Not Worth A Thread - Random Bulldog Discussion

(Log in to remove this ad.)

hazza21

Senior List
Joined
Feb 7, 2008
Posts
253
Likes
260
Location
Australia
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
I'm sure this belongs on a Merbership thread but surprisingly couldn't find it on the first 5 pages or so.

Has anyone else got the Global Membership? Ie living overseas and get the AFL subscription while still supporting the club?

Last year I paid $210, whilst this year I have been similarly charged. However, the price on the bulldogs website says $190. When I inquired I was told it's $210. Anyone have any info on this??

Subsequently out of interest I checked other teams prices, most were similar to ours, however, Gold Coasts was $168. I can appreciate the demand wouldn't be as high but a $40 difference is quite significant for the exact same thing...
 

Virgin Dog

All Australian
Joined
Oct 29, 2017
Posts
912
Likes
859
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
I'm sure this belongs on a Merbership thread but surprisingly couldn't find it on the first 5 pages or so.

Has anyone else got the Global Membership? Ie living overseas and get the AFL subscription while still supporting the club?

Last year I paid $210, whilst this year I have been similarly charged. However, the price on the bulldogs website says $190. When I inquired I was told it's $210. Anyone have any info on this??

Subsequently out of interest I checked other teams prices, most were similar to ours, however, Gold Coasts was $168. I can appreciate the demand wouldn't be as high but a $40 difference is quite significant for the exact same thing...
Not really answering your question here, but what exactly do you get from that subscription? i.e. what makes it worthwhile if you can't attend games? I live in WA so have never been a member since I can't attend games unless it's at Subi / Optus Stadium
 

lateniter

Team Captain
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Posts
490
Likes
747
Location
NSW Hunter Valley
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Norwood, East Perth, Spurs, 49ers
Not really answering your question here, but what exactly do you get from that subscription? i.e. what makes it worthwhile if you can't attend games? I live in WA so have never been a member since I can't attend games unless it's at Subi / Optus Stadium
I can't attend games either because I live in the NSW Hunter Valley after years in Sydney.
But I have an "interstate" membership for about $120.
I get a cap, a lanyard and a nice shiny membership card.
But I do feel more a part of the team, and it enabled me to sit among Dogs supporters with my daughter at the 2016 preliminary final.
It was worth it just for that.
It gets you in to a couple of home and away games, too, so it would probably get you into the Perth games.
 

Yojimbo

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Posts
7,069
Likes
5,708
Location
Trampled by the majority.
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Who Kicked The Goals When We Won (2018) ?

Marcus Bontempelli: 13 x Goals, 4 x Games.
Billy Gowers: 11 x Goals, 7 x Games.
Patrick Lipinski: 9 x Goals, 5 x Games.
Josh Schache: 8 x Goals, 4 x Games.
Toby McLean: 8 x Goals, 6 x Games.
Josh Dunkley: 6 x Goals, 4 x Games.
Win Jong: 5 x Goals, 4 x Games.
Mitch Wallis: 5 x Goals, 5 x Games.
Tory Dickson: 4 x Goals, 2 x Games.
Tom Boyd: 4 x Goals, 3 x Games.
Bailey Williams: 4 x Goals, 3 x Games.
Bailey Dale: 4 x Goals, 3 x Games.
Jason Johannisen: 4 x Goals, 4 x Games.
Ed Richards: 3 x Goals, 1 x Game.
Lachie Hunter: 3 x Goals, 3 x Games.
Jackson Macrae: 3 x Goals, 3 x Games.
Fergus Greene: 3 x Goals, 3 x Games.
Caleb Daniel: 2 x Goals, 2 x Games.

Luke Dahlhaus: 1 x Goal, 1 x Game.
Mitch Honeychurch: 1 x Goal, 1 x Game.
Tim Engilsh: 1 x Goal, 1 x Game.
Matthew Suckling: 1 x Goal, 1 x Game.
Zaine Cordy: 1 x Goal, 1 x Game.
Hayden Crozier: 1 x Goal, 1 x Game.
Jackson Trengove: 1 x Goal, 1 x Game.

106 Goals from 8 x Wins, lots of versatility.
 

hazza21

Senior List
Joined
Feb 7, 2008
Posts
253
Likes
260
Location
Australia
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Not really answering your question here, but what exactly do you get from that subscription? i.e. what makes it worthwhile if you can't attend games? I live in WA so have never been a member since I can't attend games unless it's at Subi / Optus Stadium
I live overseas. It's basically a digital subscription to foxfooty but rather than buying it through themc you do it through the club, where I guess they get a % of the money. I believe I get the lanyard scarf etc too. Sorry that wasn't clear with my initial post.
 

Dogs 13

Premiership Player
Joined
Nov 13, 2003
Posts
3,473
Likes
2,047
Location
Werribee
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Western Bulldogs
Call me cynical, but our replacement game against Essendon might be a tad difficult to get in. They'll have what, 70k plus members ? Should be interesting trying to get into Marvel that night.

I guess it's a change from copping North most years as the replacement.
 

Arkangel

Team Captain
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Posts
318
Likes
609
Location
Internet City
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
I'm sure this belongs on a Merbership thread but surprisingly couldn't find it on the first 5 pages or so.

Has anyone else got the Global Membership? Ie living overseas and get the AFL subscription while still supporting the club?

Last year I paid $210, whilst this year I have been similarly charged. However, the price on the bulldogs website says $190. When I inquired I was told it's $210. Anyone have any info on this??

Subsequently out of interest I checked other teams prices, most were similar to ours, however, Gold Coasts was $168. I can appreciate the demand wouldn't be as high but a $40 difference is quite significant for the exact same thing...
I've just checked, and mine was $210 too. I see what you mean about the website though: Under the "Join" section, the global membership is listed at $195. My only theory is that that's an "introductory" offer, aimed at encouraging new members to sign up.
 

Floridog

Team Captain
Joined
Mar 8, 2014
Posts
570
Likes
1,347
Location
Southwest Florida
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Florida Everblades
In light of this weeks events in the media, it would be a fantastic time for johansson to reply to this. View attachment 614759
If I was JJ I would just wait and make my reply on the field. But since I'm not JJ I will reply now: I see that they need to double team to try to handle one JJ. It still won't be enough.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

hazza21

Senior List
Joined
Feb 7, 2008
Posts
253
Likes
260
Location
Australia
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
I've just checked, and mine was $210 too. I see what you mean about the website though: Under the "Join" section, the global membership is listed at $195. My only theory is that that's an "introductory" offer, aimed at encouraging new members to sign up.
Thanks for the response. I will pay it but if that was the case I'm quite disappointed that there's more incentive for new members rather than pre existing ones. I will email the club.
 
