Certified Legendary Thread Race for the flag, in squiggly lines

[Hawkk]

No defence. 1992 Cats is a lot like 2013 Hawks.

Disagree with this, our defence worries are over stated in much the same way our forward potency is also over rated.

If you look at the for/against ladder after the 2013 home and away season, whilst our FOR is 1st in the league (2523) our AGAINST is still 5th in the league (1859). By contrast Geelong, argued to have the best balance in the league, is 2nd for FOR (2409) and 4th for AGAINST (1776).

Ultimately the difference between the two is negligible.

 

[clogged]

Disagree with this, our defence worries are over stated in much the same way our forward potency is also over rated.

If you look at the for/against ladder after the 2013 home and away season, whilst our FOR is 1st in the league (2523) our AGAINST is still 5th in the league (1859). By contrast Geelong, argued to have the best balance in the league, is 2nd for FOR (2409) and 4th for AGAINST (1776).

Ultimately the difference between the two is negligible.

I meant in terms of where they place on the graph relative to the other teams.

One could also say Hawthorn 2013 is similar to Hawthorn 1991.

 

[Pessimistic]

Collingwood 2011 hit a wall in round 20

 

[cryptor]

Disagree with this, our defence worries are over stated in much the same way our forward potency is also over rated.

If you look at the for/against ladder after the 2013 home and away season, whilst our FOR is 1st in the league (2523) our AGAINST is still 5th in the league (1859). By contrast Geelong, argued to have the best balance in the league, is 2nd for FOR (2409) and 4th for AGAINST (1776).

Ultimately the difference between the two is negligible.

You also need to take into account the teams played twice. We got the Geelong, North, Sydney, Collingwood and West Coast. Ranked 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th and 11th respectively for points scored for.

Just for example Geelong had Hawthorn, North, Sydney, Fremantle and Brisbane. Who were ranked 1st, 3rd, 4th, 12th and 14th respectively for points scored for.

And Fremantle had Richmond, Adelaide, West Coast, St Kilda and Melbourne. Ranked 5th, 9th, 11th, 16th and 18th respectively for points scored for.

I don't know how much this system takes double up games into account or if it even matters considering weightings but it certainly gives some perspective to things.

 

[Mitch3233]

Amazing to think how far back Hawks were in 2011, but they were only a kick away from the GF.

But you could say the same thing about Pies in 07.

 

[MoscowHawk]

The 1989 and 1992 Geelong worm is ridiculous

http://maxbarry.com/squiggle/1989.html
http://maxbarry.com/squiggle/1992.html

How they blew the 1992 premiership defies belief

Hey Hawkk, how did you get this contraption to work? I'm only seeing a help page, but none of the buttons work.

 

[Partridge]

Sumich's miracle snap on the stroke of half time remains one of the most unlikely goals i've seen, Wilson's 'Cork in the Ocean' and Matera's career game are three reasons....plus Geelong's inability to stop the Eagle's run. The second semi final ran a similar theme, indeed one could have almost replayed the QF and 2SF that year for the PF and GF...same sides, same results, same game trends.

Same idiot coach with zero tactical nous too.

 

[Richo83]

The 1989 and 1992 Geelong worm is ridiculous

http://maxbarry.com/squiggle/1989.html
http://maxbarry.com/squiggle/1992.html

How they blew the 1992 premiership defies belief

1. Geelong had the worst defense of all the finals teams in 1992.

2. West Coast would've been assisted by the fact that they were suited to the warmer temperatures of September. Weirdly enough, Geelong won the first encounter in Perth, and West Coast won the return match in Geelong. I've heard that if Sumich had have played in the first match, that West Coast would've won, which would've been 4-0 to West Coast.

 

[Partridge]

1. Geelong had the worst defense of all the finals teams in 1992.

2. West Coast would've been assisted by the fact that they were suited to the warmer temperatures of September. Weirdly enough, Geelong won the first encounter in Perth, and West Coast won the return match in Geelong. I've heard that if Sumich had have played in the first match, that West Coast would've won, which would've been 4-0 to West Coast.

Regarding point 2, don't think it would have mattered if Sumich had played. Geelong, and Ablett in particular, played an absolute blinder that day in Perth. Kicked 11 goals in the second quarter to a stunned Perth crowd, and Ablett playing in the centre had 27 kicks, 9 handpasses and 5 goals.

