Analysis Making the Top 4 and building to a flag. 4TH is IRRELEVANT, MAKE IT TOP 3

[RussellEbertHandball]

Based on?

Last year both teams who won a QF missed the Grand Final. This year it's still up in the air. As we speak there are still precisely zero teams since the bye was introduced who have booked a spot in the Grand Final after winning a qualifying final. So I'm not sure what's happened to suddenly make you come out and post that?

I will repeat it that this thread has been about making the top 4 then building to a flag. The bye this year didn't see anyone go out I straight sets. Top 4 sides have ended up the Prelim. You lose the QF you increase your chance of going out in straight sets. Simiples.

 

[Nemisis]

Since 2014 I have played around with list demographics to try to work out where the spread of players should be in 3 year age brackets and assuming most players over 27 have played 120+ games ( ie Eddy is a rarity) and that most premiership sides have 12 to 13 100+ gamers and have 1, 2 or 3 on the list who dont make the GF because of injury or form. We will soon find out if last year was an aberration by the Bulldogs or its become the new norm. Its also why I reckon if GWS are to have a dynasty, as I have written previously, you wont see it until years 8 thru to 13 of their existence.

I'm not sure if I should stick this in here or in a list management thread but I will put it in here for now. Below is my guess for the spread across a list of age demographics in 3 year brackets and across positions.

We have failed in the past from having too many gaps in our age profile and experience. To go 2 age brackets with nobody in them is piss poor list management IMO. The exception of course is utilities you dont need lots of them but a couple are good. If you have 2 consecutive zeros for a position it means that over 6 year of age you don't have someone who can fill that position unless you trade some in at the end of the season. I have put players age as at 31st of March each year and one or two who are born in April have been thrown into the older bracket.

Now my preferred list demographics spread below is if you think you are close to a flag, and each year will vary a bit as you delist players and bring new ones in. Now I can see some posters shaking their heads at having 5 x 30+ year olds, but that's probably as tribey has written about the last couple of days, we seem to get multiple injuries to so many stars who barely play past 30 or 31. In 2004 on GF day we had 4 x 30+ year olds and 7 x 27-29 year olds and in the squad who didn't play Primus 29, Francou 30, Poulton 27 and 8 x 24-26 year olds.

Premiership squads age at start of year and Flag team
2012 Syd 5 x 30+ players and 9 x 27-29 year olds.
GF day 5 x 30+, 5 x 27-29, 6 x 24-26 and 2 x 300+ games, 2 x 200-299 games 4 x 150-199 games 3 x 100-149 games 7 x 50-99 games 4 less than 50 games

2013 Haw 5 x 30+ players and 6 x 27-29 year olds
GF day 4 x 30+, 5 x 27-29, 10 x 24-26 and 5 x 200-299 games 6 x 150-199 games 2 x 100-149 games 6 x 50-99 games 3 less than 50 games

2014 Haw 6 x 30+ players and 4 x 27-29 year olds
GF day 6 x 30+, 3 x 27-29, 7 x 24-26 and 7 x 200-299 games 2 x 150-199 games 3 x 100-149 games 8 x 50-99 games 2 less than 50 game

2015 Haw 6 x 30+ players and 9 x 27-29 year olds.
GF day 6 x 30+, 6 x 27-29, 8 x 24-26 and 4 x 250-299 games, 4 x 200-249 games 3 x 150-199 games 8 x 100-149 games 3 x 50-99 games 0 less than 50 games

2016 WB. 5 x 30+ players and 5 x 27-29 year olds
GF day 3 x 30+, 4 x 27-29, 2 x 24-26 and 2 x 200-299 games 1 x 150-199 games 3 x 100-149 games 7 x 50-99 games 9 less than 50 games


View attachment 416277

Blue are 2017 rookie players at the start of the season before Rd 1 elevations. Positions are where players spent 2017 playing rather than what they were drafted to play.

View attachment 416278

Very good analysis - fun fact - i used to predict the winning team in a GF simply by allocating points to age bracket:
25-29 is where the majority of players need to be to be successful.
30-32 is also good as if you are still playing good footy at this age you are pretty special.