Joined
Feb 19, 2019
Posts
12
Likes
26
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Hi guys, long time reader, first time poster. I was reading the article below which looks at analysing 2018 percentage, close games, blow outs, & 2019 fixture and list experience to predict how teams will fair in 2018. These numbers don't bode well for our boys. However, it struck me that this analysis didn't take into account the 2018 injury list. It got me thinking what criteria would you use to determine which teams performance was most affected by injuries?

- Total games lost
- A differential between total list experience and average experience on the park
- Total games lost to best 22 (could be a bit subjective)

Does anyone know if this type of analysis has been written for the 2018 season somewhere? Or a good place to find the data?

Go Dogs!

Numbers Game: Which teams will rise and fall in the AFL in 2019?

FEBRUARY 14, 2019

Numbers! Football! It’s time for our annual dispassionate look at some of the numbers behind the numbers in the AFL and see whether we can jag a bit of signal amidst the noise.
The fourth annual Numbers Game will shed a little bit of light on which teams either over or underperformed their actual win totals in 2018 and therefore suggests who we could reasonably expect to see be a little worse or better than in 2018. We do it with four key metrics:
  • Pythagorean wins: The original and the best, Pythagorean wins adjust a team’s win total for their underlying performance as measured by points for and against and for the strength or weakness of their fixture for the year.
  • Close games: Teams simply don’t win too many more than half of their close games – games with a margin of 12 points or less – over the long run. If a team went on a hot streak last year, we can reasonably expect a cold streak will follow this year.
  • Blowouts: By contrast, teams which blow away their opposition regularly are often better than their record can show us, because it doesn’t matter if you win by ten points or 100 points, it’s only worth one W. The same goes in reverse, by the way.
  • Fixture change: Finally, the wonky AFL fixture can influence how many wins a team can gather. Played Gold Coast twice last year but have Richmond twice this year? That matters.
For good measure we’ll add another official category to this year’s game: total list experience. As we’ll discuss, it’s not clear this is a causal statistic, but it certainly tends to correlate to successful teams, so let’s throw it in the pot.
Finally, an additional part statistic: a look at how each team’s fixture difficulty ramps up or down over the year. Temporal fixture difficulty – or TFD; it’s a thing – is more about understanding which teams might have a rough start or charmed run on account of their fixture.
That gives us a nice number of indicators to talk through. Before we do, a word of warning as to the seriousness with which you should view these numbers. They have been about as reliable as the preseason betting markets when it comes to deciding a premier.
Numbers Game profiled the Dogs as a steady-as-she-goes team (which I guess they ultimately were given they finished the home-and-away season in seventh, down from sixth in 2015), thought Richmond would get worse (fortunately I didn’t listen only to the numbers) and figured West Coast would stick around where they were in 2017 (they did not).
However, last year’s Numbers Game did pick Collingwood’s rise, North Melbourne’s improvement and Gold Coast’s further slide and suggested Fremantle wouldn’t get any better. They also said Richmond, Brisbane, Carlton, Geelong and St Kilda would finish around the same mark as they did the year prior. So the metrics are certainly not perfect, but they seem to do the job for a lot of teams and situations.
With that all in mind, let’s go.

Pythagorean wins
Pythagorean wins has fallen deeply in love with the prospects of two teams: the Brisbane Lions (-3.2 wins) and Geelong Cats (-3.8 wins). Both have a Pythagorean plus-minus in excess of minus three, which means if we played the 2018 season over again, each could be reasonably expected to have won at least three more games than they actually did.
That would’ve put the Cats into the top two and have seen the Lions reach eight wins for the first time since 2013. It suggests each of their underlying performances were significantly better than their record showed. And so on this metric they should be better in 2019.
Pythagorean wins has become a bit of a fashionable statistic in some elements of the media, with pieces on Fox Sports and in the West Australianearlier this week. In those, the authors indicated the 2.5 win threshold had been directionally accurate (being a team that was 2.5 wins over its Pythagorean total went backwards, and vice versa) in 12 of 14 instances over the past four seasons. Not bad at all.
Unless you’re Fremantle. The Dockers outperformed their Pythagorean total by a hefty 2.8 wins last year, though that may be due to the team’s penchant for large losses which didn’t quite meet the ‘blowout’ threshold. Fremantle lost nine games by 50 points or more but just three of those games met my blowout number (60 points, which was the average margin plus one standard deviation). The Dockers were an above averagely bad team, but not a horrible one.
The Western Bulldogs meet the 2.5 win outperformance threshold too, although only just and only on account of an adjustment for their fixture. In raw Pythagorean terms – which is what Max from Fox Sports used – the Dogs sneak under.
Other noteworthy Pythag teams include Gold Coast (outperformed by 1.6 wins – yikes) and Melbourne (underperformed by two wins – yikes). In both cases it was a first half/second half thing.

Close games
One factor that explains why a team may not live up to its Pythagorean win total is its performance in close games. You’ve heard it before, but for newcomers, first off, welcome, and second, every team’s performance in close games regresses to the mean in the long run. So if a team wins a clutch of close games in any given year, it’s reasonable to expect they’ll drop a few in subsequent years.
This is far and away the biggest factor behind Brisbane’s underperformance against its Pythagorean total. The Lions played seven games that were decided by 12 points or less in 2018 and won just one of them. Over the long run you’d expect them to win 3.5 of seven, meaning they were about 2.5 games underweight. Should the Lions play in seven close games this year and win six of seven – which would take them to an even 7-7 over two years, the mean expectation – they will play finals.
A few other teams were under or overweight on close games by more than half a game. Adelaide pinched an extra one (5-3), Gold Coast lost an extra one (1-3), Hawthorn nabbed two (6-2), Melbourne missed 2.5 (going 0-5, ouch) while Richmond and West Coast’s win totals got a 1.5 game boost (both 4-1).
Regular readers will notice a team is missing from the discussion: the Geelong Cats. For as long as the Numbers Game has been going, the Cats have been the one team to blow up the theory of close game mean regression. Between 2014 and 2018 the Cats were an obscene 17-2-2 in games decided by less than 12 points, including a streak of 12 home-and-away season games (from Round 3 2014 to Round 13 2016) where they didn’t lose a close one.
Well, mean regression may finally be kicking in. Geelong was 3-4 in close games in 2018, or 0.5 games under their expected close game total. It marked the first time since 2013 Geelong had been under its close win tally – that’s five straight seasons against the maths. That’s not supposed to happen. Out of interest, the Cats were 43-2-32 in close games from 2000 to the beginning of that streak in 2014 for a win percentage of 55 per cent. That’s historically normal (every team is between 45 per cent and 55 per cent in the long run); what they did between 2014 and 2018 was not.

Blowouts
Once more for the uninitiated: the presence of multiple blowout margins (the average margin plus one standard deviation, which in 2018 was worth 60 points) in a single season has historically been a sign that a team’s ladder position may not have reflected its underlying strength or weakness.
In 2018 a number of teams had a handful of blowout victories: Richmond (four), Melbourne (four), Geelong (four), Greater Western Sydney (three) and Hawthorn (three). Of those teams the Cats, Hawks and Tigers kept a clean sheet the other way. Chalk up another positive underlying indicator for the hoops.
Going the other way were Carlton (seven!), Gold Coast (seven!) and Fremantle (three). However, it’s not all bad news. History shows teams have been able to turn around their tendency to concede blowouts relatively quickly, and it has tended to correlate with improved performance (as you may expect). For instance, Brisbane had conceded six, seven and five blowout losses in 2015 through 2017 respectively; they conceded just one in 2018, and while the ladder wins didn’t flow the team’s Pythagorean wins, they went through the roof (4.4 in 2017 to 8.2 in 2018).

Fixture difficulty change
Our uneven fixture will always produce winners and losers but it won’t be clear until at least halfway through the season who is truly benefitting. For now we can use last year’s underlying performances as a guide to who may have things a little easier or tougher than they had it a year prior.
Here the preliminary winner is clear: St Kilda’s fixture has gone from far and away the most difficult (with an average opponent Pythagorean win total of 12.1) to least difficult (10.4). It will come as a relief to Saints fans, who’ve seen their team play challenging fixture after challenging fixture for the past four seasons. It’s also an early win for the team’s new off-field analytics crew who I know had raised this with HQ as the fixture was being arranged last year.
Other beneficiaries are Gold Coast (11.4 wins to 10.8 wins) and the Western Bulldogs (11.3 wins to 10.9 wins). Most other teams have seen their fixture difficulty change by 0.2 wins or so.
However, a number of teams have seen their fixture difficulty ramp up meaningfully, principal among them Collingwood. The Pies finished 13th in 2017, meaning they benefitted from the league’s weighted rule. As a result the defeated grand finalists played a fixture with an average opponent win total of 10.4 wins, the second-least difficult in the competition. In 2019 the Pies’ average opponent has a 2018 win total of 11.3 wins, the second-highest in the competition.
North Melbourne has also been smacked by the weighted rule stick, albeit less justifiably given the club finished ninth. The Roos had the least difficult fixture in 2018 (average opponent wins of 10.1), and they’ve got the most difficult in 2019 (average opponent wins of 11.4).
While an important early indicator, it can certainly be a bit misleading. This time last year we said West Coast would have the third-most difficult fixture; it turned out to be the third-least difficult. Similarly, Gold Coast projected to have the second-least difficult fixture; it turned into the third-most difficult. Melbourne (eighth-most difficult, became second least difficult) and Sydney (fifth-least difficult, became second-most difficult) also showed this isn’t an exact science. We’ll check in halfway through the year.
2018 (actual) 2019 (projected) Change
North Melbourne
10.1 11.4 12.9%
Western Bulldogs 11.3 10.9 -4.0%

Team change
As above, it’s not clear this is a causal statistics. As the lads and I found in the excellent Australian Rules football book Footballistics there is a clear correlation between team experienced – and shared experience – and success, but there is certainly no causal link. Does experience beget success or success beget experience? Who knows.
But the correlation is still interesting. Given that, who has the most experience in the league?
Perhaps unsurprisingly, Hawthorn continues to top the league table for AFL games on its list with 3696 games. However, Collingwood is rapidly approaching it, with 3628 games. The Pies have built considerable experience over the past four years, going from 2719 games at the start of the 2016 season to its current tally.
Down the other end is Gold Coast (2307 games), which is the fewest games any team has had on its list since the Brisbane Lions of 2017. Those Lions have now built all the way up to 2603 games, placing them 13th overall.
There’s also a clutch of teams with around 3000 games of experience on their list: Sydney, Port Adelaide, Adelaide, Richmond, West Coast and the GWS. Again, this may mean everything or nothing, it’s not clear, but history suggests teams with around this level of experience on their list are those which tend to make finals and win premierships.
You know what else is interesting? We have eight teams with at least 3000 games of experience on their lists heading into the season. That’s double the number of the 2016, 2017 and 2018 seasons. A whole heap of teams are going for broke, but unfortunately (unless the AFL also changed this rule in the off-season) there can only be one winner. There’ll be some disappointed boards out there.
Fixture ramp-up
One thing that is always difficult to parse is how much we should read into any team’s first four to six games. Early season predictions have been kind to this column in recent years, having noted the Dogs, Tigers and Eagles’ starts were all a sign of their potential to contend for a premiership. But often a team’s hot start can be put down to who it has played.
Here’s what every team’s first six weeks looks like in terms of average opponent Pythagorean win total, remembering that most teams have a season-long average of pretty much 10.9 to 11.1 wins.
Whoo boy. Geelong’s average opponent in the first six weeks has a win total of 14.2 wins, far and away the highest in the competition. Its opening slate includes Collingwood, Melbourne, Adelaide, GWS, Hawthorn and West Coast. That, folks, is the stuff of nightmares, particularly if the Crows rebound in the manner most seem to expect they will (and which they’re certainly capable of doing).
The Giants (13.3) and Melbourne (13 even) also figure to have tough starts to the season befitting their status as premiership contenders.
Way down the other end of the spectrum is the Gold Coast Suns, who the AFL has undoubtedly looked after in fixturing an average opponent win total of 6.4. We can look at this in one of two ways: the Suns get off to a decent start and win between two and four of their first six and then sort of fade into the background as the usual types start crisis-mongering. Equally, the Suns could stink and lose the lot, and suddenly we’re faced with a real crisis.
The Western Bulldogs (8.7 wins), Hawthorn (8.9 wins) and Fremantle (8.9 wins) also have fixtures amenable to a fast start. If they can make the most of it, it’ll set them up for a push to the eight – which at this early stage I think is well within the realms of possibility for each of them – thereafter.
The so what
This is something I am increasingly conscious of when it comes to these sorts of columns. That’s a lot of numbers – so what? Here’s the summary. Brisbane has a net three positive indicators (three positive, no negative), which suggests their 2019 will be better than 2018. Geelong is sitting at a +4 on the five-indicator ledger, the Cats having four pluses and no minuses. Heaps of teams have a net +2. At the other end of the table West Coast is one of five teams with a net -2. When you win the premiership I guess there’s not really another direction to go, right?
Here is the 2019 AFL Numbers Game.

The takeaway is confirmation the Lions find themselves in a strong starting position to make a leap in 2019. Equally, the pessimism towards Geelong may be a little overplayed, even if I can see the qualitative reasons we might expect a little slide from the Cats.
And with the Numbers Game in the books, we can start to get a little more funky with our preseason look ahead as we move within six weeks of opening night.
 

dogwatch

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Posts
15,674
Likes
21,141
Location
Canberra
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Arsenal
Hi guys, long time reader, first time poster. I was reading the article below which looks at analysing 2018 percentage, close games, blow outs, & 2019 fixture and list experience to predict how teams will fair in 2018. These numbers don't bode well for our boys. However, it struck me that this analysis didn't take into account the 2018 injury list. It got me thinking what criteria would you use to determine which teams performance was most affected by injuries?

- Total games lost
- A differential between total list experience and average experience on the park
- Total games lost to best 22 (could be a bit subjective)

Does anyone know if this type of analysis has been written for the 2018 season somewhere? Or a good place to find the data?

Go Dogs!

Numbers Game: Which teams will rise and fall in the AFL in 2019?
FEBRUARY 14, 2019
Welcome aboard BD.

I don't have a link for you (someone else might ... Yojimbo ?) but I'm pretty sure there has been analysis each year based on senior games missed.
As you imply that's of limited use because it doesn't factor in the injuries to elite players. For instance I'd sooner lose Wallis for 6 games than the Bont because Wallis's skills are more replaceable. However Wallis has played 19 more games in his career than Bontempelli so you can't just go on games played as a measure of value to the side.

I imagine Champion Data have some sort of metric for this.
 

Yojimbo

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Posts
7,069
Likes
5,708
Location
Trampled by the majority.
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
I don't have a link for you (someone else might ... @Yojimbo ?) but I'm pretty sure there has been analysis each year based on senior games missed.
Can't post the really good stuff dogwatch, too sensitive for not just the Bulldogs mind you. Sometimes you can have too much
information it's good to keep a bit of faith in what could come.
 

Hard Ball Get

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Dec 21, 2005
Posts
22,384
Likes
12,271
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Thread starter #8,642
Doing a clean out around the house, anyone know a dogs fan named Steve that would want this? Or just a dogs fan that doesn't care about personalised signatures.
If you can pick it up - north east of melb then it's all yours.
 

Attachments

Mattdougie

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jun 29, 2013
Posts
13,083
Likes
10,778
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
I love my footy. No problems with AFLX itself. Didn’t watch it though.

One thing I will say that if the idea of filming the players turning up to games in the latest trendy gear becomes an everyday occurrence I will have to strongly consider my choice of sports.

Yeah it was cringe worthy and you could directly correlate the level of knob to the get up worn.

Rance and Higgins leading the pack
 

Mattdougie

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jun 29, 2013
Posts
13,083
Likes
10,778
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Hi guys, long time reader, first time poster. I was reading the article below which looks at analysing 2018 percentage, close games, blow outs, & 2019 fixture and list experience to predict how teams will fair in 2018. These numbers don't bode well for our boys. However, it struck me that this analysis didn't take into account the 2018 injury list. It got me thinking what criteria would you use to determine which teams performance was most affected by injuries?

- Total games lost
- A differential between total list experience and average experience on the park
- Total games lost to best 22 (could be a bit subjective)

Does anyone know if this type of analysis has been written for the 2018 season somewhere? Or a good place to find the data?

Go Dogs!

Numbers Game: Which teams will rise and fall in the AFL in 2019?

FEBRUARY 14, 2019

Numbers! Football! It’s time for our annual dispassionate look at some of the numbers behind the numbers in the AFL and see whether we can jag a bit of signal amidst the noise.
The fourth annual Numbers Game will shed a little bit of light on which teams either over or underperformed their actual win totals in 2018 and therefore suggests who we could reasonably expect to see be a little worse or better than in 2018. We do it with four key metrics:
  • Pythagorean wins: The original and the best, Pythagorean wins adjust a team’s win total for their underlying performance as measured by points for and against and for the strength or weakness of their fixture for the year.
  • Close games: Teams simply don’t win too many more than half of their close games – games with a margin of 12 points or less – over the long run. If a team went on a hot streak last year, we can reasonably expect a cold streak will follow this year.
  • Blowouts: By contrast, teams which blow away their opposition regularly are often better than their record can show us, because it doesn’t matter if you win by ten points or 100 points, it’s only worth one W. The same goes in reverse, by the way.
  • Fixture change: Finally, the wonky AFL fixture can influence how many wins a team can gather. Played Gold Coast twice last year but have Richmond twice this year? That matters.
For good measure we’ll add another official category to this year’s game: total list experience. As we’ll discuss, it’s not clear this is a causal statistic, but it certainly tends to correlate to successful teams, so let’s throw it in the pot.
Finally, an additional part statistic: a look at how each team’s fixture difficulty ramps up or down over the year. Temporal fixture difficulty – or TFD; it’s a thing – is more about understanding which teams might have a rough start or charmed run on account of their fixture.
That gives us a nice number of indicators to talk through. Before we do, a word of warning as to the seriousness with which you should view these numbers. They have been about as reliable as the preseason betting markets when it comes to deciding a premier.
Numbers Game profiled the Dogs as a steady-as-she-goes team (which I guess they ultimately were given they finished the home-and-away season in seventh, down from sixth in 2015), thought Richmond would get worse (fortunately I didn’t listen only to the numbers) and figured West Coast would stick around where they were in 2017 (they did not).
However, last year’s Numbers Game did pick Collingwood’s rise, North Melbourne’s improvement and Gold Coast’s further slide and suggested Fremantle wouldn’t get any better. They also said Richmond, Brisbane, Carlton, Geelong and St Kilda would finish around the same mark as they did the year prior. So the metrics are certainly not perfect, but they seem to do the job for a lot of teams and situations.
With that all in mind, let’s go.

Pythagorean wins
Pythagorean wins has fallen deeply in love with the prospects of two teams: the Brisbane Lions (-3.2 wins) and Geelong Cats (-3.8 wins). Both have a Pythagorean plus-minus in excess of minus three, which means if we played the 2018 season over again, each could be reasonably expected to have won at least three more games than they actually did.
That would’ve put the Cats into the top two and have seen the Lions reach eight wins for the first time since 2013. It suggests each of their underlying performances were significantly better than their record showed. And so on this metric they should be better in 2019.
Pythagorean wins has become a bit of a fashionable statistic in some elements of the media, with pieces on Fox Sports and in the West Australianearlier this week. In those, the authors indicated the 2.5 win threshold had been directionally accurate (being a team that was 2.5 wins over its Pythagorean total went backwards, and vice versa) in 12 of 14 instances over the past four seasons. Not bad at all.
Unless you’re Fremantle. The Dockers outperformed their Pythagorean total by a hefty 2.8 wins last year, though that may be due to the team’s penchant for large losses which didn’t quite meet the ‘blowout’ threshold. Fremantle lost nine games by 50 points or more but just three of those games met my blowout number (60 points, which was the average margin plus one standard deviation). The Dockers were an above averagely bad team, but not a horrible one.
The Western Bulldogs meet the 2.5 win outperformance threshold too, although only just and only on account of an adjustment for their fixture. In raw Pythagorean terms – which is what Max from Fox Sports used – the Dogs sneak under.
Other noteworthy Pythag teams include Gold Coast (outperformed by 1.6 wins – yikes) and Melbourne (underperformed by two wins – yikes). In both cases it was a first half/second half thing.

Close games
One factor that explains why a team may not live up to its Pythagorean win total is its performance in close games. You’ve heard it before, but for newcomers, first off, welcome, and second, every team’s performance in close games regresses to the mean in the long run. So if a team wins a clutch of close games in any given year, it’s reasonable to expect they’ll drop a few in subsequent years.
This is far and away the biggest factor behind Brisbane’s underperformance against its Pythagorean total. The Lions played seven games that were decided by 12 points or less in 2018 and won just one of them. Over the long run you’d expect them to win 3.5 of seven, meaning they were about 2.5 games underweight. Should the Lions play in seven close games this year and win six of seven – which would take them to an even 7-7 over two years, the mean expectation – they will play finals.
A few other teams were under or overweight on close games by more than half a game. Adelaide pinched an extra one (5-3), Gold Coast lost an extra one (1-3), Hawthorn nabbed two (6-2), Melbourne missed 2.5 (going 0-5, ouch) while Richmond and West Coast’s win totals got a 1.5 game boost (both 4-1).
Regular readers will notice a team is missing from the discussion: the Geelong Cats. For as long as the Numbers Game has been going, the Cats have been the one team to blow up the theory of close game mean regression. Between 2014 and 2018 the Cats were an obscene 17-2-2 in games decided by less than 12 points, including a streak of 12 home-and-away season games (from Round 3 2014 to Round 13 2016) where they didn’t lose a close one.
Well, mean regression may finally be kicking in. Geelong was 3-4 in close games in 2018, or 0.5 games under their expected close game total. It marked the first time since 2013 Geelong had been under its close win tally – that’s five straight seasons against the maths. That’s not supposed to happen. Out of interest, the Cats were 43-2-32 in close games from 2000 to the beginning of that streak in 2014 for a win percentage of 55 per cent. That’s historically normal (every team is between 45 per cent and 55 per cent in the long run); what they did between 2014 and 2018 was not.

Blowouts
Once more for the uninitiated: the presence of multiple blowout margins (the average margin plus one standard deviation, which in 2018 was worth 60 points) in a single season has historically been a sign that a team’s ladder position may not have reflected its underlying strength or weakness.
In 2018 a number of teams had a handful of blowout victories: Richmond (four), Melbourne (four), Geelong (four), Greater Western Sydney (three) and Hawthorn (three). Of those teams the Cats, Hawks and Tigers kept a clean sheet the other way. Chalk up another positive underlying indicator for the hoops.
Going the other way were Carlton (seven!), Gold Coast (seven!) and Fremantle (three). However, it’s not all bad news. History shows teams have been able to turn around their tendency to concede blowouts relatively quickly, and it has tended to correlate with improved performance (as you may expect). For instance, Brisbane had conceded six, seven and five blowout losses in 2015 through 2017 respectively; they conceded just one in 2018, and while the ladder wins didn’t flow the team’s Pythagorean wins, they went through the roof (4.4 in 2017 to 8.2 in 2018).

Fixture difficulty change
Our uneven fixture will always produce winners and losers but it won’t be clear until at least halfway through the season who is truly benefitting. For now we can use last year’s underlying performances as a guide to who may have things a little easier or tougher than they had it a year prior.
Here the preliminary winner is clear: St Kilda’s fixture has gone from far and away the most difficult (with an average opponent Pythagorean win total of 12.1) to least difficult (10.4). It will come as a relief to Saints fans, who’ve seen their team play challenging fixture after challenging fixture for the past four seasons. It’s also an early win for the team’s new off-field analytics crew who I know had raised this with HQ as the fixture was being arranged last year.
Other beneficiaries are Gold Coast (11.4 wins to 10.8 wins) and the Western Bulldogs (11.3 wins to 10.9 wins). Most other teams have seen their fixture difficulty change by 0.2 wins or so.
However, a number of teams have seen their fixture difficulty ramp up meaningfully, principal among them Collingwood. The Pies finished 13th in 2017, meaning they benefitted from the league’s weighted rule. As a result the defeated grand finalists played a fixture with an average opponent win total of 10.4 wins, the second-least difficult in the competition. In 2019 the Pies’ average opponent has a 2018 win total of 11.3 wins, the second-highest in the competition.
North Melbourne has also been smacked by the weighted rule stick, albeit less justifiably given the club finished ninth. The Roos had the least difficult fixture in 2018 (average opponent wins of 10.1), and they’ve got the most difficult in 2019 (average opponent wins of 11.4).
While an important early indicator, it can certainly be a bit misleading. This time last year we said West Coast would have the third-most difficult fixture; it turned out to be the third-least difficult. Similarly, Gold Coast projected to have the second-least difficult fixture; it turned into the third-most difficult. Melbourne (eighth-most difficult, became second least difficult) and Sydney (fifth-least difficult, became second-most difficult) also showed this isn’t an exact science. We’ll check in halfway through the year.
2018 (actual) 2019 (projected) Change
North Melbourne
10.1 11.4 12.9%
Western Bulldogs 11.3 10.9 -4.0%

Team change
As above, it’s not clear this is a causal statistics. As the lads and I found in the excellent Australian Rules football book Footballistics there is a clear correlation between team experienced – and shared experience – and success, but there is certainly no causal link. Does experience beget success or success beget experience? Who knows.
But the correlation is still interesting. Given that, who has the most experience in the league?
Perhaps unsurprisingly, Hawthorn continues to top the league table for AFL games on its list with 3696 games. However, Collingwood is rapidly approaching it, with 3628 games. The Pies have built considerable experience over the past four years, going from 2719 games at the start of the 2016 season to its current tally.
Down the other end is Gold Coast (2307 games), which is the fewest games any team has had on its list since the Brisbane Lions of 2017. Those Lions have now built all the way up to 2603 games, placing them 13th overall.
There’s also a clutch of teams with around 3000 games of experience on their list: Sydney, Port Adelaide, Adelaide, Richmond, West Coast and the GWS. Again, this may mean everything or nothing, it’s not clear, but history suggests teams with around this level of experience on their list are those which tend to make finals and win premierships.
You know what else is interesting? We have eight teams with at least 3000 games of experience on their lists heading into the season. That’s double the number of the 2016, 2017 and 2018 seasons. A whole heap of teams are going for broke, but unfortunately (unless the AFL also changed this rule in the off-season) there can only be one winner. There’ll be some disappointed boards out there.
Fixture ramp-up
One thing that is always difficult to parse is how much we should read into any team’s first four to six games. Early season predictions have been kind to this column in recent years, having noted the Dogs, Tigers and Eagles’ starts were all a sign of their potential to contend for a premiership. But often a team’s hot start can be put down to who it has played.
Here’s what every team’s first six weeks looks like in terms of average opponent Pythagorean win total, remembering that most teams have a season-long average of pretty much 10.9 to 11.1 wins.
Whoo boy. Geelong’s average opponent in the first six weeks has a win total of 14.2 wins, far and away the highest in the competition. Its opening slate includes Collingwood, Melbourne, Adelaide, GWS, Hawthorn and West Coast. That, folks, is the stuff of nightmares, particularly if the Crows rebound in the manner most seem to expect they will (and which they’re certainly capable of doing).
The Giants (13.3) and Melbourne (13 even) also figure to have tough starts to the season befitting their status as premiership contenders.
Way down the other end of the spectrum is the Gold Coast Suns, who the AFL has undoubtedly looked after in fixturing an average opponent win total of 6.4. We can look at this in one of two ways: the Suns get off to a decent start and win between two and four of their first six and then sort of fade into the background as the usual types start crisis-mongering. Equally, the Suns could stink and lose the lot, and suddenly we’re faced with a real crisis.
The Western Bulldogs (8.7 wins), Hawthorn (8.9 wins) and Fremantle (8.9 wins) also have fixtures amenable to a fast start. If they can make the most of it, it’ll set them up for a push to the eight – which at this early stage I think is well within the realms of possibility for each of them – thereafter.
The so what
This is something I am increasingly conscious of when it comes to these sorts of columns. That’s a lot of numbers – so what? Here’s the summary. Brisbane has a net three positive indicators (three positive, no negative), which suggests their 2019 will be better than 2018. Geelong is sitting at a +4 on the five-indicator ledger, the Cats having four pluses and no minuses. Heaps of teams have a net +2. At the other end of the table West Coast is one of five teams with a net -2. When you win the premiership I guess there’s not really another direction to go, right?
Here is the 2019 AFL Numbers Game.

The takeaway is confirmation the Lions find themselves in a strong starting position to make a leap in 2019. Equally, the pessimism towards Geelong may be a little overplayed, even if I can see the qualitative reasons we might expect a little slide from the Cats.
And with the Numbers Game in the books, we can start to get a little more funky with our preseason look ahead as we move within six weeks of opening night.

That is an impressive first post I must say.
I couldn’t read past the 5th line but bravo sir bravo.
 

Fossie 32

Premium Platinum
Joined
Oct 6, 2002
Posts
19,496
Likes
9,607
Location
1300GODOGS
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Melbourne..VICTORY, Leeds
Hi guys, long time reader, first time poster. I was reading the article below which looks at analysing 2018 percentage, close games, blow outs, & 2019 fixture and list experience to predict how teams will fair in 2018. These numbers don't bode well for our boys. However, it struck me that this analysis didn't take into account the 2018 injury list. It got me thinking what criteria would you use to determine which teams performance was most affected by injuries?

- Total games lost
- A differential between total list experience and average experience on the park
- Total games lost to best 22 (could be a bit subjective)

Does anyone know if this type of analysis has been written for the 2018 season somewhere? Or a good place to find the data?

Go Dogs!

Numbers Game: Which teams will rise and fall in the AFL in 2019?
FEBRUARY 14, 2019

Numbers! Football! It’s time for our annual dispassionate look at some of the numbers behind the numbers in the AFL and see whether we can jag a bit of signal amidst the noise.
The fourth annual Numbers Game will shed a little bit of light on which teams either over or underperformed their actual win totals in 2018 and therefore suggests who we could reasonably expect to see be a little worse or better than in 2018. We do it with four key metrics:
  • Pythagorean wins: The original and the best, Pythagorean wins adjust a team’s win total for their underlying performance as measured by points for and against and for the strength or weakness of their fixture for the year.
  • Close games: Teams simply don’t win too many more than half of their close games – games with a margin of 12 points or less – over the long run. If a team went on a hot streak last year, we can reasonably expect a cold streak will follow this year.
  • Blowouts: By contrast, teams which blow away their opposition regularly are often better than their record can show us, because it doesn’t matter if you win by ten points or 100 points, it’s only worth one W. The same goes in reverse, by the way.
  • Fixture change: Finally, the wonky AFL fixture can influence how many wins a team can gather. Played Gold Coast twice last year but have Richmond twice this year? That matters.
For good measure we’ll add another official category to this year’s game: total list experience. As we’ll discuss, it’s not clear this is a causal statistic, but it certainly tends to correlate to successful teams, so let’s throw it in the pot.
Finally, an additional part statistic: a look at how each team’s fixture difficulty ramps up or down over the year. Temporal fixture difficulty – or TFD; it’s a thing – is more about understanding which teams might have a rough start or charmed run on account of their fixture.
That gives us a nice number of indicators to talk through. Before we do, a word of warning as to the seriousness with which you should view these numbers. They have been about as reliable as the preseason betting markets when it comes to deciding a premier.
Numbers Game profiled the Dogs as a steady-as-she-goes team (which I guess they ultimately were given they finished the home-and-away season in seventh, down from sixth in 2015), thought Richmond would get worse (fortunately I didn’t listen only to the numbers) and figured West Coast would stick around where they were in 2017 (they did not).
However, last year’s Numbers Game did pick Collingwood’s rise, North Melbourne’s improvement and Gold Coast’s further slide and suggested Fremantle wouldn’t get any better. They also said Richmond, Brisbane, Carlton, Geelong and St Kilda would finish around the same mark as they did the year prior. So the metrics are certainly not perfect, but they seem to do the job for a lot of teams and situations.
With that all in mind, let’s go.

Pythagorean wins
Pythagorean wins has fallen deeply in love with the prospects of two teams: the Brisbane Lions (-3.2 wins) and Geelong Cats (-3.8 wins). Both have a Pythagorean plus-minus in excess of minus three, which means if we played the 2018 season over again, each could be reasonably expected to have won at least three more games than they actually did.
That would’ve put the Cats into the top two and have seen the Lions reach eight wins for the first time since 2013. It suggests each of their underlying performances were significantly better than their record showed. And so on this metric they should be better in 2019.
Pythagorean wins has become a bit of a fashionable statistic in some elements of the media, with pieces on Fox Sports and in the West Australianearlier this week. In those, the authors indicated the 2.5 win threshold had been directionally accurate (being a team that was 2.5 wins over its Pythagorean total went backwards, and vice versa) in 12 of 14 instances over the past four seasons. Not bad at all.
Unless you’re Fremantle. The Dockers outperformed their Pythagorean total by a hefty 2.8 wins last year, though that may be due to the team’s penchant for large losses which didn’t quite meet the ‘blowout’ threshold. Fremantle lost nine games by 50 points or more but just three of those games met my blowout number (60 points, which was the average margin plus one standard deviation). The Dockers were an above averagely bad team, but not a horrible one.
The Western Bulldogs meet the 2.5 win outperformance threshold too, although only just and only on account of an adjustment for their fixture. In raw Pythagorean terms – which is what Max from Fox Sports used – the Dogs sneak under.
Other noteworthy Pythag teams include Gold Coast (outperformed by 1.6 wins – yikes) and Melbourne (underperformed by two wins – yikes). In both cases it was a first half/second half thing.

Close games
One factor that explains why a team may not live up to its Pythagorean win total is its performance in close games. You’ve heard it before, but for newcomers, first off, welcome, and second, every team’s performance in close games regresses to the mean in the long run. So if a team wins a clutch of close games in any given year, it’s reasonable to expect they’ll drop a few in subsequent years.
This is far and away the biggest factor behind Brisbane’s underperformance against its Pythagorean total. The Lions played seven games that were decided by 12 points or less in 2018 and won just one of them. Over the long run you’d expect them to win 3.5 of seven, meaning they were about 2.5 games underweight. Should the Lions play in seven close games this year and win six of seven – which would take them to an even 7-7 over two years, the mean expectation – they will play finals.
A few other teams were under or overweight on close games by more than half a game. Adelaide pinched an extra one (5-3), Gold Coast lost an extra one (1-3), Hawthorn nabbed two (6-2), Melbourne missed 2.5 (going 0-5, ouch) while Richmond and West Coast’s win totals got a 1.5 game boost (both 4-1).
Regular readers will notice a team is missing from the discussion: the Geelong Cats. For as long as the Numbers Game has been going, the Cats have been the one team to blow up the theory of close game mean regression. Between 2014 and 2018 the Cats were an obscene 17-2-2 in games decided by less than 12 points, including a streak of 12 home-and-away season games (from Round 3 2014 to Round 13 2016) where they didn’t lose a close one.
Well, mean regression may finally be kicking in. Geelong was 3-4 in close games in 2018, or 0.5 games under their expected close game total. It marked the first time since 2013 Geelong had been under its close win tally – that’s five straight seasons against the maths. That’s not supposed to happen. Out of interest, the Cats were 43-2-32 in close games from 2000 to the beginning of that streak in 2014 for a win percentage of 55 per cent. That’s historically normal (every team is between 45 per cent and 55 per cent in the long run); what they did between 2014 and 2018 was not.

Blowouts
Once more for the uninitiated: the presence of multiple blowout margins (the average margin plus one standard deviation, which in 2018 was worth 60 points) in a single season has historically been a sign that a team’s ladder position may not have reflected its underlying strength or weakness.
In 2018 a number of teams had a handful of blowout victories: Richmond (four), Melbourne (four), Geelong (four), Greater Western Sydney (three) and Hawthorn (three). Of those teams the Cats, Hawks and Tigers kept a clean sheet the other way. Chalk up another positive underlying indicator for the hoops.
Going the other way were Carlton (seven!), Gold Coast (seven!) and Fremantle (three). However, it’s not all bad news. History shows teams have been able to turn around their tendency to concede blowouts relatively quickly, and it has tended to correlate with improved performance (as you may expect). For instance, Brisbane had conceded six, seven and five blowout losses in 2015 through 2017 respectively; they conceded just one in 2018, and while the ladder wins didn’t flow the team’s Pythagorean wins, they went through the roof (4.4 in 2017 to 8.2 in 2018).

