The Premiership Standard - 100pts for, 86 pts against

[Freomaniac]

Seriously huge ROFL.

Here's a racist joke for you....still laughing....

Glad freo didn't go 0-10 in 2017, but there you go

 

[Freomaniac]

Err...no he is not.

Until this year he has done nothing but plunder lists in pursuit of a flag, until there is no hope left and then he up's stumps. UNtill this last year refused to play kids.

He is a megalomaniac in sheeps clothing.

he is with us for another 3 years. Oh and he has played youf

 

[bulletproof]

I've written off our first 6 games as unrepresentative of our quality. Since then we average 102.44 points for and 66.13 points against.

I think every team would look pretty good if you wrote off their losses.

 

[The Gong]

I think every team would look pretty good if you wrote off their losses.

It would be hard to argue our first six weeks was representative but they're on our permanent record.

 

[radiojake]

I was thinking the same thing

I reckon the Crows record would look way more intimidating if you took out the loss to Nth Melb way back in rnd 7

I think every team would look pretty good if you wrote off their losses.

 

[Freomaniac]

I was thinking the same thing

I reckon the Crows record would look way more intimidating if you took out the loss to Nth Melb way back in rnd 7

that and the 2 home losses vs the demons and swans....

 

[base615]

I think every team would look pretty good if you wrote off their losses.

With Swans it's a clear delineation pre and post round 7. If the losses had been evenly spread out I wouldn't make the argument, clearly.

 

[aCunningPlan]

With Swans it's a clear delineation pre and post round 7. If the losses had been evenly spread out I wouldn't make the argument, clearly.

Can Geelong discount our three week periods of losses against Collingwood Gold Coast and Essendon? We clearly just had a period that was unrepresentative of what the side can achieve.

What rubbish.

 

[base615]

Can Geelong discount our three week periods of losses against Collingwood Gold Coast and Essendon? We clearly just had a period that was unrepresentative of what the side can achieve.

What rubbish.

Was it at the very start of the season?

 

[aCunningPlan]

Was it at the very start of the season?

It was a string of games unrepresentative of our style of play, it doesn't matter if it was at the start or not...seriously what a crock mate.

 

[WeAreGeelong]

Now there's an idea - each club should be able to take out their worst 6 games for the year and then the ladder will be recalculated based on that.

Further to that, if the games are at the start of the year, then you get a bonus 4 points to add to your tally, well just coz.

 

[Rotayjay]

Yeah this 'Standard' thing is rubbish. The premier is the team that wins the grand final - simple as that.

 

[radiojake]

Actually further to taking away our worst six games of the year, if we take away Adelaide's first quarter against Sydney in Rnd 22 where they got 5 goals ahead, you'll find the final 3 quarters were way more representative of the game, thus should be awarded the win

/bizarrebase615logic

 

[Freomaniac]

Yeah this 'Standard' thing is rubbish. The premier is the team that wins the grand final - simple as that.

Actually further to taking away our worst six games of the year, if we take away Adelaide's first quarter against Sydney in Rnd 22 where they got 5 goals ahead, you'll find the final 3 quarters were way more representative of the game, thus should be awarded the win

/bizarrebase615logic

Pray to god that troy Pannell doesn't umpire any of the crows finals.

 

[base615]

It was a string of games unrepresentative of our style of play, it doesn't matter if it was at the start or not...seriously what a crock mate.

Of course it matters. This thread is about whether the team is in premiership standard form, not your points record at the end of the season. Uninterrupted form over the proposed benchmark since game 6 is totally different in this particular argument than having periods in the middle of the season where a couple of losses took you below that benchmark.

 

[aCunningPlan]

Of course it matters. This thread is about whether the team is in premiership standard form, not your points record at the end of the season. Uninterrupted form over the proposed benchmark since game 6 is totally different in this particular argument than having periods in the middle of the season where a couple of losses took you below that benchmark.

I don't see how. Cherry picking stats for yourself is simply disingenuous.

