Off The Long Run

["The Roar Is Back"]

You sure I wasn't the mate sitting next to you, Tugga? I used almost those exact words at the game on Monday. The shift from forward to non-existent momentum with our disposal and ball movement was just so glaringly obvious after quarter time.

Some credit to the Dogs who clearly lifted their defensive rating, but the number of times we stopped, propped, stuttered, and ignored blokes like White and Tambling who were clear in the middle of the ground was astonishing. Credit to Foley and Newman for trying to get things rolling at times, but there were so many culprits any positivity was stifled.

That whole "it's now someone else's problem" was very evident. Good call.



In the interest of preserving the page, I won't quote the whole post Rayzor.

I know we have agreed to disagree on some matters, and that's alright too, but this one was a fantastic post. A great read.




Attrocious accuracy when kicking for goal does not constitute "giving up without a whimper" in my book. Maybe we've got a different personal definition?

My definition involves a significant proportion who fail to lead, fail to run with the ball, fail to chase, fail to take their position in the zone, fail to compete, and/or fail to be man up at stoppages.

This wasn't the case. We went inside 50 just as often as the Dogs in Q4, andhad as many shots at goal. That blokes like Simmonds, Richo and others are unreliable when kicking from distances that U/18 players would be ashamed of missing doesn't mean they "gave up", but that they lack their required level of skill.

And that we were able to force the Dogs wide so often out of their defensive 50, at least three times causing them to kick out on the full coming out anti-clockwise from the Coventry end, is testimony to the fact that our zone was generally holding up pretty well.

Again, that we ended up repeatedly turning the ball over from the boundary kick-ins is more due to ineptitude than attitude.




And your point is?

Why do these teams (Cats & Dogs) warrant such empathy for "playing well below their best", yet Richmond are condemned for playing well below our best.

Maybe these two teams were "playing well below their best" because the opposition applied some decent contested pressure on them, prompting them to play that way?

Or is it purely coincidental that two top teams chose the same team to drop their guard, and that they won't always be vulnerable to such solid pressure?

Ghost I am a firm believer that the solution to all the points you raise is simple and has been evident for at least the past two seasons, myself and Rayzor have also had a healthy debate over this.
My theory is that when we play defensive high possession football , and by that I mean stop start, kicking to the boundary line football, we look terrible and generally get beaten.
In contrast I believe when we play more attacking football through the middle of the ground we are as capable as most sides within the league.
As an example I have previously claimed, and still stick by it, that over the past 2 seasons our use of the centre of the ground has increased significantly in the latter parts of the season which has mirrored our improved performance.
I also believe that for all but the final quarter against Geelong we were very good at using the centre corridor and attacked at all costs.
I personally think defensive , as I call it , makes several areas within the playing group look a lot worse .
Ie Skills errors, tackling, defensive pressure, marks inside 50. and the inability to play well in big games.
Its only my 2 cents worth, but I would love to see the side come out week after week and take the game on and don't play players who refuse to use the centre corridor.

 

[_RT_]

So therefore it's impossible that we will be at some stage this year?

Never said we wont be competitive at some stage, I have been saying that it is hard to make it if we aren't.

No it wasn't. My question was:

"Would St. Kilda agree with that after being thumped by Brisbane and being comfortably beaten by West Coast on their way to a preliminary final?"

And it was in relation to your contention that a side who isn't competitive week in week out doesn't make finals.

The Saints were comprehensively beaten by two sides out of the eight, one of whom even qualified for priority draft picks they were so bad.

In the end, despite not being 'competitive' for all 22 weeks of the season, they played off to go into a grand final, because they had enough points to qualify.

You have a go at me for taking a small sample size and then use the Saints losing 2 games oout of the 25 they played last year to try and back your point.

Damning evidence of you not being even able to remember the point you're arguing then support it adequately.

If they had an easier draw that would make it harder for them to make the eight than it currently is for us.

You've been arguing that we can't make the eight because of 'historical precedence,' then you go and kick a goal for the opposition by showing statistics which clearly show that a significant majority of the teams which make up your 'damning historical precedence,' had a harder run home than we do.

You pick one of the 4 facts I put up and say it shoots a hole in my arguement then completely ignore the one which said only 1 of 5 teams that had a draw similar to ours managed to make the finals. Why not discuss that point or does it put a hole in your arguement?

That wasn't what I said, I said they gave us good football far too inconsistently.

Even inconsistent footballers are good sometimes. If enough players are consistent enough - or improve enough in the case of the inexperienced players - we play finals.

It's hardly confusing and it happens to some side every season.

So our 100+ gamers give us inconsistent football, our less experienced players give us inconsistent football and to make the finals we need them to become more consistent. Which brings me back to the point at the top, how can a side that is so inconsistent be a side that is capable of making the 8?

I did the last time you asked me, right after the above quote you cherry-picked:

No you avoided answering the question. Come on Ray answer the question or are you scared of the answer you will give?

 

[Barnzy]

Stuff reading all that garabage.