Fixture difficulty change
Our uneven fixture will always produce winners and losers but it won’t be clear until at least halfway through the season who is truly benefitting. For now we can use last year’s underlying performances as a guide to who may have things a little easier or tougher than they had it a year prior.
Here the preliminary winner is clear: St Kilda’s fixture has gone from far and away the most difficult (with an average opponent Pythagorean win total of 12.1) to least difficult (10.4). It will come as a relief to Saints fans, who’ve seen their team play challenging fixture after challenging fixture for the past four seasons. It’s also an early win for the team’s new off-field analytics crew who I know had raised this with HQ as the fixture was being arranged last year.
Other beneficiaries are Gold Coast (11.4 wins to 10.8 wins) and the Western Bulldogs (11.3 wins to 10.9 wins). Most other teams have seen their fixture difficulty change by 0.2 wins or so.
However, a number of teams have seen their fixture difficulty ramp up meaningfully, principal among them Collingwood. The Pies finished 13th in 2017, meaning they benefitted from the league’s weighted rule. As a result the defeated grand finalists played a fixture with an average opponent win total of 10.4 wins, the second-least difficult in the competition. In 2019 the Pies’ average opponent has a 2018 win total of 11.3 wins, the second-highest in the competition.
North Melbourne has also been smacked by the weighted rule stick, albeit less justifiably given the club finished ninth. The Roos had the least difficult fixture in 2018 (average opponent wins of 10.1), and they’ve got the most difficult in 2019 (average opponent wins of 11.4).
While an important early indicator, it can certainly be a bit misleading. This time last year we said West Coast would have the third-most difficult fixture; it turned out to be the third-least difficult. Similarly, Gold Coast projected to have the second-least difficult fixture; it turned into the third-most difficult. Melbourne (eighth-most difficult, became second least difficult) and Sydney (fifth-least difficult, became second-most difficult) also showed this isn’t an exact science. We’ll check in halfway through the year.
2018 (actual) 2019 (projected) Change
North Melbourne
10.1 11.4 12.9%
Western Bulldogs 11.3 10.9 -4.0%

Team change
As above, it’s not clear this is a causal statistics. As the lads and I found in the excellent Australian Rules football book Footballistics there is a clear correlation between team experienced – and shared experience – and success, but there is certainly no causal link. Does experience beget success or success beget experience? Who knows.
But the correlation is still interesting. Given that, who has the most experience in the league?
Perhaps unsurprisingly, Hawthorn continues to top the league table for AFL games on its list with 3696 games. However, Collingwood is rapidly approaching it, with 3628 games. The Pies have built considerable experience over the past four years, going from 2719 games at the start of the 2016 season to its current tally.
Down the other end is Gold Coast (2307 games), which is the fewest games any team has had on its list since the Brisbane Lions of 2017. Those Lions have now built all the way up to 2603 games, placing them 13th overall.
There’s also a clutch of teams with around 3000 games of experience on their list: Sydney, Port Adelaide, Adelaide, Richmond, West Coast and the GWS. Again, this may mean everything or nothing, it’s not clear, but history suggests teams with around this level of experience on their list are those which tend to make finals and win premierships.
You know what else is interesting? We have eight teams with at least 3000 games of experience on their lists heading into the season. That’s double the number of the 2016, 2017 and 2018 seasons. A whole heap of teams are going for broke, but unfortunately (unless the AFL also changed this rule in the off-season) there can only be one winner. There’ll be some disappointed boards out there.
Fixture ramp-up
One thing that is always difficult to parse is how much we should read into any team’s first four to six games. Early season predictions have been kind to this column in recent years, having noted the Dogs, Tigers and Eagles’ starts were all a sign of their potential to contend for a premiership. But often a team’s hot start can be put down to who it has played.
Here’s what every team’s first six weeks looks like in terms of average opponent Pythagorean win total, remembering that most teams have a season-long average of pretty much 10.9 to 11.1 wins.
Whoo boy. Geelong’s average opponent in the first six weeks has a win total of 14.2 wins, far and away the highest in the competition. Its opening slate includes Collingwood, Melbourne, Adelaide, GWS, Hawthorn and West Coast. That, folks, is the stuff of nightmares, particularly if the Crows rebound in the manner most seem to expect they will (and which they’re certainly capable of doing).
The Giants (13.3) and Melbourne (13 even) also figure to have tough starts to the season befitting their status as premiership contenders.
Way down the other end of the spectrum is the Gold Coast Suns, who the AFL has undoubtedly looked after in fixturing an average opponent win total of 6.4. We can look at this in one of two ways: the Suns get off to a decent start and win between two and four of their first six and then sort of fade into the background as the usual types start crisis-mongering. Equally, the Suns could stink and lose the lot, and suddenly we’re faced with a real crisis.
The Western Bulldogs (8.7 wins), Hawthorn (8.9 wins) and Fremantle (8.9 wins) also have fixtures amenable to a fast start. If they can make the most of it, it’ll set them up for a push to the eight – which at this early stage I think is well within the realms of possibility for each of them – thereafter.
The so what
This is something I am increasingly conscious of when it comes to these sorts of columns. That’s a lot of numbers – so what? Here’s the summary. Brisbane has a net three positive indicators (three positive, no negative), which suggests their 2019 will be better than 2018. Geelong is sitting at a +4 on the five-indicator ledger, the Cats having four pluses and no minuses. Heaps of teams have a net +2. At the other end of the table West Coast is one of five teams with a net -2. When you win the premiership I guess there’s not really another direction to go, right?
Here is the 2019 AFL Numbers Game.

The takeaway is confirmation the Lions find themselves in a strong starting position to make a leap in 2019. Equally, the pessimism towards Geelong may be a little overplayed, even if I can see the qualitative reasons we might expect a little slide from the Cats.
And with the Numbers Game in the books, we can start to get a little more funky with our preseason look ahead as we move within six weeks of opening night.
Welcome. Let's just stick to the theory that we are in a similar position to where we were in 2015, finals this year then flag the next. :)
 
Top Bottom