2011 Ladder Predictions

[.Shotties.]

It doesn't guarantee improvement but is strongly correlated with it.

the two youngest teams last year by quite a distance were WCE and Richmond. You saying you dont expect either of these teams to improve over the next few years? Or GC who will most probably be the youngest team this year to not have improved in a few years time?

They may improve, but how longs a piece of string?

 

[BowerTower]

Why do people continue to overrate Hawthorn? They are rubbish, 2008 was a fluke and they've done everything possible since then to confirm it.

 

[ok.crows]

They may improve, but how longs a piece of string?

If we are doing 2011 ladder predictions, the only relevant pieces of information are, really, 2010 finishing ladder positions and a consideration of which teams will imporve, and which may not.

Given the caveats about levels of injury, and making the simplifying (but unjustifiable) assumption that all teams will be equally affected by injury in 2010, those teams which may improve are those with higher numbers of relatively inexperienced players. Not ZERO experience but relative inexperience (say 20 to about 70 games). Not the youngest of teams, but the next-younger teams. Not those who have lost a lot of older players, UNLESS those older players were not performing.

My guesses: Collingwood, Richmond, Melbourne, WCE, perhaps Crows, maybe Carlton and Kangaroos. These are the sides that might be improving, all but Collingwood might move upwards on the ladder. By how much (or if at all) is anyones guess.

If those sides move up, other sides must move downwards. It follows like night after day.

In this way we might arrive at a "2011 Ladder Prediction".

Or we could just make random wild guesses, I suppose, and who is to say that would or would not be a better approach?

 

[UrLordLeper]

Oh God are people posting predictions that differ from my personal view? I must comment on them and point out how there prediction is, of course, wrong.

Who let you back in the house, Meg???

 

[postcard bandit]

If we are doing 2011 ladder predictions, the only relevant pieces of information are, really, 2010 finishing ladder positions and a consideration of which teams will imporve, and which may not.

Given the caveats about levels of injury, and making the simplifying (but unjustifiable) assumption that all teams will be equally affected by injury in 2010, those teams which may improve are those with higher numbers of relatively inexperienced players. Not ZERO experience but relative inexperience (say 20 to about 70 games). Not the youngest of teams, but the next-younger teams. Not those who have lost a lot of older players, UNLESS those older players were not performing.

My guesses: Collingwood, Richmond, Melbourne, WCE, perhaps Crows, maybe Carlton and Kangaroos. These are the sides that might be €improving, all but Collingwood might move upwards on the ladder. By how much (or if at all) is anyones guess.

If those sides move up, other sides must move downwards. It follows like night after day.

In this way we might arrive at a "2011 Ladder Prediction".

Or we could just make random wild guesses, I suppose, and who is to say that would or would not be a better approach?

no improvement from freo???? nice guess.....did watch any football this year??

 

[Tzatziki_Man]

Let me have another crack at this.

1. Collingwood
- I don't see anyone topping them, such a well drilled side, and with the expected decline of the other top four outfits, I expect Collingwood to go back to back.

2. St. Kilda
- The rest of the competition will be pretty even, there is a big gap between Collingwood and anyone else. St. Kilda will give them a run for their money but I don't see the Saints topping Collingwood in any final during 2011.

3. Carlton
- The big gainers of the year I suspect. Even their own claimed this year was a dissappointment, but they lost their main goal kicker, and replaced him with a kid and lost no ground, so next year with the development of Henderson to continue, McLean to have a fresh start and the improvement of such players as Gartlett, Yarran, Lucas, I expect the Blues to make a big impact in 2011.

4. Geelong
-They will lose ground and unfortunately what comes up must come down. The loss of Ablett, Rooke, Thompson and an aging list including Milburn, Ottens ect, they will struggle to qualify for another Grand Final. But there is still so much class on that list, thats why they can still make top four.


