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

[iameviljez]

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

Loved it. That PF against the Giants was one of my favourite games ever.

Lopsided umpiring did sour the GF a little for neutrals.

 

[iameviljez]

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?

I think the difference is that we know that Melbourne's best is much better than 4 and 6. Collingwood might be playing at what their absolute limit is for the moment.

 

[iameviljez]

Probably Geelong when they built a premiership team on multiple father-sons?

Not gonna lie, those Ablett, Scarlett and Hawkins kids turned out ok.

That said, the one caveat on it is that only Hawkins was a star as a junior. It is not a coincidence that Hawkins was picked in the 40s in the 2006 AFL draft, and 2007 was the draft where they bought in the points bidding system.

 

[iameviljez]

Saying they are lucky, or "arseiest", is simply an ignorant way for rationalising your bias against them, or your understanding their team.
Maybe you are wrong, and they are just good.

In truth, I did word the thread/post fairly... provocatively, on purpose.

They have proven to be a fantastic side at winning close games, but all close wins rely on a little luck. Whether it's accuracy, a brain fade, siren timing, or an umpiring decision, there's always a little luck in winning a close one. All the hard work and talent in the world sways the odds your way - but even if you win 4 in every 5 close games (practically unheard of in itself), to snag 10 such games in a row would only happen 1 in every ten times.

They're a lot of both good and lucky IMO.

 

[HolyWars]

Loved it. That PF against the Giants was one of my favourite games ever.

Lopsided umpiring did sour the GF a little for neutrals.

Yeah the prelim was amazing!

I do agree about the GF, the umpiring was very much in their favour.

 

[PJays]

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...

Fair point- if Collingwood had one more against either of them, their percentage would likely be at least a few points higher.

And to be fair, they played North the week the North players allegedly found out it was Noble's last week (and they beat Richmond the following week) so Collingwood got them when they were unusually up and about.

Using probability, if Collingwood had lost more of those games where the scoring shots suggested they were, maybe, 55% or 60% chance of winning, as you'd expect them to, then maybe they'd be 12-8 or 13-7 instead of 15-5. They'd be 6th or 7th on the ladder instead of 2nd. That's where I rate them, 6th or 7th best team in it.

Usually in finals one team elevates themselves above the rest (ala Melbourne last yr) or sometimes 2 or 3 do. But it's teams amongst the top 4 or 5 who usually do it, and since Collingwood are more like the 6th or 7th best, that's why Collingwood still unlikely to me.

But obviously if they make top 4 which now seems likely, they've got a much better chance than if they were in fact in a ladder position more in line with their ability. Or where they "should" be.

 

[PieLebo87]

I think the difference is that we know that Melbourne's best is much better than 4 and 6. Collingwood might be playing at what their absolute limit is for the moment.

Please explain this logic.

 

[SuperSub17]

I think the difference is that we know that Melbourne's best is much better than 4 and 6. Collingwood might be playing at what their absolute limit is for the moment.

That’s fair, and that remains to be seen.

However in that case I’m going to strongly argue our best is better than a 7 point win over North and losing to West Coast.

 

[Fadge]

I think the difference is that we know that Melbourne's best is much better than 4 and 6. Collingwood might be playing at what their absolute limit is for the moment.

So what Collingwood's absolute limit?

Falling over the line against bottom four teams?

Beating Melbourne twice?

Getting 6 goals up against the apparent best team in the comp with 5 minutes to go in the third quarter?

 

[Fadge]

Fair point- if Collingwood had one more against either of them, their percentage would likely be at least a few points higher.

And to be fair, they played North the week the North players allegedly found out it was Noble's last week (and they beat Richmond the following week) so Collingwood got them when they were unusually up and about.

Using probability, if Collingwood had lost more of those games where the scoring shots suggested they were, maybe, 55% or 60% chance of winning, as you'd expect them to, then maybe they'd be 12-8 or 13-7 instead of 15-5. They'd be 6th or 7th on the ladder instead of 2nd. That's where I rate them, 6th or 7th best team in it.

Usually in finals one team elevates themselves above the rest (ala Melbourne last yr) or sometimes 2 or 3 do. But it's teams amongst the top 4 or 5 who usually do it, and since Collingwood are more like the 6th or 7th best, that's why Collingwood still unlikely to me.

But obviously if they make top 4 which now seems likely, they've got a much better chance than if they were in fact in a ladder position more in line with their ability. Or where they "should" be.

