Rnd 21, vs North Melbourne at Marvel, on Sunday 7 August, 1:10 PM

[TheBloods]

Blakey

[joeykanga]

Full credit to Clarke. He slogged away in the wilderness for a couple of years, then got a senior spot just at the right time. He follows his instructions and has performed his role well. He is not capable of brilliant creative footy like Campbell or even Ronke and Wicks, but he is proving to be a safe pair of hands.

Campbell whilst a brilliant talent is quite inconsistent. He had loads of midfield time in the VFL last week for only 14 touches. Sheldrick is also inconsistent. In particular his disposal is quite rushed which is less than ideal.

Of the small fowards waiting in the wings Ronke and Wicks look much more AFL ready. Wicks is the most creative of the two with very precise ball movement, but needs to fix his goal kicking. Ronke is solid and at 25 years (like Clarke) is more reliable than the younger ones.

Going into finals the experienced reliable players will get the spots. Clarke will stay in unless he has two bad games in a row. Given the work he has done and his maturity it is hard to see this happening.

Are you serious. I know you have a soft spot for Wicks but I don't see a creative bone in Wicks.
He often takes too long to decide on what to do with the ball and waits an eternity till everyone is set in defence, gives away penalties where he knocks someone over a fraction too late. I personally don't see that creativity in him.
Actually consider Clarke more creative than Wicks

[joeykanga]

Yes guru..what does it matter.
Right now he's proving to be what we needed.

- - - Updated - - -

Mark my words , Clarke will not be in a flag side for us or in our 22 next yr

Yes guru..what does it matter.
Right now he's proving to be what we needed.

[Ludwig]

Are you serious. I know you have a soft spot for Wicks but I don't see a creative bone in Wicks.
He often takes too long to decide on what to do with the ball and waits an eternity till everyone is set in defence, gives away penalties where he knocks someone over a fraction too late. I personally don't see that creativity in him.
Actually consider Clarke more creative than Wicks

Wicks has a very creative mind. What about those free kicks he gave away? You don't find many players who can throw a game away like that. Wicks often comes up with things you don't see too often. I remember screaming out "what was he thinking?"

Yes. Very creative. Hard to know what's going on in his head or what he'll come up with next.

[joeykanga]

Wicks has a very creative mind. What about those free kicks he gave away? You don't find many players who can throw a game away like that. Wicks often comes up with things you don't see too often. I remember screaming out "what was he thinking?"

Yes. Very creative. Hard to know what's going on in his head or what he'll come up with next.

You're also very creative

[joeykanga]

There’s perhaps even more to it than that. At the start of the season, wins and losses will have a bigger impact on percentage and percentage changes than later in the season, as the for & against scores are cumulative over the season. Also it’s not just a close loss, as a close loss in a lower scoring game has a bigger impact on percentage than a close loss in a higher scoring game early in the season, but this is progressively reversed as the season progresses.

Let’s go to extremes with an unlikely hypothetical.

Round 1 of the season: the Swans defeat GW$ in a low scoring affair 0.2(2) to 0.1(1), gives the Swans a percentage of 200%

Same round, the Cats just get over the line against the Dees in a goal fest 30.21(201) to 30.20(200) giving Geelong a far less healthy % of 100.5.

Same winning margin, vastly different impact on % at the very start of the season.

Fast forward to the start of round 23. The Geelong and the Swans sit tied on top of the ladder the ladder. Incredibly, both have identical number of wins & losses with identical for/against points of 1786 for/1318 against, both having a percentage of 135.5%

As luck would have it, the Swans play and defeat GW$ with an identical round 1 scoreline Syd 0.2(2) def GW$ 0.1(1). And astonishingly Geelong replicate their Round 1 scoreline against the Dees with a 201 to 200 victory!

This gives Sydney 1788 for/1319 against and a slightly improved percentage of 135.6%. Geelong’s end of H&A percentage is 1987 for/1518 against giving a percentage of 130.9%

There are a number of things we can take away from that improbable hypothetical:

1) lower scoring matches have a much larger impact on % at the start of the season than at the end of the season because of the cumulative for/against ratio by the end of the season

2) winning margins are more significant for lower scoring matches

My example doesn’t show this as I would need more
complexed hypotheticals, but a larger percentage requires much bigger wins to maintain it (ie a narrow win, if you have a high percentage will almost invariably cause your percentage to drop).

Such a good post and voila look at tonight's result..just a single figure loss for Melbourne and 2.8 percentage drop..it's rather nicely pre explained

[MattW]

Let's just win this game.

[0918330512]

Yes guru..what does it matter.
Right now he's proving to be what we needed.

Cut him some slack. With Volderm8 off limits, he needs another whipping boy

But seriously I don’t disagree that Clarke might be in & out based on need. I do disagree that it would or should be in favour of Gus or Roberts.

No side in history has been filled with 250 game players. And many players have come into a grand final side to fill a singular role or by happenstance because of injury and they were the right person to replace the injured player.

To say that the years that Bird and Morton played in premierships that we didn’t have the depth that we do now? Look, it might be true that our depth from 30-38 is stronger, but Bird and Morton were at worst 18-24 (and I dispute that). Very few premiership sides don’t have good depth through to at least 25. That’s why they win a premiership. (Admittedly on 05 we had a good run with injuries, so our depth wasn’t tested but the best 25 we as good as anyone going around and better than the Eagles on 24 Sept)

[DeadlyAkkuret]

The final changes

OUT: Bonar, Archer, J Walker, Turner, Spicer
IN: A Hall, Corr, Lachie Young, Curtis


OUT: Amartey, J P Kennedy
IN: Logan McDonald

That has to be a weird statistic? When was the last time a team dropped 5 players who’s names all end with the same letter?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[joeykanga]

That has to be a weird statistic? When was the last time a team dropped 5 players who’s names all end with the same letter?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And at the same time played against a team that dropped 2 players whose names end in y and picked the only new player ending in d

- - - Updated - - -

That has to be a weird statistic? When was the last time a team dropped 5 players who’s names all end with the same letter?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wish Bonar was Boner and then it would be even more remarkable

[DeadlyAkkuret]

And at the same time played against a team that dropped 2 players whose names end in y and picked the only new player ending in d

- - - Updated - - -


Wish Bonar was Boner and then it would be even more remarkable

I’d thought of that. A real let down.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Thunder Shaker]

There is a mathematical oddity that could occur: Melbourne and Sydney could have identical percentages after this round.

Melbourne's against score (1352) and Sydney's against score (1404) are both multiples of 52 (26×52 and 27×52). This makes it possible for Sydney's percentage to equal Melbourne's precisely with the right scores. Melbourne's current for score is 1742 (26×67, the common factor is 26) and Sydney's current for score is 1776. 33 points is the deficit needed that takes Sydney's for score to 1809 (27×67, note the common factor of 27). 1809 = 1809/1404 = 1742/1352, and in lowest terms both fractions reduce to 67/52.

A 33 to 0 win won't occur, but the next possibility is 100 to 52 (+67 and +52), and those scores are possible. 167 to 104 is also possible but less likely.

What are the chances? Roughly the same as the chances of two draws in two games, about 1 in 3000 or so.

What would happens if that occurs? The AFL would resort to using other tiebreakers that it has rarely used before. The other tiebreakers are higher for score, more goals kicked over the season, head to head results. As we would be better than Melbourne on all three measures, we would be higher on the ladder despite having an identical percentage.