Consistency or brilliance?

[CrowsOK]

Dans basic position in his arguements for "top spot deserves more recognition" starts from an unstated (and perhaps questionable) premise. His premise is that a consistent even performer, a team slightly ahead on aggregate performances over a long period, is necessarily the "best" team. I'm not sure most footy fans would agree with this premise. Oftentimes in a football season there are teams with real flair, one could argue this to be so for Essendon last season for example. The thing with the Bombers last season though was that they had flair AND they had consistency. Its very rare to get these together. So rare that that (along with few injuries) is why Essendon set records last season.

More often than not though a team with true flair is also a team that runs very hot and sometimes cold. Geelong, and Adelaide of 97 and 98, are teams like this. Melbourne in 98 were on a very hot streak but went cold in the PF. Doggies and Lions are also teams that can run hot and cold, and to some extent Richmond. "Hot and cold" teams which are also acceptably consistent are often characterised by a high percentage but not-quite-so-high win/loss record.

Consistent performers are teams like (off the top of my head) Essendon 2000, Carlton 95, Eagles 92 and 94, and Roos (say for the last six or so years). Some of these sides were dominant and consistent, others were not so dominant.

I'm tempted to note a possible correlation between consistent performance and low injury counts, but this is difficult to establish, so I'll just suggest this correlation as a possibility.

Obviously, the very best team is one which has both consistency and flair. Such a team is capable of winning nearly all the time and racking up some big margins even against competent opposition. This is so rare that in nearly every season there are teams which have consistency, and teams which have flair, but no teams which have both. So which is the "best" team? One which is a consistent performer and is slightly ahead on win/loss aggregates over a long period? Or is the "best" team a "hot" team which is reasonably consistent (but which does have some occassional cold patches and hence is slightly behind on long term aggregates) but is also a team which when on song can blow away the consistent team, wipe them off the field?

Is our game about dogged, determined, disciplined (but sometimes perhaps slightly dull) persistent effort or is it about excitement and brilliance? Both have merit, we seldom see them together, so which attributes deserve the honours?

Viewpoint, everyone?

 

[Dan26]

The best team is the team that wins more games, more often than anyone else. Pretty simple really.

You're attempting to make this far too scientific.

 

[CrowsOK]

Originally posted by Dan24:
The best team is the team that wins more games, more often than anyone else. Pretty simple really.

You're attempting to make this far too scientific.

Yes Dan, I was absolutely certain this would be your OPINION. I even had it pegged as an unstated assumption of yours.

But, as I said, I'm not at all sure that this is the common opinion. People like and admire flair, flashes of brilliance, the speccy, classy footy, that sort of stuff. They are prepared to forgive a classy team for going off the boil sometimes, I think. But lets hear them say so, or not.

So what I thought I'd ask for is what peoples view on it was. Not scientiific at all, really. And always, with people and what they feel about things, far from simple.

 

[Dan26]

Look, sometimes the top team may get top spot due to a good run with injuries. Other times they might just be so much better than the rest, that injuries are irrelevant. There might be other years where they have an "average" amount of injuries. Every year is different.

You can't change the recognition given to top spot, every year, based on the "luck" a team may have. That's stupid. Just reward the team that wins the most games. Even if they're not the best, they deserve to be "called" THE BEST, since they won more often than anyone else.

As for the briallince-consistency issue, I believe our sport consists of moments of brilliance in each game. But if a team can only produe brilliance spasmodically, the question must be asked why ? Surely if a team can be brilliant in one or two games, then the potential is there to do it all the time. If they can't do this, there must be somethign wrong. Therefore, the consistent team is the best.

If you win the most games, you deserve to be called the best.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Let's face it. Brilliance does stay in the memory a lot longer than consistency. You could point to a flag and say "we won that but I can't exactly put my finger on why." Then, you can say that "we made the finals but lost, but Daicos, Ablett, Dunstall etc did some freakish things this year." Lockett never won a flag but he will be remembered. The ultimate aim is to win the flag but equally important is to be entertained. It is the excitement of the game that draws us to it in the first place.
Fence sitting I'm afraid, but I wouldn't trade a Kouta magic moment for a dozen solid contributions.

