threenewpadlocks
Brownlow Medallist
Cool.The indomitable Team A
On a completely unrelated note, do you happen to have a VIP manager at any sports betting companies?
Mega Thread Nick Daicos - Can he be the GTWEB? Part 2
- Thread starter Fadge
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
- Status
On a completely unrelated note, do you happen to have a VIP manager at any sports betting companies?
sr36
TheBrownDog
So even if using your prefered measure - percentage rather than win/loss - you were still middle of the 9 teams in the top flight - not the best like CD shows because it cares how much you flog the shit teams by.
threenewpadlocks
Brownlow Medallist
Yes. The middle of the 9 teams of the top flight, which was 9 teams last year. Therefore the Dogs were approximately about the 5th best team in the league. That through a mixture of luck and fixturing elements, we were only able to translate that into finishing 9th spot on the ladder.
By the way, just so you know, if total margins across 4 different matches across the final round of footy was only 36 points for if those 4 matches had gone the other way - just 6 more goals across 4 games by losing teams - Dogs would have finished top 4 on the ladder. Therefore, it is on that basis I'm comfortable in saying that the Dogs were approximately the fifth best team last year. You'll probably disagree with this with some sort of emoji and a "WHY DIDN'T YOU FINISH HIGHER THAN 9TH THEN" as if a bone-headed refusal to acknowledge the very slight differences in fixturing and simple dumb bad luck as existing makes you correct.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
sr36
TheBrownDog
But general rules like yours don't work if the teams have a completely different strategy in terms of player management, best way of playing when you're leading, etc.
I don't know if you watched the Collingwood vs Melb QF in 2023. It ended being only 7 points or so. We were about 4 goals up at 3 quarter time and then parked the bus inside 50 in the last quarter. Dees dominated field position and kicked a lot of scrubbed points and their supporters felt thy were the better team on the day but got unlucky.
We were never going to lose that game. But Dogs in our position probably would have gone for the jugular in the last and finished them off by 8 goals. Your general rule would rate you a whole heap better, because of a different winning end-game strategy.
But back to the point, the whole notion that you rate a couple of attacking players top 5 in the league in Richards and Darcy and don't see their play also increasing Bon't data and vice versa is absurd. So even if you rate their team analysis stuff - it's beyond question that the team and your teammates are going to significantly impact your personal data. And if you look at that PHD - it's not about evaluating individual players from different teams - that's not what the system is built for. It's built as an attempt to evaluate teams. The individual player stuff is just spin off sales from a waste product.
sr36
TheBrownDog
Fixturing elements? You played 3 of the top 9 twice. It was below average for th top 9 teams.
But Ok - 5th of the top 9. Where did CD have you and why not 5th? You seem to be using a different system to rate teams, but have faith in their system for rating players (which it just isn't built for).
threenewpadlocks
Brownlow Medallist
I've never said I rate Richards currently as a top 5 player. Don't put words in my mouth.
Yes, it explicitly is. It provides quite literally dozens of pages of how it rates players against each other, for example, there is a section that compares 2015 Bontempelli to 2015 Scott Pendlebury.
The example you provided was a final where winning margin doesn't matter. Therefore your points are valid about not racking up the score, but it's only relevant for a final. Not for the vats majority of games, which are H&A, where you can meaningfully gain the advantage of percentage by going for the jugular. And guess what? Collingwood's 6 jugular 40+ point wins - not matched by other top 8 teams last year - got you to top 4 on percentage. Good on Collingwood. They ran up scores against bad teams and benefited significantly from it. The failure of GWS and Fremantle in also racking up big wins cost them top 4.
You vastly overstate how different footy is at different parts of the game. You're acting like if the margin reaches 60 points they introduce a rule where everyone's only allowed to kick on their opposite foot.
No, by virtue of percentage benefits, by the fact that only 4/5 players can be benched, and you know, pride the footy played in big margin games is still largely representative. Sure, not as representative as the footy played in a close game or with the score at 0-0, but still largely representative.
It's quite obvious you skimmed the thesis paper where the first 50 or so pages was about the mathematical basis of establishing location-on-the-field-equity and not the remaining 200 pages (and, you know the abstract of the paper) that then, after that establishment, discusses it in the context of rating papers. You literally just scrolled down the first 50 or so pages and are completely misinterpreting it lol and that's actually pretty funny. Read the abstract, which is essentially the summary:
"Abstract
This thesis creates a new method for assessing player performance in Aus-
tralian football, specifically for an application to the Australian Football League
(AFL)."
