Gotta laugh at the 'experts' logic....

[Triple B]

.....tonight on Fox Teams, Liam Pickering produced the stat that was talked about here on RWO earlier in the week (hasten to add, I'm not saying he stole it from here).

It's the stat where the side finishing in the top 4 who loses the Qual Final has a huge record in Week 2 of the finals. Something like a 3 point win and a win after extra time is the only time the Elim Final winner has gone on to win in week 2.

Pickers therefore said that even though the Bullies are going ordinary and the Swans appear to have found some form, that statistic is too damning to disregard and he picked the Bullies. Parkin agreed that it was a huge stat and promptly changed his tip from Sydney to the Dogs.

Now, I have no problem with Pickers or his stat. In fact, I have no confidence tomorrow night because of that stat. Teams who finish in the top 4 after 22 H&A rounds finish top 4 for a reason, they deserve it. Those who finish out of the top 4 usually finish outside the top 4 for a similar reason.

BUT,

10 minutes later, there is no mention of the stat, none, zero, zilch, nada...............as both Pickers and Parkin tip the 8th placed Pies to beat the 4th placed Saints

[Big Al]

Since when has a stat decided a game anyway. Top 4 teams are usually pretty decent teams to start with so that may account for them winning most games to teams outside the 4 in the 2nd week. To change your tip based on a historical stat is ridiculous.

[Triple B]

To be honest, I tend to agree with him. It is a statistic which stands up to scrutiny because, as you say yourself, the better teams finish in the top 4.

My point was that within 10 minutes that 'damning statistic' was not deemed relevent enough to be mentioned, let alone stopping them tipping the Pies.

[ScottH]

Top4 is usually correct, however the teams 4-8 finished all pretty close this year, as proved by the number of teams that had a chance of snaring 4th spot.
So given the comment, it is probably more true that the 3rd team, has more chance than 4th this weekend. (Although the dogs haven't been playing like a top 3 of late.)

[cruiser]

BUT,

10 minutes later, there is no mention of the stat, none, zero, zilch, nada...............as both Pickers and Parkin tip the 8th placed Pies to beat the 4th placed Saints

I thought exactly the same thing i.e. do these guys actually listen to themselves?

[hammo]

Out of the top 4 teams who have bounced back after losing in the first week, I wonder how many have lost 6 of the their past 8 last games? There are always mitigating factors which should be taken into consideration.

[ScottH]

Not many I suspect Hammo.
The form of the 4-8 teams has been suspect over the last month or so, and the dogs have slowly drag themselves back to that group of 5 teams in the last few months as well.
I don't think any sort of history will count for much tonite & tmrw nite.

[johnno]

To be honest, I tend to agree with him. It is a statistic which stands up to scrutiny because, as you say yourself, the better teams finish in the top 4.

My point was that within 10 minutes that 'damning statistic' was not deemed relevent enough to be mentioned, let alone stopping them tipping the Pies.

I understand what your getting at BBB. Having lived in Melbourne all my life and in recent years having witnessed the success of the swans, I initially was very pissed off with all the negative comments coming from the Melbourne media in relation to the swans, I have now just accepted this, all it tells me is that deep down, they really know how good we are, they are just clutching at straws to find reasons why we will lose this week and why we will lose the next week and so on.