I'll post 5-8 tomorrow

 

[bradrowe#32]

1. Collingwood
2. Hawthorn
3. Fremantle
4. St. Kilda
5. Footscray
6. Geelong
7. Sydney
8. North Melbourne
9. Melbourne
10. Carlton
11. Port Adelaide
12. Adelaide
13. Richmond
14. Gold Coast
15. Brisbane
16. Essendon
17. West Coast

 

[WakeUpPies]

1. Collingwood
2. St.Kilda
3. Geelong
4. Freo
5. Hawks
...................................

The rest

Still think Geelong have enough to finish top 4 but won't challenge for the flag.

 

[Libo]

I'm going to put no thought into this whatsoever, I'll have a much higher chance of getting the ladder right if I don't think logically. Based on everyones predictions last year, I should be guaranteed #1 predictor of 2011.

1. Sydney Swans
2. Western Bulldogs
3. Gold Coast Suns
4. Carlton Blues
5. Collingwood Magpies
6. Port Adelaide Power
7. Melbourne Demons
8. Richmond Tigers
9. Fremantle Dockers
10. North Melbourne Kangaroos
11. West Coast Eagles
12. Brisbane Lions
13. Adelaide Crows
14. Essendon Bombers
15. Geelong Cats
16. Hawthorn Hawks
17. St Kilda Saints

Now that I've taken a second to look at what I typed, I think I'm screwed.

 

[daniel2323]

1. Collingwood. The three big chances. Its the pies against the other 2 though. Is hard
2. St.Kilda. to see them going downhill at all though.
3. Hawthorn.
4. Fremantle. good but just not good enough.
5. Geelong.
6. Dogs. Just making up the numbers.
7. Blues.
8. Sydney.
9. Tigers. (9th again) The ones who miss top 8.
10. Melbourne.
11. Kangaroos.
12. Adelaide.
13. Port Adelaide.[/COLOR]
14. Gold Coast. this lot could swap around but cant see them in the top 8.
15. Brisbane.
16. West Coast.
17. Essendon.

 

[DeadlyAkkuret]

1. Sydney Swans
2. Western Bulldogs
3. Gold Coast Suns
4. Carlton Blues
5. Collingwood Magpies
6. Port Adelaide Power
7. Melbourne Demons
8. Richmond Tigers
9. Fremantle Dockers
10. North Melbourne Kangaroos
11. West Coast Eagles
12. Brisbane Lions
13. Adelaide Crows
14. Essendon Bombers
15. Geelong Cats
16. Hawthorn Hawks
17. St Kilda Saints

Now that I've taken a second to look at what I typed, I think I'm screwed.

I like it, finishing on top and getting another chance to own Carlton in the finals.

 

[proka123]

1. Collingwood
2. Sydney
3. St.Kilda
4. Geelong
5. Fremantle
6. Carlton
7. Hawthorn
8. Melbourne - Had to sneek them in their.

9. North Melbourne
10. Western Bulldogs
11. Port Adelaide
12. Adelaide
13. Essendon
14. Richmond
15. Brisbane
16. Gold Coast
17. West Coast

Extremely hard to pick the ladder for next year since Collingwood were so dominant this year.

 

[The Octopus]

1. Collingwood
2. W Bulldogs
3. Saints
4. Carlton
5. Hawthorn
6. Freo
7. Geelong
8. Adelaide

9. Port
10. Melb
11. Kanga
12. Syd
13. WCE
14. Essendon
15. GC
16. Richmond
17. Brisbane

Monty bottom 5

 

[DieHardCrow]

1. Collingwood
2. St Kilda

3-13 - Any order of geelong, bulldogs, fremantle, hawthorn, sydney, carlton. adelaide melbourne, north melbourne, port adelaide (it is an absolute lottery this year)

14. Essendon
15. West Coast
16. Gold Coast
17. Brisbane

 

[Riders of Rohan]

I think Geelong are going to drop a lot further than people think. They'll only just make the eight or miss out, doubtful top four.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

We both know that's a BS argument. See 2009, or 2010 ladder prediction threads.

Same story EVERY year.
Top 5-6 at the Hawks is fine.
But the rest of the list = nge.
As proven by the last two years. Smacked by us FFS! Lost what... 6 straight?

And given you've thrown picks at a player who won't *really* make a difference, I can't see you making any strides, unless you hit 3 or 4 late pick, or rookie, gems.

Any side is *capable* of doing almost anything... it's *possible* gumby will kick 80 next year, Stanton will make a huge step up, Myers will have a freak year...
it's much more *likely* tho, that we'll continue to be inconsistent, average, and not win many more or less than we did this year; and Collingwood et al will win shitloads more...

Not at all.

Slatts, take away the 3pt loss to the the Dogs where Renouf rucked by himself, the 11pt loss to Geelong where Renouf rucked by himself and was getting thrown around like a rag doll late in the game by Ottens and the North game where Hodge and Roughead rucked(Renouf was ill) and we'd have finished Top 4.
There was also a draw against the Saints that should've been a win, if not for a stray foot on the boundary.

So you see, It's all well and good to say we didn't finish as high as predicted in 2009 and 2010, and we didn't, but that's a very simple viewpoint and doesn't take into account just how close we were to finishing much better.
I'd suggest that if we go into the first 6 rounds with 2 Ruckman, we win a few of those games that we dropped.

Fwiw, from Round 8 where Clarkson finally realised that we had to change the way in which we were playing, and using the bench, we were something like the 3rd best performed team for the rest of the season.

The very fact we managed to turn our season around after such a poor start and manage to even compete for a top 4 spot in the last 4 rounds has been way undervalued, and is the reason so many involved in football think the Hawks aren't far off it.

 

[Old Gregg]

1. Collingwood 20W 2L 149%
2. Sydney 17W 5L 132%
3. Western Bulldogs 17W 5L 127%
4. Geelong 15W 7L 124%
5. Hawthorn 14W 7L 1D 111%
6. St Kilda 14W 8L 115%
7. Fremantle 13W 9L 107%
8. Melbourne 12W 9L 1D 104%
9. Carlton 12W 10L 99%
10. North Melbourne 10W 12L 96%
11. Richmond 10W 12L 84%
12. Port Adelaide 9W 13L 94%
13. Essendon 9W 13L 89%
14. Adelaide 9W 13L 88%
15. Brisbane Lions 8W 13L 1D 85%
16. Gold Coast 6W 16L 79%
17. West Coast 5W 16L 1D 72%

Can't possibly be that many wins in a season amongst all teams...

 

[Dogs_r_barking]

It may be by even more as well though considering the age of the team. I also don't think that Collingwood will get as difficult a draw in 2011 as we did in 2010.

What you mean you won't play your last 7 games at the MCG and will play interstate like the rest of us in 2011

 

[Dogs_r_barking]

1. St Kilda (Redemption from the let down of the repeat GF)
2. Bulldogs (see 2008 after the horror of 2007)
3. Sydney (will continue improvement from 2010)
4. Collingwood (now hunted and game plan picked apart)
5. Fremantle (good side, but have to play in Melbourne)
6. Melbourne (more improvement)
7. Geelong (New coach, age catching up with Ling, Milburn and the like)
8/9. Carlton/North Melbourne
10. Hawthorn
11. Richmond
12. Essendon
13. Port Adelaide
14. Brisbane
15. West Coast
16. Adelaide
17. Gold Coast

 

[stoja]

Not at all.

Slatts, take away the 3pt loss to the the Dogs where Renouf rucked by himself, the 11pt loss to Geelong where Renouf rucked by himself and was getting thrown around like a rag doll late in the game by Ottens and the North game where Hodge and Roughead rucked(Renouf was ill) and we'd have finished Top 4.
There was also a draw against the Saints that should've been a win, if not for a stray foot on the boundary.

.

wayyy to many ifs, buts, and's maybe's there..

