Who are West Coast, Sydney, Adelaide and Essendon kidding?

[ok.crows]

You would have played the first placed Saints in Melbourne though, not WC(?) at home. A much more difficult (but not impossible) game.

Adelaide did end up playing the first placed Saints in Melbourne a few weeks later. Adelaide won by six goals.

To show you how ridiculous that finals system was Geelong finished 2nd. Lost to North first week and had to travel to Adelaide. Reasons like this is why it was changed to give the top 4 a bigger advantage.

Perfectly reasonable. Geelong lost the first final, but they did not get eliminated, but they did lose their "2nd spot" ranking as a consequence of losing. Adelaide finished 4th, and then won their first final, so as a consequence they were then re-ranked higher than Geelong.

This happens in the normal minor rounds. A team was ranked 2nd, but loses, and another team which was ranked a bit lower wins, and hey presto the very next week the team that was 2nd is 2nd no longer!

Imagine that.

 

[MarkCatsFan]

OP

 

[pavilion103]

Adelaide did end up playing the first placed Saints in Melbourne a few weeks later. Adelaide won by six goals.



Perfectly reasonable. Geelong lost the first final, but they did not get eliminated, but they did lose their "2nd spot" ranking as a consequence of losing. Adelaide finished 4th, and then won their first final, so as a consequence they were then re-ranked higher than Geelong.

This happens in the normal minor rounds. A team was ranked 2nd, but loses, and another team which was ranked a bit lower wins, and hey presto the very next week the team that was 2nd is 2nd no longer!

Imagine that.

poor logic

 

[pavilion103]

OP

You'll see come Finals.

 

[Kwality]

You'll see come Finals.

Top 2 will be valuable, BUT you need to get there first.

 

[ok.crows]

poor logic

I think you need to find out what logic actually is, first. The McIntyre finals system was indeed based on re-ranking the teams after each round of finals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McIntyre_Final_Eight_System

Week 1

• 4th Qualifying Final: 1st vs 8th
• 3rd Qualifying Final: 2nd vs 7th
• 2nd Qualifying Final: 3rd vs 6th
• 1st Qualifying Final: 4th vs 5th

The organisation of the rest of the finals series is dependent upon whether teams won or lost in week 1 and their final ranking on the ladder before the finals. The two lowest ranked losers are eliminated from the finals, whilst the two highest ranked winners progress straight to Week 3.

Week 2

• 1st Semi Final: 4th highest ranked winner vs 2nd highest ranked loser
• 2nd Semi Final: 3rd highest ranked winner vs 1st highest ranked loser

The two losing teams are eliminated, the two winning teams progress to Week 3.

You will note that in week 2, the 2nd Semi Final game is described as "3rd highest ranked winner vs 1st highest ranked loser". The home team is, as always, named first. In 1997, the 3rd highest ranked winner was Adelaide and the 1st highest ranked loser was Geelong.

That was the system. That was how it worked.

These are the simple facts. Since this was the system, and these are the facts, the application of logic reasoning is not required.

 

[Pilchard_Adams]

Maybe that was against GWS or I heard wrong. I think there were a couple of other 1 or 2 game players?

By all means have a look and name them. The sides had virtually the same amount of players with 70 games experience.

 

[Pilchard_Adams]

You would have played the first placed Saints in Melbourne though, not WC(?) at home. A much more difficult (but not impossible) game.

To show you how ridiculous that finals system was Geelong finished 2nd. Lost to North first week and had to travel to Adelaide. Reasons like this is why it was changed to give the top 4 a bigger advantage.

Correct, Adelaide would have played the saints. The same team they beat a few weeks later for the flag. There was only 2 wins difference between WC and the Saints.

Geelong should never have lost that first week... But if they won it would have still been a Geelong v Adelaide prelim.

In a way the current system gives the top 4 a lesser advantage than the old system. Previously 1st and 2nd played 7th and 8th for a chance to jump straight into the prelims (I think), now they face a much harder game vs 3rd and 4th

 

[Go the Guts]

Maybe that was against GWS or I heard wrong. I think there were a couple of other 1 or 2 game players?

