Esse-don fans, you do realise you've lost your last 7 games by an average of 51 points right?

[Groupie_]

My guess is Jobe Watson started supporting Esse'ndin as a pimply teenager when they won the flag in 2000

 

[mellowyellow]

So what you're saying is that during one of the worst periods in this great club's history, we've still played in just as many finals campaigns as Richmond has in the last 30 years?

Let's also not forget that since 2006, Richmond has had two 0-9 starts to a season, suffered their biggest ever loss (in fact, 3 of their top 10 biggest ever loses have occured since 2006), have gone on 10 and 13 game losing streaks (again, 2 of their top 6 longest losing streaks), went 10 straight home games without winning (a Richmond record), had 11 straight games conceeding 100 or more points (another Richmond record), and "won" a wooden spoon.

How anyone can support Richmond in this day and age I have no idea.

You're suited so well to Essendon because you moan and moan like a real bitch

 

[Jobe Watson]

For starters we aren't moaning whiners like your lot...

True. You take out your frustrations on your membership cards instead.

My guess is Jobe Watson started supporting Esse'ndin as a pimply teenager when they won the flag in 2000

Not far off actually. I was mates with Blake Caracella's cousin back in primary school and I used to get to go to the games with his family, which is what got me into Essendon.

In fact, me becoming an Essendon supporter is most likely what spurred us into having the best single season in history, such is my pull.

 

[mellowyellow]

True.

Your admission is both revealing and possibly cathartic

 

[Piston]

It seems an unfavourable comparison with jade's's will elicit a response from the otherwise sheepish Tigers. What a funny place to have an erogenous zone.

I can't see the an end to the streak.

You're saying here that on the basis of the last seven rounds you can't ever see us winning again.

Let me help you with that, Bazwah.

You see 'the last seven games' theory can be highly illuminating and incredibly predictive.

If, as you say, the past is the best way to predict the future and - as I'm sure you are well aware - the Bombres have defeated your torpid chicken shit summoners four out of the last seven by an average of 33 points - our unlikely next win will perhaps come against you?

Tell me more about the hitherto unarticulated details of seven game theory!

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

Jobe, the difference is that Richmond have cut their losing streak of 3/4 years ago and shown solid improvement since then. The Bummers are still capitulating each season, up to three years in a row now.

And they haven't shown that they "are" a finals list, they have shown that they "were" a finals list. Even when they did fall in (10-12-1 <100% in 2009, 11-11-1 <100%) it was mainly by default. The margins of their two losses reflect that.

 

[Piston]

You forgot Zappa.

Forgot he can't post any more about his beloved Tigers.

R.I.P. Tiger.

Frank's been dead 20 years, Richmond's been dead 30.

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

It seems an unfavourable comparison with jade's's will elicit a response from the otherwise sheepish Tigers. What a funny place to have an erogenous zone.



You're saying here that on the basis of the last seven rounds you can't ever see us winning again.

Let me help you with that, Bazwah.

You see 'the last seven games' theory can be highly illuminating and incredibly predictive.

If, as you say, the past is the best way to predict the future and - as I'm sure you are well aware - the Bombres have defeated your torpid chicken shit summoners four out of the last seven by an average of 33 points - our unlikely next win will perhaps come against you?

Tell me more about the hitherto unarticulated details of seven game theory!

I didn't say ever. Just that the end looks to be a long way away.

Round 1 - Crows @ AAMI
Round 2 - The Demons who always spank you
Round 3 - Freo at Paterson's
Round 4 - St Kilda @ Etihad (71 points last time)
Round 5 - Pies @ MCG (or is it in Turkey now lol)
Round 6 - GWS

So not until round 6 will the Bummers really even have a chance to win. Surely you must be concerned about a 0-5 start? What will happen when the midseason capitulation kicks in? Bottom 4 could be on the cards.


Oh and the relevance of 7 is that it's the length of the current streak.

 

[Vtorians]

I didn't say ever. Just that the end looks to be a long way away.

