The premiership ladder: Terry Wallace

[mav-1]

. The formula he used was not precise but it gives some indication as to where teams are!

only if he uses the correct stats. For example he said that the Roos had ZERO players in their best 22 under 22 years of age. One Daniel Wells is 21??!! Add our 2 injured guns in Urch (played in the final last year) and Smith (who both will be in the side by the end of the year) and you have the 3 players required for a premership tilt!!

Also some teams were closer to the Sydney team of last year than others, but ended up earlier on the Premership Clock. Nothing made sense, it was done on who had the closet corrolation to the group numbers, and it wasn't done on average age. It was just an opinion with some figures thrown up to make it look like it had some justification. And if all the Richmond supporters believe it then TW really has pulled the wool over your eyes.

 

[Jumpin' Jimmy]

The "poised to fire" comment on Collingwood surely refers to Mick Malthouse.

 

[mav-1]

God there are some absolute idiots in this thread, I mean for people to not even be able to grasp the most simple concepts really does worry me.

hah, if you couldn't see all the holes in the 'concept' then you should spend your school holidays doing some study!

 

[jezza]

hah, if you couldn't see all the holes in the 'concept' then you should spend your school holidays doing some study!

AHHHHHH!!!!! Thank you for BEING my point!!!!!!!!

 

[LVAK]

lol . . . your replies always give me a grin Cyclops. Pleased I could return the favour.

Anyhow, Wallace is a senior coach but he's also a media scribe. Seems a strange mix and amazes me he can still pull it off. This is Terry Wallace media scribe talking, not Terry Wallace senior coach talking.

There is no doubt that hard bodied teams win flags and a side full of kids will rarely challenge for a flag, but this nonsense about we are you now so we'll be a threat in 'x' years is complete and utter bumkin.

You're throwing the baby out with the bath water because you don't like what he said about the Saints .
Sure , it's not precise , there are many variables and some teams may not be where they should be on his list but the concept is something all clubs would be looking at.
It's very important these days for a club to objectively gauge what stage they are at. Richmond have been a classic example of misjudging where they are at and topping up before they are a genuine top 4 side.
Thankfully it seems that we have taken off the black & yellow googles and started again from scratch . Actually using the draft properly.
All clubs would be assessing where they are at, this is not a Terry media construct

 

[mav-1]

AHHHHHH!!!!! Thank you for BEING my point!!!!!!!!

oh guru one, please explain the concept in detail to us. Or just answer the questions I raised above?

 

[Beckers]

Our big talent is all under 26.
Pavlich (24), Hasleby (25), Longmuir (25), Sandilands (23), J.Carr (26), Grover (26), McPharlin (25)

Other decent players around that age group include:
Headland (25), Medhurst (24), Thornton (23), Peake (23), Dodd (23), throw in a fit Hayden (25) and Haddrill (25) and it becomes obvious our list is very much focussed around the 24-26 year olds.

LMAO, I almost choked on my weeties reading that trash!
Any club would be happy to take Pavlich, Longmuir, Sandilands, Peake and Johnson but the rest are fairly average Bell is the hearbeat of Freo and without him they are souless!

Hasleby (25), - slow and front runner
Medhurst (24) - give me a break!!
J.Carr (26), - thug
Grover (26), - serviceable
McPharlin (25) - Elijah Price, nuff said!
Headland (25), - hungry and front runner
Haddrill (25) - serviceable at best
Thornton (23), - serviceable and bad haircut
Dodd (23), - serviceable

Freo have many front runners who are not willing to go in and get their hands dirty but are more than happy to recieve the easy handball and finish off!

 

[worthy]

Why on earth would Wallet put Geelong down as 'time running out' ?

They have one of the youngest lists in the comp. In many games this year they fielded the youngest 22 of any team.

The next few years will see Geelong's core group of players move into the 24-26 bracket. If they are good enough, this is the optimum age for a tilt at a flag.

I also thought that was a strange choice, Geelong IMO are poised to give the flag a shake in the next 3 years, they only need one or two of:
N. Ablett
Grima
McCarthy
Hawkins
to step up, and:
Kingsley
Ottens
To hold some good form and have a good run with injury.

 

[jezza]

oh guru one, please explain the concept in detail to us. Or just answer the questions I raised above?