 

[Dan26]

It's a bit of an odd topic I think, because you are dealing with variables and hypotheticals.

I mean, define brilliance? At what level of freakishness does it "become" brilliance ?

Is a goal fron 49 metres standard, but from 50 metres it is brillaint. At what point, does the distance of a goal reach the brilliant stage?

I like ODN's post. Hes not trying to over-analyse it. Thisis getting FAR to scientific, and this simply can't be quantified.

What CAN be quantified is the amount of games you win. And the most consistent team will win more games, more often than every other team - all other factors being equal (eg injuries)

 

[CrowsOK]

Originally posted by Dan24:
Look, sometimes the top team may get top spot due to a good run with injuries. Other times they might just be so much better than the rest, that injuries are irrelevant. There might be other years where they have an "average" amount of injuries. Every year is different.

Statement of the obvious.

You can't change the recognition given to top spot, every year, based on the "luck" a team may have. That's stupid. Just reward the team that wins the most games. Even if they're not the best, they deserve to be "called" THE BEST, since they won more often than anyone else.

Arguement by assertion, Strawman. Insult. Non sequitur.

As for the briallince-consistency issue, I believe our sport consists of moments of brilliance in each game. But if a team can only produe brilliance spasmodically, the question must be asked why ? Surely if a team can be brilliant in one or two games, then the potential is there to do it all the time. If they can't do this, there must be somethign wrong. Therefore, the consistent team is the best.

Going OK, then the last two sentences - assertion and non sequitur.

If you win the most games, you deserve to be called the best.

Repeated assertion. Saying it more than once doesn't make it so. Other people may well take the view that the best is the team taht can at times produce the most brilliant footy.

Look, Dan, we all know this is your position, your opinion. Fine, youv'e had your vote. Thats one for your view. Beauty.

Now lets hear what others think, OK ?

 

[QT]

CrowsOK

Can you please register for god's sake, someoens gonna take it if you dont, ust to piss you off!

 

[CrowsOK]

Brilliant is easy to define. Its when you see a play (or even a whole game) and think - oh wow.

Its when Cometti says "Brilliant".

Its when Bruce says "special" or "that WAS good".

Its when all the comentators and all the people at the ground and all the people wathing the TV with you all get up on their feet and cheer the speccy ... or yell out "Yaaaabletttt!!!".

Its the excitement of a come-from-behind win, especially in the last minutes of the game. Its the goal after the siren.

Its the crush of people when the FF kicks the 100th goal of his season.

Its an underdog team that can come over the top of the favourites after being dismissed by all the pundits.

Its definately a part of what is good about footy.

 

[Same Old's]

Well you can have a brilliant play and still lose game, so I'd rather be more consistant if the means my club wins more games.

 

[CrowsOK]

Originally posted by Same Old's:
Well you can have a brilliant play and still lose game, so I'd rather be more consistant if the means my club wins more games.

Fair enough.

How about, though, if your team is having regular flashes of brilliance, most of the time is OK, and occassionally stops cold.

Suppose this overall earns you second or third spot in the minor round. You have had a few worrying games that you should have won, but had lost, and a few others where as underdogs you beat the top teams handily.

Your team is a real threat in the finals. Dangerous, capable of wiping out any opposition, but just not guaranteed to do it.

I'm not talking so much here just about brilliant play. More about a team that everyone knows can be brilliant, often is brilliant, but no-one is sure if they will come up with the goods this week.

This is the sort of team you would HATE to encounter in a final if your own team was consistent, perhaps had even won top spot, but was not as brilliant.

Which of these positions would you rather be in? This is the question.

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by CrowsOK:
Fair enough.

How about, though, if your team is having regular flashes of brilliance, most of the time is OK, and occassionally stops cold.

Suppose this overall earns you second or third spot in the minor round. You have had a few worrying games that you should have won, but had lost, and a few others where as underdogs you beat the top teams handily.

