Which side fails to play in September?

[FootyLad0]

Any scenario for lil old freo?

Flgamantle is already guaranteed. No need to discuss

 

[nut]

Brisbane?

 

[maskmcgee]

You didn't watch the game ay, just seen the scores.

Thats the thing, the Hawks were smashed in the midfield and should of lost - so the scores are irrelevant, they make the Hawks look better than they were.

 

[PowerfulPies2023]

Brisbane?

No

 

[nut]

No

They need to win 2 … pies at the G .. then they beat the swans… Freo in Perth is tough, then the
Hawks v Lions. loser might miss

 

[HeHateMe]

Thats the thing, the Hawks were smashed in the midfield and should of lost - so the scores are irrelevant, they make the Hawks look better than they were.

I was at the game and yeah we tried a number of things through the middle, experimented with players. But the shape and spread around the ground Carlton really were never close.

 

[HeHateMe]

Im telling y'all now basing your opinion off the Carlton game is dumb. When the game was on Hawthorn were all over them, than the que went in the rack and they tried a number of different things.

Didn't really work out but could end up as good exposure come finals if we make it.

They criticism on the midfield is valid, so it was smart for the club to put new faces in and see how it goes in a dead rubber.

 

[1972championsofaust]

We don't capitulate in the last quarter against Freo we could be sitting 3rd right now and only needing 1 win. Swings and roundabouts.

 

[1972championsofaust]

If the Hawks weren’t gifted 2 free kick last quarter goals against Adelaide in Tassie….

You’d be toast already!

 

[PowerfulPies2023]

They need to win 2 … pies at the G .. then they beat the swans… Freo in Perth is tough, then the
Hawks v Lions. loser might miss

They'll get at least two

 

[Osho]

Dogs least likely.
Hawks next.

 

[Handsuper47]

If Brisbane play like they did against the Suns they're very likely to get booted out of it

 

[Randomizor]

Im telling y'all now basing your opinion off the Carlton game is dumb. When the game was on Hawthorn were all over them, than the que went in the rack and they tried a number of different things.

Didn't really work out but could end up as good exposure come finals if we make it.

They criticism on the midfield is valid, so it was smart for the club to put new faces in and see how it goes in a dead rubber.

Sure Jan

 

[Dewyyyyy]

Thats the thing, the Hawks were smashed in the midfield and should have lost - so the scores are irrelevant, they make the Hawks look better than they were.

Yeah nah, obviously territory is important. Hawthorn won most statistics, territory whilst using it a lot better in the first and dominated.

The difference was Carlton flooding the contest and their defense, bringing an extra one or even two around the ball and at every chance possible pushing most players into defense.

It’s why Hawthorns transition game was consistently strong all game, they had dominated the intercept marks and rebound game from just giving them the contest, and then rebounding the ball from there. Considering Carlton’s ball use is weak but their contest work is strong.

 

[HeHateMe]

Sure Jan

You don't even watch footy outside of Freo but anyway, How much is your mob winning by next Sunday?

 

[BuddyHawk]

If the Hawks weren’t gifted 2 free kick last quarter goals against Adelaide in Tassie….

You’d be toast already!

We only kicked two goals in that last quarter and neither were from free kicks.

Maybe you’re thinking of round 5, 2016 and the birth of the “free-kick Hawthorn memes”

 

[PowerfulPies2023]

You don't even watch footy outside of Freo but anyway, How much is your mob winning by next Sunday?

90 hundred points

 

[sleep]

You realise $$ is not an appropriate idea on it?

Comparing a betting system, which is influenced by the agency and the people who are betting. To realistic odds or ideas. Is probably wrong.

Hawthorn have beaten Adelaide this year. Twice last year including a belting at Adelaide Oval. (No change in hell?).

Last patch of games

ADE
HAW by 3
HAW by 66
HAW by 27
ADE by 3
HAW by 32
4-1

With losses against Collingwood and Brisbane this year, during a period where Hawthorn were playing at their worst for the season. Taking into consideration form now, recent form all together & (for example) returns of Lewis, Day, Sicily etc.

Last patch of games v these 2

COL
COL by 51
HAW by 66
HAW by 5
HAW by 32
COL by 6
COL by 4
HAW by 19
HAW by 5
HAW by 34
6-3

BRL
BRL by 33
HAW by 25
HAW by 25
HAW by 5
HAW by 12
HAW by 28
5-1

Hawthorn were playing an injured Sicily, no Day, Lewis, Scrimshaw and generally playing a worse brand of footy than earlier in the year, late last year and now.

The idea of them being 50-50 games is that you take into consideration this years recent games, general recent games, current form, returning players etc

With Hawthorn being 1/3 against those 3 this year, good recent success, good current form, returning players (Day, Lewis, Sicily etc).