Point 1 is the accurate part, they didn't know how to stop the flow if the opposition got going. Combined with some of the dumbest coaching moves in history during the finals, it was enough to let it slip.

 

[utility]

This is very fascinating. The comment at the bottom is interesting. Have the top 2 teams ever both lost in the first week using this finals system?

No.

 

[Partridge]

You also need to take into account the teams played twice. We got the Geelong, North, Sydney, Collingwood and West Coast. Ranked 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th and 11th respectively for points scored for.

Just for example Geelong had Hawthorn, North, Sydney, Fremantle and Brisbane. Who were ranked 1st, 3rd, 4th, 12th and 14th respectively for points scored for.

Good post. It is amazing going through the years the top right seems to end up with the Premiers and in most years the Runners-up too. Going by that this year it suggests there's very little between Hawthorn and Geelong. They clearly didn't finish 1st and 2nd by accident.

 

[Richo83]

Regarding point 2, don't think it would have mattered if Sumich had played. Geelong, and Ablett in particular, played an absolute blinder that day in Perth. Kicked 11 goals in the second quarter to a stunned Perth crowd, and Ablett playing in the centre had 27 kicks, 9 handpasses and 5 goals.

Point 1 is the accurate part, they didn't know how to stop the flow if the opposition got going. Combined with some of the dumbest coaching moves in history during the finals, it was enough to let it slip.

Fair. I definitely think the warmer weather has helped West Coast. Who knows how many flags West Coast would've won if, like in the US, the championship decider was played in winter and not spring.

The issue about 1992 is that West Coast had shown the ability to beat Geelong. Added to the fact that they only won less game, and had a better defense I don't think it was a massive failure on Geelong's part. That West Coast side was very good. One thing we forget is that West Coast had already beaten Geelong in the finals series prior to the 1992 grand final.

 

[Partridge]

Fair. I definitely think the warmer weather has helped West Coast. Who knows how many flags West Coast would've won if, like in the US, the championship decider was played in winter and not spring.

The issue about 1992 is that West Coast had shown the ability to beat Geelong. Added to the fact that they only won less game, and had a better defense I don't think it was a massive failure on Geelong's part. That West Coast side was very good. One thing we forget is that West Coast had already beaten Geelong in the finals series prior to the 1992 grand final.

They did. Belted them in the 2nd Semi. That was another of Blight's "masterstrokes". Instead of putting say Peter Riccardi on Peter Matera, a quick young winger, he put Sean Simpson on him. Quite possibly our slowest player. Just the thing to absolutely ensure that Matera was redhot for the Grand Final. Well played Malcolm.

And as you say, they were probably just the better side that year.

 

[Pessimistic]

1978 is definitely the closest to this years squiggles

 

[Partridge]

Geelong 2011 looks like the most complete premiership team from this.

Even our own fans I think underestimate that team. For instance as great as the 2007 team proved to be - they went 21-4 for the whole season. In 2011 we went 22-3. Statistically it's the greatest Geelong team ever.

 

[Kapow!!!]

Even our own fans I think underestimate that team. For instance as great as the 2007 team proved to be - they went 21-4 for the whole season. In 2011 we went 22-3. Statistically it's the greatest Geelong team ever.

What about 2008? 23-2. Statistically the best and would've been the best of all time if it wasn't for some lousy kicking and a Hawthorn side that truly went above and beyond.

 

[Partridge]

What about 2008? 23-2. Statistically the best and would've been the best of all time if it wasn't for some lousy kicking and a Hawthorn side that truly went above and beyond.

That's the difference though. 2008 was more dominant through the home and away team, but didn't win the flag. 23-2 is numerically higher, but 23-2 and runner-up is nowhere near (in my view) 22-3 and Premiers. Especially when the combined results against the previous year's Grand finalists was 5-0.

 

[Partridge]

I don't know, but you can probably get a good idea by playing with the Dynamic Squiggle. Pick a year you're familiar with, choose key teams, and play through the year round by round, see how it matches your own perceptions.

By the way, the Dynamic Squiggle now goes back to 1897! For serious squiggle-based time-wasting.

Awesome, awesome work. I couldn't get it to work in IE but works fine in Google Chrome.