 

[SterlingArcher]

Of course it matters. This thread is about whether the team is in premiership standard form, not your points record at the end of the season. Uninterrupted form over the proposed benchmark since game 6 is totally different in this particular argument than having periods in the middle of the season where a couple of losses took you below that benchmark.

Except the statistic used to assess premiership standard form in this thread is literally points record at the end of the season.

 

[base615]

Except the statistic used to assess premiership standard form in this thread is literally points record at the end of the season.

Not as a total though, as an average. If the last 16 games have been way above that average, and the opponents in those games have included the other top sides, then the form for the first 6 games have been essentially rendered irrelevant.

 

[Freomaniac]

If the dogs didn't meet the premiership standard then the flag should be declared null and void and given to the reigning premiers at the time.

We have standards for a reason!!!

Richmond are the 2017 premiers. 90 points for, 76 against

 

[Freomaniac]

I was thinking the same thing

I reckon the Crows record would look way more intimidating if you took out the loss to Nth Melb way back in rnd 7

crows were intimidating today just like Dustin Martins father! lol

 

[Bulldogs Legend]

Of course it matters. This thread is about whether the team is in premiership standard form, not your points record at the end of the season. Uninterrupted form over the proposed benchmark since game 6 is totally different in this particular argument than having periods in the middle of the season where a couple of losses took you below that benchmark.

Only premiership standard is winning the GF

 

[Freomaniac]

Im pretty sure if Zac Dawson won a premiership medal the fabric of space time would tear and we would all atomise instantaneously.

Zac Dawson eventually got is premiership medal. Playing for Peel thunder in the 2017 WAFL grand final.

 

[Freomaniac]

Should be 13 of the last 15.

Sydney 2005 - 86 for and 74 against.

Dogs won the 2016 flag scoring 84 points a game conceding 72. Tigers won the 2017 flag scoring 90.5 conceding 76.5.

Sydney in 2005 were a once off. They're not the standard you aim for, they're an anomaly that probably won't be repeated in years.

It's funny that 86 points against is the high point for premiership defences. For most teams these days that would be a match losing score.

Freo barely average better than that as an offensive score. I would love to see Freo's scoring improve, but I don't see it so long as plodders and hacks like Suban and De Boer are continually up for selection.

Sydney wasn't a once off. Dogs in 2016 and Tigers this year defied the stats.

The squiggle has been telling us this for years..... NEXT!

the Squiggle can kiss my Kim Kardashian.

Oh and your team didn't score an average of 100 points a game and conceded 85. Your Tigers scored 90.5 points and concede 76.5. So.... Do you want to retract that stupid statement or do you want to hand back your 2017 flag for not scoring 100 points a game and conceding 86?

 

[The Swert]

Dogs won the 2016 flag scoring 84 points a game conceding 72. Tigers won the 2017 flag scoring 90.5 conceding 76.5.

Sydney wasn't a once off. Dogs in 2016 and Tigers this year defied the stats.

the Squiggle can kiss my Kim Kardashian.

Oh and your team didn't score an average of 100 points a game and conceded 85. Your Tigers scored 90.5 points and concede 76.5. So.... Do you want to retract that stupid statement or do you want to hand back your 2017 flag for not scoring 100 points a game and conceding 86?

Quoting posts made two years ago and then using new evidence to prove them wrong is a bit of 'non bis in idem' , aka poor form.

 

[The Goon]

Dogs won the 2016 flag scoring 84 points a game conceding 72. Tigers won the 2017 flag scoring 90.5 conceding 76.5.

Sydney wasn't a once off. Dogs in 2016 and Tigers this year defied the stats.

the Squiggle can kiss my Kim Kardashian.

Oh and your team didn't score an average of 100 points a game and conceded 85. Your Tigers scored 90.5 points and concede 76.5. So.... Do you want to retract that stupid statement or do you want to hand back your 2017 flag for not scoring 100 points a game and conceding 86?

Interesting that the attack/defence differential of 14 points is pretty consistent though.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk