Banter Who will be Better in 2025, Collingwood or Carlton? Part 4

[Fadge]

Hawthorn finished the season incredibly well but again I look at all of the results. Swans/Power/Lions/Cats all progressed further in finals than them whilst the Giants got eliminated in the same spot but had a better H+A season which is my "tiebreaker".

Again I just wanted to include top 4 teams at the end of the H+A season because we are taking about the H+A fixture but included Brisbane as they were the only team not in that group that made the PF.

Just a coincidence that it suits your narrative, by including GWS and excluding Hawthorn.

 

[carlton_99]

Hawks were a Sicily missed shot from a PF, but for some reason the poor Bagger has them clearly a level below Port

I have discussed how I rank teams at the end of the season many times - finals position is the number 1 factor and if you get kicked out at the same time the ladder is the tiebreaker. Pies fans ignored it as they don't want to to stick with a consistent/objective system and instead change their minds depending on how their team is going

 

[carlton_99]

Just a coincidence that it suits your narrative, by including GWS and excluding Hawthorn.

No not a coincidence - it's actually the inclusion of Brisbane which is off if anything because they were not a top-4 team in the H+A season. Remove them and it becomes 7-5...

 

[Fadge]

Hawks were a Sicily missed shot from a PF, but for some reason the poor Bagger has them clearly a level below Port

Yep.

Hawks started favourites, in an away semi- final, and lost courtesy of a late missed shot at goal.

Thems the breaks I guess.

If they weren't a class below Port, Sicily wouldn't have missed that shot.

 

[carlton_99]

Hawks were a Sicily missed shot from a PF, but for some reason the poor Bagger has them clearly a level below Port

And Carlton were a McGovern missed shot away from beating Collingwood and the H2H would be 1-1.

"If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, then we'd all have a merry Christmas"

 

[Fadge]

No not a coincidence - it's actually the inclusion of Brisbane which is off if anything because they were not a top-4 team in the H+A season. Remove them and it becomes 7-5...

Yeah, it is quite generous of you to include Brisbane in the best 4 teams of 2024.

 

[Fadge]

And Carlton were a McGovern missed shot away from beating Collingwood and the H2H would be 1-1.

"If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, then we'd all have a merry Christmas"

So if Carlton had have won a game they lost against Collingwood, they would have won as many games as they lost against us...

 

[doppleganger]

I have discussed how I rank teams at the end of the season many times - finals position is the number 1 factor and if you get kicked out at the same time the ladder is the tiebreaker. Pies fans ignored it as they don't want to to stick with a consistent/objective system and instead change their minds depending on how their team is going

Yeah so you rate Port as being better than Geelong, despite Geelong belting Port in the QF.

All because Port had a Carlton-esque soft 2024 H&A fixture.

 

[carlton_99]

Yeah so you rate Port as being better than Geelong, despite Geelong belting Port in the QF.

All because Port had a Carlton-esque soft 2024 H&A fixture.

I never said the gap would be large between teams in that situation but that is the most objective and representative tiebreaker I can come up with. Anything else is too open to bias.

 

[Fadge]

I never said the gap would be large between teams in that situation but that is the most objective and representative tiebreaker I can come up with. Anything else is too open to bias.

And doesn't suit your narrative.

 

[carlton_99]

And doesn't suit your narrative.

What narrative? I have always been consistent no matter which team was ahead on the ladder. If Collingwood managed to make the 8 with Carlton and progressed further I would have declared them the better team. I may not like it but I stick to my metric no matter what the result is - the very opposite of basing my opinion on positive narratives for me

 

[Fadge]

Yeah so you rate Port as being better than Geelong, despite Geelong belting Port in the QF.

All because Port had a Carlton-esque soft 2024 H&A fixture.

Isn't it amazing....

Port finished 2nd courtesy of a soft draw, and were found out to be a class below the genuine contenders in finals.

Carlton finished 8th courtesy of a soft draw, and were found to be 5 classes below in their Elimination Final.

It's almost as though the ladder can be skewed by the relative difficulty of the fixtures of different teams...

 

[carlton_99]

Isn't it amazing....

Port finished 2nd courtesy of a soft draw, and were found out to be a class below the genuine contenders in finals.

Carlton finished 8th courtesy of a soft draw, and were found to be 5 classes below in their Elimination Final.

It's almost as though the ladder can be skewed by the relative difficulty of the fixtures of different teams...

I haven't seen any of you do any sort of in-depth analysis into the fixture. All you have mentioned are games against North/Richmond. As I have said countless times there are a million factors that make a fixture uneven and you ignore 999,999 of them because they don't suit your narrative.

