When will Geelong finally be labelled the best side in the AFL currently?

[Lunchlady Doris]

Doesn't have to be the case at all. In reality, it is a very simple question to answer, i agree it doesn't really need to be answered now anyway because its only mid-year and IMO the season only really starts now --> onwards

Simple, set the criteria for what constitutes a better team, make them agreed and measurable. Therefore making the result undisputed. In America, the NBA use a type of power ranking system which places teams based on statistics rather than their record... As they play 82 games a season, a win/loss record can be deceiving. As it can be in the AFL.

If people want to score Geelong and Collingwood based on record, well at the moment Geelong is the best team. Given this is an unreliable way to gauge a teams ability, and the media and journos (especially betting agencies) know this, they set other criteria to go by.

IMO the measurable set of criteria should be:

1. Game percentage, points for, points against. (gives an indication of the teams ability to score, and defend.)
Collingwood: F - 1312 #1 A - 736 #1
Geelong: F - 1126 #2 A - 786 #2

2. Contested Possessions (gives an indication of a teams ability to win the hard ball)
couldn't find the actual stats for the rest, would appreciate some help.

3. Clearances (gives an indication of a teams ablity to get first use of the football from stoppages)

4. Inside 50's (gives an indication of the amount of times a team creates an opportunity to score)

5. Scores from Turnovers (given the contested nature of todays game with presses/zones and all.. gives an indication of a teams game plan and how it translates to the bulk of their scoring)

6. Tackles (gives an indication of the pressure a team applies)

Of course the hard thing is to have the end result of these stats being undisputed. As someone had just pointed out to me, its hard to have these stats reliable, or even rely on stats when teams fixtures are different, and some teams travel more than others etc. But this could be the most reliable measure of a teams ability than we currently have.

Maybe if we had played a slew of bottom 8 sides, without travelling interstate, those stats would be meaningful.

 

[jabbers]

Of course Geelong are currently the best. They are undefeated on top of the ladder. Sure, most pundits don't expect them to be there at the end of the season, but as things stand currently, they're the best.

 

[Thommo 42]

We had like 12 more scoring shots than Collingwood earlier in the year. TWELVE. I believe we have more talent overall (we'd be streets ahead if we still had Ablett, who's worth about 3 of their pot-shotting forwards) provided Duncan can keep up his form, and Varcoe can replicate some of his form from last year. Don't rate Sidebottom, O'Brien, Dawes, Ball, Wellingham, Krakoer. Good-decent players, nothing more. Swan is the one of the worst elite footballers to watch I've ever seen. Don't know that Pendlebury can handle a tag. Doubt that Didak can get it done against us when the pressure's on.

We are a team of heart and proven but ageing stars and match-winners, I don't know if it will be enough but screw Collingwood. They're absolutely ferocious at the contest, that's what makes them good. That and Cloke.

Winty nomination right there.

 

[Military_man]

I think you are over rating coaching here. There is enough GF and finals experience in the playing group

Scott has played in successful sides. This shouldnt be an issue

Let me cast your mind back to acouple years ago a time i like to forget. Carlton was in a final against the Lions. We was 5 goals up halfway thru the last quarter then brissy went on the attack. kicked acouple goals and ran over the top of Carlton. This could have been prevented if the coach made acouple moves to counter the brissy attack. However he didn't and the reason being he pannicked under the pressure and froze and didn't do anything to stop the run of the Lions. Why ?? Because he was very inexperienced as a coach in finals footy. I am pretty sure Scott will suffer the same fate come finals. first year coaches never win a grandfinal in thier first year simpy because they don't have the knowledge.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Let me cast your mind back to acouple years ago a time i like to forget. Carlton was in a final against the Lions. We was 5 goals up halfway thru the last quarter then brissy went on the attack. kicked acouple goals and ran over the top of Carlton. This could have been prevented if the coach made acouple moves to counter the brissy attack. However he didn't and the reason being he pannicked under the pressure and froze and didn't do anything to stop the run of the Lions. Why ?? Because he was very inexperienced as a coach in finals footy. I am pretty sure Scott will suffer the same fate come finals. first year coaches never win a grandfinal in thier first year simpy because they don't have the knowledge.

Has outcoached pretty much all coaches he's come up against. Especially Clarkson on the weekend, who has won a GF, so

 

[eddiesmith]

Thank Christ we haven't had to try to play anyone without Ottens since we've been winning games.

Since Round 1, 2008. Ottens has missed 38 games (out of 86). Geelong's won 31 of them. And with the position we find ourselves in now, Ottens will be rested regularly throughout the rest of the season, to ensure he doesn't break down. What were your thoughts on Vardy's dominance of the hitouts when he went into the ruck on Saturday night, by the way?

How many of those 31 wins have been against Collingwood?

He has always been the difference, yet once we got Jolly, we started belting the Cats

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

How many of those 31 wins have been against Collingwood?