Your team is a real threat in the finals. Dangerous, capable of wiping out any opposition, but just not guaranteed to do it.

I'm not talking so much here just about brilliant play. More about a team that everyone knows can be brilliant, often is brilliant, but no-one is sure if they will come up with the goods this week.

This is the sort of team you would HATE to encounter in a final if your own team was consistent, perhaps had even won top spot, but was not as brilliant.

Which of these positions would you rather be in? This is the question.

If a teams is spasmodically brilliant, but isn't capable of winning as many games as a more consistent team, then WHY ? WHY ? WHY?

If you're argument is to determine who is better, then it jsut HAS to be the more consistent team. If this so called brilliant teams has a great day every now and again, but they can't win as many games as another more consistent team, then they are doing something wrong.

if you are brilliant, then there is no reason why you can't also be consistent. What's stopping you being consistent?

I don't care if I'm repeating myself.....the consistent team is betetr than a brilliant team. Of course there is no reason why you can't be both.

Or to put it another way, the teams that wins the most games is the best team.

 

[sandie]

Same Olds I am with you, I would much rather have a consistent team that wins the majority of their games & finishes near the top, than a team that plays 1 or 2 brilliant games & ends up out of the eight.
Cheers

------------------
mantis

 

[Darky]

Can't take the argument seriously while the draw is not even. The finals give a new variable factor to partially make up for the vagaries of the draw.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Nobody is doubting the end result! What would you prefer to watch? Which would you remember the most? Forget the flag. How about a team that was consistently good but finished second versus a team that was spectacular sometimes and woeful others that also finished second. Without considering what it meant for the next season, which one would you rather have seen. What you see is what you get or the rollercoaster????

 

[Same Old's]

Originally posted by Darky:
Can't take the argument seriously while the draw is not even. The finals give a new variable factor to partially make up for the vagaries of the draw.

What's this got to do with the question at hand?

 

[CrowsOKisgone]

Originally posted by The Old Dark Navy's:
Nobody is doubting the end result! What would you prefer to watch? Which would you remember the most? Forget the flag. How about a team that was consistently good but finished second versus a team that was spectacular sometimes and woeful others that also finished second. Without considering what it meant for the next season, which one would you rather have seen. What you see is what you get or the rollercoaster????

This is more like the team I had in mind. Good and consistent enough to be right up near the top of the table. Sometimes spectacular, sometimes very unimpressive, the latter probably the reason they had missed top spot.

But the spectacular bits ... thats what gets people going at the footy. Worth going to watch a team that can come up with the spectacle. And that teams ends up with a good flag chance ... a VERY good chance if it can pull out the spectacular on the day.

Seems OK to me, just as preferable as a solid, dependable (but not so spectacular) good team.

BTW, it looks like some did register the CrowsOK name. Doesn't matter to me, but nice try if someone took QTs idea.

 

[Carey_is_King]

There is another "category" which you have not mentioned, and that is clinically efficient. I believe North were in that category in 1996 and Essendon in 2000.
Sometimes this is mistaken for brilliance, when it is simply a case of a team very skilled and very disciplined. Of course, you could argue that this ultimately leads to a consistent year, and that would probably be true too.
Bottom line for me is that the team that wins the most games over the length of a season is probably the best, but if another side is, say, one half game behind, it would be harder to make the case for the top team.

------------------
Trample the Weak,
Hurdle the Dead.

 

[BUBBALOUIS]

I think Bubba might be a bit slow tonight but what are you guys going on about? In your Hypothetical case both the brilliant and the consistent side would finish second. So to do that i assume in either case they would need to win about as many games as each other. Now noing football fans as i do, any game were your team wins is a beauty, whether it be close or not. To win enough games to finish second you would have to have both qualities, consistency and skill, they are not mutually exclusive. But like i said maybe the heat is getting to me. Please explain ?