 

[raptalia]

Last night's GWS v West Coast result has made me wonder just how far we are off a top four spot. We couldn't beat West Coast on our home ground yet GWS, who I thought were the weakest of the top four, crushed West Coast. I know it is a different game and different week and game plans sometimes bring certain teams closer but the fact is we did not beat a side in the top four and the side that beat us in our only final, albeit narrowly, was crushed by the weakest side in the top four.

Our big problem is that too many sides beat us at home. In 2014 we called the Adelaide Oval our Portress yet it is far from that these days. The equation is simple enough, win all eleven games at home then the reverse Showdown and four on the road and you are knocking on the door of the top four. Geelong have been able to do that for the past decade and it has paid off.

It is not simply a case of skills and ability that are important it is also a case of developing mental toughness and finding that extra to play above yourself in big games. Our playing group and Coaches talk about playing 'traditional Port Adelaide Football' but from where I sit they do not know what that means. The Port I knew based it's success on self belief and mental toughness which are areas these guys need to develop. At the risk of getting too sentimental maybe it is time to dust off the old tapes and show the current players some vision of the likes of Paul Northeast, Scott Hodges and Tim Ginever who consistently put their bodies on the line and produced the one percenters that won us big games. I concede that the rules have changed since those guys played but the need to develop determination and the will to win has not. Players still have to kick straight, run to make a contest and show some accountability.

I feel our supporters do their bit as the NTUA buildup, the crowd noise is there but unfortunately that is not enough to stir some of the serial offenders in our playing group into action. Until several of our senior players realise they have to lead and inspire the kids, not the other way around, we will not impact the top four. To change this it may be necessary for Ken, presuming he is at Alberton next year, and his staff to look at each and every senior player and issue an ultimatum. Foster's creed mentions getting rid of the 'no hopers' and maybe that needs to start with some big names? The big problem is that confidence in any playing group is infectious and if that confidence drops a losing culture develops. Despite our ladder position we are in real danger of developing a losing culture most particularly in those 'must win' games.

This year we had a softer draw than usual but we lost home games to Adelaide, West Coast, and Richmond. Win just one of those and we make the top four. Next year our draw is likely to be tougher so dropping three from eleven at home may mean we do not make the eight let alone the top four. Hopefully the Coach impresses that on individuals starting with next year's potential leaders.

Maybe we were unlucky last week and should have gone further but maybe last night's result suggests that we are not as good as we think ?

 

[Janus]

Back to my annual end of season look if we can make Top 4 next year on the way pushing to a flag. Last September Janus and I had a discussion how quick we could win a flag. He went for 2018 I went for 2019. I cant find those posts but I referred to it in this post on 16 September last year. My reckoning was 5th to 8th in 2017, top 4 in 2018 and flag in 2019 would be our trajectory, consistent with what I have observed other teams do and I have written about in this thread since 2008.

Macca19 in the lost faith in Hinkley thread, stated whether people admit it or not, we took steps forward this year. I responded with #marginalgains most gains came from not having so many injuries and CAS and tribunal suspensions We kicked 13 extra goals + 35 extra points from an extra 96 inside 50's home and away. that's marginal.

For me the biggest gains made in 2017 has been Ryder playing 22 of 23 games compared to zero and Jonas playing 21 games over 9 and playing like he did in 2014 not the crap of 2016 and stabilizing the defence as basically captain of the defence players. Playing Sam PP has been important but he dropped off in the final third of the year and you had players drop form and out with injuries counterbalanced by new players and others who have improved like Clurey.

As I wrote in a further post in the lost faith in Hinkley thread last night, I use #marginalgains as both a pejorative term and a realistic positive one. Sometimes its because you know that the changes will only be marginal when people are hoping for big changes so I use it pejoratively, and other times because it only takes marginal gains to make a big effect eg, Dixon kicks for/a goal at Geelong after taking 29 seconds not 33, Sam Gray in April kicks the ball from 1 metre out thru the goals and not hit the post and the ball is then kicked out and Adelaide goal, Dixon kicks a goal in extra time not a point or that 55m set shot for goal he had at the southern end in the 2nd quarter travels 20cms further and isnt touched through for a goal. It was a beautiful straight kick that Vardy just touched.