He has always been the difference, yet once we got Jolly, we started belting the Cats

The first game in 2010 (lost both games against Collingwood when he was in the lineup). Round 3 2009 (won the PF with him in the lineup). In other words, the last two times we faced Collingwood without Ottens, we won. Though fair play to you, the belting in 2008 was dished out when Ottens wasn't in the lineup.

So Jolly (at Collingwood) vs Ottens currently stands at 2-0, Jolly's way. Jolly vs Blake is 1-0, Blake's way.

Still, it seems the position has changed from Geelong being a ten goal worse side without Ottens, to Geelong only being a ten goal worse side when they play Collingwood without Ottens and the evidence doesn't really back that up either. Either way, Ottens will be managed carefully for the rest of the season, now that a top four spot is a formality, to ensure that Ottens is cherry ripe for finals. It seems Jolly is a much bigger concern than Ottens to me, anyway.

 

[Military_man]

Has outcoached pretty much all coaches he's come up against. Especially Clarkson on the weekend, who has won a GF, so

finals footy is a total different ballgame.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

finals footy is a total different ballgame.

Whatever champ.

 

[mustafish]

who cares if you are labelled the best side in the comp in june? only thing that matters is being the side getting the cup in september (well october this year)

so everyside should stop playing and come back in september october???

 

[mustafish]

How many of those 31 wins have been against Collingwood?

He has always been the difference, yet once we got Jolly, we started belting the Cats

you may wana do your maths mate, since your had jolly its been 2 all cats and pies, although jolly missed 1 of them games....

 

[eldorado]

Simple, set the criteria for what constitutes a better team, make them agreed and measurable. Therefore making the result undisputed.

You'll find everyone will 'agree' with this system until such time as their team receives a rating that does not match their perceptions. Then they will disagree strenuously, and the obvious flaws in such a subjective set of criteria will be shouted from the rooftops.

Really, speaking scientifically, in any area which there is NOT reliability (i.e. team A beating Team B today does not mean that Team A will beat Team B in 2 weeks), there cannot be validity either.

Just subjective speculation and arbitrary value judgement that reinforce our own biases and prejudices.

There's mathematical proof (which is unequivocally proven), then there's scientific proof (which is generally believed until disproved by new evidence), then there is agreed proof...which isn't any kind of proof at all.

Agreed criteria doesn't actually 'prove' or support any conclusion...(unless, of course, it is 'your' team that is 'proven' to be the best.)

 

[Easty]

I haven't read through this whole thread, but if probably won't happen unless Collingwood get knocked out of the finals (highly unlikely). If Hawthorn manage to beat Collingwood in round 15, everyone will then get behind Hawthorn as the favourites. If that happens, I'll be throwing some coin on the Cats for the flag at good value.

 

[vonn]

When they win the premiership. Everyone just seems to lean towards last year's premiers (naturally)

 

[STC]

Pretty sure St Kilda were still underdogs for the majority of 2009, even after they beat us in round 14, it wasn't until we lost a few that they installed the Saints as faves (and then after the Prelims we were favourites again).

Really doesn't bother me - if you think Geelong should be the favourites, take advantage of the odds.

 

[The King!]

so everyside should stop playing and come back in september october???

No but what difference does make if the media or whoever acknowledge in this case the cats as the best right now?

 

[eddiesmith]

you may wana do your maths mate, since your had jolly its been 2 all cats and pies, although jolly missed 1 of them games....

Yeah, we lost to Geelong early last year when Jolly and Ball were yet to establish themselves

We smashed Geelong twice later in the year when the team was settled and lost this year with, No Jolly!

If Jolly was fit we would have beaten Geelong, simple as that.

Ottens has been a massive problem for Collingwood, Jolly has totally negated that beating him every time they have played each other

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

...Jolly has totally negated that beating him every time they have played each other

Wrong again, do you ever get sick of that?

 

[Pie eyed]

According to Channel 10's pre-game piece, it's a two horse race between Collingwood and Hawthorn and the rest are just making up the numbers.

The Cats are just a top of the table place holder.

Is Quarterbrain on 10?

 

[eddiesmith]

Wrong again, do you ever get sick of that?

Really?

According to your fellow supporter, Ottens didnt play in the 1st game last year and Jolly didnt play this year so umm, tell me where I am wrong this time?

 

[JoondalupJ]

Good point. There were 12 frees in the first qtr and they all went one way. You dont think a similar 12 frees in a row to a different team in the last qtr would of made a difference?

But back to the question of the OP........
Regrettfully as great a team as Geelong are they will never be labelled as such. This year or any other year. This can never happen.

Just like Matty Lloyd has openly admitted he will never be remembered for his great goal kicking achievments due to his acting/diving, Geelong are in the same boat. Until Chappy stops running through packs with incidental contact to his shoulder and throwing his head back, until Selwood stops milking frees, until Stevie J stops acting completely- well until this happens Geelong could win the next 100 games but will always be remembered by the general public(well the majority with half a brain at least) as a lucky team who exploit umpiring weaknesses to their own advantage.

