Oppo Camp Non-Essendon Football Thread XIV

[ant555]

You can look at it many ways but at the end of the day the results in the last 5 years say one of the top four sides make the GF every year and this year is the second time a side outside the top 4 has made the GF.

 

[Harlequin]

 

[Runk]

Tom Browne just announced on ‘Game Day’ that ‘Paddy Ryder has told the Bombers no and will go to the Saints.’

Riiiiiiight.

 

[I Remember Bluey]

Sheeds to present the cup next week

"If GWS win"

 

[rumply]

 

[Lore]

Since GWS won anyway there's no harm in admitting it I suppose. If Collingwood had won and progressed to the grand final because of a goal incorrectly awarded they would never have admitted to it.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

It's hardly an excuse.

4/8 grand finalists have played each week of the finals under this new system.

2/8 grand finalists have now come from outside the top 4.

I reckon that is getting very close to turning the finals on its head compared to what it was for the previous 20 years - when year after year it seemed like the winners in week 1 played off in the GF. I'd like to know how many times a side played in a GF having played each week of the finals.

Occasionally a Hawks or Lions 3-peat side might have lost week 1 and still won a flag. No side has otherwise made a GF from outside top 4 since Adelaide 97/98, I think.

It could be down to equalization. Reckon there were 4 to 5 sides (Tigers, Giants, Pies, Cats and Eagles) who could all have been a premier without it coming from nowhere (as it did at the start of 16, 17 and 18).

It seems to me to be a very real argument that the advantage in finishing top 4 and winning week 1 has been neutralised.

2000-2015, 84% of QF winners made the GF. 2016-2019 it's 50%.

The '03, '05, '06, '12 and '15 premiers did it the hard way. Interestingly no one lost a grand final after playing every week until 2016.

 

[Lore]

2000-2015, 84% of QF winners made the GF. 2016-2019 it's 50%.

Does it follow that QF losers are now more likely to make the GF? Or are EF winners getting through a bit more often as well, skewing the numbers?

 

[rumply]

Since GWS won anyway there's no harm in admitting it I suppose. If Collingwood had won and progressed to the grand final because of a goal incorrectly awarded they would never have admitted to it.

Yes but theyve admitted & while also saying the right call was made, ludicrous organisation.

 

[Lore]

Yes but theyve admitted & while also saying the right call was made, ludicrous organisation.

I wish they did something like the cricket reviews where there are clear criteria and mechanisms for checking each criteria, and if all bar one of the criteria say 'out' but one is dubious then it goes to umpire's call. It makes it a lot more transparent, only overturning the howlers rather than the dicey ones.

I also don't think they need to review every decision (other than for training purposes). Do like the cricket, give the teams two reviews each plus whatever the umpires decide they need a review for themselves (perhaps C/VC only can call for a review). If no one chooses to ask for a review when they have the opportunity then they have agreed by default with the umpire's call.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

Does it follow that QF losers are now more likely to make the GF? Or are EF winners getting through a bit more often as well, skewing the numbers?

QF Winner: 84% ↓ 50%
QF Loser: 16% ↑ 25%
EF Winner: 0% ↑ 25%

You really need to control for the evenness of the comp to make any strong conclusions though - perhaps including H&A% as a variable.

 

[BrunoV]

Does it follow that QF losers are now more likely to make the GF? Or are EF winners getting through a bit more often as well, skewing the numbers?

I think that will depend on how many good sides there are in any given year. This year you had 2 premiers, the runner up, a recent and two time preliminary final contender (with the best list in the comp) and a vastly improved Geelong side (which has been in top 4 calculations for most of the last 5 years). There was also a bolter (Brisbane).

It's been a while since the finals had that sort of depth.

My hunch is that physiologically and mentally you are better off with the rest before the start of the finals and then building momentum right through.