 

[Nickos66]

1. Collingwood
2. Western Bulldogs
3. St kilda
4. Fremantle
5. Geelong
6. Adelaide
7. Melbourne
8. Hawthorn
9. North Melbourne
10. Carlton
11. Sydney
12. Essendon
13. Port Adelaide
14. Richmond
15. Brisbane
16. Gold Coast
17. West Coast

That's about the best I can do. Maybe GC a few higher or Essendon a few lower, the bottom 6 is harder to call than the top 6!

 

[UrLordLeper]

I like it, finishing on top and getting another chance to own Carlton in the finals.

Hopefully you'll be owning more than one team come Finals time..

(Not us not us, please not us!!)

 

[MrPresident]

Hopefully you'll be owning more than one team come Finals time..

(Not us not us, please not us!!)

Maybe before the finals, but i doubt we'll be owning you guys in September. Maybe a couple of years down the track.

Next September ideally we knock off the Bulldogs in week 1 for revenge, they were dead and buried and had no right to beat us this year. Then in week 3 we knock off Fremantle, because some people believe they are the team we actually are.

Then on the big day we beat Collingwood for the first time in years and wipe the smirks off their gap toothed faces.

Or that's what I dream in my sleep every night between now and finalstime.

 

[Slattery_20]

Not at all.

Slatts, take away the 3pt loss to the the Dogs where Renouf rucked by himself, the 11pt loss to Geelong where Renouf rucked by himself and was getting thrown around like a rag doll late in the game by Ottens and the North game where Hodge and Roughead rucked(Renouf was ill) and we'd have finished Top 4.
There was also a draw against the Saints that should've been a win, if not for a stray foot on the boundary.

So you see, It's all well and good to say we didn't finish as high as predicted in 2009 and 2010, and we didn't, but that's a very simple viewpoint and doesn't take into account just how close we were to finishing much better.
I'd suggest that if we go into the first 6 rounds with 2 Ruckman, we win a few of those games that we dropped.

Fwiw, from Round 8 where Clarkson finally realised that we had to change the way in which we were playing, and using the bench, we were something like the 3rd best performed team for the rest of the season.

The very fact we managed to turn our season around after such a poor start and manage to even compete for a top 4 spot in the last 4 rounds has been way undervalued, and is the reason so many involved in football think the Hawks aren't far off it.

We had 2 close losses missing important players as well, therefore we should have been 12th?
No. Losing by a kick = still losing. We didn't have good enough cover for Fletch and Stanton and Slattery (lol), we weren't good enough. You didn't have good enough cover for Renouf, not good enough.
Beating Collingwood in the last round, when they'd sewn up 1st a month previous, isn't as important as you'd like to think. They were cruising in 3rd.
Hawks, in top gear, can beat anyone.
But you can't play a full season going flat out. No-one can.

I think you're absolutely kidding yourself if you actually think you're a better side than Fremantle. And I think you're kidding yourself if you think you're going to improve more than them, with their quality youth.

 

[Changaneen]

Not at all.

Slatts, take away the 3pt loss to the the Dogs where Renouf rucked by himself, the 11pt loss to Geelong where Renouf rucked by himself and was getting thrown around like a rag doll late in the game by Ottens and the North game where Hodge and Roughead rucked(Renouf was ill) and we'd have finished Top 4.
There was also a draw against the Saints that should've been a win, if not for a stray foot on the boundary.

So you see, It's all well and good to say we didn't finish as high as predicted in 2009 and 2010, and we didn't, but that's a very simple viewpoint and doesn't take into account just how close we were to finishing much better.
I'd suggest that if we go into the first 6 rounds with 2 Ruckman, we win a few of those games that we dropped.

Fwiw, from Round 8 where Clarkson finally realised that we had to change the way in which we were playing, and using the bench, we were something like the 3rd best performed team for the rest of the season.

The very fact we managed to turn our season around after such a poor start and manage to even compete for a top 4 spot in the last 4 rounds has been way undervalued, and is the reason so many involved in football think the Hawks aren't far off it.

My god ........and your auntie is two balls away from being your uncle.