Games decided by 6 points or less 1990-2000. Biggest chokers revealed in order.

[Dan26]

Matches decided by 6 points or fewer 1990-2000. Shown from the worst team, to the best.

TEAM...........WON......LOST.....DRAW......%

Melbourne......6........14..........1......31.0%
West Coast.....11.......18..........3......39.1%
St.Kilda...........7........12..........3......38.6%
Brisbane..........7........9...........4......45.0%
Coll'wood.......13.......16..........4......45.5%
Fitzroy............6........7...........0......46.2%
Adelaide........12.......14..........1......46.3%
Fremantle.......7........8...........0......46.7%
W.Bulldogs......15.......17..........4......47.2%
Carlton...........13.......13..........1......50.0%
Geelong.........17.......15..........2......52.9%
Hawthorn........15.......13..........2......53.3%
Kangaroos.......17.......14..........0......54.8%
Sydney...........13.......10..........3......55.8%
Richmond........15.......11..........1......57.4%
Port Power.......4........1...........3......68.8%
Essendon.......22.......8...........4......70.6%

So, over the last 11 years, we can conclude that Melbourne and West Coast are the biggest chokers, while Richmond and Essendon (not counting Port's relatively small number of games) are the leagues best in the close finishes.

I might add, that Essendon's record in Home and away matches in that time is 22-4-4, for a staggering 80%




[This message has been edited by Dan25 (edited 19 April 2001).]

 

[WCE2000]

another statistical tirade from Bruce25.

 

[Joel]

Dan, SHUT THE HELL UP! Please stop giving bullshit stats.

This goes against you arguement that one team is different to the next years team.

blah blah blah blah.

[This message has been edited by Joel (edited 19 April 2001).]

 

[Chicago1]

Dan,
We could have used you in Florida last year to prove that Gore really did win after all!

------------------
"Sons of the West, red, white and blue..."
"Oh say, can you see..."
"California dreamin'..."
THE TRINITY OF SONGS

 

[Blues2001]

Originally posted by Dan25:
Matches decided by 6 points or fewer 1990-2000. Shown from the worst team, to the best.

TEAM...........WON......LOST.....DRAW......%

Melbourne......6........14.......1......31.0%
West Coast.....11.......18.......3......39.1%
St.Kilda.......7........12.......3......38.6%
Brisbane.......7........9........4......45.0%
Coll'wood......13.......16.......4......45.5%
Fitzroy........6........7........0......46.2%
Adelaide.......12.......14.......1......46.3%
Fremantle......7........8........0......46.7%
W.Bulldogs.....15.......17.......4......47.2%
Carlton........13.......13.......1......50.0%
Geelong........17.......15.......2......52.9%
Hawthorn.......15.......13.......2......53.3%
Kangaroos......17.......14.......0......54.8%
Sydney.........13.......10.......3......55.8%
Richmond.......15.......11.......1......57.4%
Port Power.....4........1........3......68.8%
Essendon.......22.......8........4......70.6%

So, over the last 11 years, we can conclude that Melbourne and West Coast are the biggest chokers, while Richmond and Essendon (not counting Port's relatively small number of games) are the leagues best in the close finishes.

I might add, that Essendon's record in Home and away matches in that time is 22-4-4, for a staggering 80%

But Dan, that means that Essendon lost all their close finals - and because finals are the most important - doesn't that make them chokers??? Maybe it means that Essendon are the luckiest side, or that they FLUKED the most wins!?!?!?

[This message has been edited by Blues2001 (edited 19 April 2001).]

 

[BIG POPPA PUMP]

How about the past 5 years, say since 1996?

 

[CJH]

Originally posted by Dan25:


...

while Richmond ... are the leagues best in the close finishes.

...

IF WE ARE AMONGST THE BEST NON-CHOKERS IN THE LEAGUE WHY DO WE ALWAYS FINISH 9TH AND LOSE THE ONE GAME THAT MATTERS!!!

------------------
King of the Jungle - TigerFury.net -Independant Richmond Tigers website

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by Blues2001:
But Dan, that means that Essendon lost all their close finals - and biggest finals are the most important - doesn't that make them chokers??? Maybe it means that Essendon are the luckiest side, or that they FLUKED the most wins!?!?!?

What's your point? I am just providing the figures so that people can refer to them. It might settle a few arguments.

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by CJH:
IF WE ARE AMONGST THE BEST NON-CHOKERS IN THE LEAGUE WHY DO WE ALWAYS FINISH 9TH AND LOSE THE ONE GAME THAT MATTERS!!!

CJH,

Hawthorn finished 9th in 1999, yet WON their lst five games. 9th doesn't "necessarily" mean you've choked. it jsut means that after all the wins have been added up, you had the 9th best record. If a final 9 had been in place, you'd be saying how great you were under pressure to always sneak in!

Remember also, in that your "9th placed years", you had to play very good teams in the last round.

In 1994, you had to play Geelong in round 22 (eventual Grand Finalist)

In 1996, you had to play the Roos (2nd on the ladder and eventual premiers)

In 1998, you had to play Melbourne(4th on the ladder and preliminary finalist)

In 2000, you had to play Carlton (2nd on the ladder and easily the 2nd best team in the comp)

 

[TigerTank]

Damn25,

The day you settle an argument is the day I settle for Queensland beer!

------------------
TT - The obligatory bad-tempered Richmond supporter

 

[Darky]

Originally posted by Dan25:
What's your point? I am just providing the figures so that people can refer to them. It might settle a few arguments.

And so is Blues2001.

 

[Blues2001]

Originally posted by Dan25:
What's your point? I am just providing the figures so that people can refer to them. It might settle a few arguments.

Yeah right....and its just coincidence that the statistic you choose to provide has Essendon as the team that have won the most close games and therefore choke the least. Dan, you've been defending the Bomber choker tag since the 99 prelim, this is just an attempt to prove it wrong.

Anyway, my point was that you yourself said that it was the biggest chokers in order, and I was saying that doesn't the fact that Essendon have lost all their close finals (rather than home and away games) push them higher up the chokers ladder?? I can't believe you missed the point.

This post is as silly and misleading as your bandwagoners one.

[This message has been edited by Blues2001 (edited 19 April 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Blues2001 (edited 19 April 2001).]

 

[Darky]

Had Essendon notched up, say the 6-14 record, and Melbourne the 22-8 record in close games, would you have called Melbourne lucky?

Were Sydney stiff to miss the finals in 2000 or were they chokers?

By no means am I saying Essendon are or are not chokers based on any of these figures - just pointing out there are actually two sides to every argument.

 

[elt]

All depends on your definition of chokers. I would have thought choking was losing games you were expected to win, or games that you held a large lead in. Nothing to do with how close the final result is. Another pointless stat.

------------------
Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes.

 

[Dan26]

Darky and Blues2001,

Couple of points. Firstly, the post is a bit of a "stirrer". Yet, having said this, it is statistically accuarte. There is no fudging of figures.

If I was going to be perfectly honest with you, I don't see how a team can actually literally choke. How can 22 players all simultaneously play badly at the same time? I can understand a golfer or a tennis player, but I can't understand a "team" of 22 all playing badly at the same time. I think it's impossible.

One would think it would even out in the long run, but it is mystifying how one team - Essendon - can have a 22-4 record in the home and away. That is so lopsided that one would think there must be a reason for it.

Defending our finals record though, I don't think 4 mathces decided by less than a kick is a big enough sample to draw an accurate figure. Maybe we have just been legitimately cursed!!

 

[Dan26]

The other interesting thing, is that 3 of Essendon's 4 Home and away losses have been interstate.

This means that Essendon has lost only 1 home and away match in Victoria by less than a goal (to Collingwood in 1991)

It's amazing when you think about it. I missed that particular Collingwood match, but I have seen us win about 16 or 17 home and away matches by less than a kick, but I never personally been at a home and away match where we have lost by a kick. Never seen one.

There are some Essendon fans who would have been to every Victorian based Essendon game since 1990. These fans would have seen the Bombers have approximately an 18-1 record in home and away matches decded by 6 points or less.