Outside of your opinion and betting odds you can’t actually say that it’s ridiculous to think they’re 50/50 contests between top 5 teams currently.

It isn’t factual because being a favourite is subjective. Unless you use the simple definition of who is higher on the ladder.

And it’s not arguing that at all, it’s about looking into games beyond a broad spectrum.

Again as I brought up:


The reason these are important is because it takes into account form so who’s playing well, recent history and games between the two clubs, but also looking at a teams side, who returns, who is missing.

This is done as some clubs have good records against others, which is important because there’s always the adage that teams have bogey sides, or teams who play them better than others, as an example.

The return and missing players are important, if a team has returning stars their expectations rise, if they have more outs and injuries they lower.

The point of this is that if there isn’t significant difference between the two, so both teams performing well form wise, one side have an advantage in recent games head to head, home ground advantage, and returning/missing players. Unless it’s a significant differential you can’t categorically say that it is or isn’t.

Congratulations, sir — this is the most amount of tripe I’ve read on BigFooty in a long time.

Reading your posts, it's quite clear you don’t have a mathematical background. They read like mug punter specials.

While recent form, head-to-head matchups, and returning players are definitely factors in AFL analysis, there’s a reason betting markets carry so much weight — they reflect a real-time consensus shaped by millions of dollars being wagered by people with far more data, tools, and insight than any of us individually.

Odds aren’t just some “broad” or “lazy” opinion. They’re set by serious money — from professional bettors, quant traders, and algorithmic models that factor in everything: form, injuries, matchups, venue conditions, even weather and umpire stats. When big money moves, the market shifts. And when it doesn’t shift — even with narratives like “Hawthorn are flying” or “Sicily is back” — it means the market has already priced it in.

Quoting recent games like “Hawthorn beat Adelaide last year” or “they’ve got a good record vs Brisbane” is classic cherry-picking. You can always find a stat to suit a story — but that’s exactly why markets matter. They strip out the noise and weigh everything without emotion or bias.

Yes, returning players like Sicily, Day, and Lewis make a difference. But again — the market knows that. Odds adjust the moment team sheets drop or injury lists change. If Hawthorn really were a 50/50 shot against top-five teams, the odds would reflect it. The fact that they don’t tells you something objective — no matter what someone on a forum thinks.

It’s not that markets are always right — but they are way more accurate than any single person’s opinion, especially when there’s money on the line. If you genuinely think you’ve found an edge the market missed, good luck. But nine times out of ten, the market already knows.

Bottom line: odds aren’t gospel, but they’re one of the sharpest tools we have to gauge realistic expectations — far better than vibes, memories, or selective stat-mining.

 

[sleep]

No, odds = probability/ (1- probability). Opening markets are set before any bets, based on this formula. Odds then fluctuate based on money wagered, but that's because money wagered is just a reflection of the probability the punters place on a win and the bookies don't like losing money The fundamental relationship between odds and probability is the same

This guy gets it.

 

[Mr Meow]

Im telling y'all now basing your opinion off the Carlton game is dumb. When the game was on Hawthorn were all over them, than the que went in the rack and they tried a number of different things.

Didn't really work out but could end up as good exposure come finals if we make it.

They criticism on the midfield is valid, so it was smart for the club to put new faces in and see how it goes in a dead rubber.

Agreed. It didn't tell us anything when they were destroying the Blues early, or after when it became a back and forth.

We'll find out about the Hawks in their tough games for the rest of the season. I'm happy to sit on the fence until then.

 

[Dewyyyyy]

Congratulations, sir — this is the most amount of tripe I’ve read on BigFooty in a long time.

Reading your posts, it's quite clear you don’t have a mathematical background. They read like mug punter specials.

While recent form, head-to-head matchups, and returning players are definitely factors in AFL analysis, there’s a reason betting markets carry so much weight — they reflect a real-time consensus shaped by millions of dollars being wagered by people with far more data, tools, and insight than any of us individually.

Odds aren’t just some “broad” or “lazy” opinion. They’re set by serious money — from professional bettors, quant traders, and algorithmic models that factor in everything: form, injuries, matchups, venue conditions, even weather and umpire stats. When big money moves, the market shifts. And when it doesn’t shift — even with narratives like “Hawthorn are flying” or “Sicily is back” — it means the market has already priced it in.

Quoting recent games like “Hawthorn beat Adelaide last year” or “they’ve got a good record vs Brisbane” is classic cherry-picking. You can always find a stat to suit a story — but that’s exactly why markets matter. They strip out the noise and weigh everything without emotion or bias.

