Top 2..Is it that essential?

[ernie koala]

Is being top 2 essential? You bet your balls it is - (it certainly can't hurt!! )GO SWANS!!!

Not sure I'm willing to put the orchestra stalls on the line....but....

IMO, no, it's not essential...it's obviously an advantage but not essential.

So tell me... if we finish 3 or 4 are we, in your opinion, no chance ?

If your answer is..."we are still a chance", then it's not essential is it.

If your answer is..." we're no chance I give up", then I guess you think it is essential.

[Wardy]

Not sure I'm willing to put the orchestra stalls on the line....but....

IMO, no, it's not essential...it's obviously an advantage but not essential.

So tell me... if we finish 3 or 4 are we, in your opinion, no chance ?

If your answer is..."we are still a chance", then it's not essential is it.

If your answer is..." we're no chance I give up", then I guess you think it is essential.

I'd sacrifice my ample bosom to the cause!!! The thing is we haven't been in this position since the 90's its a nice spot to be in. And whilst not many rate us - just proving them all wrong will just be the icing on the cake - minor premiership and (hopefully) flag looks quite nice from where I'm sitting.

[Thunder Shaker]

Top 2 is huge, theoretically. If we win first week, we get the second week off, a home final third week, and no trip on a plane for a month. Even a first-week loss (a possibility if it is against the Crows), would still give a home semi final. Although one only needs to finish top 4 for that benefit, this benefit is less likely to be needed with a home final in the first week.

We've made the finals a lot in the last 15 years, but only finished top 4 in 1996 (1st, GF loss), 1998 (3rd, semi final loss), 2003 (4th, PF loss), 2005 (3rd, GF win!) 2006 (4th - GF loss).
Top 2 has one benefit only: two home finals. It's quite possible to lose the first week.

But there's the thing - the second week of the finals.

Since 2001 (the advent of the current finals system), 21 out of 22 semi finals have been won by the top-4 side. The only exception was Port Adelaide vs Hawthorn, won by Hawthorn by 3 points. Hawthorn lost their 2001 preliminary final.

based on performances under the current finals system:
Top 4: 43/44 reached the preliminary finals, 22/44 reached the Grand Final, 11/44 won the premiership (25%).
Top 2: 22/22 reached the preliminary finals, 17/22 reached the Grand Final, 9/22 won the premiership (41%).

Based on the performances of the last 11 years, finishing top 2 and top 4 gives much the same chance of making at least a preliminary final, but top 2 gives a better chance making and winning the Grand Final. Mostly this is due to the self-evident truth that the top 2 sides are the best teams. Therefore, if we are good enough to finish top 2, we are good enough to have a shot at the premiership. Conversely, we are one of the two sides to win the premiership from outside the top 2 (with so many finals appearances we have to win one sometime), and the other side are the triple-flag Lions side from early last decade.

[BSA5]

^^^
We're dealing stats here, and I'm going to interpret them as what is needed to win a flag.
Seems that is 1st or 2nd
Top 4 is certainly more worthwhile than 5th, but since the sytem was introduced, for whatever reason, statistically 3 or 4 isn't as good as 1 or 2
11 years isn't a very accurate sample period, so it will be interesting to see if these stats continue over the next 10 (if it lasts that long)

Of course 3rd or 4th isn't as good as 1st or 2nd! An entire season of H&A has determined that! Most of the time, the top 2 are clearly a cut above 3rd and 4th. That says absolutely nothing about whether being placed 3rd or 4th is a disadvantage, only that teams that come 3rd or 4th tend to be worse teams anyway.

If, for example, teams from 3rd or 4th made it into the GF just as often as teams from 1st and 2nd, you'd have to seriously question why. It would be an indicator that 3rd and 4th actually get an advantage, because these inferior teams succeed just as much as the superior teams.

Give it up, you were wrong. Only 2 teams in the last 11 years have won from outside top 2 and none from 4th. We are all wrong sometimes, babbling on, war and peace style, doesn't make you any more right.

Thank you for your thorough analysis of why my points are wrong. I now see the error of my ways. You have humbled me, and I am richer for the experience.

[Dirtyburt]

Of course 3rd or 4th isn't as good as 1st or 2nd! An entire season of H&A has determined that! Most of the time, the top 2 are clearly a cut above 3rd and 4th. That says absolutely nothing about whether being placed 3rd or 4th is a disadvantage, only that teams that come 3rd or 4th tend to be worse teams anyway.

If, for example, teams from 3rd or 4th made it into the GF just as often as teams from 1st and 2nd, you'd have to seriously question why. It would be an indicator that 3rd and 4th actually get an advantage, because these inferior teams succeed just as much as the superior teams.



Thank you for your thorough analysis of why my points are wrong. I now see the error of my ways. You have humbled me, and I am richer for the experience.

Thank you for babbling again,.
You were wrong suck it up champion

[Dirtyburt]

Just to Clear it up;
18th not as good as 17th
Which is not as good as 16th, just behind 15th, then 14th, slightly behind 13th, marginally behind 12th, which just missed out on 11th. Who admittedly were just below 10th, and were just pushed out by 9th. 8th were slightly better but not as good as 7th, who were nosed out by 6th, who were edged by 5th. The strange thing was 4th were behind 3rd who just missed out to 2nd. However 1st were top.

Are you all following? Or bored?

Bottom line; 1 or 2 regularly win the premiership.

Moral; don't believe bull@@@@ just because it is lengthy

So endeth the story

[BSA5]

Thank you for babbling again,.
You were wrong suck it up champion

Ahem:

Just to Clear it up;
18th not as good as 17th
Which is not as good as 16th, just behind 15th, then 14th, slightly behind 13th, marginally behind 12th, which just missed out on 11th. Who admittedly were just below 10th, and were just pushed out by 9th. 8th were slightly better but not as good as 7th, who were nosed out by 6th, who were edged by 5th. The strange thing was 4th were behind 3rd who just missed out to 2nd. However 1st were top.

Are you all following? Or bored?

Bottom line; 1 or 2 regularly win the premiership.

Moral; don't believe bull@@@@ just because it is lengthy

So endeth the story

Pretty much my exact point. The difference in making the GF is down mostly to teams 1 and 2 being better than teams 3 and 4, NOT any finals advantage/disadvantage.

I suggest you read what I'm actually writing next time.

[Dirtyburt]

Ahem:



Pretty much my exact point. The difference in making the GF is down mostly to teams 1 and 2 being better than teams 3 and 4, NOT any finals advantage/disadvantage.

I suggest you read what I'm actually writing next time.

Lmao, repeat after me; I was wrong

See it wasn't that hard

[Doctor J.]

Is being top 2 essential? You bet your balls it is - (it certainly can't hurt!! )GO SWANS!!!

We don't take small bets here

[DamY]

We don't take small bets here

hahahahahahaahhahaa snap! top 10 posts of the year

[BSA5]

I was wrong

See it wasn't that hard

Nice to see you admit it.

[ernie koala]

TOP 2.....IS IT THAT ESSENTIAL ?

NO IT ISN'T !