Mate you have been found out for what you are - a very inaccurate, no research troll. You said with incredible 'authority' how Geelong went into that game with 10 players with a total of 70 games experience. After a quick glance, I noticed that Adelaide actually had 352 less total games experience than Geelong in the game. We actually had 6 players with around 70 games experience. When asked to name the 10 players, you then do a huge back pedal with the quote above. Are you for real? Will remember never to take anything you say seriously on here ever again. If you're going to make huge calls like that one, make sure you're correct. Or you'll lose any credibility you may have had, and for mine you've got none.

Mate give us a spell. Why dont Sydney deserve to make top 4 if they do make it ? Fwiw i dont think they will but if they do, they will make it on their merits considering their 2 most important players in Mumford and Goodes will have both missed a quarter of the season.If they do miss at least there will be no misconceptions of how good they really were in 2012, unlike Adelaide who will be served up a top 4 spot based on one of the most lopsided softest draws in the history of the competiton.As far as it being an astonishing effort for them to make finals,as i said give us a spell because your embarrassing yourself with that tripe.

Yeah, fair call. It is purely due to our soft draw. It's not due to things like being the first side to beat Sydney this year, and in Sydney for that matter. Or having the best away record in the AFL this year including Sydney, Carlton in Melbourne or Freo in Perth. It wouldnt be because of stuff like that or anything.......

 

[pavilion103]

I think you need to find out what logic actually is, first. The McIntyre finals system was indeed based on re-ranking the teams after each round of finals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McIntyre_Final_Eight_System



You will note that in week 2, the 2nd Semi Final game is described as "3rd highest ranked winner vs 1st highest ranked loser". The home team is, as always, named first. In 1997, the 3rd highest ranked winner was Adelaide and the 1st highest ranked loser was Geelong.

That was the system. That was how it worked.

These are the simple facts. Since this was the system, and these are the facts, the application of logic reasoning is not required.

I'm not disagreeing that this was the system.

Hmmm.. I wonder why it was changed.

 

[pavilion103]

Mate you have been found out for what you are - a very inaccurate, no research troll. You said with incredible 'authority' how Geelong went into that game with 10 players with a total of 70 games experience. After a quick glance, I noticed that Adelaide actually had 352 less total games experience than Geelong in the game. We actually had 6 players with around 70 games experience. When asked to name the 10 players, you then do a huge back pedal with the quote above. Are you for real? Will remember never to take anything you say seriously on here ever again. If you're going to make huge calls like that one, make sure you're correct. Or you'll lose any credibility you may have had, and for mine you've got none.



Yeah, fair call. It is purely due to our soft draw. It's not due to things like being the first side to beat Sydney this year, and in Sydney for that matter. Or having the best away record in the AFL this year including Sydney, Carlton in Melbourne or Freo in Perth. It wouldnt be because of stuff like that or anything.......

I was going by what I heard. As I admitted it looks like it was wrong.

Unlike you I am able to admit my errors. You did not address the point re 352 less games experience and the distribution of players.
For example, would a team with a distribution say a 298 game player and two 1 game players be equal to one with 3x 100 game players?
Poor logic. I've used this extreme example to debunk your logic.

Sydney was a good win, but you've always been strong against them, even in recent poor years.
Carlton win in Melbourne (not sure if serious? I'm not sure how highly you rank this)
Femantle in Perth (another non top 8 side)


At the end of the season we will see if I am proved correct as I believe I will be.

 

[ok.crows]

I'm not disagreeing that this was the system.

Hmmm.. I wonder why it was changed.

Let me guess - because Geelong fans spat the dummy?

 

[Illinois Nazi]

I'm not disagreeing that this was the system.

Hmmm.. I wonder why it was changed.

It wasn't because of the Geelong case. It was because there were usually a couple of games where the result made no difference, and where the teams knew before the game started that the result would make no difference.

 

[pavilion103]

It wasn't because of the Geelong case. It was because there were usually a couple of games where the result made no difference, and where the teams knew before the game started that the result would make no difference.

yeh exactly. Not suggesting it had anything to do with the Geelnog game, just that they only changd the finals system because they did not believe it was the best one.

