Smoke and mirrors

[sharpie]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
You mean things like ""At the end of the day they're probably too good anyway and (they'll) probably get over the top of you but at least it gives you an opportunity."

Oops... that was Roos...

Who else could be "doom and gloom"?

For my own interest, I found what I wrote after round 6...



It was also a time when you thought that talking about our 2003 accuracy as "unsustainably high" was "a nonsense statement".

If ever I'd seen a bad case of the "I Told You So"s

[Piobaireachd]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Your snide response was 'just a different opinion'?

You think that was snide? You haven't seen snide yet

[Go Swannies]

Here we go again, As I tried to explain at the time, "unsustainably high" suggests that a particular group of players and coach can't maintain a level of excellence above the norm. So Valentino Rossi maintains an "unsustainably high" level of success in motorcycle racing.

As I also pointed out at the time, if we think that teams must eventually return to a norm, then our remarkably inaccurate goal kicking early in the season was "unsustainably low". And, you were right - so it proved. Presumably without any effort on the part of the players and their coaches to improve, they are now in the crowded part of the beloved bell curve.

However, I'm still confused over the time period within which the norm is irresistible. Was the Swan's poor kicking in the Crows game just an aberration, a statistical anomally or merely the result of excellent defensive pressure? In the longer term, the Lions run of winning the big games was unsustainable. You were right again - three years of flags seems to be it for this group and now they are on their way back into the middle of the pack. So, it appears that the term over which the mean prevails is somewhere between two hours and five years.

Personally, I'm hoping the Swans can lift themselves out of mediocrity just long enough to win the flag this year. Then my joy will be both sustained and excessive.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Piobaireachd
You think that was snide? You haven't seen snide yet

Can hardly wait.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Go Swannies
Here we go again, As I tried to explain at the time, "unsustainably high" suggests that a particular group of players and coach can't maintain a level of excellence above the norm. So Valentino Rossi maintains an "unsustainably high" level of success in motorcycle racing.

As I also pointed out at the time, if we think that teams must eventually return to a norm, then our remarkably inaccurate goal kicking early in the season was "unsustainably low". And, you were right - so it proved. Presumably without any effort on the part of the players and their coaches to improve, they are now in the crowded part of the beloved bell curve.

However, I'm still confused over the time period within which the norm is irresistible. Was the Swan's poor kicking in the Crows game just an aberration, a statistical anomally or merely the result of excellent defensive pressure? In the longer term, the Lions run of winning the big games was unsustainable. You were right again - three years of flags seems to be it for this group and now they are on their way back into the middle of the pack. So, it appears that the term over which the mean prevails is somewhere between two hours and five years.

Ah your sarcasm and wit just manages to overwhelm your understanding slightly...

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by sharpie
If ever I'd seen a bad case of the "I Told You So"s

I have to help out GoSwannies - makes lot of statements, fails to remember them, and then responds with sarcasm when he doesn't understand the explanation.

[Go Swannies]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
You mean things like ""At the end of the day they're probably too good anyway and (they'll) probably get over the top of you but at least it gives you an opportunity."

Oops... that was Roos...

Who else could be "doom and gloom"?

For my own interest, I found what I wrote after round 6...



It was also a time when you thought that talking about our 2003 accuracy as "unsustainably high" was "a nonsense statement".

That was the explanation?

[barry]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
[B]Most football stats are done on a post and pre war basis. Of course, there are also the post mid-1980s and post-1990s ones also when there are more interstate teams.


Yep. Then again, there are only 2 finals in that period for us so it hardly affects the analysis.

Then why include them. They are totally irrelevant.

[B]

0-9 in Melbourne since 1986, and 0-5 from 1996.

Now we are getting somewhere. I assume post-96 for us was when home finals were given.

NM - GF 96. No.
Bulldogs - EF 97. 3 places 2 wins.
Essendon - EF 99. Yes.
Hawthorn - EF 01. 1 place 1 win.
St Kilda - SF 04. 3 places 3 wins.

If the NM game was played in SYdney, we would have won IMO.

Both Hawthorn and StKilda were struggling for form when they came into the games.

Irrelevant. Against North we had injury and off field drama, and Essendon we limped into the finals. It evens out.

So once the real stats come out, and you've been shown up again for using irrelevant stats to push an agenda, its:
4-2 in Sydney
1-0 in Adelaide
0-5 in Melbourne
--------
5-7 total

Now, I think few could expect anything other than say:
5-1 in Sydney
0-1 in Adelaide
1-5 in Melbourne
---------
6-7 total.

We are only one game off an "average" return on finals, and considering in that period we've only had one team (96) really capable of winning it, I dont see any cause for concern, other than it would be nice to get the Melbourne monkey off our back which essentially means making another GF.

How much more will the MCG be a neutral venue in the GF than otherwise?

By playing another non-vic side silly.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Go Swannies
That was the explanation?

No - I explained it last time.

[Go Swannies]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
No - I explained it last time.

No more convincingly.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by barry
So once the real stats come out, and you've been shown up again for using irrelevant stats to push an agenda, its:

And you've demonstrated again that despite all your protestations, you love a fight!

4-2 in Sydney
1-0 in Adelaide
0-5 in Melbourne
--------
5-7 total

Now, I think few could expect anything other than say:
5-1 in Sydney
0-1 in Adelaide
1-5 in Melbourne
---------
6-7 total.

Adelaide's record at the MCG is 5-3 since 1997 (6-5 in Melbourne overall), so why not expect more in Melbourne?

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Go Swannies
No more convincingly.

You think it's sustainable for a team to have an accuracy level that high for an extended number of years, then go ahead and believe it...

If you can't tell the difference between impacts over years and during a game, then so be it...

If you want to resort to sarcasm and bring in strawman arguments such as Brisbane's flags, then go ahead...

[Piobaireachd]

Originally posted by barry

... other than it would be nice to get the Melbourne monkey off our back which essentially means making another GF.

Change "making" to Winning

[Go Swannies]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
You think it's sustainable for a team to have an accuracy level that high for an extended number of years, then go ahead and believe it...

If our forwards were Gary Ablett and Plugger (or even Baz and Magic, with a role for ROK and Nick D) then yes I do. I admire excellence.

[barry]

Originally posted by NMWBloods

Adelaide's record at the MCG is 5-3 since 1997 (6-5 in Melbourne overall), so why not expect more in Melbourne?

Very good records for Adelaide. But even you'd conceed Adelaide really won flags in the late 90's the hard way. Not repeated since, or before. An exception to the rule.

If we win say 5-3 in Melbourne, we could conversely lose 3-5 in Sydney. No ?


Anyway, reinforcing the reason to disregards pre 96 finals stats, is the information which surfaced this year from the Brisbane Lions (benchmark travelling team), which stated that when they have to travel 2 weeks in a row, it reduces their expectation of the 2nd win to under 40%. Amplify that in a finals context and its not hard to see why the capper years swans bombed out.

That fact is also a risk for our first final which involves travel after round 22's trip to Melbourne.