 

[CrowsOKisgone]

K

Originally posted by BUBBALOUIS:
I think Bubba might be a bit slow tonight but what are you guys going on about? In your Hypothetical case both the brilliant and the consistent side would finish second. So to do that i assume in either case they would need to win about as many games as each other. Now noing football fans as i do, any game were your team wins is a beauty, whether it be close or not. To win enough games to finish second you would have to have both qualities, consistency and skill, they are not mutually exclusive. But like i said maybe the heat is getting to me. Please explain ?

I think that meant in different seasons. It is all hypothetical discussion antway, we are not supposed to be talking about particular teams in particular seasons, except as examples.

CIK- I'm not sure that there is any real distinction between consistent, good, reliable and "clinically efficient". But, if you like, sure - a third category.

I've got to say, I still think there is something to like about the spectcular, brilliant but occassionally unreliable side - gets your heart pumping in more ways than one. "Clinically efficient" sounds like a team from the funeral parlour.

 

[Shinboners]

Perhaps the argument could be simplified to this (and as has been pointed above, brilliance and consistency are not mutually exclusive).

Assuming that you were only allowed to follow the career of one player, would you much rather see the brilliance of Gary Ablett or the consistency of Jason Dunstall? Ablett the freak, but no premierships as against Dunstall the machine, but with premierships.

Watching Dunstall is all fine and good, but I can't remember one bit of spectacular play from him.....nothing that ever got me out of my seat and saying, "Did you see that?" (although I have seen him kick a bagful against North too many times for my liking and leaving me muttering, "I just wish he'd f*** off and retire"). While with Ablett, the list of freakish bits of play is endless.

For me, I go to the footy to get on, as ODNs put it, the emotional rollercoaster, so I'd go for the brilliance without any premierships over the consistency with premierships.

 

[BUBBALOUIS]

Originally posted by Shinboners:
Perhaps the argument could be simplified to this (and as has been pointed above, brilliance and consistency are not mutually exclusive).

Assuming that you were only allowed to follow the career of one player, would you much rather see the brilliance of Gary Ablett or the consistency of Jason Dunstall? Ablett the freak, but no premierships as against Dunstall the machine, but with premierships.

Watching Dunstall is all fine and good, but I can't remember one bit of spectacular play from him.....nothing that ever got me out of my seat and saying, "Did you see that?" (although I have seen him kick a bagful against North too many times for my liking and leaving me muttering, "I just wish he'd f*** off and retire"). While with Ablett, the list of freakish bits of play is endless.

For me, I go to the footy to get on, as ODNs put it, the emotional rollercoaster, so I'd go for the brilliance without any premierships over the consistency with premierships.

Youve got to be kidding Shinners, ask Ablett if he could go back tone down his brilliance he would be part of 5 premiership sides i think hed take it. Shinners as a Nth supporter how many of your premiership sides would you swap seeing for a bit more flashy play. If Ablett going to North meant you wouldnt have won the flag what would you prefer?

 

[Shinboners]

True, but the example was taking the extreme case to (hopefully) illustrate what I thought CrowsOK was trying to get at. What Gary Ablett wants doesn't come into it...I'm talking about my view as a spectator and fan.

But I guess if I had the (totally extreme and unrealistic) choice of a year watching tedious football resulting in a premiership as opposed to a year of memorable and brilliant football that amounted to nothing, I'll take the brilliance.

 

[Shinboners]

p.s. Apologies to any Saints, Lions, Bulldogs, Cats, etc. fans who would give anything to see their clubs win a flag and I know I'm being a bit smug on my views above because I've been lucky enough to see my club win two flags, but you know, the thing about Grand Final wins is that you remember as much as the journey there as you do about the day itself. I guess what that means is that all the memories of the home and away are never forgotten as the coach and captain hoist that trophy above their heads.

 

[Carey_is_King]

Shinners,
If you are ever strolling along a beach and you come upon a bottle containing a genie, and that genie offers you a wish or three on behalf of the North Melbourne Football Club, please give me a call before making the wish.
I would like to knock you out before you do anything rash !!!

------------------
Trample the Weak,
Hurdle the Dead.