Close matches

[Mismatched]

I do agree with what I think Carl initially brought up about us losing so many close games due to the fact that we are so comptetive, however you would think that we perhaps should have won a couple more of these even though we perhaps didn't deserve it.

However I think the thing that alters the statistics is also that I think we tend to win the close ones by 12+ points, ie kick a couple of goals in the dying seconds. Think rd 22 last year, that went down to the wire, but thanks to 2 "captains" goals from Roo we won, unfortunately he couldn't do this a week later. Welsh also managed to kick a couple of goals in the last quarter of a close match that blew the margin out a little more than it should have. In the end, a match that has been won by 20 points or less, could have gone either way.

I think our major problem with the majority of these real close ones that get brought up every time is we have the cake, no problems, we just lack that icing up forward to produce a win. Besides I guess matches against west coast, we have been left wondering by that one forward who has played inspired footy or done the impossible. Think Tarrent in 03, Fevola in 04 and more recently in our last 2 games Buddy and Johnson. West Coast have lacked the forward have had a midfield of super human freaks who seem to find 2 or 3 extra gears against us.

But really if you look up forward, since probably Vardy and Jarman left, we have lacked match winning specialist forwards, Roo looked like giving us this in '06 but was stuck down by a freak virus of all things. Burton is great but he tends to win matches over the entirety of the game not in just 5 minutes.

However, I think this is soon to change, Tippet looks to have that X-factor in his pack-crashing high marking ability to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, however in the mean time I'd really like to see Mcleod up forward for this, the defence should be able to take care of itself, but Mcleod could just offer us that little bit of magic that could win these games and if you required any proof see:


http://youtube.com/watch?v=cMVQ-GkRnIw

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

you know very well how you're trying to twist the argument away from the point being discussed. don't be coy now.

You got me! Too clever by half, as usual.

I was 'coyly' pointing out to the Neil Craig's critics out there that whilst you mightn't like some of his operations, just keep in mind when criticising his tactics/methods that he has a pretty damn good record. Just for anyone's interest, John Worsfold has a winning percentage of 71% over the same period (2005-07). Paul Roos 65%. Mark Thompson 61%.

Just a little perspective, a little context... I'm happy. Now I'll move on.

I don't know why you are trying to bring the wider range of results into a discussion of small margin results. what is the % for games where the margin was 2 goals or less - and the % when the margin is 4 goals or greater.

Because it is misleading to categorise games in this way. Taking the result of the game and then working backwards to categorise what type of game it was - ie a small margin result game - is nonsensical. If we kick away from West Coast in the last 10 minutes this week then we won't have proven that we can win a close contest, under your formula. Do we have to keep the margin close and play worse in order to improve that winning percentage?

for a start there is no one reason. that's just crazy to think you know. there are many different sides, and one of the sides is that have let not close games become close. are you seriously saying that's not the case?

Your English falters when you're fired up.

your argument centres on the false and invalid premise that all close losses are games we battled back from defeat to be a in position to win. and sure, stealing an occasional win, from certain defeats would be a good thing. IF that were the actual choices being faced. conveniently just assuming it is, doesn't validate the circumstance. it is plainly not true to suggest all close games are honourable losses.

No one is arguing that. Perhaps you wish I was because that is something you can argue against? Maybe you are hearing only what you want to hear.

The point that has been made is that when we lose, we lose small. In the 72 matches from 2005-07 we only lost by more than 30 points on four occasions. Three of those losses were by 31, 33 and 31 points. We have won 26 matches by more than 30 points over the same period.

We have an exceptional ability to 'limit the damage.' Even when the opposition are well on top we seem to manage to keep things under (relative) control, we do not implode or self destruct and we generally put in 120 minutes of high workrate football. There is a resilience and a pride there that allows us to stay in the contest. Occasionally this leaves us within striking distance of a win (ie Port game last year), more often it just means that our percentage doesn't cop too much of a hammering.

no. to my mind this game falls in between the 2 extremes. it's just another close game. an average opponent, and an opportunity missed. that happens from time to time, when they start to stack up, it's reasonable to scratch your head.
But equally it goes to show, for me anyway, that it's wrong to characterise all close games as being of one type. the valient, honourable struggle.

