Universal Love David Teague

[The Flying Doormat]

As per my post, 23 of 36 games under Teague. See last quarter and a half of last week for the most recent example. Another poster listed them all previously on BF. IIRC, it's happened in 5 of 8 games this year (Dogs, Lions, Power, Pies, Tigers), so the pattern doesn't appear to be diminishing. There were similar momentum shifts in the Scum and Freo games too.

Not sure strictly speaking that there have been 5+ unanswered goals in all the games above, other than against the Dogs. However your point is valid, the momentum swings or big turnarounds interrupted by the odd Carlton goal are a problem.

 

[Blue and Blue]

I look at it this way. I don't care who the coach is ultimately. I am just a member and as such put faith in the board to make these appointments. If anyone has a problem with that way of being a supporter they maybe should give up following a club cos there will always be stuff and boards have no crystal ball any more than we do. Though they do have far more accurate intel than us.

I just want to see us winning consistently. I assume its the same for all of us.

There is no magic formula and there is no coach in waiting that will change everything with a wave of a wand.

And really who cares what Whately or Carey or anyone else says. They get paid to get create reactions not to be all knowing and wise.

 

[blue healer]

Here is Reg's post: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/david-teague.1225945/post-69989889

Only error I found is that Round 1, 2021 should read as Tigers rather than Dogs. Have at it....

Ahh, now I get where you're coming from. Those figures are for 5 goal turnarounds not 5 goal runs. A five goal run is five consecutive goals not five out of the last six or seven. You were talking about five goal runs.

Not gonna bother checking but I'd suggest that five goal turnarounds are quite common in the AFL but don't always include a five goal run.

And again, I'm not going to bother checking but I'd say some of those five goal turnarounds didn't result in a loss.

 

[blue healer]

Here is Reg's post: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/david-teague.1225945/post-69989889

Only error I found is that Round 1, 2021 should read as Tigers rather than Dogs. Have at it....

Sparky, just to take my previous post one step further.

We can come out against Melb. and kick the first two goals in the first five minutes and then fight like hell for the remainder of the game and go down in, yet another, honourable loss by three goals. We, given our positions on the ladder, might be quite happy with the effort.

But statistically this is a five goal turnaround and I'd suggest this is very common in the AFL.

 

[The Blue Baggers]

IMO he should be locked in for next year right now, which he is, he's contracted until the end of next year isn't he?

yep ... be the 1st time a coaches contract was ended early !!

 

[sparkyblue]

We can come out against Melb. and kick the first two goals in the first five minutes and then fight like hell for the remainder of the game and go down in, yet another, honourable loss by three goals. We, given our positions on the ladder, might be quite happy with the effort.

But statistically this is a five goal turnaround and I'd suggest this is very common in the AFL.

Not for two thirds of the games of one club over this kind of duration it's not. I'd rather the club sorts our defensive frailities and we don't have to be happy with another honourable loss...

 

[blue healer]

Not for two thirds of the games of one club over this kind of duration it's not. I'd rather the club sorts our defensive frailities and we don't have to be happy with another honourable loss...

I'm going to have one more go at this because meaningless stats interest me.

Going back to the original basis of your criticism, that we have had a 30 point turnaround in 23 of the 36 games we've played under Teague.

Of those 36 games we have won 16 therefore we have had 20 losses under Teague.

If that stat means anything at all it means that every game we lost we had a 30 point turnaround against us and we also had it in 3 games we won.

Since Teague took over we have lost 4 games only by over 4 goals, we've also lost 4 by under a goal. The other12 fall in the middle.

Also consider that in 8 of our 17 games last year neither team kicked more than 11 goals, you're not going to get too many 5 goal turnarounds in that.

All those stats do is reinforce an already formed opinion that the coach is sh*t. I reckon they are totally meaningless and, if anything, this research has shown to me that we've been better than I thought.

Guarantee you there are a lot better sides than us that have had more than 4 losses of over 4 goals.

 

[Blue and Blue]

Not for two thirds of the games of one club over this kind of duration it's not. I'd rather the club sorts our defensive frailities and we don't have to be happy with another honourable loss...

I dont think anyone is ever happy with any kind of loss sparky.

I sure aren't, but ranting about it and calling for heads to roll each time doesnt change past present or future. It never has.

Besides there are much bigger issues in life for so many people than if their footy team wins or not. If a sport completely rules our temperament beyond the day of a match then perhaps the balance is not right.

 

[sparkyblue]

All those stats do is reinforce an already formed opinion that the coach is sh*t. I reckon they are totally meaningless and, if anything, this research has shown to me that we've been better than I thought.

