Who is the arseiest team in history prior to Collingwood 2022?

[The Royal Sampler]

Four goals from free kicks to Melbourne's none didn't hurt either. And I'm not saying they weren't there.

Three of those were from Elliott running guys down and getting a holding the ball decision. That’s not luck, it’s workrate.

And yeah, the other one was a bleedingly obvious push in AJ’s back.

Melbourne got a goals from free kicks to Salem for a holding the ball decision, and Melksham against Moore for high contact, so your stats are wrong anyway.

Also Melbourne got two 50m penalties, one of which resulted in a goal IIRC, against Howe after a Daicos throw free against, and the other for AJ moving after being told to stand, resulting in a behind to Salem after the QT siren. Pies didn’t get any 50’s, and in fact Ben Brown threw the ball very similarly to Daicos and got away with it resulting in another goal to (?) Spargo with a dribbler from the right side in the 3rd.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

So what we’ve established is that 106% is no good, instead the mighty magic number is 113%.

Yes, that makes perfect sense.

What we’ve established is that the chances of Collingwood winning that many games consecutively, by such small margins, by luck alone, is around 1 in 20,000 (?).

So now that it’s actually happened, we’re all in agreement that there isn’t something unusual about the Magpies style or composition which made it much more probable, but indeed the arsey 1 in 20,000 chance just came up on this occasion

 

[Fadge]

So now that it’s actually happened, we’re all in agreement that there isn’t something unusual about the Magpies style or composition which made it much more probable, but indeed the arsey 1 in 20,000 chance just came up on this occasion

Bad luck to the next 19,999 teams who find themselves on series of matches where 9 of 11 of them are decided by less than two goals...

 

[Pistol Night]

Our percentage could cost us in a final

 

[PJays]

What we’ve established is that the chances of Collingwood winning that many games consecutively, by such small margins, by luck alone, is around 1 in 20,000 (?).

So now that it’s actually happened, we’re all in agreement that there isn’t something unusual about the Magpies style or composition which made it much more probable, but indeed the arsey 1 in 20,000 chance just came up on this occasion

Do you think this year's Collingwood are more clutch than Clarko's Hawks? Or Hardwick's Tigers?*

If not, what is it about Collingwood's "style and composition" that uniquely makes them better at winning close ones?

*Those are some of the teams who've won the flags since 2010, providing the basis for the stat that premiership teams win 59% of games decided by 11 or less. (Calculated by Meteoric Rise, I haven't checked it myself)

 

[windyhill]

Essendon 1993 felt like a bit more of a momentum based year rather then overall talent.

Agree with this, we arsed that year but if you know our history, **** have we thrown away a few.

 

[Pistol Night]

Do you think this year's Collingwood are more clutch than Clarko's Hawks? Or Hardwick's Tigers?*

If not, what is it about Collingwood's "style and composition" that uniquely makes them better at winning close ones?

*Those are some of the teams who've won the flags since 2010, providing the basis for the stat that premiership teams win 59% of games decided by 11 or less. (Calculated by Meteoric Rise, I haven't checked it myself)

Starting to average out after years of shitting the bed in close games?

 

[Fadge]

There was actually some analysis performed and shared on FoxFooty after our Essendon win about the likely margins of our matches during the 'streak' that commenced with the win over Fremantle.

The analysis was performed based on the likelihood of scores from where each teams' scoring shots were taken. Statistics such as Inside 50's, clearances, contested possessions, etc. were thrown out the window.

At that stage, of the nine consecutive wins, there was only one where the predicted result was not in Collingwood's favour - that was against Adelaide. Most of the predicted results were greater margins, including an expected margin of 40 plus points against GWS (33 scoring shots to 17 and an 11 point margin).

Throw in a reversed result in the West Coast game (lost despite having 24 scoring shots to 17), and we have the same amount of wins and a significantly better percentage.

I don't think the discussion is 'Collingwood are extremely lucky to have won so many close games'; instead it should be 'Collingwood have been unlucky that their winning margins haven't been greater during their winning streak'.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Do you think this year's Collingwood are more clutch than Clarko's Hawks? Or Hardwick's Tigers?*

If not, what is it about Collingwood's "style and composition" that uniquely makes them better at winning close ones?

*Those are some of the teams who've won the flags since 2010, providing the basis for the stat that premiership teams win 59% of games decided by 11 or less. (Calculated by Meteoric Rise, I haven't checked it myself)

Define “clutch”.

I don’t think the Hawks under Clarko or Tigers under Hardwick were particularly good at winning close games, I think they were good at winning games in such a way they rarely got close. I recall the Hawks getting beaten by close margins in the 2011 prelim and the 2012 GF…

Tigers clutch how? None of their recent GF wins were remotely close.

I will only say for the 2022 Pies that they have a lot of belief, and that they are well drilled on how to use or lock up the ball in the final few minutes, in a way that we clearly weren’t back in the day when losing ANZAC Day games to Zaharakis and co. I don’t think that’s the be-all and end-all, but it counts for something.

