Jump to content

Another stat worth celebrating

Featured Replies

Posted

Of all those KPIs we have broken through over the last month, I actually really like this one, which fittingly, we would have actually inflicted with our win several weeks ago against them -  "the Blues are now the least successful Victorian club this century. Since the start of the 2000 season, a year after the club had made the Grand Final and a year in which it was to make a preliminary final, Carlton has played 417 matches for just 157 wins (37.65%).

In the same period, Melbourne has played 415 games for 158 wins (38.07%). "


http://m.afl.com.au/news/2018-05-30/barrett-blues-should-follow-dees-recipe


It's not the point that the article is trying to make, but I hear Mark Neeld is available and I'd be only too happy for him to go over to Princess Park and bake some cakes for Carlton.

 
12 hours ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

Of all those KPIs we have broken through over the last month, I actually really like this one, which fittingly, we would have actually inflicted with our win several weeks ago against them -  "the Blues are now the least successful Victorian club this century. Since the start of the 2000 season, a year after the club had made the Grand Final and a year in which it was to make a preliminary final, Carlton has played 417 matches for just 157 wins (37.65%).

In the same period, Melbourne has played 415 games for 158 wins (38.07%). "


http://m.afl.com.au/news/2018-05-30/barrett-blues-should-follow-dees-recipe


It's not the point that the article is trying to make, but I hear Mark Neeld is available and I'd be only too happy for him to go over to Princess Park and bake some cakes for Carlton.

The AFL is to football like Mendel was to genetics.  They publish incorrect facts which just happen to have the correct conclusions. This century didn't start until 1 January 2001, not 2000. Hence, the data used for 2000 shouldn't be included. As it happens, Carlton played 25 games in 2000 and won 17 of them; Melbourne also played 25 games, but only won 16. So, the correct figures are that Carlton has played 392 matches for 140 wins with a winning percentage of 35.7% whereas Melbourne has played 390 for 142 wins and a percentage of 36.4%.

You can thank me later.  

 

That's what you get when your whole recruiting strategy is based around poaching GWS rejects.

Their pathetic performances haven't stopped the media from trying to talk them up at every turn as well.  If we were in their position they would be taking great enjoyment out of smashing us.

7 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

That's what you get when your whole recruiting strategy is based around poaching GWS rejects.

Their pathetic performances haven't stopped the media from trying to talk them up at every turn as well.  If we were in their position they would be taking great enjoyment out of smashing us.

I think the solution is to reward them with more Friday night games.


  • Author
2 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

That's what you get when your whole recruiting strategy is based around poaching GWS rejects.

Their pathetic performances haven't stopped the media from trying to talk them up at every turn as well.  If we were in their position they would be taking great enjoyment out of smashing us.

SOS recruiting management.

4 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

The AFL is to football like Mendel was to genetics.  They publish incorrect facts which just happen to have the correct conclusions. This century didn't start until 1 January 2001, not 2000.

Well done, LDC.  Very few seem to grasp this simple fact...

6 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

The AFL is to football like Mendel was to genetics.  They publish incorrect facts which just happen to have the correct conclusions. This century didn't start until 1 January 2001, not 2000. Hence, the data used for 2000 shouldn't be included. As it happens, Carlton played 25 games in 2000 and won 17 of them; Melbourne also played 25 games, but only won 16. So, the correct figures are that Carlton has played 392 matches for 140 wins with a winning percentage of 35.7% whereas Melbourne has played 390 for 142 wins and a percentage of 36.4%.

You can thank me later.  

quite so ldvc, and one's birthday is the same problem in reverse

one's 1st birthday is actually the 2nd occasion/celebration of one's birthday

 
8 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

The AFL is to football like Mendel was to genetics.  They publish incorrect facts which just happen to have the correct conclusions. This century didn't start until 1 January 2001, not 2000. Hence, the data used for 2000 shouldn't be included. As it happens, Carlton played 25 games in 2000 and won 17 of them; Melbourne also played 25 games, but only won 16. So, the correct figures are that Carlton has played 392 matches for 140 wins with a winning percentage of 35.7% whereas Melbourne has played 390 for 142 wins and a percentage of 36.4%.

You can thank me later.  

Ross Oakley says it started in Jan 1st 2000. 


12 hours ago, Queanbeyan Demon said:

Ross Oakley says it started in Jan 1st 2000. 

QD,  you can believe a person who used to be the Chief Executive of the AFL or you can believe me. The choice is entirely up to you.

12 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

QD,  you can believe a person who used to be the Chief Executive of the AFL or you can believe me. The choice is entirely up to you.

Very good point. I believe in La Dee-vina Comedia. 

On 5/31/2018 at 5:46 PM, ProDee said:

image.png.30dea3f394611d159844c249b5723ee8.png

This is still gold, from the last time they "won" it. 

Statistically validates what I was arguing with a friend on the weekend: the (brave, young) Blues have escaped recent attention for being basically as shite as us, probably due to us.

From 2002 after finishing 6th the previous year and 2nd and 3rd in the years immediately prior:

2002: 16th

2003: 15th

2004: 11th

2005: 16th

2006: 16th

2007: 15th

2008: 11th

2009: 7th (beaten in the Elimination Finals)

2010: 8th (on percentage - beaten in the EF)

2011: 5th

2012: 10th

2013: (effectively 9th)

2014: 13th

2015: 18th

2016: 14th

2017: 16th

That is just downright [censored] horrible with the same evident failed rebuilds as us; except they're no closer to getting better in the foreseeable future and have had basically the same access to talented juniors  -  indeed, they'll have to rebuild a rebuild of a rebuild of rebuild, if they can admit that is what is needed. Roll around in the corpse on Carlton ladies and gentlemen.