That's how close top end professional sports is. Its a battle of inches or centimetres or millimetres. And you have to consistently get those inches and centimetres and millimetres right. Gold medals are won and lost by a hundredth of a second after 4 years work and in cycling, losing Olympic and World Championship gold by 3 or 4 thousandths of a second is not uncommon.

The concept of Marginal Gains comes from UK Postal Sky Cycling boss David Brailsford - now Sir David. He talked about Aggregation of Marginal Gains being a 1% improvement in everything you do. He figured if you improved every area related to cycling by just 1 percent, then those small gains add up to remarkable improvement. This is as good as any article that explains it - http://jamesclear.com/marginal-gains

So the question is, in 2018, are we going to make marginal gains across the board and in the critical areas, or are we just going to make marginal gains here and there and in aggregation that don't add up to much? I can't see us making massive overall improvement.

We have to get better at goal kicking, we have to get a proper 3rd tall forward and let Marshall develop, we have to stop going to the boundary so often which makes the shots on goal harder and we have to get mentally tougher when the game is on the line.

I would send the blokes to spend a month training with the SAS in WA to develop their leadership and composure under pressure situations, but I know that isnt going to happen. As I have written about in another thread I have started, the magical number is 17 + or - 1 win as that number of wins usually gets you a top 2 spot and best chance to win a flag, especially if you host a QF against a travelling team. This year suggests we could have made the magical number, if we were better skilled, smarter and mentally harder. Until I see us improve our general field kicking and goal kicking I can't say we will definitely find those extra 2 to 4 wins in the home and away season in 2018.

Not sure if this is the post you are after - from September 2016:

Hinkley has always been about defense first. His mantra has been "You don't defend, you don't play". All our attacking play in 2013/14 was generated from defensive actions, yet for some reason the players and the public have decided that those years we were beating everyone in shootouts. The only reason why the opposition was scoring freely is because we were supposedly still learning how to defend properly. Some players have responded to his private bakings, like Wines...others were more concerned about treading water, like Hartlett and Polec.

I've said it before - this list believes erroneously that the path to success is attacking football, when the reality is that it comes from defensive football. The Bulldogs were never in the "premiership zone" all year and now find themselves in a prelim on the back of being the best defensive side. But make no mistake - when I say 'defense first' it doesn't mean 'defense only' like we seemed to think it was in 2016...which is why you saw players too scared to run from their position lest the ball gets turned over and they get caught out in transition. It just means that we need to be conscious of the defensive aspects of the game at all times - positioning, shape, tackling etc.

Some of these players pick and choose when and where they are going to apply themselves - doing just enough not to get dropped at certain key moments so Hinkley keeps thinking that maybe they've got the message this time, or saying all the right things but not actually following through with them. Every single player that has been either delisted or is on the trade table has been shown to be a defensive liability, either through lack of application or lack of desire.

There's absolutely nothing fantastic about the Bulldogs list except Bontempelli - it's just a bunch of guys who are willing to work hard defensively and run into space, like we did in 2014. We proved that we could match it with them this year - the issue is that we keep falling into holes against lower quality sides instead of being consistent with our performance. And again, that is on the players. No coach goes out every week and says "Right boys, remember that good performance you put in against the Dogs last week? I want you to forget everything you did and go out and lose to Fremantle."

We are two years away from when we should hit for a flag.

We fixed the 'willing to work hard defensively' part. And the falling into holes against lower quality sides part. But we still haven't fixed the 'pick and choose when and where they are going to apply themselves' part, as witnessed by the horrible performances against Adelaide, Essendon and other top eight sides.

 

[vozzon]

Alot of our issues of not being a good top 4 team comes down to the cattle we have on the park. I think the club is doing the right thing in making plays for rocky and motlop, it brings in 2 experienced mid that can rotate up forward and will make ollie, polec, gray, wingard all better players.

We are clearly a mid or 2 short of talent compared to most teams (look what richmond did bringing in caddy and prestia). The holes on our list can go back to Butcher/Moore/Jacobs all not turning into to decent AFL players.

We pick up those 2 free agents and the team can compete for a top 4 spot without giving up any more picks. At time we have been relying on players like Neade, AJ, Sam Gray and Achee who all lack some polish for the AFL game, sort that out and we would be talking about playng in a GF.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Analysis of the top 4 teams at the end of the home and away since the current finals system was introduced in 2000 over 18 seasons. The Bulldogs are the outlier team but in 2016 it was the first week of the finals bye and never have the top 7 teams been as close as they were with one game to go as 2016.