 

[Kobe Gryant]

It's not luck if it keeps happening. They practice it daily at training. They know exactly what to do when it's late in the game and it's close.

They're basically the antithesis of Richmond.

 

[PJays]

The analysis was performed based on the likelihood of scores from where each teams' scoring shots were taken. Statistics such as Inside 50's, clearances, contested possessions, etc. were thrown out the window.

At that stage, of the nine consecutive wins, there was only one where the predicted result was not in Collingwood's favour - that was against Adelaide.

So let's say the probability of Collingwood winning each of those games was 75%, based on location of scoring shots.

The probability of winning 9 in a row is still 1 in 1,332.

What would the probability be of Collingwood winning 8 out of 9?

I'm not sure but 7 of 9 would obviously be most likely.

Throw in a reversed result in the West Coast game (lost despite having 24 scoring shots to 17), and we have the same amount of wins and a significantly better percentage.

I'm assuming this is based on the following logic

- If Collingwood was more likely to win based on location of scoring shots, then Collingwood wins

- If Collingwood was likely to lose based on location of scoring shots, then Collingwood loses

But you know that isn't how probability works.

If Collingwood had 4 games where they were 40% likely to win based on location of scoring shots, using this logic they lose all 4.

But if they actually played 4 games like that, they'd probably win 1 or 2. It's much less likely, but possible, they win 0, or 3 or 4.

And vice versa. Which is more applicable.

Using the logic you're using (if I'm understanding correctly) ignores how probability works in the real world, over a 22 game season. It's not applicable.

To check what I'm saying, look at empirical data based on percentage. Let's say Collingwood should have a percentage of 111 instead of 106 based on location of scoring shots.

How many 14-5 teams have had a percentage as low as 111?

Very few, I would bet.

 

[Fadge]

So let's say the probability of Collingwood winning each of those games was 75%, based on location of scoring shots.

The probability of winning 9 in a row is still 1 in 1,332.

What would the probability be of Collingwood winning 8 out of 9?

I'm not sure but 7 of 9 would obviously be most likely.

I'm assuming this is based on the following logic

- If Collingwood was more likely to win based on location of scoring shots, then Collingwood wins

- If Collingwood was likely to lose based on location of scoring shots, then Collingwood loses

But you know that isn't how probability works.

If Collingwood had 4 games where they were 40% likely to win based on location of scoring shots, using this logic they lose all 4.

But if they actually played 4 games like that, they'd probably win 1 or 2. It's much less likely, but possible, they win 0, or 3 or 4.

And vice versa. Which is more applicable.

Using the logic you're using (if I'm understanding correctly) ignores how probability works in the real world, over a 22 game season. It's not applicable.

To check what I'm saying, look at empirical data based on percentage. Let's say Collingwood should have a percentage of 111 instead of 106 based on location of scoring shots.

How many 14-5 teams have had a percentage as low as 111?

Very few, I would bet.

Yep, I agree with most of what you are saying about probability, but....

I think percentage is overrated, particularly this year and particularly in Collingwood's circumstances.

Most of the top teams have percentages in the 130's thanks in no small part to beltings of West Coast and North Melbourne, and some of the top teams have played those teams on multiple occasions.

Collingwood missed the opportunity of having percentage boosters against West Coast and North, by losing one and scraping over the line in another. And only playing each of these teams once.

The logic of many posters here is that if we had have flogged West Coast and North by 100 points each (like other clubs have done), but lost to say Melbourne instead of beating them, you'd rate us higher because our percentage would be in the vicinity of where it should be - approximately 125% - and therefore a genuine contender?

Come on, Man...

 

[PieLebo87]

Yep, I agree with most of what you are saying about probability, but....

I think percentage is overrated, particularly this year and particularly in Collingwood's circumstances.

Most of the top teams have percentages in the 130's thanks in no small part to beltings of West Coast and North Melbourne, and some of the top teams have played those teams on multiple occasions.

Collingwood missed the opportunity of having percentage boosters against West Coast and North, by losing one and scraping over the line in another. And only playing each of these teams once.

The logic of many posters here is that if we had have flogged West Coast and North by 100 points each (like other clubs have done), but lost to say Melbourne instead of beating them, you'd rate us higher because our percentage would be in the vicinity of where it should be - approximately 125% - and therefore a genuine contender?

Come on, Man...

As you said earlier, off the top of my head we also didn’t put Carlton, GWS and Port away earlier when we had a 4 or so goal lead. We had the ascendency in all those games but let them back in and the close margins added to the aura, but realistically, if we’re using this probability mathematical mumbo jumbo, we’re winning those games comfortably by those few goals and our percentage is higher.

I still reckon this bloke is using maths to justify why Collingwood doesn’t win the flag. We probably won’t win the flag, but it won’t be because we had a percentage of 106% in the H&A season

 

[SuperSub17]

What we’ve established is that the chances of Collingwood winning that many games consecutively, by such small margins, by luck alone, is around 1 in 20,000 (?).

So now that it’s actually happened, we’re all in agreement that there isn’t something unusual about the Magpies style or composition which made it much more probable, but indeed the arsey 1 in 20,000 chance just came up on this occasion

It’s seriously some next level cognitive dissonance. Rather than adjust our initial opinion, we have to contort ourselves in bigger and bigger knots to the point that the only conclusion is that this is a 1 in 20000 coincidence

And further to what Fadge wrote above, most of the games we had comfortable leads and were forced to defend in the final minute or two (Carlton, GWS, Adelaide, Port). Most of the others we took the lead with plenty of time remaining and just had to lock down the other team. Those finishes aren’t 50-50s, some of them are closer to 90-10s.

Even that Hawthorn 2016 example earlier in the thread isn’t a perfect comparison—they were often taking the lead in the final minute with Hail Mary plays.

 

[Pleasedontfail11]

Melbourne kick straight it's game over they missed some sodas

Wouldn't have made a difference. When you kick straight rather in miss it goes back to the middle. The entire space time continuum would have changed. So no one knows what would happen after that. Its like back to the future everything after that point changes.
But even so lets say that we are in a different dimension where Melbourne FC got an extra 3 goals up. The Pies would have fought back by kicking 3 extra goals and got in front. It would have just been a little later in the game. The key to the pies game is just getting in front in the last quarter once that happens we will always hold on due to our lock down strat. Once in front the Pies have learnt to hold on. Watch the last 5 minutes from Fridays game. Did Melbourne even look like scoring once we made the decision to lock down? The answer is a clear no.

 

[Trav 20]

Yep, I agree with most of what you are saying about probability, but....

I think percentage is overrated, particularly this year and particularly in Collingwood's circumstances.

Most of the top teams have percentages in the 130's thanks in no small part to beltings of West Coast and North Melbourne, and some of the top teams have played those teams on multiple occasions.

Collingwood missed the opportunity of having percentage boosters against West Coast and North, by losing one and scraping over the line in another. And only playing each of these teams once.

The logic of many posters here is that if we had have flogged West Coast and North by 100 points each (like other clubs have done), but lost to say Melbourne instead of beating them, you'd rate us higher because our percentage would be in the vicinity of where it should be - approximately 125% - and therefore a genuine contender?

Come on, Man...

Our percentage is 129. Only Geelong has a higher percentage.

We've only played North and West Coast once.

You're trotting out garbage excuses. Again.

 

[Wojcinski]

To answer OP, I reckon Geelong 2014 was pretty arsey, however we won a lot of close games off the back of our remaining 07-11 stars in the twilight of their careers where as Collingwood is winning games mostly off the back of a young, exciting core who won't run out of legs come finals time

 

[PieLebo87]

Our percentage is 129. Only Geelong has a higher percentage.

We've only played North and West Coast once.

You're trotting out garbage excuses. Again.

Geelong and Sydney have them 3 times.

Geelong has been given a 14% boost from those 3 games, Lions have been given a 12% boost and you’ve been given a 7% boost.

He isn’t trotting garbage, calm down.

 

[Trav 20]

Geelong and Sydney have them 3 times.

Geelong has been given a 14% boost from those 3 games, Lions have been given a 12% boost and you’ve been given a 7% boost.

He isn’t trotting garbage, calm down.

We've been given a ''7% boost'' ?

This is insane logic.

Sorry we had to play them once each across the season.

FMD

 

[PieLebo87]

We've been given a ''7% boost'' ?

This is insane logic.

Sorry we had to play them once each across the season.

FMD

You’re the one carrying on like a pork chop about Collingwood’s percentage and giving what if scenarios.

Stop being a sook if others respond back with similar stuff.

 

[SuperSub17]

Melbourne over their last 10 games are 4-6 at 104.1%.

Are people honestly saying that their percentage is a reason that they can win the flag and Collingwood can’t—all because they beat up some teams in April?

 

[Trav 20]

Melbourne over their last 10 games are 4-6 at 104.1%.

Are people honestly saying that their percentage is a reason that they can win the flag and Collingwood can’t—all because they beat up some teams in April?

Obviously a season goes for 22 weeks, not 10.

But who's talking up Melbourne's chances in this thread ?

You're yelling at the sky...

 

[HolyWars]

They've had some luck, sure, but they're a side that take their opportunities when they get them. Of course you would expect that to change at some point this season, but it hasn't happened yet.

I still think Melbourne will hit form and win it.

 

[Pleasedontfail11]

Obviously a season goes for 22 weeks, not 10.

But who's talking up Melbourne's chances in this thread ?

You're yelling at the sky...

Geelong are currently the best team in the league but it is very open. Melbourne are a very good chance of winning it this year. In the same league as Sydney, Brisbane and Collingwood.

 

[HolyWars]

As I write, they are currently busy squeaking it again… against Melbourne . Again.

Has there been anyone luckier?

I'd say the WB in 2016 absolutely arsed that flag. It was fantastic to watch too.