I think 1 game in what becomes a month before an EF winner plays in a prelim is a huge problem. Yes, if a side is good enough it will get through but I don't think it's fair to have these sides at what the number show could be a significant disadvantage.

It's kind of alarming that Collingwood and Richmond have switched their stories this year. Admittedly Collingwood 19 was not as good as Richmond 18 but both results are pretty significant outliers based on 20-odd years of finals (not just because the EM winner lost but because they were the better side throughout the year).

 

[Lore]

QF Winner: 84% ↓ 50%
QF Loser: 16% ↑ 25%
EF Winner: 0% ↑ 25%

You really need to control for the evenness of the comp to make any strong conclusions though - perhaps including H&A% as a variable.

Yeah, you would need to control for it. But it's probably better for the game anyway if the finals system isn't heavily weighted towards advantaging the top teams. QF winner still has an advantage, QF loser still has a double chance, EF winner is actually playing for something

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

Just with finals system this year the team that finished on top went 6-6 in last 12 games, that’s unusual. Tigers who finished third have won 11 in a row. Only injuries have kept them from topping the ladder.

Next finals team hit as bad with injuries was Giants and Pies.

Equalisation has made it more even.

The bye before finals start is important. Imagine people’s outrage if your team and team B are battling for last spot in the 8. Then team B opponent rests half a dozen of their best?

 

[Lore]

They should just be glad they aren't doing play-offs like the NHL. Even a round robin would take it out of you.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

"If GWS win"

Really? Why wouldn’t they let a former premiership player and club legend present to the Tigers?

 

[Lore]

Really? Why wouldn’t they let a former premiership player and club legend present to the Tigers?

Who he played for, for a long time.. a long time ago

 

[BrunoV]

The bye before finals start is important. Imagine people’s outrage if your team and team B are battling for last spot in the 8. Then team B opponent rests half a dozen of their best?

I've never understood the big deal.

It happens throughout the season based on training loads which throw up bizarre results.

Basically it's too bad.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

I've never understood the big deal.

It happens throughout the season based on training loads which throw up bizarre results.

Basically it's too bad.

Nowhere near the same thing.

 

[BrunoV]

Nowhere near the same thing.

A side wins a game against a weakened opponent because that opponent is planning long term as a luxury based on good results throughout a season.

It's a matter of degree not substance. It also has nothing to do with intention to win which is the main reason I could care less.

Sides won against the Cats in the second half of the year because the Catsy designed their season to peak during finals.

It's another example of how the nature of the competition has been changed and how the importance of the season has been diminished.

If the AFL is concerned with integrity of betting markets, on the view that punters can't figure it out for themselves, well, that's just another reason to question why the most moral sporting code in the world is in bed with bookies.

 

[BrunoV]

I'm operating in an opt out system with Mitch Hibberd.

Cant say I've see a part of his inside play that concerns me. Stil very early, though.

Impressed by how jacked he is and his mobility generally seems good.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

A side wins a game against a weakened opponent because that opponent is planning long term as a luxury based on good results throughout a season.

It's a matter of degree not substance. It also has nothing to do with intention to win which is the main reason I could care less.

Sides won against the Cats in the second half of the year because the Catsy designed their season to peak during finals.

It's another example of how the nature of the competition has been changed and how the importance of the season has been diminished.

If the AFL is concerned with integrity of betting markets, on the view that punters can't figure it out for themselves, well, that's just another reason to question why the most moral sporting code in the world is in bed with bookies.

Cat’s collapsed because players that were playing out of their skin in first of season fell off a cliff in the second half. Rohan, Atkins for example. Ablett lost form, their rucks became a bigger mess than they already were.

Resting so many players in one game like North did a few years ago is a whole different story.

 

[eth-dog]

Umpires killed Willy here. Handing Richmond the win.

 

[Doss]

Willy’s shooting for goal at the end killed them.

 

[TheBrightSide]

Umpires killed Willy here. Handing Richmond the win.

Great finish! Richmond lucky.