Football Related Random Thread - PART 2

[M Malice]

Hadn't seen this feel good story before, just popped up on my youtube feed >

 

[McIvor]

Dogs, Lions left needing to defy history after R1 thrashings

Two teams tipped to contend, the Bulldogs and Lions, were heavily beaten in the opening round

www.afl.com.au

So we are basically a touch over 20% chance of making the finals after round 1

Since 2000, only 10 of the 44 teams to lose by 50-plus points in the opening round have gone on to make the finals. The furthest any team has gone is a preliminary final, with Geelong (2004) and North Melbourne (2015) managing that after heavy defeats in round one.

That leaves the Lions and Bulldogs with plenty of work to do.

It was the first time since 2016 that at least three matches have been decided by 50-plus points.

Since 2000, 34 of the 44 teams to win by 50-plus points in the opening round have made the finals.

Geez odds arent good but we are good enoughif we can arrest the next 3 games. If we are 0-4 or 1-3 id say it will be a long season.

 

[dlanod]

Dogs, Lions left needing to defy history after R1 thrashings

Two teams tipped to contend, the Bulldogs and Lions, were heavily beaten in the opening round

www.afl.com.au

So we are basically a touch over 20% chance of making the finals after round 1

Since 2000, only 10 of the 44 teams to lose by 50-plus points in the opening round have gone on to make the finals. The furthest any team has gone is a preliminary final, with Geelong (2004) and North Melbourne (2015) managing that after heavy defeats in round one.

That leaves the Lions and Bulldogs with plenty of work to do.

It was the first time since 2016 that at least three matches have been decided by 50-plus points.

Since 2000, 34 of the 44 teams to win by 50-plus points in the opening round have made the finals.

Geez odds arent good but we are good enoughif we can arrest the next 3 games. If we are 0-4 or 1-3 id say it will be a long season.

No.

That's a massively misleading statistic.

Many teams that lose week one are because they're actually shit teams who were never going to make finals. These will dominate that statistic as a result.

If you controlled for teams that were good in the previous year the results would be much more indicative for us (and the Dogs) - it would be lower than if we'd won round one, but it wouldn't be within cooee of 20%.

 

[martinson]

No.

That's a massively misleading statistic.

Many teams that lose week one are because they're actually s**t teams who were never going to make finals. These will dominate that statistic as a result.

If you controlled for teams that were good in the previous year the results would be much more indicative for us (and the Dogs) - it would be lower than if we'd won round one, but it wouldn't be within cooee of 20%.

Lies , lies, damn lies, and statistics.

 

[rye]

jack bytel out of contract this year at st kilda

perennially injured midfielder but i think he is fairly talented

could be a good cheap pick up for us if robertson decides to leave to replace that type of midfielder in that age bracket in the squad

 

[McIvor]

No.

That's a massively misleading statistic.

Many teams that lose week one are because they're actually s**t teams who were never going to make finals. These will dominate that statistic as a result.

If you controlled for teams that were good in the previous year the results would be much more indicative for us (and the Dogs) - it would be lower than if we'd won round one, but it wouldn't be within cooee of 20%.

Fair enough - your much smarter than me and i didnt think what you said

 

[dlanod]

Fair enough - your much smarter than me and i didnt think what you said

Heh I think there's overstating it - it was more that it was a deliberately misleading article unfortunately.

 

[McIvor]

Heh I think there's overstating it - it was more that it was a deliberately misleading article unfortunately.

I get that - with footy b/c like many on here, i value your knowldge of the Lions and footy, but yes I didnt even consider the parameters that that stat would be skewed significantly by the poorer teams losing in rd 1 that were never in contention for finals in the first place - cant beleive i walked right into

 

[Jivlain]

No.

That's a massively misleading statistic.

Many teams that lose week one are because they're actually s**t teams who were never going to make finals. These will dominate that statistic as a result.

If you controlled for teams that were good in the previous year the results would be much more indicative for us (and the Dogs) - it would be lower than if we'd won round one, but it wouldn't be within cooee of 20%.

Of the 10 teams that did make finals, 5 of them were finalists the year before and 5 not.

However, that's on a sample size of 14 previous finalists and 29 previous non-finalists (the 44th was the inception year GWS).

Memo-to-self: make my views more user-friendly

 

[M Malice]

Of the 10 teams that did make finals, 5 of them were finalists the year before and 5 not.

However, that's on a sample size of 14 previous finalists and 29 previous non-finalists (the 44th was the inception year GWS).

Memo-to-self: make my views more user-friendly
View attachment 1636269

 

[MacMum]

Assuming the child in NAB footy ad wearing our jumper is meant to be Richy, could someone please explain to me why he has dark hair and beard. Richy has been blond forever. Ive never seen him with dark hair.

 

[Section 5]

I will solve that after lunch a bit busy at present finding away through the Demons defense

 

[briztoon]

I will solve that after lunch a bit busy at present finding away through the Demons defense

49.

 

[Section 5]

49.

Darn you beat me to it.

 

[M Malice]

I haven't listened yet but here we go, I'll give it another go .... take 2.

 

[dlanod]

Of the 10 teams that did make finals, 5 of them were finalists the year before and 5 not.

However, that's on a sample size of 14 previous finalists and 29 previous non-finalists (the 44th was the inception year GWS).

So 5/14 or 35%. They could have gone with that, been more accurate, and still predicted doom and gloom! (I doubt they care about sample size concerns.)

 

[briztoon]

I haven't listened yet but here we go, I'll give it another go .... take 2.

Sorry, don’t want see smiling faces on the boys this week.

 

[Cubs2Lions]

Sorry, don’t want see smiling faces on the boys this week.

Unless it is Ryan Lester’s face that’s smiling

 

[trikster]

Of the 10 teams that did make finals, 5 of them were finalists the year before and 5 not.

However, that's on a sample size of 14 previous finalists and 29 previous non-finalists (the 44th was the inception year GWS).

Memo-to-self: make my views more user-friendly
View attachment 1636269

never thought I'd see sql on bigfooty, bonus points for using rank over

 

[lionraven]

How did you get a copy of Fagan's notes on how to get Charlie Cameron free in the goal square?

 

[MSB ROYS]

New collection of photos from the 1960s and 70s. Looks to contain some Fitzroy pictures and I see Kevin Murray in one.

 

[Cubs2Lions]

 

[Section 5]

Very interesting from McGuire on new ball chip tec being trialed by Carlton.
I can only supply the link to the video.
It must have been aired on one of the Footy shows.

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[MSB ROYS]

The AFL team and Melbourne suburb is Hawthorn and the Brisbane suburb is Hawthorne.

It's driving my proof reading brain nuts people of Brisban.

 

[briztoon]

The AFL team and Melbourne suburb is Hawthorn and the Brisbane suburb is Hawthorne.

It's driving my proof reading brain nuts people of Brisban.

Can’t say I’ve noticed that on here. I do have to correct my spell check from using the Brisbane spelling.