It's not about understanding the concept in detail, it's about knowing that it was simply an exercise to compare current sides against the most recent premiership team from an age perspective. He said it wasn't perfect, he said it wasn't going to decide who won the flag, it was merely an EXERCISE!!!! They then noted with interest that in general it matched closely with the current ladder with a couple of exceptions. Terry also made a few comments about differences he had between the results and his own personal opinion.

Someone else could easily come up with another analysis, perhaps based on games played, and it might show similar results, might be different. Either way, it just doesn't matter because it's purely a statistical analysis and in the end that's not what wins or loses football games or decides premierships.

So that in summary is why I am laughing at the lame people in this thread that have chucked their little hissy fits because their personal opinion doesn't match up with this one particular formula and it says something negative about their side that they just can't cope with.

 

[mav-1]

It's not about understanding the concept in detail, it's about knowing that it was simply an exercise to compare current sides against the most recent premiership team from an age perspective. He said it wasn't perfect, he said it wasn't going to decide who won the flag, it was merely an EXERCISE!!!! They then noted with interest that in general it matched closely with the current ladder with a couple of exceptions. Terry also made a few comments about differences he had between the results and his own personal opinion.

This is the issue I have with the exercise. He was meant to be comparing sides but he (or WLF, whoever) didn't do it at all. Like I said some teams were but ahead of others even though they didn't match Sydney the closest.

Someone else could easily come up with another analysis, perhaps based on games played, and it might show similar results, might be different. Either way, it just doesn't matter because it's purely a statistical analysis and in the end that's not what wins or loses football games or decides premierships.

Sure, but you have to use the correct numbers in any exercise you use. Clearly this wasn't done as I pointed out in the case of NM. (as I know our list better than any other team I could pick this up, seems others have similar views of their own lists!)

So that in summary is why I am laughing at the lame people in this thread that have chucked their little hissy fits because their personal opinion doesn't match up with this one particular formula and it says something negative about their side that they just can't cope with

so people are having a hissy fit as personal opinion (despite TW trying to say it wasn't!) was passed as a mathematical formula. Personally I couldn't care less where TW thinks we are at, but I do take offence that I pay for Fox and get served up that rubbish.

So in summary, if you can't see the holes in TW exercise then you really do believe he is the messiah who will lead you to a GF. I have nothing but pity for you Jezza

 

[lewiy]

so the whole concept is basically pie in the sky stuff i agree with that ...but some people must really despise terry wallace. Yes, he is in the media and yes, he is an AFL coach but $hit, i'd much rather listen to what he has to say than the majority of other football media 'personalities' and writers (not to mention some of the other coaches)

with a whole channel devoted to afl footy no wonder they have to come up with this kind of stuff to fill in the time....it's just a different way to analyse footy, perhaps wrong, but different none the less...some of you need to lighten up

 

[fishbowl]

And yet, still miles infront.

Richmond> Freo

Hawthorn > Richmond > Freo

Can any one post the numbers of >22 22-26 <26?

 

[Ari]

hah, if you couldn't see all the holes in the 'concept' then you should spend your school holidays doing some study!

Its an 'exercise'!

That means it's not an exact science but a general process to consider. Wallace said himself it's far from perfect, but a decent generalisation of where clubs are at.

For mine it was 'fairly' accurate.

Freo being up the front just displays what kind of club they are. Who would have thought the might of Freo would be squandering their time with a team of players ripe aged to do the trick.

 

[itsintheblood]

If coaches actually believed in what they are saying, especially Terry, then why wouldn't he have traded all the senior players at Richmond when he took on the job? With a 5 year contract, anyone on the wrong side of 25 should have been shown the door. Richo would have been a monty to be traded.

Look at Hawthorn, the other team Terry quotes, why would they keep players like Crawford and Everitt?

Why do they keep them?

You know this simply is not possible JD. Getting rid of all your older, experienced players would spell disaster.

 

[itsintheblood]

Look, its the oxymoron moron.

I answered my own question. You really are just a tosser.

Fool. You and your club as well are irrellevant. You cant mix it with the big boys. Go play by yourself. This thread is too serious for you.

 

[jezza]

So in summary, if you can't see the holes in TW exercise then you really do believe he is the messiah who will lead you to a GF. I have nothing but pity for you Jezza

Didn't I just write a big ****ing post pointing out the holes in the exercise? Read, think, then think some more, then post. I said there were flaws in it as there would be in any analysis like that, and I also said that Terry and everyone else involved acknowledged there would be flaws in it. In no way whatsoever did they remotely even suggest that it was perfect. It was just an exercise that produced some interesting results.