If you consider KPI's meaningless when it comes to performance analysis in sports (or business for that matter), I guess you missed the memo. You'd hate to see how the NFL operates...

 

[blue healer]

If you consider KPI's meaningless when it comes to performance analysis in sports (or business for that matter), I guess you missed the memo. You'd hate to see how the NFL operates...

Geez, I'm not talking about KPI's, I'm talking about using meaningless historical stats to back up your argument to get rid of the coach. I tried to reasonably provide an argument to prove that your use of said meaningless stats is pointless.

I don't care about KPI's it isn't my job or yours to set them but, while we're at it the fundamental principle in setting KPI's is that they must be measurable and those that you want to see implemented are based on flawed figures and my post above explains why.

Unless you can refute what I've said this conversation is finished.

BTW please don't condescend me. Reckon I know what KPI's mean and was working with them 25 effing years ago. I also know the difference between them and flawed statistics.

 

[BigBreakfast]

Excluding the win:loss ratio

What is are our average losing score?

3 and 5, that's all that matters at this stage of the rebuild.

 

[BigBreakfast]

Sparky, just to take my previous post one step further.

We can come out against Melb. and kick the first two goals in the first five minutes and then fight like hell for the remainder of the game and go down in, yet another, honourable loss by three goals. We, given our positions on the ladder, might be quite happy with the effort.

But statistically this is a five goal turnaround and I'd suggest this is very common in the AFL.

I admire your tenacity of argument however, it is clear that we are susceptible to a run of goals and teams always feel like they are in contests against us an many have run us down. The 23 comeback are legit and a significant concern.

 

[Osc1]

I admire your tenacity of argument however, it is clear that we are susceptible to a run of goals and teams always feel like they are in contests against us an many have run us down. The 23 comeback are legit and a significant concern.

It’s like the old Richmond. Even when you were 5 goals down you knew you were a good chance to win.

 

[blue healer]

I admire your tenacity of argument however, it is clear that we are susceptible to a run of goals and teams always feel like they are in contests against us an many have run us down. The 23 comeback are legit and a significant concern.

I am not going to prolong this discussion but just to pick two of the first games mentioned. Collingwood (swing of 30 points) and Port (swing of 42 points). The only time we led those games was by one point in the first quarter. From then on both teams got on top and gradually opened up a gap. One team taking the lead and opening up a winning margin happens almost every game. Using that logic every team that lose by 30 points or more has had a five goal swing as both have started on zero.

These two games were not swings, these were teams that were just better on the day and proved it over more than three quarters of the game. If people can't see that I'm just wasting my time. If these are a cross section of the basis of these stats then all I can say is that they don't convince me.

Look, I realise momentum swings are a problem in our game and have been since well before Teague but I think the number of them have been greatly exaggerated and let's focus on real momentum swings (like the Dogs game) and not imagined ones.

That's it for me, I'm going no further with this. When many minds are made up they cannot be changed.

 

[katmanblue]

would love to know why they are including 2013 and 2014 in that discussion, we started rebuilding from 2015.

If they started at 2015 it'd show a gradual improvement. Can't have that.

 

[katmanblue]

Haha...
If we are getting excited and hanging our hat on the average losing margin,
then were all ******* doomed

Why?

 

[katmanblue]

As per my post, 23 of 36 games under Teague. See last quarter and a half of last week for the most recent example. Another poster listed them all previously on BF. IIRC, it's happened in 5 of 8 games this year (Dogs, Lions, Power, Pies, Tigers), so the pattern doesn't appear to be diminishing. There were similar momentum shifts in the Scum and Freo games too.

Check again.

 

[BigBreakfast]

I am not going to prolong this discussion but just to pick two of the first games mentioned. Collingwood (swing of 30 points) and Port (swing of 42 points). The only time we led those games was by one point in the first quarter. From then on both teams got on top and gradually opened up a gap. One team taking the lead and opening up a winning margin happens almost every game. Using that logic every team that lose by 30 points or more has had a five goal swing as both have started on zero.

These two games were not swings, these were teams that were just better on the day and proved it over more than three quarters of the game. If people can't see that I'm just wasting my time. If these are a cross section of the basis of these stats then all I can say is that they don't convince me.

Look, I realise momentum swings are a problem in our game and have been since well before Teague but I think the number of them have been greatly exaggerated and let's focus on real momentum swings (like the Dogs game) and not imagined ones.

That's it for me, I'm going no further with this. When many minds are made up they cannot be changed.

Again, admirable but, everyone sees the swings and we look amateur when they happen. No infield or coaching answers and it is unique to Teague because he was aware that he is cashing in on a prolonged rebuild. No composure on field and while Teague looks composed in the box, there are few moves of note which impact on the swing.

I really like our attacking style under Teague, begged for it under Bolton. Can't be the only string though.

 

[katmanblue]

Hope your not being serious
Might as well start giving out participation awards..

Ok, let's.

 

[TENACIOUS]

Ok, let's.

 

[LanceRomance]

Hope your not being serious
Might as well start giving out participation awards..

It shows improvement. Amd the average rebuild from scratch time to contending is 8 years... If you take Hawks and Richmond as the examples.

The 66 game rebuild line should never have been rolled out.

 

[blue healer]

I admire your tenacity of argument however, it is clear that we are susceptible to a run of goals and teams always feel like they are in contests against us an many have run us down. The 23 comeback are legit and a significant concern.

I know I said I was finished with this but one final post. You, obviously, accept the bolded as true and I've already pointed out two games that were defeats and not 5 goal runs against or even five goal momentum swings. Just want to point out 2 even more glaring examples that make it onto the list you're so happy to accept as legitimate.

Round 2, 2020 vs Melbourne. Stat says there was a 56 point swing. Melbourne won that game 54-53.
Round 16, 2020 vs Sydney. Stat says a 38 point swing. We won that game 57-52.

Be happy if someone could point out to me how in hell we could have swings of the magnitude stated in games with that scoreline.

So you tell me why I should blindly believe a list that tells me we have 23 out of 36 five goal+ turnarounds given just those examples.

As I said before the turnarounds we've had against us in the past have been alarming but a five goal turnaround has happened just once this year. That, to me shows an improvement.

Edit: I agree, when I first read that 23 out of 36 post I was alarmed, trouble is that, after just a quick review, it is just not right.

 

[no fate]

I know I said I was finished with this but one final post. You, obviously, accept the bolded as true and I've already pointed out two games that were defeats and not 5 goal runs against or even five goal momentum swings. Just want to point out 2 even more glaring examples that make it onto the list you're so happy to accept as legitimate.

Round 2, 2020 vs Melbourne. Stat says there was a 56 point swing. Melbourne won that game 54-53.
Round 16, 2020 vs Sydney. Stat says a 38 point swing. We won that game 57-52.

Be happy if someone could point out to me how in hell we could have swings of the magnitude stated in games with that scoreline.

So you tell me why I should blindly believe a list that tells me we have 23 out of 36 five goal+ turnarounds given just those examples.

As I said before the turnarounds we've had against us in the past have been alarming but a five goal turnaround has happened just once this year. That, to me shows an improvement.

Edit: I agree, when I first read that 23 out of 36 post I was alarmed, trouble is that, after just a quick review, it is just not right.

The Sydney game is right from last year, they kicked the first 7 goals. Think you are splitting hairs on the statistics too, we've all watched as the blues have let other teams put a big run on against us, feels like it happens every second week and I'd suggest the stats support that, who cares if it's happened 18, 20 or 23 times in 36, it's still far too many.

 

[Doro]

It shows improvement. Amd the average rebuild from scratch time to contending is 8 years... If you take Hawks and Richmond as the examples.

The 66 game rebuild line should never have been rolled out.

I think the club explained quite regularly that it meant hitting 3 drafts hard, and not a rags to riches timeline. As it currently stands we nailed the first, went so-so in the second and blew it in the third. Fingers crossed Dow and LOB change that perception though.

 

[blue healer]

The Sydney game is right from last year, they kicked the first 7 goals. Think you are splitting hairs on the statistics too, we've all watched as the blues have let other teams put a big run on against us, feels like it happens every second week and I'd suggest the stats support that, who cares if it's happened 18, 20 or 23 times in 36, it's still far too many.

My bad, got that one wrong. Guilty of doing what I've accused others of doing, no research.

Doubt that I got that Melbourne game wrong though given the swing is more than their total score

Don't reckon I'm splitting hairs at all and your comment that "it feels like it happens every second week" is typical of a perception against reality attitude which is used by many on here to whack the coach. That just, IMO, is not right.

Fully agree that it has happened far too often in the past but this seasons stats indicate to me that it's on the improve. I also think that the longer we go with oppos thinking they're never out of a game against us the harder it'll be for us to win. We must put a stop to it and already have changed those run ons from regular five goals to four at the worst (except the Bulldogs game) this year. Still must get much, much better.

BTW we've had more than a few five goal run ons ourselves, in fact this season more for than against.