The common thread between 20 of the last 21 Premiers

[DubDee 21,886]

9 minutes ago, Pollyanna said:

11 goals 23 behinds - 12 behinds kicked, 11 rushed by the Hawthorn defence to regain possession of the ball.  It was a tactic by Clarkson.

Still lost by bad kicking even if you take the rushed behinds out. 11.12 to 18.7

some shocking misses by the Cats 

[Bring-Back-Powell 13,599]

5 minutes ago, Demon17 said:

I like it.  And the overall season stat I like is that each week, 8 of the 9 winning teams had better accuracy, (kicking more goals than points) than the loser. Kick more gaols than points and 8 out of 9 chances sees a win.

The finals this weekend panned out that way, unless it was a demolition job like Port and Dees delivered . Swans kick 2.7 in the last 1/4. Losing the unlosable.

MY major worry that will kill our chances, unless we flat out swamp the oppositon with scoring chances like we did in the 2nd 1/4. 

Agreed.

We can probably get away with having one more final where we kick more behinds than goals, but history might catch up with us if we go all 3 finals of inaccuracy (assuming we win the prelim).

A crisp 14.10 against Geelong will be fantastic.

[Rollo2 64]

On 8/20/2021 at 8:08 AM, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Moral of the story is that if we kick more behinds than goals in ALL (YES ALL) of our upcoming finals games, we’re only a 5% chance of winning the flag.

No team has ever kicked perfectly accurately (all goals, no behinds) and won a grand final either. So I guess if we kick perfectly accurately we have 0% chance of winning? 

I do take your overall point. We need to kick straight. But the reasoning behind your 5% figure is all kinds of flawed. 

[Bring-Back-Powell 13,599]

Just now, Rollo2 said:

No team has ever kicked perfectly accurately (all goals, no behinds) and won a grand final either. So I guess if we kick perfectly accurately we have 0% chance of winning? 

I do take your overall point. We need to kick straight. But the reasoning behind your 5% figure is all kinds of flawed. 

The point I'm making is that if you look at the scores of every finals series since 1990, only 1 side has got away with kicking more behinds than goals in every final of their premiership campaign, and that was West Coast. 

I see your point that there are way too many variables in a game of footy to just pin success down to accuracy.

Nonetheless, it's an underrated and irrefutable historical stat that I've raised. Just like the fact that at least 2 teams will always drop out of the 8 despite the media cutting and pasting their top 8 from one year to the next.

 

[Jaded No More 59,743]

We missed goals that we normally would kick. Brown and Tmac with two goals they rarely missed, and Jackson with 2 posters, which is very rare.

But we actually kicked really well on the run, except Trac who missed two he would normally get.

I agree that bad kicking is bad football. Essendon and Sydney killed themselves on the weekend with poor accuracy. In fact, Sydney kick straight and they win no problem. 

 

[jumbo returns 6,618]

10 minutes ago, Jaded said:

We missed goals that we normally would kick. Brown and Tmac with two goals they rarely missed, and Jackson with 2 posters, which is very rare.

But we actually kicked really well on the run, except Trac who missed two he would normally get.

I agree that bad kicking is bad football. Essendon and Sydney killed themselves on the weekend with poor accuracy. In fact, Sydney kick straight and they win no problem. 

 

3 posters - one of his shots hit both goal posts!

[Supreme_Demon 3,065]

Agreed.

Bad kicking is bad football.

You are accurate and you kick significantly more goals then behinds then you are more likely to win. Kicking lots of goals wins you games of football. Simple stuff.

Let's hope with this extra week off that the Demons players use this time effectively and practice both their forward line kicking connection (which has improved) but also our goal kicking.

We missed some sitters against the Lions which we easily should have kicked.

Our goal kicking on the run and from set shots certainly needs more improvement. However, I am sure Mark "Choco" Williams and the other MFC coaching staff will hopefully run some training sessions to focus on this. 

Edited August 30, 2021 by Supreme_Demon

[Hellish Inferno 992]

What if we kicked 15.5 in the prelim and then won a low scoring granny scoring 8.15 to 10.2 - would you look back and be satisfied with meeting the stat? Heart attack aside.

My point is, I wonder how many of those premiers didn't also have plenty of games where they kicked more points than behinds. I think there's much better stats to determine premiership quality

 

 

Edited August 30, 2021 by Hellish Inferno

[Engorged Onion 9,570]

1 hour ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Excellent win on Saturday night with next nothing to concern ourselves with.