Round 1 - Crows @ AAMI (lost by 4 pts & were stiff not to win)
Round 2 - The Demons who always spank you (Playing them early means they have no chance)
Round 3 - Freo at Paterson's (beat them over there rd 13)
Round 4 - St Kilda @ Etihad (71 points last time) (won the previous 4 times, one of which ended their 19 game unbeaten winning streak in 09)
Round 5 - Pies @ MCG (or is it in Turkey now lol) (we're about due)
Round 6 - GWS

So not until round 6 will the Bummers really even have a chance to win. Surely you must be concerned about a 0-5 start? What will happen when the midseason capitulation kicks in? Bottom 4 could be on the cards.


Oh and the relevance of 7 is that it's the length of the current streak.

Um no, will be more like 3-3 with any losses being under 5 goals.

 

[_RT_]

I'm sure you still don't understand the ranking system, and I'm getting a little tired of trying to explain it, so I'll just leave you to wollow in your ignorance.

You're the one who carried on about how Champion Data rankings justify that Essendons list is better than Richmond. When it was shown that Graham, regardless of how few games he played, averaged more points than both Hurley and Crameri, you sooked up and said oh but he doesn't count. Then when you realised that would again make you look stupid you then went oh but in some cases you can count players who have had little to no impact by saying LeCras would still be counted in the Eagles assessment. So tell me again how I don't understand the ranking system when you have given plenty of examples of just how little clue you actually have.

 

[Jobe Watson]

You're the one who carried on about how Champion Data rankings justify that Essendons list is better than Richmond. When it was shown that Graham, regardless of how few games he played, averaged more points than both Hurley and Crameri, you sooked up and said oh but he doesn't count. Then when you realised that would again make you look stupid you then went oh but in some cases you can count players who have had little to no impact by saying LeCras would still be counted in the Eagles assessment. So tell me again how I don't understand the ranking system when you have given plenty of examples of just how little clue you actually have.

Alright, one last time...

Yes, Angus Graham played 1 game and scored better than what Hurley and Crameri both averaged over an entire injury-affected season. But because he only played 1 game (you have to play at least 5 over the last two years to qualify), his 2011 average would have been included in the list assessment instead; a year where he averaged less than Hurley and Crameri. What you're basically saying is that if Shaun Marsh comes in on debut and scores 141, he deserves to be ranked as a better batsman than Bradman. 1 game is not an indication of anything. I know this, and ChampionData knows this, which is why they also included 2011 stats. It isn't me sooking, its basic logic.

ChampionData would also have had to use LeCras' 2011 stats, seeing as how he missed the entire 2012 season. This ensures that very good players like him aren't missed out on when doing the list rankings (which would skew the data negatively for WCE's forward line) and also allows for 2 years of data to get a better perspective of how the players on each list have performed and thus, how good each list is heading into 2013.

Daniher, O'Meara, Viney, Wines - these players, even though they will contribute to their respective teams this year, wouldn't have been given rankings because we have no AFL data for them to analyse. It isn't a flaw in the system; it's how statistics work - no data, no inclusion. The list predictor is just a raw indicator of a team's performance over 2011 and 2012, which can be used to show the strength of each list heading into this season. They ranked Essendon as having been a stronger outfit than Richmond in the years 2011 and 2012 (fair enough too), and thus deserve to be called the better team until Richmond prove otherwise. The rest of the list is pretty spot on too - most would say Hawthorn have the best list in the league, West Coast without injury have a very balanced list, Sydney are obviously a very good team, etc. Most would also agree that Collingwood have the best midfield in the league, Hawthorn the best forward line, and Geelong have shown that their defence is still very good/elite.

Yes, you do possess a lack of understanding of this system, seeing as how in your original post you referred to DreamTeam points, which had absolutely nothing to do with the list rankings. DreamTeam points are used for a fantasy game and only that; ranking points are used not only for SuperCoach, but as a way of combining over 100 different statistical measurements to boil down to one singular number which judges the impact and efficiency of a player in any given game and over the course of a season. Coaches pay money to get access to things like ranking points. It is the best possible indicator, statistically, that is available to determine the performance of a player.

Now that I've educated you on that particular subject, can we get back to talking about how shit Richmond is please?

 

[_RT_]

So what you're saying is that during one of the worst periods in this great club's history, we've still played in just as many finals campaigns as Richmond has in the last 30 years?

Let's also not forget that since 2006, Richmond has had two 0-9 starts to a season, suffered their biggest ever loss (in fact, 3 of their top 10 biggest ever loses have occured since 2006), have gone on 10 and 13 game losing streaks (again, 2 of their top 6 longest losing streaks), went 10 straight home games without winning (a Richmond record), had 11 straight games conceeding 100 or more points (another Richmond record), and "won" a wooden spoon.

How anyone can support Richmond in this day and age I have no idea.

Very easily, we stick by our club through thick and thin, unlike the average Essendon punter who much like their club disappears when things get tough, goes missing.

 

[Piston]

Very easily, we stick by our club through thick and thin, unlike the average Essendon punter who much like their club disappears when things get tough, goes missing.

My favourite bit is how you stick by them while microwaving your memberships and dumping chicken shit on them. And in turn they repay you with an apparently limitless appetite for failure.

You're like two junkies in an AFL crack alley.

 

[Vtorians]

Very easily, we stick by our club through thick and thin, unlike the average Essendon punter who much like their club disappears when things get tough, goes missing.

Stop buying into all the bigfooty bullshit
In 2010 the supporter numbers were slightly down the last few games because of knights, we still averaged 7K more than Rich for home games & 9k more away.
Through the 90's & Early 2000's we traded spots with Coll for biggest crowds (which have been constant till this day), once Etihad was our home ground (which robs us of 5-10k a game), we became the 2nd most attended club behind Coll & thats how it still stands.

 

[_RT_]

Alright, one last time...

Yes, Angus Graham played 1 game and scored better than what Hurley and Crameri both averaged over an entire injury-affected season. But because he only played 1 game (you have to play at least 5 over the last two years to qualify), his 2011 average would have been included in the list assessment instead; a year where he averaged less than Hurley and Crameri. What you're basically saying is that if Shaun Marsh comes in on debut and scores 141, he deserves to be ranked as a better batsman than Bradman. 1 game is not an indication of anything. I know this, and ChampionData knows this, which is why they also included 2011 stats. It isn't me sooking, its basic logic.

ChampionData would also have had to use LeCras' 2011 stats, seeing as how he missed the entire 2012 season. This ensures that very good players like him aren't missed out on when doing the list rankings (which would skew the data negatively for WCE's forward line) and also allows for 2 years of data to get a better perspective of how the players on each list have performed and thus, how good each list is heading into 2013.

Daniher, O'Meara, Viney, Wines - these players, even though they will contribute to their respective teams this year, wouldn't have been given rankings because we have no AFL data for them to analyse. It isn't a flaw in the system; it's how statistics work - no data, no inclusion. The list predictor is just a raw indicator of a team's performance over 2011 and 2012, which can be used to show the strength of each list heading into this season. They ranked Essendon as having been a stronger outfit than Richmond in the years 2011 and 2012 (fair enough too), and thus deserve to be called the better team until Richmond prove otherwise. The rest of the list is pretty spot on too - most would say Hawthorn have the best list in the league, West Coast without injury have a very balanced list, Sydney are obviously a very good team, etc. Most would also agree that Collingwood have the best midfield in the league, Hawthorn the best forward line, and Geelong have shown that their defence is still very good/elite.

Yes, you do possess a lack of understanding of this system, seeing as how in your original post you referred to DreamTeam points, which had absolutely nothing to do with the list rankings. DreamTeam points are used for a fantasy game and only that; ranking points are used not only for SuperCoach, but as a way of combining over 100 different statistical measurements to boil down to one singular number which judges the impact and efficiency of a player in any given game and over the course of a season. Coaches pay money to get access to things like ranking points. It is the best possible indicator, statistically, that is available to determine the performance of a player.

Now that I've educated you on that particular subject, can we get back to talking about how shit Richmond is please?

Ok then using your logic above answer me this.

Are the following players better than Hurley?
Jeff Garlett, Tom McDonald, Michael Firrito, Charlie Dixon, Jared Rivers, Cale Hooker, Sam Wright, Nick Maxwell, Jason Blake, Alex Fasolo, Mitchell Golby, Mike Pyke, Jarrod Harbrow, Josh Hunt & Jarred Brennan.

Are the following better than Crameri and Hurley?
Andrew Walker, Eddie Betts, Justin Westhoff, Shane Edwards, Chris Mayne, Bachar Houli, Matthew Broadbent, Troy Chaplin, Jack Watts, Nathan Grima & Scott Thompson(Roos).