 

[cinderella man]

Mate you have been found out for what you are - a very inaccurate, no research troll. You said with incredible 'authority' how Geelong went into that game with 10 players with a total of 70 games experience. After a quick glance, I noticed that Adelaide actually had 352 less total games experience than Geelong in the game. We actually had 6 players with around 70 games experience. When asked to name the 10 players, you then do a huge back pedal with the quote above. Are you for real? Will remember never to take anything you say seriously on here ever again. If you're going to make huge calls like that one, make sure you're correct. Or you'll lose any credibility you may have had, and for mine you've got none.



Yeah, fair call. It is purely due to our soft draw. It's not due to things like being the first side to beat Sydney this year, and in Sydney for that matter. Or having the best away record in the AFL this year including Sydney, Carlton in Melbourne or Freo in Perth. It wouldnt be because of stuff like that or anything.......

If Sydney are not top 4 which i dont think they will be i am Happy for Adelaide to be there. I am stating a fact that you will collect at least 6 wins=24 points compliments of the draw.My reply was more aimed at the rubbish posted by your compatriot that Sydney dont deserve to make it if they do.
If you can back up his ramblings with a reason why this is true i am all ears.That should probably be all eyes !!! Ha Ha.

 

[BUTTON 92]

the pies are clearly the best team in the comp imo, i said that even after we beat them in round 1, we had to play out of our skins to beat them even with half of their best team out. After that it becomes a raffle, we beat the crows by plenty and got within 5 points of the eagles over there. The crows have had a dream draw with barely any injuries, there 2 best wins have been against the cats and blues who arent going to be world beaters this year, having said that we cant beat the cats and i think the the swans have our measure as well for some reason, we need to show we can beat these sides in the 2nd half of the year before i can rate out chances.

The Crows last 6 games.

Sydney (SCG) Win
Geelong (home) Win
Carlton (Etihad) Win
Collingwood (Home) Loss
Freo (Away) Win
Saints (Home) Win

I dunno about you mate but thats not exactly and easy run of matches.
Yes there second half of the year is favourable but to this point the Crows draw has been far from easy.
Thats about as hard as a month and half of footy can get and to win 5 of those I think deserves abit of respect!

 

[MC_9]

The Crows last 6 games.

Sydney (SCG) Win
Geelong (home) Win
Carlton (Etihad) Win
Collingwood (Home) Loss
Freo (Away) Win
Saints (Home) Win

I dunno about you mate but thats not exactly and easy run of matches.
Yes there second half of the year is favourable but to this point the Crows draw has been far from easy.
Thats about as hard as a month and half of footy can get and to win 5 of those I think deserves abit of respect!

What about the first 5 games. Look pretty easy to me.

Gold Coast
Western Bulldogs
Hawthorn
GWS
Port Adelaide

No doubt Adelaide have had some good wins there, and will likely finish in the top 4. But out of all the teams vying for a top 4 finish, Adelaide has had the easiest draw.

 

[BUTTON 92]

What about the first 5 games. Look pretty easy to me.

Gold Coast
Western Bulldogs
Hawthorn
GWS
Port Adelaide

No doubt Adelaide have had some good wins there, and will likely finish in the top 4. But out of all the teams vying for a top 4 finish, Adelaide has had the easiest draw.

So of the the first 11 games 4 of them have been 'easy'. (If you count the Bulldogs)
Which translates to 7 of the first 11 games being tough. Which by no means is an easy draw. As I said the Crows secong half of the year is favourable so the majority of others assume there entire draw is easy where in fact the first 11 have been as hard as anyones...

For example what about the Hawks last 6

Melbourne
Freo
Richmond
North
Port
Brisbane

Not exactly the hardest 6 going around. But just because there last 6 haven't been that tough doesnt mean there entire draw to this point has been easy.

Essendon IMO has had aneasier first 11 then Adelaide
Eg they have played

North
Port
Gold Coast
Brisbane
Richmond
GWS
Melbourne

In their first 11. Make of this what you will...