However, it was another night of inaccuracy and history proves that 20 of the last 21 premiers go at least one final where they go 50/50 at worst eg  -14 goals 14 behinds.

We easily got away with it on Saturday night as we outscored them comprehensively and had complete control, but it's a stat we need to be slightly aware of. 

 

 

 

 

 

Yep - and hopefully we are the exception to the rule. Our defence allows us to kick at 45% and win (most of the time). That's what is quite amazing.

[Demon trucker 1,800]

On 8/21/2021 at 1:11 AM, A F said:

Many of us have been saying all year that our poor goal kicking will cost us a final. We must kick straighter in the next 5 weeks. Do that and we'll be very hard to beat.

I don't think you know much about Melbourne, you said even boasted that after  about round 15 there was no way in the world we would be in the top 4 by year's end, shut your negativity down.

Edited August 30, 2021 by Demon trucker

[Binmans PA 26,660]

13 minutes ago, Demon trucker said:

I don't think you know much about Melbourne, you said even boasted that after  about round 15 there was no way in the world we would be in the top 4 by year's end, shut your negativity down.

When did I ever say that? Go and find it for me.

I've said since about Round 12 or 13 that we're the best team in the competition.

What a ridiculous post.

[picket fence 15,735]

14 hours ago, Demon17 said:

I agree, but someone pass this only to Bailey Fritsch.

although to give him credit he's improved somewhat from early in the season.

His kicking for goal, which I previously criticized has now become a strength. Well done!

[Dr. Gonzo 22,785]

15 hours ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

The point I'm making is that if you look at the scores of every finals series since 1990, only 1 side has got away with kicking more behinds than goals in every final of their premiership campaign, and that was West Coast. 

I see your point that there are way too many variables in a game of footy to just pin success down to accuracy.

Nonetheless, it's an underrated and irrefutable historical stat that I've raised. Just like the fact that at least 2 teams will always drop out of the 8 despite the media cutting and pasting their top 8 from one year to the next.

 

If its since 1990 it's actually 30 of the last 31 premiers.

[FritschyBusiness 1,455]

The common thread between 21 of 21 of the last premiers is that they kicked more of a score than the opposition they played.

Boom. Mic Drop

[durango 1,985]

I just read that of the 8 teams that played in the last weekend the MFC has the youngest average age and the second lowest average games experience.

This points to us being in the premiership window for at least the next 4 to 5 years, that assumes we don't recruit more genuine stars of the game.

[old55 21,839]

On 8/21/2021 at 1:08 AM, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Is the fact that since 1990 every premier aside from West Coast in 1994 has gone at least 1 game in a finals series where they’ve avoided kicking  more behinds than goals.

All of these premiers have played at least 3 games.

Now how amazing a stat is that- at least one game in a finals series since 1990, a premier has  gone at least 50/50 conversion in at least one of their 3 finals,  aside from West Coast in 1994.

Moral of the story is that if we kick more behinds than goals in ALL (YES ALL) of our upcoming finals games, we’re only a 5% chance of winning the flag.

Foot note- West Coast kicked 47.70 in the 1994 series which is completely unsustainable and unrealistic in modern day footy.

I 've been on the bandwagon that poor scoring conversion is a big risk for us this year and has cost us games.

But your "5% chance" reasoning is flawed.  If it's correct does that mean if we kick more goals than behinds there's a 95% chance we'll win the flag?

No team in the last 20 years has won the flag with a 208cm bald ruckman - we're clearly no chance ...

[Bring-Back-Powell 13,599]

40 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

If its since 1990 it's actually 30 of the last 31 premiers.

Yes, since 1990. So 30/31.

Should get the calculator out next time.

 

[Bring-Back-Powell 13,599]

5 minutes ago, Pollyanna said:

I 've been on the bandwagon that poor scoring conversion is a big risk for us this year and has cost us games.

But your "5% chance" reasoning is flawed.  If it's correct does that mean if we kick more goals than behinds there's a 95% chance we'll win the flag?

No team in the last 20 years has won the flag with a 208cm bald ruckman - we're clearly no chance ...

The stat is the stat. You can't argue with a fact.

Only 1 premier since 1990 has gone an entire final series by kicking more behinds than goals in each final of that campaign.

I'm not saying we can't win the flag if we're inaccurate in all 3 finals. But it would be rare.

[Melb-A-Toast 257]

5 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

The stat is the stat. You can't argue with a fact.

Only 1 premier since 1990 has gone an entire final series by kicking more behinds than goals in each final of that campaign.

I'm not saying we can't win the flag if we're inaccurate in all 3 finals. But it would be rare.

The only times having more behinds matter is when you kick fewer goals. Have more goals than opponent, then it is purely academic...

[Demon17 4,740]

6 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

The stat is the stat. You can't argue with a fact.

Only 1 premier since 1990 has gone an entire final series by kicking more behinds than goals in each final of that campaign.

I'm not saying we can't win the flag if we're inaccurate in all 3 finals. But it would be rare.

Personally I reckon this thread is on here because we so comprehensively beat the Lions, had no apparent weakness (apart from a small forward alert that can be fixed), no injuries, possibly no changes, weeks rest in the sun, % AA's, AA skipper, Rising Start, under 22 reps, that this website needs something to discucss to pass the time productively.

What a change from the old days.  I like it.

Amusing and entertaining. Keep it up Demonlanders and we'll get serious next Monday!

[Bring-Back-Powell 13,599]

9 minutes ago, Melb-A-Toast said:

The only times having more behinds matter is when you kick fewer goals. Have more goals than opponent, then it is purely academic...

I totally agree with that. If we repeat what we did against Brisbane in the next 2 games (inaccurate but far more scoring shots) we'll go onto win the flag and be the second premier since 1990 to kick more behinds than goals in all finals of a campaign.

The point of the thread and stat is that if we're to win a flag, it's almost certain that in at least one of the finals this year, we would've gone 50/50 conversion at worst.

[old55 21,839]

42 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

The stat is the stat. You can't argue with a fact.

Only 1 premier since 1990 has gone an entire final series by kicking more behinds than goals in each final of that campaign.

I'm not saying we can't win the flag if we're inaccurate in all 3 finals. But it would be rare.

The "fact" that there is only a 5% chance in the last 20 years that the Premier will have kicked more behinds than goals in the final series is NOT the same as - if you kick more behinds than goals you have a only 5% chance of being Premier.

The comparative data you are looking for is how many time finals teams have kicked more behinds than goals.

Think about it this way - how many times has the Runner-up kicked more behinds than goals?

Edited August 30, 2021 by Pollyanna

[old55 21,839]

25 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

The point of the thread and stat is that if we're to win a flag, it's almost certain that in at least one of the finals this year, we would've gone 50/50 conversion at worst.

.

Edited August 30, 2021 by Pollyanna

[Red and Blue realist 2,026]

1 hour ago, durango said:

I just read that of the 8 teams that played in the last weekend the MFC has the youngest average age and the second lowest average games experience.

This points to us being in the premiership window for at least the next 4 to 5 years, that assumes we don't recruit more genuine stars of the game.

This is correct, although can sometimes be a bit of a misleading stat, for instance if Jones and Hibberd played it changes our dynamic significantly. However, the 6 oldest players on our list didn't play and we've got a total of 8 players who've played 150 games or more and only 3 were in Saturday's team. The dogs had 8 of their 10 players with over 150 games play and the Bombers had 5 of 8. So in comparison to the other teams around our age and experience it seems like we're a bit more even below our older guys. Good reason to believe we'll be competitive for some time. The Cats have 14 players over 150 games, and all of them played on the weekend, that suggests the cliff is coming very fast for them. I used that 150 game threshold as generally most guys are at least 28 before they get there. 

[FritschyBusiness 1,455]

You know they say that all men are created equal, but you look at the Dees and you look at Port Adelaide and you can see that statement is not true.

See, normally if you go one on one with another Team, you got a 50/50 chance of winning. But the Dees are genetic freaks and we are not normal! So you got a 25%, AT BEST, to beat us.

Then you add Geelong to the mix, your chances of winning drastically go down.
See the 3 top teams, for the Grand Final got a 33 1/3 chance of winning it, but I, I got a 66 and 2/3 chance of winning, because Geelong KNOWS they can't beat the Dees and they are not even gonna try!

So Port Adelaide, you take your 33 1/3 chance, minus our 25% chance and you got an 8 1/3 chance of winning at GF.
But then you take our 75% chance of winning, if we was to go one on one, and then add 66 2/3 per cents, we have got 141 2/3 chance of winning a Grand Final. See Port Adelaide, the numbers don't lie, and they spell disaster for you at the Grand Final.

#steinermath https://youtu.be/msDuNZyYAIQ

 

Edited August 31, 2021 by FritschyBusiness