 

[smasha]

You've changed a lot since I first read one of your posts RT. Back then you refused to be negative towards anything to do with Richmond. Tambling was also developing well back then and on track to become a very good player according to you many moons ago. Geez things have changed. Your club is again immersed in failure and the ridiculous thing is that the state of your list is still pretty poor. 6 30+ year olds in your bloody best 22! The recruitment of Cousins suggests that you think you can have a crack soon but this was a huge mistake. Winning 8 of your last 11 also covered up the cracks which are being exposed now. Lose against the Dees and you'll get your wish RT.

Not it fecking wasn't a huge mistake!

 

[smasha]

Cmon darksiders.

I'm not bothering to read any more twenty paragraph essays.

First,they give me a headache and second they mean feck all in the scheme of things.

The club controls things not us.

We just go and support them.

 

[Rayzorwire]

You have a go at me for taking a small sample size and then use the Saints losing 2 games oout of the 25 they played last year to try and back your point.

Unlike you, I'm not trying to prove a historical trend, merely highlight how silly it is to state that teams 'must be competitive week in week out to play finals.'

They just need enough points to play finals.

Why you're still arguing the toss about that is beyond me.

You pick one of the 4 facts I put up and say it shoots a hole in my arguement...

Because it does, not that you'll ever admit it.

...then completely ignore the one which said only 1 of 5 teams that had a draw similar to ours managed to make the finals.

So 4/5 of those sides had a harder run home and made it.

Just another stat which weighs far more heavily against your point than for it.

So our 100+ gamers give us inconsistent football, our less experienced players give us inconsistent football and to make the finals we need them to become more consistent. Which brings me back to the point at the top, how can a side that is so inconsistent be a side that is capable of making the 8?

By being more consistent!

You answered your own question when you framed it!

No you avoided answering the question. Come on Ray answer the question or are you scared of the answer you will give?

I've answered it twice already, I even wrapped it up in a nice little quote so you couldn't miss it the 2nd time.

 

[_RT_]

Because it does, not that you'll ever admit it.

In your opinion it does

So 4/5 of those sides had a harder run home and made it.

Just another stat which weighs far more heavily against your point than for it.

Try again Ray:

1. ONLY 1 OF THE 5 SIDES THAT STARTED 0-3 AND MADE THE FINALS DID SO AFTER PLAYING 3 TOP 8 SIDES.

2. WHILE 5 OTHER SIDES WHO PLAYED 3 TOP 8 SIDES AND LOST TO START THE SEASON 0-3 NEVER MADE THE FINALS.

In summary only 1 of 6 teams that have started 0-3 in the season after playing 3 top 8 sides have ever made the finals. Do you finally understand the enormity of what we are up against now or are you going to continue to ignore these 2 rather signifigant facts?

 

[Rayzorwire]

In summary only 1 of 10 teams that have started 0-3 in the season after playing 3 top 8 sides have ever made the finals.

No RT, in summary,what you have done is:

Pretend that raw statistics which totally undermine your argument now no longer exist.

Pretend that a whole nine years of 'history' equates to a statistically valid historical sample from which valid statistical conclusions can be drawn.

Pretend that any of the top-8 teams from any given year magically equal the sides we have played this year.

Pretend that a side who started out in [insert year], then lost key players to injury/suspension/club suspension and missed finals as a result, has some ultra-valid historical relevance to the present.

In truth, none of that has any relevance whatsoever.

You apparently don't have the slightest inkling that statistics and any other stream of raw data is only valuable when intelligent, informed analysis is interpreting it.

Where is your analysis RT?

Your interpretation?

There is none...you're just scatter bombing us with stats to support (while simultaneously undermining) your 'I just realised my glass is less than half-empty' stance.

The closest matchup to our current year based on difficulty of opposition is North in 2001 - a side which you yourself presented as an example.

Where is the part where you put the stats into proper context by mentioning that North lost two of their first three games without Carey, Harvey, and other significant players?

Where is the part where you put the stats into proper context by mentioning that it was the last season Carey played for North (yes, that year), he averaged half the possessions of the year before, finished the matches he did play crippled, and only played 14 games for the season with five separate interruptions...

...and that Stevens didn't play after rd.15...etc.

...just a minor hiccup...nothing that would corrupt the 'stats and averages' relevant to North or that historical period...it was an average year for them and football!

Right RT?

At a very limited glance and at a minimum, 11% of the data you pretend is a sample worth measuring and drawing conclusions from, is totally corrupt.

I'm sure if I could be bothered spending the time I could throw up at least a 50% 'not worth including due to extenuating circumstances' error rate in the seasons which your limited, corrupted sample is based upon.

Way too many variables and way too short a timespan to get anything but half-baked stats which are worthless in the here and now out the other end.

...these 2 rather signifigant facts?

Your ability with the written word is well above average RT, so please don't take this the wrong way...the thing is, I can't help but notice you consistently spell 'significant,' 'argument' and 'concede' incorrectly.

Do you reckon there's some sort of historical precedence hidden in that, a statistical trend...I mean, mate, what are the odds on that happening huh?

Your spelling is perfect aside from those three words!

 

[Mario Speedwagon]

You apparently don't have the slightest inkling that statistics and any other stream of raw data is only valuable when intelligent, informed analysis is interpreting it.

Where is your analysis RT?

Your interpretation?

There is none...you're just scatter bombing us with stats

Haha Gayzorwire, that's rich coming from you, "Champion Data boy"...

 

[_RT_]

No RT, in summary,what you have done is:

Pretend that raw statistics which totally undermine your argument now no longer exist.

Pretend that a whole nine years of 'history' equates to a statistically valid historical sample from which valid statistical conclusions can be drawn.

Pretend that any of the top-8 teams from any given year magically equal the sides we have played this year.

Pretend that a side who started out in [insert year], then lost key players to injury/suspension/club suspension and missed finals as a result, has some ultra-valid historical relevance to the present.

In truth, none of that has any relevance whatsoever.

You apparently don't have the slightest inkling that statistics and any other stream of raw data is only valuable when intelligent, informed analysis is interpreting it.

Where is your analysis RT?

Your interpretation?

There is none...you're just scatter bombing us with stats to support (while simultaneously undermining) your 'I just realised my glass is less than half-empty' stance.

The closest matchup to our current year based on difficulty of opposition is North in 2001 - a side which you yourself presented as an example.

Where is the part where you put the stats into proper context by mentioning that North lost two of their first three games without Carey, Harvey, and other significant players?

Where is the part where you put the stats into proper context by mentioning that it was the last season Carey played for North (yes, that year), he averaged half the possessions of the year before, finished the matches he did play crippled, and only played 14 games for the season with five separate interruptions...

...and that Stevens didn't play after rd.15...etc.

...just a minor hiccup...nothing that would corrupt the 'stats and averages' relevant to North or that historical period...it was an average year for them and football!

Right RT?

At a very limited glance and at a minimum, 11% of the data you pretend is a sample worth measuring and drawing conclusions from, is totally corrupt.

I'm sure if I could be bothered spending the time I could throw up at least a 50% 'not worth including due to extenuating circumstances' error rate in the seasons which your limited, corrupted sample is based upon.

Way too many variables and way too short a timespan to get anything but half-baked stats which are worthless in the here and now out the other end.

If you're going to do such an in depth analysis when comparing us to the Roos of 2001 you should at least acknowledge that the Roos were a side that had not finished lower than 4th in the previous 7 years and also managed to recover to make the finals the following year.

We on the other hand haven't made the finals in the last 7 years and have won 2 spoons along the way. Don't tell me you're hoping for us to do something that the almighty Roos weren't able to do despite them being a much better side than we are? The truth is to do what you're hoping for we would need everything to go right from here on. We would need to have no injuries to key players, we would have to win every 50-50 game plus a couple of games where we're the underdog. Again I ask do you understand now just how far up against it we are?


Finally, I asked this question of another brightsider and failed to get an answer so I'll ask it of you.

When deciding on whether we could/would/should make the 8 this year what factors did you use to help you make that call?

Interested to see what you throw up in your reply to that question, because something tells me that the end to our 08 season, i.e the 8 wins & the improved performances from players, will be right up there in your reasoning otherwise the only other reason I could think of is blind faith.

 

[Rayzorwire]

that's rich coming from you, "Champion Data boy"...

Champion data IS a system to produce intelligent, informed analysis from raw statistics.

Once again you'd be far better off saying nothing Mardi Gras Port Flagon.

If you're going to do such an in depth analysis when comparing us to the Roos of 2001 you should at least acknowledge that the Roos were a side that had not finished lower than 4th in the previous 7 years and also managed to recover to make the finals the following year.

Did you actually read anything I wrote RT?

The statistical anomaly which saw the Roos miss finals that year was caused in no small part by injuries (particularly Carey) and the infamous bathroom incident with Stevens' wife.

As a sample of North in that era it's not worth anything and the raw stats of their season are extremely misleading when added to any other data sample - especially the one you used.

The truth is to do what you're hoping for we would need everything to go right from here on.

Only "everything" eh?

Finally, I asked this question of another brightsider and failed to get an answer so I'll ask it of you.

I'll answer it when I have time.

 

[beaver fever]

These long filthy posts are a disgrace. You guys aren't even arguing about the most important aspect of whether or not this club is going anywhere in the long run, that being the quality of the list. Statistics shmatistics.

 

[coke_zero]

These long filthy posts are a disgrace. You guys aren't even arguing about the most important aspect of whether or not this club is going anywhere in the long run, that being the quality of the list. Statistics shmatistics.

agree, geez your becoming a favourite on this board, has anyone actully bothered reading it?

 

[getthefooty]

These long filthy posts are a disgrace. You guys aren't even arguing about the most important aspect of whether or not this club is going anywhere in the long run, that being the quality of the list. Statistics shmatistics.

Well I tried to on Barnzy's "We All Know Wallace Wont Play Youth" thread but RT completely ignored it.