 

[ok.crows]

No doubt Adelaide have had some good wins there, and will likely finish in the top 4. But out of all the teams vying for a top 4 finish, Adelaide has had the easiest draw.

Adelaide's draw up to this point has included no return matches. Adelaide has only played each opponent once so far. All sides get to play all opponents once.

Lets say that, other than Adelaide, the sides vying for the top 4 are Collingwood, West Coast, Essendon, Hawthorn and Sydney. Out of the current top 8 sides, Adelaide has not yet played Essendon or West Coast, so they have played 5 out of the possible 7 current top 8 opponents.

West Coast have not yet played Collingwood, Adelaide, Sydney or Geelong.
Collingwood have not yet played West Coast, Sydney or Saints.
Essendon have not yet played Adelaide, Hawthorn, Saints or Geelong.
Sydney have not yet played Geelong, West Coast or Collingwood.
Hawthorn have not yet played Essendon.

So actually, out of all the teams vying for a top 4 finish, so far Adelaide have arguably had the hardest draw apart from Hawthorn.

 

[BUTTON 92]

Adelaide's draw up to this point has included no return matches. Adelaide has only played each opponent once so far. All sides get to play all opponents once.

Lets say that, other than Adelaide, the sides vying for the top 4 are Collingwood, West Coast, Essendon, Hawthorn and Sydney. Out of the current top 8 sides, Adelaide has not yet played Essendon or West Coast, so they have played 5 out of the possible 7 current top 8 opponents.

West Coast have not yet played Collingwood, Adelaide, Sydney or Geelong.
Collingwood have not yet played West Coast, Sydney or Saints.
Essendon have not yet played Adelaide, Hawthorn, Saints or Geelong.
Sydney have not yet played Geelong, West Coast or Collingwood.
Hawthorn have not yet played Essendon.

So actually, out of all the teams vying for a top 4 finish, Adelaide have arguably had the hardest draw apart from Hawthorn.

This.
People have to realise how tough the crows last 6 have been and how big an effort it has been to be placed where they currently are...

 

[ADF13]

I think the crows have clearly had some really good road victories including: beating the swans in sydney and carlton in melbourne to show that they are not pretenders and should be taken seriously. Having said that Collingwood are a step above everyone else, but could be pushed by both west coast and the crows on their day

 

[Mr Meeseeks]

Collingwood are still the better side.
No two ways about it. They've improved since ~round 5, and they've still got a few good players that will come back in.

I disagree. I just dont buy the hype that they are clearly better than everyone else. But we'll find out in a few weeks I guess.

 

[sbenno]

Congratulations Pav103, you managed to Troll 4 sides at once. Is that a record?

 

[pavilion103]

Congratulations Pav103, you managed to Troll 4 sides at once. Is that a record?

Getting close mate

 

[pavilion103]

Adelaide's draw up to this point has included no return matches. Adelaide has only played each opponent once so far. All sides get to play all opponents once.

Lets say that, other than Adelaide, the sides vying for the top 4 are Collingwood, West Coast, Essendon, Hawthorn and Sydney. Out of the current top 8 sides, Adelaide has not yet played Essendon or West Coast, so they have played 5 out of the possible 7 current top 8 opponents.

West Coast have not yet played Collingwood, Adelaide, Sydney or Geelong.
Collingwood have not yet played West Coast, Sydney or Saints.
Essendon have not yet played Adelaide, Hawthorn, Saints or Geelong.
Sydney have not yet played Geelong, West Coast or Collingwood.
Hawthorn have not yet played Essendon.

So actually, out of all the teams vying for a top 4 finish, so far Adelaide have arguably had the hardest draw apart from Hawthorn.

Don't be fooled just by the teams.

Adelaide got Carlton just when they fell apart
Adelaide lost to half a Collingwood team
Adelaide usually match up well on Sydney even the last few years when crap + Goodes going off
Adelaide come up against Geelong at AAMI and Bartel and Scarlett, two of our greatest ever players, pull out. Also getting us in bad form.
Freo - well, even a struggling Geelong got within a goal of them. They aren't much chop.

It's not so much the teams but the form they were in and key injuries etc.

umad?

/end thread.