Yes you could argue that rushing points was exploiting a rule in 2008. However players were doing this for 100 years. It is only in recent times that our great game is turning into a softer version of soccer akin to netball with players taking every opportunity to dive, act, milk their way to points on the scoreboard. Sadly for Geelong the whole world has seen this happen and even more sadder for the game is Geelong were succeeding at it so well over the last few years that all the other teams have tried to copy. Nowhere near as good as the experts mind you.

Obviously Geelong will not be called for bringing the game into disrepute and obviously with the AFL happy for our game to head down this path it will not be stopped. The end result very well might be Geelong milking its way to another 3 flags in a row. The longer term result which is already happening as the greater footy public are starting to open their eyes- Geelong are not gaining any respect, ala Matty Lloyd.

Its a shame because they are truly an awesome team but the only dynasty they will be remembered for is an "umpires dynasty" at a time in history when the AFL were trying to make the game more appealing to mums and Geelong took full advantage.

meow meow. please label us the best.

Milking umpires is indeed a skill developed by some players . This new smartarse skill is happening these days because the rules are so complicated and ridiculous and technical that every one is misinterpreting incidents every way through the games, not just commentators but the poor old spectator as well, but worst of all the umpires are confused .
You all should understand that our game of Australian rules is a pretty simple game.
But under the foolish Mr Dim and his cronies they,ve complicated it to the extreme and are well on the way to ruining it.
So fans lets dice the Dim before its too late!

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Really?

According to your fellow supporter, Ottens didnt play in the 1st game last year and Jolly didnt play this year so umm, tell me where I am wrong this time?

My mistake, I thought you might be talking about them beating each other, as in a meaningful comparison of two players.

 

[Roby]

Doesn't have to be the case at all. In reality, it is a very simple question to answer, i agree it doesn't really need to be answered now anyway because its only mid-year and IMO the season only really starts now --> onwards

Simple, set the criteria for what constitutes a better team, make them agreed and measurable. Therefore making the result undisputed. In America, the NBA use a type of power ranking system which places teams based on statistics rather than their record... As they play 82 games a season, a win/loss record can be deceiving. As it can be in the AFL.

If people want to score Geelong and Collingwood based on record, well at the moment Geelong is the best team. Given this is an unreliable way to gauge a teams ability, and the media and journos (especially betting agencies) know this, they set other criteria to go by.

IMO the measurable set of criteria should be:

1. Game percentage, points for, points against. (gives an indication of the teams ability to score, and defend.)
Collingwood: F - 1312 #1 A - 736 #1
Geelong: F - 1126 #2 A - 786 #2

2. Contested Possessions (gives an indication of a teams ability to win the hard ball)
couldn't find the actual stats for the rest, would appreciate some help.

3. Clearances (gives an indication of a teams ablity to get first use of the football from stoppages)

4. Inside 50's (gives an indication of the amount of times a team creates an opportunity to score)

5. Scores from Turnovers (given the contested nature of todays game with presses/zones and all.. gives an indication of a teams game plan and how it translates to the bulk of their scoring)

6. Tackles (gives an indication of the pressure a team applies)

Of course the hard thing is to have the end result of these stats being undisputed. As someone had just pointed out to me, its hard to have these stats reliable, or even rely on stats when teams fixtures are different, and some teams travel more than others etc. But this could be the most reliable measure of a teams ability than we currently have.

These power rankings taking into equations things like this.

 

[BegBorrowNSteele]

These power rankings taking into equations things like this.

Your right in your explanation, it does seem extension and complex. Do you find it to be reliable with your tipping/betting for example? or game predictions etc?

 

[BegBorrowNSteele]

You'll find everyone will 'agree' with this system until such time as their team receives a rating that does not match their perceptions. Then they will disagree strenuously, and the obvious flaws in such a subjective set of criteria will be shouted from the rooftops.

Really, speaking scientifically, in any area which there is NOT reliability (i.e. team A beating Team B today does not mean that Team A will beat Team B in 2 weeks), there cannot be validity either.

Just subjective speculation and arbitrary value judgement that reinforce our own biases and prejudices.

There's mathematical proof (which is unequivocally proven), then there's scientific proof (which is generally believed until disproved by new evidence), then there is agreed proof...which isn't any kind of proof at all.

Agreed criteria doesn't actually 'prove' or support any conclusion...(unless, of course, it is 'your' team that is 'proven' to be the best.)

All of this is bloody well said, and i agree with most of it. But can it be done as a course to give some (disputed) kind of guide as to which teams are performing better than others. Maybe its just too hard to have people agree on what aspects of performance/statistics/depth make a better team, such a hard topic to resolve. But i love the heated debate.