So do you rate Melbourne or Collingwood higher, for example?

 

[Carringbush2010]

Not in the H&A, Genius, which is when percentage is determined. You know, the thing I'm arguing.

Name the two who won the flag with a percentage of less than 110 and the years they did it.

17 wins 4 losses and a draw in the H&A in 2010

 

[Trav 20]

17 wins 4 losses and a draw in the H&A in 2010

Apparently.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Apparently.

AFL Tables - Collingwood - Season Summary

afltables.com

 

[Pistol Night]

Id take arsey wins over well earned losses any day

 

[Goggin Our Best]

I did back Collingwood at the $4 about 5 weeks ago to make the top 4 - unbelievably TAB.Com ( even though the Magpies kept winning ) turned the odds out further to $6.50 - that was the best price available

So i am talking out of my pocket a bit ( well hopefully in 2 weeks time i am ) - thus ive watched quite a few Coll games

The only game where i reckon luck came into it - was the Ess game - Coll kicked the 1st 6 goals - but then ESS looked clearly the best team - had the Magpies on toast - looked certain to win - but didnt - i thought in that game - in the last qtr Coll were gone for all money

If Coll do finish in the top 4 ( by a margin of 1 game differential ) and they do win the Premiership - that win against Ess - will suddenly become the miracle win - with the goal after the siren etc . That is the only Coll game ive watched this season - in the last qtr - where i thought they are certain to lose - but somehow didnt

 

[Pistol Night]

I did back Collingwood at the $4 about 5 weeks ago to make the top 4 - unbelievably TAB.Com ( even though the Magpies kept winning ) turned the odds out further to $6.50 - that was the best price available

So i am talking out of my pocket a bit ( well hopefully in 2 weeks time i am ) - thus ive watched quite a few Coll games

The only game where i reckon luck came into it - was the Ess game - Coll kicked the 1st 6 goals - but then ESS looked clearly the best team - had the Magpies on toast - looked certain to win - but didnt - i thought in that game - in the last qtr Coll were gone for all money

If Coll do finish in the top 4 ( by a margin of 1 game differential ) and they do win the Premiership - that win against Ess - will suddenly become the miracle win - with the goal after the siren etc . That is the only Coll game ive watched this season - in the last qtr - where i thought they are certain to lose - but somehow didnt

Wasnt all that lucky when Essendon were ready to have a circle jerk if that last goal went through instead of setting up for a behind. Amatuer

 

[Trav 20]

View attachment 1469476

AFL Tables - Collingwood - Season Summary

afltables.com

Thanks again.

It hasn't been discussed.

 

[LoungeLizard]

I bet, most here having a sook about Collingwoods "luck" picked them to finish bottom 4.

So I wouldn't be following their tips on the future of how they go.

 

[LoungeLizard]

If we make the Grand final and are down in the last quarter by a couple of goals, our % would say we are no chance.

 

[Pistol Night]

If we make the Grand final and are down in the last quarter by a couple of goals, our % would say we are no chance.

If we win it will be arsey and no premiership cup will be awarded

 

[malteaser]

Winners are grinners, losers can suit themselves. You make your own luck. No matter what happens this year the belief that year has given this group means we are on the right track.

 

[PJays]

So do you rate Melbourne or Collingwood higher, for example?

Melbourne

3 of the top teams have been in good form lately.

But I'm still tipping the one with the most important type of form- finals form.

 

[My Tilly]

You make your own luck. Probably has more to do with moving Buckley on to be honest.

And Eddie.

 

[Fadge]

Melbourne

Assumed that was the case.

Melbourne better than Collingwood because percentage, obviously.

 

[PJays]

Assumed that was the case.

Melbourne better than Collingwood because percentage, obviously.

Just edited my previous reply to elaborate on another reason I'd have Melbourne ahead of Collingwood (and the others who have barely lost in ages- Geelong and Sydney)

I have to say though Fadge, I find your pro Collingwood arguments lately very incongruous with your arguments for Geelong and against Richmond in the dynasty thread

Eg arguing for Geelong's demonstrated dominance via higher winning margins and percentage

And arguing against Richmond due to the tiny margin of error in scraping into top 4 every year.

Both those arguments remain valid but they're very difficult to reconcile with pumping up the flag chances of a team who looks like they'll slip into top 4 courtesy of luckily winning a few more close ones than probability would predict