Wins of your dbl up opponents
I can't keep going around in circles - both teams got KO'd in the same round in finals and Port finished one game ahead in the H+A season. If I had to compare I'd have Port slightly ahead emphasis on slightly. Basing it off H2H will never make sense to me when the sample size is far too low each year. Factors like injuries, form etc become far too significant when looking at a 2-game sample size compared to a 23-game sample size imoWins of your dbl up opponents
Collingwood 70
Carlton 63
Port 55
Port and Carlton both had infated H&A ladder positions because of easy double up opponents.
Port only finished 2nd, because their toughest dbl up opponent was Carlton.
But yet, you rate Port as a better team than Geelong beacuse they had a gift of a H&A fixture.
Really?
Tbf hawthorn doesn’t change it, we played you both once each.
Na - Geelong KOed Port with the 80 point belting in the QF, Port were done after Wk1.
LoL
It would be great if Collingwood got to play Carlton 4 times a season.
Injuries, form what are you on about?
Well they didn't - that's the benefit of finishing top 4 you get a second chance and they won the following week against a red hot Hawthorn.
When you evaluate seasons based on a one or two game sample rather than 23 games those factors become more significant. The larger the sample the more "smoothed out" these factors become as the data is representative of the whole season. Each team only has 6/23 games different as you still play every other team once (i.e. 17 games).
They were never a premiership contender after Geelong toyed with them in the QF.
The H&A fixtures aren't smoothed out. The data shows Port had the easiest H&A fixture.
Carlton fans and injuries...
I didn't think they were a premiership contender all year because in finals Port haven't shown themselves to be a threat in the last few years. No Houston/Farrell eliminated any small chance they had imo
I never said H+A fixtures are smoothed out - I said taking into account all games rather than one or two smoothes out factors that influence performance like injuries/form etc.
Not using injuries as an excuse I'm illustrating how one game is not representative of a teams season. So to say a team was better over the season than another because of one or two games in a 23-game season is inaccurate imo.
Bit weird that the 2nd team on H&A ladder at end of season written off, almost as if accepted they weren't the 2nd best team.
If each team faced the same opponents in equal fixtures than it makes sense.
You brought up injuries and the Saints game, and keep using injuries as an excuse for a loss.
No I didn't - it was an example to show you how ridiculous it is to evaluate a 23-game season on 1-2 games. Factors like form/injuries have too much of a significant impact when the sample is that small
Being a good H+A team doesn't always translate to being a good team in finals. Port have been a great H+A team for years but have never performed well enough in finals.
Almost "bonfire night" in the US tooIt's almost bonfire night in the UK in about another 24 or so hours. Are the Collingwood contingent still insisting that they were better than Carlton this year?
Indeed hopefully whoever's the Blues fan wins the election!
Bit of a long winded and lengthy spiel that mate. Ever heard of the expression when you're explaining you're losing?Na - Geelong KOed Port with the 80 point belting in the QF, Port were done after Wk1.
LoL
Yeah an 84 point demolition by Geelong in the QF, but yeah give the edge to Port because they had a soft H&A fixture and didnt strong teams twice.
It would be great if Collingwood got to play Carlton 4 times a season.
If you get 4 gimme wins, it can go a long way to help a team limp into finals.
Injuries, form what are you on about?
Have you not realised you are comparing teams who have completely different H&A fixtures?
Port had the easiest double-ups in the competition (just 55 wins all up for their dbl up opponents) as they played just one of this year's finalists twice in Carlton (eighth), while also meeting Melbourne (14th), St Kilda (12th), Adelaide (15th), Richmond (18th) and Fremantle (10th) twice.
Adelaide copped a reaming (88 wins all up from their dbl ups opponents) who played Sydney (first), Port (second), Geelong (third), Brisbane (fifth), Hawthorn (seventh) and Essendon (11th) twice.
Why on earth would anybody think using H&A fixture is a fair way of comparing the strength of teams?
Port only finished 2nd because of their fixture. Give them Adelaide's fixture and they would be back with the Pies on the outside looking in.
But you decide to ignore an 80 point QF loss as your evidence (due to sample size) but use H&A fixtures which are not the same as your evidence
Lol, you brought up Carlton having injuries against StK and are still talking about injuries being a factor.
Do I need to dumb it down for a Bagger?Bit of a long winded and lengthy spiel that mate. Ever heard of the expression when you're explaining you're losing?
You'd better go into the new Carlton thread on the main board that just because Carlton beat some teams that finished higher on the ladder than them, it doesn't mean that those teams aren't better than Carlton...
Have a look at this years ladder and then come back to me! When you have to explain intensively it's a sure and obvious sign that your argument is not strong or straightforward.
Every year there are teams who get hard fixtures (Adelaide) and those who get soft gifts (Port and Carlton).Have a look at this years ladder and then come back to me! When you have to explain intensively it's a sure and obvious sign that your argument is not strong or straightforward.
0-60 is shitting the bed and an obvious sign that a team undeservedly fell into the finals due to a soft draw, happens now and then
I never said the double ups don't have an impact - but as I have said previously there are heaps of other things that make the fixture uneven each year.