Your words "it's built to evaluate teams".
If that was the case, why does the first line in the first paragraph of the entire thesis literally state "this creates a new method of assessing player performance".
Am I allowed to use laughing emojis now because you tried to claim that the Thesis did something different to its literal first sentence explaining what it was doing?
- Thread starter
- #9,660
Whilst it is an extreme example, my first thought would be to look more closely at the information available to understand why the blow-out in game 4.
Did Team D have a number of players unavailable, or many in game injuries, for example?
See, it is ridiculous to do analysis just based on a simple end score.
Using your theory, Carlton in their 28 point Elimination Final loss to Brisbane in 2024, were:
1) more competitive than Collingwood were in their 29 point Preliminary Final loss to Brisbane in 2025, and
2) far more competitive than Collingwood were against Geelong in their 2011 Grand Final.
It's completely ludicrous.
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2015
- Posts
- 13,786
- Reaction score
- 22,463
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
They were very unlucky, especially when the Dockers went on a rampage in Rd 24 scoring 11 goals to 3 in the middle 2 quarters, Bont nowhere to be seen
- Thread starter
- #9,662
We won't know that until much later in the year, in the same way that everyone wrote Collingwood off before the start of 2025, after Opening Round, and again leading into the 2025 finals series.
threenewpadlocks
Brownlow Medallist
In summary: Nick Daicos is a better footballer than Marcus Bontempelli because Craig McRae is apparently smart enough to push a "win close game" red button in the coaches box in the last quarter and Luke Beveridge is too much of a dum dum coach to do the same.
It is precisely the difference in one coach being dum dum and the other coach not that is the reason Nick Daicos is a better footballer.
I love Pies fans laugh emoji laugh emoji
It is precisely the difference in one coach being dum dum and the other coach not that is the reason Nick Daicos is a better footballer.
I love Pies fans laugh emoji laugh emoji
threenewpadlocks
Brownlow Medallist
Bont had 10 touches, 161 metres gained, 2 tackles, 2 clearances and 2 intercept possessions in the 2nd quarter of that game.
Or should I mention his 203 metres gained and go in the 3rd quarter?
"Nowhere to be seen"
It's incredible how wrong you always are.
Cdog71
Community Leader
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2017
- Posts
- 6,486
- Reaction score
- 13,708
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Staff
- #9,666
The vagrancy’s of the fixture?
I’d like to think that every team has an even chance to win and I’m not going to stir the pot.
However
It does come into play and any lover of the game who can look at it with unbiased eyes recognises it.
There is also, IMO, the challenge teams whose Marvel home games have.
Which isn’t something MCG attendants need to concern themselves with but. We are talking about “contending” as you put it.
threenewpadlocks
Brownlow Medallist
So a fellow Pies supporter gets something wrong, you understand it to be wrong, and somehow your response is to... pre-emptively mock the correction?
Somehow a Pies supporter getting something wrong about Bont is a sarcastic attack on the fact, that Bont is actually good, and was good?
So even your sarcastic attacks in an attempt to suggest Bont isn't actually that good... is to admit that Bont played well? Amazing.
- Thread starter
- #9,669
I'm glad it says 'new method' and not 'accurate method', because when in 2025 a player kicks more goals than any other player has since 2009, and that player is only ranked the 52nd best player in 2025, it doesn't do a very good job of 'assessing player performance'.
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
- Thread starter
- #9,671
Hey Corny, I hope you realise that if Team A plays 10 games and wins 1 game by 100 points and loses the other 9 games by an average of 3 points each, and Team B plays 10 games and wins 9 of them by an average of 3 point but loses the 10th game by 100 points....
Team A is CLEARLY the better team!
Because PLaYeR RaTiNGZ says so!
Team A is CLEARLY the better team!
Because PLaYeR RaTiNGZ says so!
threenewpadlocks
Brownlow Medallist
It's also inaccurate, and it can be argued even more so, to say that 41 out of 46 players played an equally bad game statistically worth zero but you seem to love that method too so
sr36
TheBrownDog
You don't rate Richards as a top 5 player, yet you're writing a heap about how highly you trust these player ratings of midfielders...