7th could have finished 4th if results went their way. The order of the draw was
Fri 2nd Adel v 6th WCE - WCE won by 29 pts
Sat 3rd Gee v 10th Melb - Gee won by 111 pts
Sat 1st Syd v 13th Rich - Syd won by 113 pts
Sat 8th NM v 5th GWS - GWS won by 37 pts
Sun 4th Haw v 12th Coll - Haw won but by only 1 pt
Sun 16th Freo v 7th WB - Freo won by 20 pts, it was the last game of the round, WB couldn't get higher than 7th once the Hawks won by half time of their game and they sustained a few injuries so they put the queue in the rack.




This graphic below shows there is almost equal chance to finish in any of the top 4 spots if you are from Victoria on a Non Vic state, with a slight bias to the Vic teams. Vic sides have an advantage of being premiers, but that has been somewhat cyclical as the second graph below shows a dominance by non Vic sides in the first decade of this century but the last 5 years Vic sides have won the flag against 5 non Vic sides. You have almost an equal chance of winning the flag if you finish 1st, 2nd or 3rd, with winning the QF being the biggest factor driving if you get to a GF and win the flag

Only 4 sides have lost a QF and won a Flag. Only one other team has lost a QF and made a GF. Twice by a 3 time heavy weight champions and twice when Sydney and West Coast had that extraordinary run of a dozen games when there was nothing between them and each lost the QF by less than a kick and then each ended up winning the GF by the margin they lost the QF by.

2003 Bris (3) lose to Coll (2) at MCG then beat Sydney (4) at Stadium Oz in PF and beat Col in GF by 50pts
2005 Syd (3) lose to WCE (2) at Subi then beat St Kilda (4) at MCG in PF and beat WCE in GF by 4pts
2006 WCE (1) lose to Syd (4) at Subi then beat Adelaide (2) at FP in PF and beat Syd in GF by 1 pt
2015 Haw (3) lose to WCE (2) at Subi then beat Fremantle (1) at Subi in PF and beat WCE in GF by 46pts

2016 Sydney (1) are the only team to lose the QF (to GWS (4) ) then win the PF but lose the GF.

Only the Bulldogs last year have played in an EF and won the Flag.



Minor Premiers and win the Flag
Vic...... Essendon 2000, Geelong 2007, Collingwood 2010, Hawks 2013 played all games at MCG
Non Vic Port 2004, WCE 2006 WCE won a PF away from home at FP

2nd and win the Flag
Vic...... Hawks 2008, Geelong 2009 + 2011, Hawks 2014 played all games at MCG
Non Vic Brisbane 2001 + 2002,

3rd and win the Flag
Vic...... Hawks 2015, Richmond 2017 Hawks won PF away from home at Subi
Non Vic Brisbane 2003, Sydney 2005, Sydney 2012 Brisbane and Sydney 2005 won a PF away from home

Only 4 non Vic minor premiers have stuffed up and not made the GF. 3 have been because they ****ed up playing a travelling side in the QF at home and then were forced to play a PF away from home.

Port 2002 lost QF to Collingwood by 13 pts and then lost PF to Brisbane at Gabba by 54.
Port 2003 lost QF to Sydney by 12 pts then lost PF to Collingwood at the MCG by 44 pts.
Adelaide 2005 lost QF to St Kilda by 8 pts and then lost PF to West Coast at Subi by 26 pts.

In 2015 Freo won their QF against Sydney by 9 pts but lost their home PF to the Hawks by 27 pts

Only two 4th sides that have made the GF are Collingwood in 2002 when they beat us at Footy Park in the QF and then Adelaide at the MCG in the PF and then just lost the GF to Brisbane by 9 pts, and Sydney in 2006 when they beat WCE by 1 pt at Subi, then beat Freo in the PF at Stadium Oz and then lost the GF to WCE by 1 pt.