Bloody Finals. Grrrrr

 

[elt]

Originally posted by Dan25:
There are some Essendon fans who would have been to every Victorian based Essendon game since 1990. These fans would have seen the Bombers have approximately an 18-1 record in home and away matches decded by 6 points or less.

Only to have the result completely overidden later in the year

------------------
Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes.

 

[Port01]

Perhaps it's a case of the other sides conspiring to give Essendon a false sense of security in close games, then going for the kill when it matters.

Obviously the interstate sides weren't present at the metting, bloody John Elliot again I bet.

 

[CJH]

Originally posted by Dan25:
CJH,

...

9th doesn't "necessarily" mean you've choked. it jsut means that after all the wins have been added up, you had the 9th best record. If a final 9 had been in place, you'd be saying how great you were under pressure to always sneak in!

Remember also, in that your "9th placed years", you had to play very good teams in the last round.

...

Yes and no!

Yes, I understand that based on win/loss and margins expressed as a percentage means that we finished as the ninth ranked team.

No in that 4 times in the past 7 years we have been in the position to control our own destiny in terms of getting into the finals and each of those 4 times we have failed miserably. This is indisputable!

And it is also the nature of those losses. We haven't ever gone down in a tough fought finish, we have been smashed each time.

94 Geelong 27.9 (171) - 13.17 (95) [76 points]
96 Kangaroos 21.15 (141) - 16.13 (109) [32 points]
98 Melbourne 19.19 (133) - 8.9 (67) [66 points]
00 Carlton 19.11 (125) - 7.10 (52) [73 points]

------------------
King of the Jungle - TigerFury.net -Independant Richmond Tigers website

 

[Dan26]

CJH,

It's not that one loss that costs you a spot in the finals. Its the fact that you lost 10 or 11 times. Your losses in Round 22 were no more important than a loss in, say, Round 1.

You could "argue" that we choked in 1998. We had a chance to control our own destiny in round 22 vs Geelong, but we stuffed up. Fortunately we fell into 8th by default despite this.

 

[BIG POPPA PUMP]

Originally posted by CJH:
98 Melbourne 19.19 (133) - 8.9 (67) [66 points]

It was 8.9 57
Dont sell us short!

 

[Statistics Police.]

Dear Mr Statistician,

Could you please not pull an 'AFL' and use the correct stats for what you term 'Brisbane'? It should have been worth noting in your post that along with Port's small number of games, there were smaller number of games to choose from for the Brisbane Lions as well, as they only started in the AFL competition in 1997.

Your sincerely
Statistics Police

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by Statistics Police.:
Dear Mr Statistician,

Could you please not pull an 'AFL' and use the correct stats for what you term 'Brisbane'? It should have been worth noting in your post that along with Port's small number of games, there were smaller number of games to choose from for the Brisbane Lions as well, as they only started in the AFL competition in 1997.

Your sincerely
Statistics Police

You are 100% right. The Brisbane Lions are a separate club, and their stats should in no way reflect that of the Bears or Fitzroy. I apologise. I got the stats out of AFL2001, which, idiotically, treats the Bears and the Bris.Lions as the same club.

 

[CJH]

Originally posted by BIG POPPA PUMP:
It was 8.9 57
Dont sell us short!

Thanks BPP! I wrote it down wrong!



------------------
King of the Jungle - TigerFury.net -Independant Richmond Tigers website

 

[windyhill]

Originally posted by Dan25:
The other interesting thing, is that 3 of Essendon's 4 Home and away losses have been interstate.

This means that Essendon has lost only 1 home and away match in Victoria by less than a goal (to Collingwood in 1991)

It's amazing when you think about it. I missed that particular Collingwood match, but I have seen us win about 16 or 17 home and away matches by less than a kick, but I never personally been at a home and away match where we have lost by a kick. Never seen one.

There are some Essendon fans who would have been to every Victorian based Essendon game since 1990. These fans would have seen the Bombers have approximately an 18-1 record in home and away matches decded by 6 points or less.

Bloody Finals. Grrrrr

Yes,I was there,at all of them !! Missed 5 in 28 years,the good the bad and the fugly !