 

[Fadge]

What narrative? I have always been consistent no matter which team was ahead on the ladder. If Collingwood managed to make the 8 with Carlton and progressed further I would have declared them the better team. I may not like it but I stick to my metric no matter what the result is - the very opposite of basing my opinion on positive narratives for me

No, you're trying to argue that Carlton had a harder draw against better teams, by drawing a line at a very convenient position, to balance out their double up games against the caller dwellers.

That's the biased narrative you're pushing.

 

[carlton_99]

No, you're trying to argue that Carlton had a harder draw against better teams, by drawing a line at a very convenient position, to balance out their double up games against the caller dwellers.

That's the biased narrative you're pushing.

And once again you revert to putting words in my mouth. No where did I say Carlton had a harder draw than anyone - I simply stated other factors that made the fixture uneven this year. Some Carlton faired well in and others Carlton didn't like most teams. Swings and roundabouts as I have said over and over again.

 

[Fadge]

I haven't seen any of you do any sort of in-depth analysis into the fixture. All you have mentioned are games against North/Richmond. As I have said countless times there are a million factors that make a fixture uneven and you ignore 999,999 of them because they don't suit your narrative.

Because the impact of double up games against Richmond and North is far more significant than the rats and mice impact that will likely be cancelled out by swings and roundabouts with your other 999,999 scenarios.

 

[carlton_99]

Because the impact of double up games against Richmond and North is far more significant than the rats and mice impact that will likely be cancelled out by swings and roundabouts with your other 999,999 scenarios.

You discounting all other factors is not in itself evidence of anything.

 

[Fadge]

And once again you revert to putting words in my mouth. No where did I say Carlton had a harder draw than anyone - I simply stated other factors that made the fixture uneven this year. Some Carlton faired well in and others Carlton didn't like most teams. Swings and roundabouts as I have said over and over again.

And Carlton 'didn't fare well' compared to Collingwood in 'double up games against the teams you consider the top 5'.

But if we include Hawthorn.

That's what is called 'a narrative'.

 

[doppleganger]

I never said the gap would be large between teams in that situation but that is the most objective and representative tiebreaker I can come up with. Anything else is too open to bias.

An 80 point belting in the QF and then the PF being done at 3/4 time gives a hint that Port only finished 2nd because of their soft H&A fixture...their only double up opponent who made finals was Carlton!

Yet your position is to then double down and revert to the undeserved ladder position as how you rate teams!

If you are wanting a representative tiebreaker to determine who is better between two teams, suggest you use HTH results between the two actual teams.

Makes a lot more sense than trying to compare completely different H&A fixtures.

 

[carlton_99]

And Carlton 'didn't fare well' compared to Collingwood in 'double up games against the teams you consider the top 5'.

But if we include Hawthorn.

That's what is called 'a narrative'.

We are talking about H+A fixture and so the best four teams in the H+A season which were well represented in the PFs were what I looked at. It's common every year to look at games V top-4 and top-8. Just like looking at games V bottom-4 and bottom-8. Hawks were not a top-4 team in the H+A season.

 

[carlton_99]

An 80 point belting in the QF and then the PF being done at 3/4 time gives a hint that Port only finished 2nd because of their soft H&A fixture...their only double up opponent who made finals was Carlton!

Yet your position is to then double down and revert to the undeserved ladder position as how you rate teams!

If you are wanting a representative tiebreaker to determine who is better between two teams, suggest you use HTH results between the two actual teams.

Makes a lot more sense than trying to compare completely different H&A fixtures.

H2H results are not representative of anything except 2 games in a 23+ game season. That is as far away from being representative of the full season as possible.

 

[Fadge]

If you are wanting a representative tiebreaker to determine who is better between two teams, suggest you use HTH results between the two actual teams.

Makes a lot more sense than trying to compare completely different H&A fixtures.

But that wouldn't suit his narrative...

 

[Fadge]

We are talking about H+A fixture and so the best four teams in the H+A season which were well represented in the PFs were what I looked at. It's common every year to look at games V top-4 and top-8. Just like looking at games V bottom-4 and bottom-8. Hawks were not a top-4 team in the H+A season.

And the only reason Port were was because of their soft draw.

 

[carlton_99]

But that wouldn't suit his narrative...

I understand you have a narrative you will stick to no matter what but not all fans are like this. I have been consistent with my metric all year from when Carlton were doing well to when they were struggling. It won't change next year or the year after

 

[Fadge]

I understand you have a narrative you will stick to no matter what but not all fans are like this. I have been consistent with my metric all year from when Carlton were doing well to when they were struggling. It won't change next year or the year after

What's my 'narrative'?