Back to losing the QF and then advancing or not to a GF.
5 minor premiers have lost the QF, the first 4 at home to a travelling side, Sydney lost to GWS in 2016
Port 2002, 2003, and Adelaide 2005 didn't advance.
West Coast 2006 and Sydney 2016 did advance to GF, all 5 discussed above.

2nd sides who lost the QF to 3rd side and also lost PF
2000 Carlton lost to Melbourne, 2010 Geelong lost to St Kilda, 2012 Adelaide to Sydney, 2013 Geelong to Fremantle, and 2017 Geelong to Richmond.

Finished 2nd and not make a GF
Vic....... Carlton 2000, Geelong 2010 + 2013 + 2016 + 2017
Non Vic Adelaide 2006 + 2012

Finish 3rd and not make a GF
Vic...... St Kilda 2004, Bulldogs 2008 + 2009, Hawks 2011 + 2016, Geelong 2014
Non Vic Port 2001, Adelaide 2002, Freo 2006, WCE 2007

Out in Straight Sets
3rd
Vic...... Geelong 2014 (34+6pts), Hawks 2016 (2+23pts) Geel and Hawks lost both games at the MCG
Non Vic Port 2001 (32+3pts), WCE 2007 - in extra time against Coll after losing QF to Port by 3 pts.

4th
Vic......
Non Vic Freo 2014(24+22pts), Sydney 2015 (9+26pts)

 

[JohnHinckleyJr]

2018 it happens

 

[Janus]

I found the thread RussellEbertHandball

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/thre...rming-top-4-team.1137654/page-5#post-45460182

 

[Scholz Supremacy]

Depressing that we haven't finished Top 4 since 2007

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Depressing that we haven't finished Top 4 since 2007

In 2014 we didn't make top 4 in home and away but we made the PF so I think we can safely say we finished top 4 in 2014.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

I found the thread RussellEbertHandball

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/thre...rming-top-4-team.1137654/page-5#post-45460182

Yep that's definitely it.

 

[Scholz Supremacy]

In 2014 we didn't make top 4 in home and away but we made the PF so I think we can safely say we finished top 4 in 2014.

I was tossing up between saying we haven't finished Top 4 since 2007 or that we hadn't played in a Qualifying Final since 2007.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

I wrote this in June last year in the thread Janus linked and quoted me in post #358 above and I've updated it for 2016 and 2017 seasons. Confirms that making 4th spot is good but bloody tough to make a GF and even tougher to win the flag.
https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/thre...rming-top-4-team.1137654/page-5#post-45460182
* Between 2002 and 2006 the 4th side beat the top side in the QF four times away from home on the road. Collingwood beat Port in 2002 by 13pts won PF at home, Sydney beat Port in 2003 by 12pts but lost home PF to Brisbane, StK beat Adelaide by 8pts and lost PF at home to Sydney, and in 2006 Sydney beat WCE by 1 point and won the PF at home. (No bloody easy games there)

* Since 2008 the 4th side has ended up 4th or lower after the last final. 2008-13 all 4th sides ended up 4th, in 2014 Freo lost to us in the semis and finished 6th because Geelong also went out in straight sets and in 2015 Sydney went from 4th to 5th when it lost the semi final to North. (2016 and 2017 GWS finished 4th although in 2016 they beat Sydney in the QF at Stadium Oz and lost the PF at Sydney Showgrounds and this year lost the QF at AO and PF at MCG).

Finishing 4th its bloody hard to win a flag from, because you have to play the minor premiers in week 1 and in Port's case it would be away from home and if you lose the QF but win the semi, you play a rested up 2nd or 3rd team once again away from home. To win a flag from 4th you may have to beat 1st, 2nd and 3rd in 3 games.

If you are a 4th of the top 4 sides you have almost no chance of winning a flag. Finish 3rd and you have a 25% chance but that's only if you are a heavy weight champion.

If a young side wants to win the flag, finish top 2 not top 4 and get the maximum benefit possible of a home QF, and win that and get a home PF. Richmond a relatively young side in finished 3rd in 2017, but effectively had a home QF against Geelong and then a home PF against a travelling team in GWS.

 

[Chokito]

Forget Motlop and Watts. Keep space in the salary cap. 2018 go hard for Tom Lynch (GC).

 

[Chewy316]

Forget Motlop and Watts. Keep space in the salary cap. 2018 go hard for Tom Lynch (GC).

You really think that in the corrupt world of the AFL, that Tom Lynch - the only player on that Gold Coast team who is worth a damn, would actually leave? You let Lynch go, you might as well just fold the club then and there (not that I think that would be a bad idea tbh). The AFL will never let it happen. The sunk cost fallacy in this case is most definitely real, and the AFL will double down to keep him on the north side of the tweed.

 

[Hellgood]

I expect the Suns will win a few more games next year. They were ok at times throughout 2017, but the wheels fell off at the end.

Contrary to lazy analysis they do have a number of quality players. Lynch, Wright, May, Martin, Swallow, Witts & Hall is a very good base to build around. Ainsworth and Ah Chee showing plenty of promising signs up forward. Don't know what stage at which Barlow will be able to return next year but the likes of he, Lyons and Rischitelli have plenty to offer.

 

[shewho]

More significant than a top 4 ladder finish is where one's percentage ranks.

In 2017, we ranked #2 for percentage. Since 2001 teams finishing top 2 for percentage have won the flag 70% of the time. The Grand finalists have come from the top 4 teams ranked by percentage 97% of the time. The one exception in 17 years was the Western Bulldogs in 2016.

Put another way, finishing #1 by percentage gives you a 76% chance of making the GF.
Finishing #2 on percentage gives you a 59% chance of making the GF.
Finishing #3 on percentage gives you a 29% chance of making the GF.
Finishing #4 on percentage gives you a 24% chance of making the GF.

That suggests that if we improve in 2018, our percentage should be in the top few and we should be looking at a GF. Given the off season we have had, we should improve.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Percentage doesn't get you home finals 2 weeks in a row like enough wins do ie ladder position.

What's better, beat the #1 team in a season by a goal or two twice in the year instead of once or beat the bottom team by 15 goals twice instead of once and rack up the percentage?

Since 2000 not 2001, ie when the current system came in
14 of 18 minor premiers have made the GF = 77.7%
11 of 18 2nd placed teams have made the GF = 61.1%
8 of 18 3rd placed teams have made the GF = 44.4%
2 of 18 4th placed teams have made the GF = 11.1%

1 of 18 7th placed teams have made the GF = 5.5%

 

[Andre]

Percentage doesn't get you home finals 2 weeks in a row like enough wins do ie ladder position.

Yep, this really need further analysis, to separate out performance's making the GF from 1 - 4 on ladder position into where finishing top 3 or 4 granted you an 'away' final in your home state, versus away. There's a world of difference being 3 or 4 in week 1 against another side from your state, versus playing away. On sheer numbers of still too many Victorian sides, us finishing top 2 is much more important than Victorian sides (on the odds they are still more than likely to meet another Victorian side week 1).

 

[Daniel Flynn]

We have to win it in the next three years before I can see us sliding down back down the ladder due to trading in so many older players


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Revan11]

We have to win it in the next three years before I can see us sliding down back down the ladder due to trading in so many older players


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

Have a look at our list demographic man we ll be fine.

 

[GremioPower]

Percentage doesn't get you home finals 2 weeks in a row like enough wins do ie ladder position.

What's better, beat the #1 team in a season by a goal or two twice in the year instead of once or beat the bottom team by 15 goals twice instead of once and rack up the percentage?

Since 2000 not 2001, ie when the current system came in
14 of 18 minor premiers have made the GF = 77.7%
11 of 18 2nd placed teams have made the GF = 61.1%
8 of 18 3rd placed teams have made the GF = 44.4%
2 of 18 4th placed teams have made the GF = 11.1%

1 of 18 7th placed teams have made the GF = 5.5%

One measure is never enough, but good teams usually are those who crush bad opponents regularly.

 

[Daniel Flynn]

One measure is never enough, but good teams usually are those who crush bad opponents regularly.

Port definitely have that part covered then

 

[Daniel Flynn]

Have a look at our list demographic man we ll be fine.

But those kids have to get games and in a team with the list we've got I can't see that happening unless we get a severe list of injuries

 

[GremioPower]

Port definitely have that part covered then

Absolutely. We were definetely a pretty good side last year. Our problem wasn't talent or tactics, but seemed something mental/spiritual.