That's just a selection of players that were ranked higher than Hurley and/or Crameri that didn't rely on just 1-2 games to get a high average ranking. Most of them played well over a dozen games and quite honestly I'd suggest that not one of them is better than Hurley and most wouldn't be near Crameri. Yet according to CD they were all better in 2012. That is why using CDs rankings to determine how good/bad a list is is flawed. The fact that you can't see that is well laughable and shows just how insecure you are about the Bombers and are desperate for anything to try and show that we're wrong in our assessments of your list.

 

[_RT_]

Stop buying into all the bigfooty bullshit
In 2010 the supporter numbers were slightly down the last few games because of knights, we still averaged 7K more than Rich for home games & 9k more away.
Through the 90's & Early 2000's we traded spots with Coll for biggest crowds (which have been constant till this day), once Etihad was our home ground (which robs us of 5-10k a game), we became the 2nd most attended club behind Coll & thats how it still stands.

So you admit it that Essendon fans disappear when things aren't going that well. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[smasha]

True. You take out your frustrations on your membership cards instead.


Not far off actually. I was mates with Blake Caracella's cousin back in primary school and I used to get to go to the games with his family, which is what got me into Essendon.

In fact, me becoming an Essendon supporter is most likely what spurred us into having the best single season in history, such is my pull.

Essendon stereotype to a tee.

 

[Jobe Watson]

Are the following players better than Hurley?
Jeff Garlett, Tom McDonald, Michael Firrito, Charlie Dixon, Jared Rivers, Cale Hooker, Sam Wright, Nick Maxwell, Jason Blake, Alex Fasolo, Mitchell Golby, Mike Pyke, Jarrod Harbrow, Josh Hunt & Jarred Brennan.

Are the following better than Crameri and Hurley?
Andrew Walker, Eddie Betts, Justin Westhoff, Shane Edwards, Chris Mayne, Bachar Houli, Matthew Broadbent, Troy Chaplin, Jack Watts, Nathan Grima & Scott Thompson(Roos).

That's just a selection of players that were ranked higher than Hurley and/or Crameri that didn't rely on just 1-2 games to get a high average ranking. Most of them played well over a dozen games and quite honestly I'd suggest that not one of them is better than Hurley and most wouldn't be near Crameri.

Ranking points don't measure how good a player is, it measures how good their games/seasons are. Regardless of if I believe they are better players or not, most of them had better seasons than Hurley and Crameri, yes. I don't think many would say Hurley had even an average season, and Crameri was decent when he was able to play, which was only half the year - he was one of the top ranked forwards in the first 9 rounds. You're also forgetting that Hurley and Crameri were both subbed out of multiple games and played many more through injury, which drags down their average. And of course some midfielders who are able to rack up more offensive stats will have a higher ranking than an up-and-down KPP; it is of course a statistical ranking after all.

Yet according to CD they were all better in 2012.

Most of them were, yes.

And once again, it can only measure how well a list has performed heading into any given season; it's not the be-all-end-all measurement of the quality of a team's list, and it's not really a prediction of the future. Essendon are a better team until Richmond prove otherwise, no one but biased Richmond supporters would dispute that.

I'd rather rely on ChampionData's neutral analysis of our list than Richmond supporters like yourself who say we won't improve because Goddard is a 'seagull'.

 

[Vtorians]

So you admit it that Essendon fans disappear when things aren't going that well. Thanks for clearing that up.

No, i mean Rich can't match Ess in any meaningful way home or away, even when we "jump off" to prove a point​

Even with the advantage of playing at the MCG (which as stated) makes the Tigers look closer than they really are, you are no match

Our average crowd in Melb during those last 7 losses was 50k- Rich was 40k
We also played Adel during that period @ aami for a 40k turnout, Rich only managed 33k a month earlier.

