Remove this Banner Ad

Irrelevant Finals Statistics

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

If it's a derby grand final, it will be the first time in the AFL era that both the grand finalists have beaten every other team including each other at least once that year
**didn't copy this from anywhere, but it's true! Just noticed a pattern, so tested and, and did check the years I wasn't sure about! I went all the way back to 1990 and it hasn't happened in that time....
EDIT- In fact, it didn't happen in 1987-89 either
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

ChampRevesby said:
I counted since 86 which I guess was still the VFL but nation wide comp.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the official name change was 1990, but you could argue 1987 was when it went national. You could equally argue it was in 1982 when the Swans moved to Sydney.
For the sake of making West Coast potentially the most successful, let's say 1990 :)
 
Not a stat, or a weird superstition, but as soon as I saw this pic (think it's from our win over Richmond) I've had this picture in my head of Priddis looking exactly the same, in the same jumper, holding a GF medal in one hand, & a Norm Smith in the other, true story, it's happening!!

381167.jpg
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Just decided to see if I could gleam any trends from the AA... nope. That one looks fruitless.

FWIW, what I got:

Since this finals system started in 2000, in 30 preliminary finals, 26 of them were between teams with a different number of AA representatives. In 17 out of 26 of those games the team with more AA representatives won, for a strike rate of 65%.

Moving onto grand finals, out of 12 grand finals where the teams had different numbers of AA representatives, it's split right down the middle - the team with less won 6, and the team with more won 6. Quantity doesn't even seem to matter - Geelong in 07 had 9 representatives and crushed Port who had 3. Then in 08 Geelong with 7 representatives lost to Hawthorn with 2.

It's a pity NicNat didn't get on the bench though - in PFs, no team has ever beaten an opponent with 3 or more AA players than itself.

Morale of this one? Well, in Grand Finals it seems entirely irrelevant. In Preliminary Finals there may be a slight favouritism to the team with more AA players, but it's pretty slight - it's not like the 90% as seen by a team simply having the home PF, for example.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oh hello, what's this. Just cross referenced it with who was playing at home. Of the 9 prelim finals that were won by underdogs, 8 of them involved a team playing at home (Sydney in 05 was the exception, beating St Kilda in Melb who had 1 extra AA player).

Let's refine that... since 2000, 25 out of 26 prelim finals that had teams with different numbers of AA representatives were won by either the team with more AA players, or the home team - only one team has won one without satisfying either requirement. Now that's a strike rate of a little over 96%.

Hell, we can boost it to 97%. 27 out of 30 PF hosts have won their game. The other 3? Brisbane beat Sydney away in 03 - they had more AA players. West Coast beat Adelaide away in 06 - they had more AA players. Sydney beat St Kilda away in 07 - they had less AA players. Thus, 29 out of 30 PFs have been won by either the home team, or the team with more AA players. Only one team out of 30 has won with neither.

To put it another way, North would have to be the second team (or third if Freo get up) in 32 preliminary finals to win an away game with less AA players. That actually does sound like a trend that they'd need to buck.

Of course, it should be mentioned that the lion's share of that percentage comes from the home team's domination in PFs, but it's interesting to see that when you consider AA numbers you can increase the odds to 97%. I suppose it means something along the lines of a quality team being hard to overcome, HGA and a week off being hard to overcome, and the combination of the two being incredibly difficult to overcome.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

nameless said:
Is there a stat that favours North? besides the Star Wars one?
Click to expand...
At the very least, they've broken a previously unbroken record (8th to PF), so they have at least recorded a 'stat-breaker' stat of sorts. :-P
 
JaxsonB said:
At the very least, they've broken a previously unbroken record (8th to PF), so they have at least recorded a 'stat-breaker' stat of sorts. :p
Click to expand...

Conversely the likelihood of recording another major break in the statistics would be even more remote, would it not?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom