“If the Pies beat the Dockers by more than 18 points, they will overtake West Coast”.

“Both Collingwood and Hawthorn can win by less than 18 and 22 points respectively and West Coast will be safe regardless of what happens on Sunday.”

Ryan, you’ve given your readers a bum steer here. Collingwood only need to win by 1 point to uphold their part of the bargain. 1 point result in the COLL-Freo & Eagles-BRIS games:

Coll 1970-1632 into 71-70 = 119.917%

WC 1914-1585 into 70-71 = 119.807%

In terms of debating usefulness of system, I would say you define who contends by seeing which 8 teams make the finals. That’s the crucial point of season at which CD’s data is all based on.

In Kingy’s words, if you end up in the quadrant, that is “Contention Corner”. He believes you must be there if you want to contend or be considered a contender.

But in reality, only if you win enough games to make the 8 are you actually guaranteed an attempt to truly “contend” & lift the Prem Cup.

What is proven is if you make the top-left quadrant, you are NOT guaranteed to also make the 8 ( i.e. a chance to contend). This is where a flaw exists. In all likelihood, Kingy is probably totally unaware of this quirk existing. I’m probably one of a few stats nerds that would be bothered to look back and check if it all stacks up. That crucial finding is the standout reason that makes it a bit of a laughing stock!

Yes agreed, there is grey in whether, say GWS are a serious contender right now in that there’ll always be someone who is not convinced they’re the real deal yet but there is no grey about my statement in the first part of previous paragraph (or in some of my comments in my other replies to you).

All good fun I guess.

My reply should read “How is something *useful*”

How is something reliable when it’s been proven unreliable (i.e. gives people an impression a team is in contention when said team is actually ineligible to compete)?

I like your brick analogy but sorry, I’m not going to start building anything with something that is unreliable!

I believe the tool is useless. Since 1897, we’ve had a (far more reliable) ladder to gauge who is in serious premiership contention.

What have I applied incorrectly, Sami? Is a good old debunk not allowed on here!

Look I’m well aware that with 16 teams in the quadrant over the past 5 yrs, that not everyone is promised a flag! I’m actually all in favour of saving on flags and just leaving it with one club all the time (ouch!?)

But seriously, if you believe that a side in the window always has a better chance to win the flag than those outside, then you’ve been sneakily mislead and mustn’t have read the facts that I presented. So no, no over-applying – just sticking to the facts.

The tool is misleading, contains incorrect information which in turn is passed on by analysts, and is flawed in many areas (including due to the way that CD conveniently cherry-picked previous results when devising it). Just thought people might appreciate knowing.

But hey, good to debate as with most footy topics. Ta for the feedback. Happy to provide the facts I researched to anyone who still thinks the tool is any good.

But also pleasing to know that more than a few on here agreed with my conclusion.

Correct. But having a team in the quadrant that cannot win the flag or a team in the least-desired quadrant that actually can contend, surely does debunk it don’t you think?

These valid points/flaws may have struck a chord with some earlier readers, judging by their comments?

Not sure how more explicit I could’ve been in my examples.

And what does Champion Data now say to Carlton supporters who got excited in September 2011 when they were considered a “Premiership contender”??

“Come back in 2019 when your team is completely different and we’ll see if we can somehow get you in to the best quadrant again and you can have another crack at it”? ☺

So Gr8rWeStr, if all 8 eventual finalists make the top-left quadrant and then amazingly the premiership team comes from that group of 8, how impressed will you be by that result?

Love it!

I got a chuckle out of that 3 of the 4 times I read it. i.e. 75% of the time ? Graph to follow…

Yes to first point, but as I said, system doesn’t recognise it if that percentage is due to exceeding in one parameter by a lot (which of course, we know is fine!) but narrowly missing in another, which as we know again, doesn’t really necessarily affect one’s chances on a given day in Sept.

Case in point – Vossy’s Brisbane in 2001 conceded avge of 90 points home and away but low and behold… conceded 82 in GF v Ess when it mattered most. To suggest that their defence wasn’t premiership ready heading into GF but Essendon’s WAS, is nonsensical ?

Thank you! Yes, spot on. And throw in the Stevie Milne bounce from 2010! Saints were 88-72, supposedly 2 goals in attack a game from being Premiership standard.

Syd in 2006 didn’t make the quadrant either and lost GF by 1 point.

But as has been pointed out, only reason it’s “successful” is that the parameters were chosen retrospectively.

And as for the years when 5 teams made it (4 of whom didn’t win flag) that is like backing 12+ fancied chances in the Melb Cup. Surely you’d fancy your chances?? But you wouldn’t brag about it to your mates after making a loss!

Even if avge scores increased (which they prob won’t) and they moved the parameters to say 105 and 90, the system would still be still flawed as it won’t stop the embarrassing peculiarities that I referred to, from occurring.

I like it – doesn’t lack colour!

Quadrant is very “black and white” in that you ARE or AREN’T considered ready when in fact a goal here or there doesn’t make a scrap of difference to a team’s Sept/Oct chances.

1. Win 13+ games by min of 1 point
2. Get close to best 22 on paddock as possible come finals
3. Win 3 or 4 finals by min of 1 point

will get you the chocolates! Pretty simple ☺

A very good point, Matt re median scores. More so than usual this season and as I touched on, the better sides are bashing up the bottom few, hence we have the 5 teams in there now. They are every chance to remain and have company too (WB).

But as we know, all but one will end up with no silverware.

I did some research with cricketer’s test averages and median scores a few months back. Whilst it’s quite “apples with oranges”, was interesting to note that Pup came out with 23. Katich (34) and Watto, yes Watto! (25) more reliable!

But then I guess a Pup innings of 329 even against an attack containing Ishant Sharma is probably worth more than Geelong or West Coast thumping the bottom teams by 15 – 20 goals!

Thanks, Ryan.

Re the 1999 point, good call but curiously as I mentioned, originally CD only included 2000 – 2014 with the Indicator.

For some reason they added North in ’99 (missed) and obviously Hawks ’15 to tally 17 years? Odd?

Annoying though that the success rate they quote is still incorrect (others have pointed this out to them but it stays incorrect) and so people understandably take it as gospel.

Would it be wrong of me to question the merits of CD’s proof readers and overall accuracy of the other information that it distributes?

Cheers, Paul. Very well said re the cherry picked parameters!

Thanks, Dan. If you put on a few beers at the local, I’ll be there and could do a PowerPoint! Ha – maybe not ?

Good wrap, but don’t agree that Djokovic enters tournament with little pressure just because of his loss to Murray.

Domic Thiem is one to keep an eye on and a lock for a future Slam Champ. More on hom below…

Djoker is well aware that he’s got to grab one of these French Open opportunities having been a serioys contender for 4+ years. I think this will be his year.

Murray and Rafa the obvious challengers. Murray is deceptively quick and has the all round and mental game to pull it off. And he’s hungry as ever.

Rafa is back to where many thought he wouldn’t be and his best is exhilarating. Potential for a hiccup or a down day is more apparent than 3 – 5 yrs ago though.

Roger will most likely withdraw as he paces himself to the final curtain. If he does play, no way does he reach quarters.

Stan is struggling to match his 2014 and 2015 form. Earlier exit than semis for me.

Back to Thiem… he has the game and temperament to go far in Paris. Has had many fine wins this year and will be top 4 in 18 months. Will push for a semi spot.

Nishikori another with the game on clay who will be thereabouts. Keep an eye on Goffin too.

Tsonga, Monfils, Gasquet all to erratic, inconsistent for mine.

Oops.. 3rd last para should read “March *2013*” !

Great read, Cam and ta for tagging my article.

Further to my brief comments already on this, I’m firmly in the “The current 8 won’t stay the same camp”.

Have to go back to 1977 to find example of 1 to 8 on ladder after Rd 6 ending up occupying same positions after H&A (albeit not necessarily exact order, as you’re predicting).

Not surprisingly, after Rd 11 – a lot more reliable predicting sameness with what you’re predicting happening (still only) 7 times in same 40-yr period – 2010, 2006, 2002, 1985, 1981 & 1977.

I think with all the variables here and that have played out in past, that history does count for a bit here.

Many assumptions for current Top 8 to stay same:

– tardy Hawks to win 9 of remaining 16. They’re effectively a 3-3 team at best currently. If they went 7-9, would it amaze anyone? Yes they’ve won 3 flags in a row but at the end of the day they’re as beatable as any previous defending premier?

– WB & WCE still have no wins against a serious contender. A slump by either could upset the apple cart re making 8.

– Port could very easily be 5-3 after beating Bris and Carlton. Ladder can change very quickly. Sure, Port are a lukewarm/cold outfit but lukewarm teams have finished 7th & 8th before!

– I agree that WB and Hawks are most vulnerable.

– law of avges says at least ONE of Melb, StK or Coll will probably step up and may scrounge 12 or 13 wins. I.e. a quick reverse of what has happened to Freo which hardly anyone predicted.

– So I’m quietly confident there’ll be quite a few twists and turns to come.

– Port v Hawks at Adelaide in July might be one of many “8-pt” games in this all playing out.

Damian

Imagine the level of motivation then with FOUR premierships! Shouldn’t be a factor but definitely is in most sports.

But hope you’re right… he’s one of half a dozen sadly out of form.

Will do – cheers ?

Great comments – that all makes good sense, Michael… I’ll even let the call on Spangher & Schoey through to the keeper!

But yes, a very skillful side over the duration but not as dominant as say Cats of 2007 or even Bombers of 2000 who were never not going to win flag that year.

Hawks certainly looked like mere mortals today though ?

Wide open the race for the flag. Reckon you could nominate 5-6 to win it and still miss right now.

Ta for feedback. Sorry I didn’t see it earlier when you posted it.

Damian

Thanks Liam – kind words. Cheered me up a bit after the thumping at Spotless Stadium earlier today ☺

Unfortunately it wasn’t just the CP Hawks were thrashed in so yes, we await the “Hawks are finished/cooked” headlines.

Hunger is just not there at the moment. GWS will beat a lot of good sides this year though. Credit to them.

And right on cue, that weapon delivers a 166-151 win to the Doggies in the much-hyped Contested Possessions!

Lead the CP count all night. Were never travelling like winners… all night. And just like that, the Doggies don’t look top 4 material at all.