It is amazingly how frequently the Premiers, and often the Runners-up, are locked towards the top-right corner. With very few exceptions. Based on that you'd think quite rightly a Hawthorn / Geelong Grand Final is a certainty.

Of course there are always anomalies. The interesting years are 1976 and 1978 for Carlton. Really up there but didn't even make the Grand Final in either year.

 

[Partridge]

As a hawks fan, i have to say the teams been unimpressive for most of the year, but very rarely would you worry about a loss. Seem to be able to ramp it up at will.

A little bit 2008 like really, where it did ramp up in the finals

Difference was though in 2008 you were 4 games behind the minor premiers. This year you are the minor premiers. And it's not like you only clicked when the finals started in 2008, they played great footy all year long.

 

[Handsome.B.Wonderful]

North are coming off a month of playing GWS, Richmond, Brisbane, Carlton, and Melbourne, and are about to play Geelong, Adelaide, Essendon, Hawthorn and Collingwood.

They won't be in that spot come years end.

You were right, much higher.

 

[clogged]

This is very fascinating. The comment at the bottom is interesting. Have the top 2 teams ever both lost in the first week using this finals system?

Never.

From 2007 onwards only two sides in the second half of the top four have beaten the top two - St Kilda defeating Geelong in 2010 and Sydney defeating Adelaide in 2012. No side in that time has made the grand final after losing their qualifying final, going round the long way.

By contrast, from 2000-2006, five sides from 3rd or 4th beat sides in 1st and 2nd (Melbourne d Carlton 2000, Collingwood d Port 2002, Sydney d Port 2003, St Kilda d Adelaide 2005, Sydney d West Coast 2006). Meanwhile, three sides have made the grand final going around the long way (Brisbane 2003, Sydney 2005, West Coast 2006). All of them won the premiership.

We have actually been in quite a unique era of late where the two sides have generally been the clear best two sides. Will it continue? Geelong and Hawthorn both have good records this season over Sydney and Fremantle, and have good overall win-loss records, but looking at for & against and percentage, neither seem to be in that bracket that obvious top two sides have a distinct gap between them and the next best. For instance, the top two of this year were clearly better than those lower on the ladder. And in general that pattern has been repeated if you go all the way back until 2006, where win-loss, for and against, and percentage don't quite give you an idea of who is most likely to win.

 

[The Speaker]

Pretty sure this is also the first year (with this finals system at least) two members of the 5-8 from one year finished 1-4 the following year.

 

[shoe]

As a stats nerd, all I can say is SCHWING!

Those are some sexy ******* tables right there. Even better is the moveable squiggles link.

Can't help but think that Sydney looks ominous..

 

[Mike I]

You also need to take into account the teams played twice. We got the Geelong, North, Sydney, Collingwood and West Coast. Ranked 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th and 11th respectively for points scored for.

Just for example Geelong had Hawthorn, North, Sydney, Fremantle and Brisbane. Who were ranked 1st, 3rd, 4th, 12th and 14th respectively for points scored for.

And Fremantle had Richmond, Adelaide, West Coast, St Kilda and Melbourne. Ranked 5th, 9th, 11th, 16th and 18th respectively for points scored for.

I don't know how much this system takes double up games into account or if it even matters considering weightings but it certainly gives some perspective to things.

FS can correct me if I'm missing something, but from my understanding the graph appears to normalise the percentage and thus factor out the impact of the imbalance in the draw. Essentially, the break even for score against is greater when playing teams such as Hawthorn compared to teams such as GWS, so where restricting Hawthorn to 80 points may improve your defensive position, allowing the same against GWS could worsen your defensive position - and of course the same applies for scores for where beating up on defensively poor sides has significantly less impact than doing the same to stronger opposition.

 

[cryptor]

FS can correct me if I'm missing something, but from my understanding the graph appears to normalise the percentage and thus factor out the impact of the imbalance in the draw. Essentially, the break even for score against is greater when playing teams such as Hawthorn compared to teams such as GWS, so where restricting Hawthorn to 80 points may improve your defensive position, allowing the same against GWS could worsen your defensive position - and of course the same applies for scores for where beating up on defensively poor sides has significantly less impact than doing the same to stronger opposition.

You're likely right as the graphs from pretty much all previous years I've looked at are fairly spot on what you'd expect.