Do you understand that it's very common in a heap sports to treat all games like a final in terms of maximising the likelihood of victory without caring about precentage or net run-rate - whatever the tie breaker used is? And it's quite recent that some teams have made to playing multiple styles in one game rather than rolling out the same plan no matter what. You're not going to see Collingwood repeating that GWS final where GWS locked it down for repeat stoppage and Pies hit it the same spot and did the same thing over and over again. One repeated plan just isn't a thing anymore for many teams
In terms of the laughing emoji - go for your life - I didn't word it well. "It's" is referring to the Champion Data system. It's designed to evaluate teams. I was ridiculing the PHD - a PHD on the waste product of a system that doesn't work for it's purpose - evaluating teams. Someone has written a PHD on it's evaluation of players - which isn't actually what it's doing - it's just something they sell off - because it creates a talking point for the media and some buy it.
"And if you look at that PHD - it's not about evaluating individual players from different teams - that's not what the system is built for. It's built as an attempt to evaluate teams. The individual player stuff is just spin off sales from a waste product.
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2005
- Posts
- 25,865
- Reaction score
- 21,380
- Location
- Putney
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Collingwood
?? That isn't what you were blabbering about.
That article is about confirming the validity of the ratings in relation to predicting match outcome and margin.
The data confirmed the relationship between score margin and team rating differential. Not sure why you are posting that? As that isn't being disputed.
Even just looking at early results in 2026 that is holding true.
TRD = team rating differential
The close games have close TRD.
- Rd 0 Dogs beat Brisbane by 5, TRD was 7
- Rd1 Carlton beat Richmond by 4, TRD was 7
- Saints lost to Pies by 12, TRD of -4
- Saints lost to Dees by 13, TRD of -11
- GC beat Cats by 56 TRD was 51
- GC beat WC by 59, TRD was 58
The TRD isn't being the questioned, what is being noted is the link between actual game style - play in an attacking high scoring game teams and BOTH teams players have more scoreboard impact and BOTH get high TRs.
Back to the close games, TRD 4-11
Rd0 - Dogs and Lions - BOTH teams scored above 100, BOTH teams had a TR above 220.
Rd0 - Pies v Saints - BOTH teams scored under 80, BOTH teams had TRs in 190
Rd1 - Richmond and Carlton BOTH scored under 80, BOTH teams had TR below 190
Rd1 - Melb v StK, BOTH teams scored above 100, BOTH teams had a TR above 230.
Saints in a low scoring scrap where they lost by 12 against with a TRD of -4 managed a TR of 190, Saints in a high scoring game where they lost by 13 had a TRD of -11 managed a TR of 231.
Should start becoming clear that it is easier to accumulate actions that have positive scoreboard contribution in a game where both teams are hitting the scoreboard.
Saints v Dees game had a combined for 474 player rating points, the Saints v Pies just 384 player rating points. Playing in a high scoring game meant players shared an extra 90 player rating points amongst themselves...for a game that finished with same score margin and similar TR differential.
Because the Saints have played 1 high scoring game and 1 low scoring game, their current 2026 avg TR is 211, but they have a % of just 87%.
Pies as we have played two low scoring games have an avg TR of 195 and a % of 98...be a weird stretch to try and claim Saints have been better than the Pies so far in 2026 (but pretty easy to claim the Saints have scored more than us, back up by their avg team ratings).
You can create some more redundant ratios where you take percentage difference between averages and compare that to % of and find % difference in avg TR if you want again...
threenewpadlocks
Brownlow Medallist
I've said numerous times that I rate Daicos as the 4th best player despite the ratings system having him 16th. The obvious corollary of such logic of how I rate Daicos is that there would be players, like Richards, that the ratings system rates 2nd but I rate outside the top 10.
Your inability to understand what I would think as a very obvious corollary here speaks volumes about how you understand and apply the thought process of logic here.
"It doesn't suit my argument to suggest that winning scores by big margins is good and suggests that the team doing so is actually good at the sport, because it might suggest that Bontempelli is a good player, so I'm just going to say it's not actually good.
Cool mate. At least it went through the PhD process of having a supervisor, being defended, and being written by someone who is clearly intelligent enough to be an academic to this level, written by one of the most senior employees of Champion Data who was in that role for a lengthy period of time.
But I should take your word for it, forum dude. Do you have a PhD in statistics that gives you credentials to disagree?
You're literally just telling yourself this to make yourself feel better, rather than taking the thesis for what it is... that is building upon scientific exploration of others... which is what academia and it's applications is. Isn't all academia that cites other work just the "waste product" of that work? How is any research that builds upon the research of others just not "waste product" according to your logic here? My god. This is incredible. I don't understand it, so it must be bad and therefore worthy of illogical and misguided derision. All because I just want to say Daicos good Bont bad like some caveman.
- Status