By the way, your final comment makes no sense at all. If I can't see the holes in the exercise then I believe that Terry is the messiah? What? Moron.

 

[mav-1]

Didn't I just write a big ****ing post pointing out the holes in the exercise? Read, think, then think some more, then post. I said there were flaws in it as there would be in any analysis like that, and I also said that Terry and everyone else involved acknowledged there would be flaws in it. In no way whatsoever did they remotely even suggest that it was perfect. It was just an exercise that produced some interesting results.

By the way, your final comment makes no sense at all. If I can't see the holes in the exercise then I believe that Terry is the messiah? What? Moron.

let me explain it one more time for you, TW provided incorrect data and illogical reasoning, therefor the results are a load of (rap.

As for my last comment, if you think this excerisie was interesting then you will believe any rubbish that spews from the mouth of your so called messiah. Understand? The only morons around here are the ones that actually found the exercise interesting.

Let me point out another dumb comment from your supper coach. He mentioned that the Tommo trade of ours was the only one to work. Why did he not mention Pratt or Green who have both been very good for us this year? Sure Hay has yet to prove to be worth while, and Powell was a shyte head but TW makes statements that show he has no real idea.

 

[jezza]

let me explain it one more time for you, TW provided incorrect data and illogical reasoning, therefor the results are a load of (rap.

As for my last comment, if you think this excerisie was interesting then you will believe any rubbish that spews from the mouth of your so called messiah. Understand? The only morons around here are the ones that actually found the exercise interesting.

Let me point out another dumb comment from your supper coach. He mentioned that the Tommo trade of ours was the only one to work. Why did he not mention Pratt or Green who have both been very good for us this year? Sure Hay has yet to prove to be worth while, and Powell was a shyte head but TW makes statements that show he has no real idea.

Reasoning was not illogical, quite the opposite in fact. Who was the last team to win the flag? Sydney. So why not compare each side against that team to see where they're at based on a particular criteria. Doesn't tell the whole story, but provided some interesting results. As for the data, you've provided 1 error so far and that was the Wells one. Smith and Urch have played 6 games each of AFL football, tough to claim they are as yet in the best 22.


I found the analysis interesting as did many others who had the capacity to see it for what it was. Those that couldn't think the issue through cleary are the ones here chucking the wobblies. You continuing to bag Wallace and make snide little irrelevant remarks only weakens your position, it's a sure sign that you've lost an argument on BF when you start doing that.

Your last paragraph this time? 100% irrelevant to this argument.

 

[turtle27]

let me explain it one more time for you, TW provided incorrect data and illogical reasoning, therefor the results are a load of (rap.

As for my last comment, if you think this excerisie was interesting then you will believe any rubbish that spews from the mouth of your so called messiah. Understand? The only morons around here are the ones that actually found the exercise interesting.

Let me point out another dumb comment from your supper coach. He mentioned that the Tommo trade of ours was the only one to work. Why did he not mention Pratt or Green who have both been very good for us this year? Sure Hay has yet to prove to be worth while, and Powell was a shyte head but TW makes statements that show he has no real idea.

TW provided the criteria of <22, 22-26, >26, WLF provided the player data, take it up with them.

 

[AllStar7]

Interesting to see his opinons;
STILL TO YOUNG- Western Bulldogs/Melbourne

Goes to show you what an idiot he is, and I hope his planning for tomorrow night's game is as good as his analysis of the premiership ladder.

How on earth is Melbourne "still too young"?
We need to win a flag while Neitz, White, Yze, McDonald, Pickett and Robertson are firing, all of them are 28 or older. Bruce is 26, Johnstone is 25 as is Green.

Yes we have some players in our side who are young and inexperienced, especially key players in Rivers & McLean, but both players are mature and have proved to be consistent at this level.

 

[mav-1]

Reasoning was not illogical, quite the opposite in fact. Who was the last team to win the flag? Sydney. So why not compare each side against that team to see where they're at based on a particular criteria. Doesn't tell the whole story, but provided some interesting results. As for the data, you've provided 1 error so far and that was the Wells one. Smith and Urch have played 6 games each of AFL football, tough to claim they are as yet in the best 22.

you really are missing the point. What I am getting at is how teams stacked up against Sydney didn't correlate to where they were on the clock. For example there was one team that had one player more in the >26 age (one less in the 22-26 bracket) than Sydney as the only difference yet that team was somewhere around 7 o'clock. I cant remember which team it was. That would mean every other team above them would have had to have the exact same numbers as Sydney, but this wasn't the case.