Agreed

And that is why no one is suggesting this is the case.

and as you know, golf is an iterative game whose nature is very different to many others. a dominant golfer cannot expect to win every tournament because his efforts have a less dramatic, direct effect on the opponent. it's a game, relatively speaking, where all opponents operate in parallel. whereas Roger Federer can impose his own ability onto an opponent, and direct affect their winning chances, even Tiger woods can only do so in a very limited context.

if you finish second in every golf tournament, you're no.1 in the world. if you finish second in every tennis tournament, you're a highly ranked, (albeit rich) failure and choker.
if you finish second in every AFL match, you're a wooden spooner.

Greg Norman has no place in this discussion, as it's not apples with apples.

Please. Who's being coy now? Thank you for pointing out the differences between the two sports. But you forgot to mention that in golf they use a smaller ball. And also golfers wear pants rather than shorts. Both of these points are equally as relevant as your other comments. Feel free to edit them in.

You know why I made the comparison between Craig and Norman. The parallel I was drawing was that by taking yourself within touching distance of a prize, you open yourself up to much greater scrutiny than if you had finished mid table. When you lose a game - particularly a final - by a close margin then every move, every play and every decision are under the microscope. How many times have we seen Norman's shot into the drink at Augusta replayed? I'm pretty sure he isn't the only person ever to hit the ball there.

Norman got a reputation as a choker. He regularly put himself in the mix to win tournaments, risking a very public humiliation if he faltered. He copped more criticism often that the 100 blokes he finished ahead of. But at the end of his career he has two majors to his name.

Other coaches would escape criticism for the same supposed 'errors' that Craig is making because they are that far ahead/behind that no one notices. Or their season is shot and no one cares anymore.

utter nonsense. we comfortably lead an opponent we had destroyed earlier in the season. it was ours to lose, and we did. we had form on our side (unlike our opponent), we had experience (unlike our opponent), and we had a 6 goal lead and momentum (unlike our opponent), we dropped intensity (unlike our opponent), we made crucial match up errors (unlike our opponents), and we let it slip (unlike our opponents).

[/quote]Spoken like a true Crows fan. The other team only played well and came back because we let them! It wasn't their good play, it was our drop in intensity. Really you should have been wearing one of the yellow “A” hats while typing that.

2008: 0 wins 2 losses
2007: 2 wins 5 losses
2006: 3 wins 5 losses
2005: 6 wins 4 losses

Also, not entirely sure about counting the NAB cup final, but seeing as so many people here wanted to claim it was as important as a 4 point game, I'm leaving it in. it doesn't change the overall picture.

that's 11 wins and 16 losses, in games decided by 2 goals or less.

65% overall, 40% in close games.

Margin > 2 goals winning percentage approx 80%
Margin <= 2 goals winning percentage approx 40%

that is something worth discussing in anyone's language.

That is impressive. And I think you're right, it is worth discussing. Maybe someone could start a thread titled "Close matches" and then we could all post our various theories as to why this is the case. Good idea

The mistake you keep making is that you seem to think I'm denying that we have a losing record in close matches. I know we do. It's the whole reason this thread was started and has generated discussion.

One of the reasons I offered at the beginning of the thread was that we have the ability to compete and keep scores close blah blah blah. You disagree. Fine. The other - which you haven't yet commented on - is by far the most interesting and important IMO.

That is that in these tight finishes where the game could go either way, the cream seems to rise to the top. And unfortunately the shit sinks to the bottom. Stevens missed soda, Doughty dual fumbles, Shirley fluffed punch. Loss. All had serviceable games, Stevens bordering on the very good. But the bottom line is that you get exposed for a lack of class when the game reaches its high pressure stages and we have too many of this type. I'd be interested to hear your comments on this.

Last season we lost to St Kilda, Fremantle and Hawthorn in heartstoppers and already the Bulldogs this season. It is a huge worry - not just the 4 points gone begging but the deflating and depressing atmosphere these losses bring to the club and supporter base. We're left arguing over who is to blame, who missed the goal, who made the wrong move and what might have been. The players would be similar, at least internally.

Conversely, winning these close matches is such an exciting and team lifting experience. Often they can help gel the team and kickstart a great patch of form. Great for the crowd, great for the players. The Bulldogs would have had a spring in the step at training this week.

 

[Crow-mo]

Carl,

I don't understand... a couple of quick things:

1. the golf idea was a very poor example. there is no comparison between Craig and norman for all the reasons pointed out. silly to suggest there is.
2. you say you are not arguing that all close games are the result of battling back, and yet you say we have the ability to keep it close. they are the same thing!!!!