Yes, returning players like Sicily, Day, and Lewis make a difference. But again — the market knows that. Odds adjust the moment team sheets drop or injury lists change. If Hawthorn really were a 50/50 shot against top-five teams, the odds would reflect it. The fact that they don’t tells you something objective — no matter what someone on a forum thinks.

It’s not that markets are always right — but they are way more accurate than any single person’s opinion, especially when there’s money on the line. If you genuinely think you’ve found an edge the market missed, good luck. But nine times out of ten, the market already knows.

Bottom line: odds aren’t gospel, but they’re one of the sharpest tools we have to gauge realistic expectations — far better than vibes, memories, or selective stat-mining.

It is less about an exact % of winning chance, and more a general idea of how something could go. The unpredictability of footy from the bounce of the ball to results, is part in why it’s often not cut and dry.

Whilst you are correct that betting agencies use statistics, analysis, data etc.

As someone else said, it can get skewed through the side of the market that is swayed by who bets.

Whilst data, analytics and statistics are important. They’ve not the be all and all. There are so many different things that are just as important, and change from person to person.

 

[sleep]

It is less about an exact % of winning chance, and more a general idea of how something could go. The unpredictability of footy from the bounce of the ball to results, is part in why it’s often not cut and dry.

Whilst you are correct that betting agencies use statistics, analysis, data etc.

As someone else said, it can get skewed through the side of the market that is swayed by who bets.

Whilst data, analytics and statistics are important. They’ve not the be all and all. There are so many different things that are just as important, and change from person to person.

This response shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how efficient betting markets actually work.

Yes, footy is unpredictable. Everyone gets that. But the entire point of betting markets isn’t to guarantee outcomes — it’s to price in probabilities as accurately as possible. They’re dynamic systems that react instantly to new information, and they’re shaped not by casual punters, but by sophisticated algorithms, full-time traders, and professionals wagering serious capital.

The idea that markets get “skewed” by who bets is only true at the margins, and only for a very short time. Any distortion is quickly punished by sharp money, because if the odds are off, someone with better data and more money will exploit it — and the bookies adjust in seconds to limit risk.

You’re also missing the point when you say "data and stats aren’t everything.” No one’s arguing they are — but the betting market already factors in everything you’re talking about: team sheets, form, ground advantage, returning players, even intangible narratives. That’s why the odds move as soon as the injury list drops or a key out is confirmed.

Saying “there are many other things that are just as important” is meaningless if you’re not also acknowledging that those very factors are the inputs that shape the market odds in the first place. The market is built to account for those layers of nuance — and it does it far more rigorously than any one punter's opinion or forum argument.

In short: odds aren’t gospel, but they’re the sharpest aggregate signal we have — because they’re backed by real money and ruthless efficiency. Dismissing them in favour of vibes or cherry-picked history is, frankly, amateur hour.

 

[Dewyyyyy]

This response shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how efficient betting markets actually work.

Yes, footy is unpredictable. Everyone gets that. But the entire point of betting markets isn’t to guarantee outcomes — it’s to price in probabilities as accurately as possible. They’re dynamic systems that react instantly to new information, and they’re shaped not by casual punters, but by sophisticated algorithms, full-time traders, and professionals wagering serious capital.

The idea that markets get “skewed” by who bets is only true at the margins, and only for a very short time. Any distortion is quickly punished by sharp money, because if the odds are off, someone with better data and more money will exploit it — and the bookies adjust in seconds to limit risk.

You’re also missing the point when you say "data and stats aren’t everything.” No one’s arguing they are — but the betting market already factors in everything you’re talking about: team sheets, form, ground advantage, returning players, even intangible narratives. That’s why the odds move as soon as the injury list drops or a key out is confirmed.

Saying “there are many other things that are just as important” is meaningless if you’re not also acknowledging that those very factors are the inputs that shape the market odds in the first place. The market is built to account for those layers of nuance — and it does it far more rigorously than any one punter's opinion or forum argument.

In short: odds aren’t gospel, but they’re the sharpest aggregate signal we have — because they’re backed by real money and ruthless efficiency. Dismissing them in favour of vibes or cherry-picked history is, frankly, amateur hour.

It’s not about dismissing them.

It’s about not using just them and moving on. Otherwise whats the point for any discussion.

There is more, which insinuates not disregarding but rather in addition to.

It is never that simple.

 

[Freomaniac]

View attachment 2375769

I know eagles fans such as matthew_s want both grand final spots to be filled by the non Victorian sides again. Unlikely but still possible

 

[Altum Volantes]

Dogs will miss.

I mean, everyone would prefer Hawthorn do but it'll be the Dogs, they are just too unreliable.