There were also a couple of others that were very close to Sydney's average age but they weren't given a chance of a GF either. This shows that average age had nothing to do with where they were positioned on the ladder. Did you even look at the numbers? Really, the only people saying it was any good are the Richmond supporters, wonder why!! Jezza, if you don't want to analyse the numbers, and presume what is said by TW is gospel that's fine, you can presume you won the "argument" if it makes you feel all warm inside.

As for Smith and Urch, yep only 6 games each but quality players who, when fit are in our best 22. And if you don't want to use Smith and Urch as an example of TW or WLF incompetence then you can add McIntosh and Swallow who both played on the weekend and are both under 22! Either way WLF or Wallace didn't do the homework making the exercise irrelevant.

But hey, I'm glad someone got some interest out it (but if you flick over to Boomerang you will find Scooby doo is on, and I'd would say you will get more intellectual stimulation out of that!)

 

[saintsrule]

Melbourne has the fourth oldest list after Adelaide, Saints and Freo. And they have the most players of all teams aged 25+. They have 18 as opposed to Richmond's 12. It is a fallacy that Melbourne are a young team and Wallace has no clue.

 

[jezza]

Goes to show you what an idiot he is, and I hope his planning for tomorrow night's game is as good as his analysis of the premiership ladder.

How on earth is Melbourne "still too young"?
We need to win a flag while Neitz, White, Yze, McDonald, Pickett and Robertson are firing, all of them are 28 or older. Bruce is 26, Johnstone is 25 as is Green.

Yes we have some players in our side who are young and inexperienced, especially key players in Rivers & McLean, but both players are mature and have proved to be consistent at this level.

It was a formula for gods sake! Don't go calling people idiots without knowing what you're talking about first, otherwise YOU come off looking like an idiot.

 

[jezza]

you really are missing the point. What I am getting at is how teams stacked up against Sydney didn't correlate to where they were on the clock. For example there was one team that had one player more in the >26 age (one less in the 22-26 bracket) than Sydney as the only difference yet that team was somewhere around 7 o'clock. I cant remember which team it was. That would mean every other team above them would have had to have the exact same numbers as Sydney, but this wasn't the case.

There were also a couple of others that were very close to Sydney's average age but they weren't given a chance of a GF either. This shows that average age had nothing to do with where they were positioned on the ladder. Did you even look at the numbers? Really, the only people saying it was any good are the Richmond supporters, wonder why!! Jezza, if you don't want to analyse the numbers, and presume what is said by TW is gospel that's fine, you can presume you won the "argument" if it makes you feel all warm inside.

But don't you get it yet? That's what THIS PARTICULAR FORMULA was based on. This PARTICULAR FORUMULA took the age bracket breakdowns and the average ages of what someone decided was the best 22 of each team and calculated a position using some formula. Whoever came up with it has obviously used some parameters that they think give an reasonably accurate reflection on where sides are at, but they are simply that person's personal view.

The fact that all positions except probably 2 matched WHERE THE TEAMS ARE ON THE LADDER RIGHT NOW would suggest that it was a reasonable formula worth looking at, not perfect as they said, but worth seeing what it came up with. You simply fail to see that PURELY BECAUSE YOU DO NOT LIKE WHAT IT SAID ABOUT YOUR TEAM. You are letting your biases get in the way of the issue.

Lastly, go back and read this thread again. Plenty from other teams have said they found this interesting. You saying it is only Richmond people is a very weak attempt at trying to discredit it because you personally don't like it. Don't make up things, it makes you look very silly. I found it interesting because it was a valid comparison against the reigning premiers. There are plenty of other valid comparisons too. None of them however are 100% accurate and none of them will determine which side wins.

And again, I do not take what Wallace said as gospel. You saying that is again a very cheap attempt to divert attention away from a losing argument. I have pointed out more times than anyone that this calculation is not perfect. How that is taking it as gospel I do not know.

 

[deck]

The wording around the running out of time, time to pounce etc, was compiled by Fox Footy, not TW.

Yes exactly. Terry clearly stated he had no idea on where each team would appear on the list. It is based on his theory that he has obviously worked out by looking at premiership teams over the years.