Note: If we went for it around 2011-2013 wih our list, instead of imploding, we probably would have made finals similar to the Blues in this period as well, even if it was a false dawn.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Featured Content

  • GAMEDAY: Collingwood

    It's Game Day and the Demons face a monumental task as they take on the top-of-the-table Magpies in one of the biggest games on the Dees calendar: the King's Birthday Big Freeze MND match. Can the Demons defy the odds and claim a massive scalp to keep their finals hopes alive?

      • Haha
    • 719 replies
  • CASEY: Collingwood

    It was freezing cold at Mission Whitten Stadium where only the brave came out in the rain to watch a game that turned out to be as miserable as the weather.
    The Casey Demons secured their third consecutive victory, earning the four premiership points and credit for defeating a highly regarded Collingwood side, but achieved little else. Apart perhaps from setting the scene for Monday’s big game at the MCG and the Ice Challenge that precedes it.
    Neither team showcased significant skill in the bleak and greasy conditions, at a location that was far from either’s home territory. Even the field umpires forgot where they were and experienced a challenging evening, but no further comment is necessary.

    • 4 replies
  • NON-MFC: Round 13

    Follow all the action from every Round 13 clash excluding the Dees as the 2025 AFL Premiership Season rolls on. With Melbourne playing in the final match of the round on King's Birthday, all eyes turn to the rest of the competition. Who are you tipping to win? And more importantly, which results best serve the Demons’ finals aspirations? Join the discussion and keep track of the matches that could shape the ladder and impact our run to September.

      • Thanks
      • Like
    • 216 replies
  • PREVIEW: Collingwood

    Having convincingly defeated last year’s premier and decisively outplayed the runner-up with 8.2 in the final quarter, nothing epitomized the Melbourne Football Club’s performance more than its 1.12 final half, particularly the eight consecutive behinds in the last term, against a struggling St Kilda team in the midst of a dismal losing streak. Just when stability and consistency were anticipated within the Demon ranks, they delivered a quintessential performance marked by instability and ill-conceived decisions, with the most striking aspect being their inaccuracy in kicking for goal, which suggested a lack of preparation (instead of sleeping in their hotel in Alice, were they having a night on the turps) rather than a well-rested team. Let’s face it - this kicking disease that makes them look like raw amateurs is becoming a millstone around the team’s neck.

    • 1 reply
  • CASEY: Sydney

    The Casey Demons were always expected to emerge victorious in their matchup against the lowly-ranked Sydney Swans at picturesque Tramway Oval, situated in the shadows of the SCG in Moore Park. They dominated the proceedings in the opening two and a half quarters of the game but had little to show for it. This was primarily due to their own sloppy errors in a low-standard game that produced a number of crowded mauls reminiscent of the rugby game popular in old Sydney Town. However, when the Swans tired, as teams often do when they turn games into ugly defensive contests, Casey lifted the standard of its own play and … it was off to the races. Not to nearby Randwick but to a different race with an objective of piling on goal after goal on the way to a mammoth victory. At the 25-minute mark of the third quarter, the Demons held a slender 14-point lead over the Swans, who are ahead on the ladder of only the previous week's opposition, the ailing Bullants. Forty minutes later, they had more than fully compensated for the sloppiness of their earlier play with a decisive 94-point victory, that culminated in a rousing finish which yielded thirteen unanswered goals. Kicks hit their targets, the ball found itself going through the middle and every player made a contribution.

    • 1 reply
  • REPORT: St. Kilda

    Hands up if you thought, like me, at half-time in yesterday’s game at TIO Traeger Park, Alice Springs that Melbourne’s disposal around the ground and, in particular, its kicking inaccuracy in front of the goals couldn’t get any worse. Well, it did. And what’s even more damning for the Melbourne Football Club is that the game against St Kilda and its resurgence from the bottomless pit of its miserable start to the season wasn’t just lost through poor conversion for goal but rather in the 15 minutes when the entire team went into a slumber and was mugged by the out-of-form Saints. Their six goals two behinds (one goal less than the Demons managed for the whole game) weaved a path of destruction from which they were unable to recover. Ross Lyon’s astute use of pressure to contain the situation once they had asserted their grip on the game, and Melbourne’s self-destructive wastefulness, assured that outcome. The old adage about the insanity of repeatedly doing something and expecting a different result, was out there. Two years ago, the score line in Melbourne’s loss to the Giants at this same ground was 5 goals 15 behinds - a ratio of one goal per four scoring shots - was perfectly replicated with yesterday’s 7 goals 21 behinds. 
    This has been going on for a while and opens up a number of questions. I’ll put forward a few that come to mind from this performance. The obvious first question is whether the club can find a suitable coach to instruct players on proper kicking techniques or is this a skill that can no longer be developed at this stage of the development of our playing group? Another concern is the team's ability to counter an opponent's dominance during a run on as exemplified by the Saints in the first quarter. Did the Demons underestimate their opponents, considering St Kilda's goals during this period were scored by relatively unknown forwards? Furthermore, given the modest attendance of 6,721 at TIO Traeger Park and the team's poor past performances at this venue, is it prudent to prioritize financial gain over potentially sacrificing valuable premiership points by relinquishing home ground advantage, notwithstanding the cultural significance of the team's connection to the Red Centre? 

    • 4 replies