Band wagon my arse

• 2012 Ess 45k- Rich 39k
• 2011 Ess 49k- Rich 40k
• 2010 Ess 45k- Rich 37K
• 2009 Ess 49k- Rich 39k
• 2008 Ess 47k- Rich 42k
• 2007 Ess 49K- Rich 41k
• 2006 Ess 42K- Rich 38k
• 2005 Ess 44k- Rich 36k
• 2004 Ess 45k- Rich 34k
• 2003 Ess 43k- Rich 37k
• 2002 Ess 45k- Rich 35k

Edited for accuracy​

 

[_RT_]

Ranking points don't measure how good a player is, it measures how good their games/seasons are. Regardless of if I believe they are better players or not, most of them had better seasons than Hurley and Crameri, yes. I don't think many would say Hurley had even an average season, and Crameri was decent when he was able to play, which was only half the year - he was one of the top ranked forwards in the first 9 rounds. You're also forgetting that Hurley and Crameri were both subbed out of multiple games and played many more through injury, which drags down their average. And of course some midfielders who are able to rack up more offensive stats will have a higher ranking than an up-and-down KPP; it is of course a statistical ranking after all.


Most of them were, yes.

And once again, it can only measure how well a list has performed heading into any given season; it's not the be-all-end-all measurement of the quality of a team's list, and it's not really a prediction of the future. Essendon are a better team until Richmond prove otherwise, no one but biased Richmond supporters would dispute that.

I'd rather rely on ChampionData's neutral analysis of our list than Richmond supporters like yourself who say we won't improve because Goddard is a 'seagull'.

So now we get to the heart of the matter, the only reason you are turning to CD is because they said that Essendons list was/is better. I wonder had Richmond been rated the better team would you be so keen to talk up their neutral unbiased analysis of lists.

 

[Jobe Watson]

So now we get to the heart of the matter, the only reason you are turning to CD is because they said that Essendons list was/is better. I wonder had Richmond been rated the better team would you be so keen to talk up their neutral unbiased analysis of lists.

If Richmond had a better list than us I'd be more than happy to admit it. You don't.

The fact statistical masterminds like ChampionData agree with me is only the cherry on top.

 

[_RT_]

No, i mean Rich can't match Ess in any meaningful way home or away, even when we "jump off" to prove a point
Even with the advantage of playing at the MCG (which as stated) makes the Tigers look closer than they really are, you are no match

Our average crowd in Melb during those last 7 losses was 62k- Rich was 40k
We also played Adel during that period @ aami for a 40k turnout, Rich only managed 33k a month earlier.

Band wagon my arse

• 2012 Ess 45k- Rich 39k
• 2011 Ess 49k- Rich 40k
• 2010 Ess 45k- Rich 37K
• 2009 Ess 49k- Rich 39k
• 2008 Ess 47k- Rich 42k
• 2007 Ess 49K- Rich 41k
• 2006 Ess 42K- Rich 38k
• 2005 Ess 44k- Rich 36k
• 2004 Ess 45k- Rich 34k
• 2003 Ess 43k- Rich 37k
• 2002 Ess 45k- Rich 35k

Your crowd during those 6 losing games in Melbourne was 50183. During that time you played 4-5 sides that were in the 8 for fighting for the 8. Over the same period Richmond played Port, Dogs, Freo in Perth and Lions in Brisbane. But lets not let facts get in the way now.

 

[_RT_]

If Richmond had a better list than us I'd be more than happy to admit it. You don't.

The fact statistical masterminds like ChampionData agree with me is only the cherry on top.

At the start of the year Essendon were far and away a better list than us. At the end of the year I don't believe that was the case. I also believe that in 2013 Richmond will finish well above Essendon come the end of the season.

 

[Vtorians]

Your crowd during those 6 losing games in Melbourne was 50183. During that time you played 4-5 sides that were in the 8 for fighting for the 8. Over the same period Richmond played Port, Dogs, Freo in Perth and Lions in Brisbane. But lets not let facts get in the way now.

Those averages were for both our melb games only, get it right & yeah we played some better sides, whats the defence for your crowd at aami being way less or any crowd average over the last "well forever" being well down.

I posted the 10yrs of crowd figures to illustrate your band wagon comment was horseshit, the gulf between our clubs popularity wise was just a bonus.

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

And once again, it can only measure how well a list has performed heading into any given season; it's not the be-all-end-all measurement of the quality of a team's list, and it's not really a prediction of the future. Essendon are a better team until Richmond prove otherwise, no one but biased Richmond supporters would dispute that.

Richmond 13.24.102
Esse-don 8.9.57

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_match_statistics?mid=5523






I disagree Jobe. U MAD?