Siren
- Start date
- Tagged users None
2/2 at AO for Port vs WCE this year...food for thought.
MickyG
Club Legend
- Jul 5, 2010
- 1,164
- 1,014
- AFL Club
- Sydney
One stat for me is the inside 50s; 63 to 42. Convention says over 60 and you win the game. A lot of those inside 50s turned into shots but not converted. On that you should have won but bad kicking is bad football and the Swans defence .... kept us in it.
My earlier point about the umpires applies; 28 frees to 14. A lot of the 28 were ridiculous. A lot of Swans fans are paranoid about it with good reason. Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean someone isn't out to get you. How does the Squiggle cope with that?
If the Swans get through this week I expect the Swans to need to be a 6 goal better team to win the Prelim. No matter who gets through from this side of the draw if the Tigers are playing in the Grand Final it will be #freekickTigers (remember the umpiring you got in the 2012 Prelim, expect that).
Bonkers000
Club Legend
- Mar 5, 2015
- 2,861
- 3,429
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
We lost that match by 5 points. Richmond are no hawthorn.
No they weren't. A lot is not the correct term
I counted 5 that were pretty average calls in our favour
I also counted 3 that were missed for us
I counted 2 that you should've got that you didn't
You also got Buddy who kicked a goal after running near on 20 metres and a 50 metre penalty for Mills who was angry at himself as he thought he had given away the free, when he was given a 50. Tippett had his hands on his heads too like Mills had given it up. Umpire was too slow to call play on. 2 goals gifted
But i don't think we're any sort of lock for a PF against Swans regardless. We could've beaten you, but we kicked poorly at goal at times
But i don't want to derail the Squiggle thread. If it does become a Crows vs Swans PF, it will be a belter for sure! And Squiggle seems to confer right now! I also like the current result it's predicting
I'll be at the GF regardless as i have 2 tickets that i won, but i want to be able to cheer on the Crows for my first ever GF
I think Max youre too bruised by the Tigers to accept they are real deal
- Banned
- #1,606
2017 and 2012 Crows are so different. Both Sydney and Geelong have traditionally done well vS us so obviously I wouldn't be confident against either but our latest performance and our win last year shows we can get Sydney if we convert
- Banned
- #1,607
I ate that food and pood it out. It looked remarkably like Port. Hope that makes my point
- Banned
- #1,608
We agree about that but I don't think Richmond are anywhere near either of us. It will be a Fremantle 14 performance
Richmonds late squiggle surge has me puzzled. I thought I had them pinned as an ok team for most of the season, so not sure how much to trust this latest move. But overall, I'm much more worried about them than I was before, thanks to squiggle.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Number37
Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
- Oct 5, 2013
- 22,222
- 24,270
- AFL Club
- Sydney
2012 reference wasn't about the personnel it was about the circumstances.
Final, home ground for you, Crows heavy favourites, Swans given little chance.
Crows strength is your scoring power, we can stop your scoring power ( to some extent), you have yet to show that you can stop our strength, when we get a roll on in the midfield.
King Brown
Club Legend
- Aug 12, 2017
- 2,582
- 3,763
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Banned
- #1,611
Thats a weird thing to say for a supporter of a club that lost its last two GFs in seasons they finished top.
Number37
Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
- Oct 5, 2013
- 22,222
- 24,270
- AFL Club
- Sydney
I would have thought Essendon supporters would be all for the 'we don't have to prove s**t!'
King Brown
Club Legend
- Aug 12, 2017
- 2,582
- 3,763
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Banned
- #1,613
So Sydney have nothing to prove?
Us fans are in a weird position, most models are saying Richmond are very very likely to make the grand final, but definitely lose? So we're quietly confident of making the grand final, but have no faith of a 11th flag.
Personally, losing a prelim would be worse, because at least if you're in the grand final, you're a chance. All things could happen, Adelaide could kick 8.22 hey, they've done it before! Whereas West Coast don't deserve to be in the finals (and Richmond beat them earlier in the year at the MCG), ditto GWS, who IMO haven't been as good as Richmond this year.
You know what's the weirdest thing about this? The likelyhood that all those close losses actually meant nothing, given it looks like all roads lead to Adelaide even if Richmond did finish top. Let's say Adelaide finishes second and Richmond finishes first, as GWS drop that game in Sydney, the ladder looks like this:
Richmond
Adelaide
Geelong
Port
Sydney
GWS
Essendon
West Coast
So the finals play out like:
Qualifying finals:
Richmond (1) d Port (4)
Adelaide (2) d Geelong (3)
Elimination finals:
Sydney (5) d West Coast (8)
GWS (6) d Essendon (7)
Semi finals
Port (4) def by Syd (5)
Geelong (3) def by GWS (6)
Preliminary final
Richmond (1) v GWS (4)
Adelaide (2) v Sydney (5)
So instead of defeating Geelong then having to defeat GWS or West Coast, it'd have to defeat Port then either Geelong or GWS, but still avoid Adelaide or Sydney until the grand final presuming they win their first two finals at home. Simply put, as long as Adelaide finished in the top two and won their first two home finals, they were bound to meet a ladder topping Richmond anyway in the grand final. The issue for Richmond was: was it going to have to play interstate and possibly lose their first final or just lose it anyway? But beating Geelong has ruled that out anyway.
So as much as those losses were painful, they probably meant nothing, unless you think the alternative scenario is much easier, and I don't think it is, given Richmond may have had to play Geelong in week two with a more rested Selwood. Simply put, in most years, even if you finish first, you'll still have to beat someone good on grand final day.
And if my numbers are right winning against Sydney would mean Richmond would have to play against them in the preliminary final. You could argue that beating a side would give the tigers confidence that they could do it, but I reckon the swans improved over time in the season. And even if they did beat Sydney, they'd probably have to beat Adelaide anyway in the grand final. Simply put, those close losses stopped meaning something once Richmond a) made a qualifying final and b) won said final.
Number37
Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
- Oct 5, 2013
- 22,222
- 24,270
- AFL Club
- Sydney
You're over thinking it mate.
Enjoy, your team is in a prelim with a chance at a GF and a shot at a flag.
The losses actually probably helped, with how it's turned out you couldn't have had a better path the grand final under any other circumstance I feel.
Damien Barrett needs to read the last page or so of this thread to gain an understanding of what sliding doors are - those 3 losses perhaps one of the biggest, most complicated of the season, given their bearing on the shape of the finals.
- Aug 18, 2009
- 4,229
- 17,495
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Thread starter
- #1,620
It doesn't really need to. If a team reliably gets more (or fewer) important free kicks than it should, that will be reflected in game scores, and is just another component of its strength.
What squiggle doesn't handle is a team that unexpectedly gets a much better (or worse) ride from the umpires in one particular game, because it has no way to discount that as a one-off effect that's unlikely to be repeated.
Also it doesn't do well with teams that reliably get more (or fewer) free kicks but only at particular venues, like West Coast in WA, although that is probably accounted for to a degree by natural home ground advantage.
That would be a nice change! Richmond are dead last for free kicks vs opposition this year, with -64 for the season. (Sydney are -27.)
- Aug 18, 2009
- 4,229
- 17,495
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Thread starter
- #1,621
I'll take the losing Grand Final! I can remember losing a prelim. I can't remember the last time we made a GF. I bet it's awesome.
Final Siren In order for the Swans to be predicted winners in Adelaide/overtake the Crows, what do they need to do to the Cats?
Of all the recent games they've played, the Swans are averaging more than 90 points while the Cats are averaging around 60 points.
A few factoids:
- Swans have never lost to the Cats in the finals
- Swans have never lost to the Cats at the MCG
Of all the recent games they've played, the Swans are averaging more than 90 points while the Cats are averaging around 60 points.
A few factoids:
- Swans have never lost to the Cats in the finals
- Swans have never lost to the Cats at the MCG
Do any of your algorithms work out different home ground advantages for different teams?
Or do you have a blanket percentage improvement if it's a home ground for a non-Victorian team?
Perhaps there aren't enough records to get a reliable statistical figure?
Enjoy mate! You'll never forget your first GF - I went in 2015 for the first time and the atmosphere is excellent despite the presence of corporates. Make sure you head to Federation Square for the Grand Final Eve live panel show and just soak up the atmosphere around Melbourne. Even if the Crows aren't playing, pick a team, buy some cheap merch and wear it when you're out.
The atmosphere, anticipation and match day of a grand final transcends squiggles and numbers - and true Squiggle afficionados know this. People who have been lucky enough to go to a GF will know what I mean.
Dr Tigris
Brownlow Medallist
I suspect that those close losses are coming home now. The level of discipline has increased. We consistently cruised when in front. Now we just keep crushing. The players have said that they have learnt from those losses. It could be that a genuine top 4 contender was born out of those close losses.
