Fremantle's biggest enemy? Not Hawks or Swans, but time

Rick - so now you seem to be telling me that the reason the Hawks/Cats game was close was because they were both offensive teams. But Lyon has lost 2 GF's by close margins and drawn another -so your logic is really confusing me now! Oh and by the way - the Hawks also won the 2012 prelim by less than a goal - so Clarko came perilously close to missing both those GF's - but you have been telling me Clarko's game plan doesn't rely on luck as much as Lyon's does.. Interesting. By highlighting Clarko's record between 2009 - 12 (a fair chunk of his coaching career) I was not suggesting he was "a poor coach" - I actually said I think he is a great coach. What I was demonstrating is that many factors beyond the game plan can affect the outcome of a game or season. And Clarko's record would look considerably different if those two very close prelim games had gone the other way. That would have made him a less successful coach but - if you are being fair - he should still be judged as a very good coach. Clarko is a hero because he has 2 flags and Lyon is a villain because he has none. I get that is how many footy fans will see things. However the point I have tried to repeatedly make is that there really is a very fine line between being a hero or villain. But Rick I guess you can carry on saying that you know Lyon would definitely have won a flag if he had a more offensive game plan because it is impossible to go back and test your theory. But what we can say by looking at his record against someone like Clarko's is that a goal or two either way and both their records would look considerably different. And for me that is a long way from being conclusive proof that one has a vastly superior game plan over the other.

I think it's fare to say you have again drummed up isolated incidents to make your case. At least I use large data to back my arguments up instead of using single years etc etc... You aren't really making an argument for anything really. In answer to your Clarko reference though, you seem to use the fact Geelong almost beat them in a prelim as defence for your argument against me. This is my entire point, because Geelong are an offensive team, just like the Hawks they too are extremely dangerous. To use that as an example in isolation again is just ludicrous, which despite doing it for sarcastic reason before, you are doing again and again and again. The fact is Clarko has two premierships and 3 GF appearances, along with a swag of finals appearances. To use him as an example as potentially a poor coach had things gone wrong I just cant understand and never will. What I do know is because of all the reasons stated, statistics and patterns, you just can't deny Ross has brought luck into the equation when in fact he could have avoided it with his lists at hand. You keep going round and round and round trying to drum up an argument you can't back up with any solid evidence. My argument is simple. Ross brings luck into the equation because he plays defensive football. I don't believe he needed to be as defensive due to the talent in his list and thus wasted opportunities to win a premiership. Your argument is backed up with nothing. Not one solid bit of evidence can back it up, except in isolation which anyone can do. Let me ask you this though, since I can see this is just going to keep going round and round. Should Ross lose another GF in close circumstances in a low scoring game due to a bad bounce, do you think he should keep doing that with a talented list like Freo?

Way too many teams in Melbourne!

Rick - one more point... You said: "what we do know is his current defensive plan has failed 3 times and luck has been a factor" Yes his game plan has "failed" in the sense of not winning a flag. But in that definition of "success" or "failure" then 17 coaches game plans fail every year. What we can say is that in 2013 his game plan was more effective than 16 other coaches. It was also more effective that 14 other coaches (when there were 16 teams) in his GF's with the Saints. His sides have made finals 7 years in a row and I am not sure there are any of the other current coaches who have achieved that? Every club is trying to win a flag and it is a wonderful achievement to win one. But there can only be one winner and while everyone loves a winner, I do not subscribe to the view that a coach - or his game plan - is a complete failure if you come 2nd or 3rd or 4th or even 8th. However if you do subscribe to that view, then you still have to acknowledge that - statistically - Lyon's game plan is still more effective than the majority of the other "failed" coaches. .

Rick - then using your stats and laws of probability I am assuming you win all the footy tipping comps?? I guess the only games you get wrong are when the coaches haven't followed your recommended game plan? As I have said before Rick - your argument is too one-dimensional. If all any team needed to do to win a flag was look at the stats and laws of probability then I guess the team could be coached by the statisticians. There are a plethora of factors beyond the game plan, that influence the result of a game of footy. In one of your posts you said: ."Lyon brings luck into the equation because of his game style. Clarkson’s fate is far less likely to be determined by luck due to his more offensive game style..." Then what happened to Clarksons game plan between 2009 - 11 when they didn't make a GF but still had what most experts considered one of the most talented lists in the league?. In 2009 they actually missed the finals - one of the few times in history that the previous season premiers didn't make the finals the following year. In 2012 they were hot favourites to win the flag but lost. In 2013 they made the GF by beating Geelong by less than a goal in the prelim. I remember seeing shots of Clarkson in that last qtr - he didn't look like a coach that was certain his offensive game plan was going to win them the game. He is a great coach but even his record has lots of hits, misses and near misses. if you look at the records of just about all the current premiership coaches there has been a fine line between them being a hero or a villain - whether that occurs in a GF or in one of the lead-up finals that everyone forgets about. Ken Hinkley has exceeded most peoples expectations as a coach. But what happened to Port in the middle of this season when they suddenly couldn't win a game? Fortunately they have got their mojo back now, but it shows the unpredictability of footy and that teams don't always perform according to the script - or stats - or laws of probability! There was also an article in the paper this morning about how good their fitness coach is, which appears to have also been a critical element in the revival of Port's performance over the last two years. In last years GF it was pretty obvious the Dockers were over-awed by the occasion in the first half. I don't know how you can have a game plan that overcomes that. It was the Dockers first GF and nerves clearly got the better of them early - as it has for many, many other sides in the past. The hawks had the advantage of playing in one the year before and a lot of the players had already won one in 2008. It wasn't the only reason the Hawks won - but it definitely had an influence on the game in the first half. There is a reason why the Dockers head-hunted Lyon and there are still people at St Kilda angry that they lost him. So let me give you my law of probability - if Lyon keeps getting his sides into GF's then the probability is that he will eventually win one!

I'm surprised people are only assessing Pav, Sandi and McPharlin when looking at why we'll be no good next year. Pretty sure before the start of last year everyone said we'd never go anywhere without Pav and Sandi - they were wrong. Then at the start of this year we'd never go anywhere without McPharlin - a top 4 finish proved that incorrect. I thought Fyfe (22) was just named best player in the competition by his peers? What about Walters (22) currently considered one of the best ball users in the comp, not to mention Barlow (26), Ballantyne (27), Mundy (28), Lachie Neale (21), Hill (24). Also, no mention of Freo's recent success in recruiting mature age recruits such as Barlow, Mzungu, Spurr, Ballantyne all prime examples of our recruiting program since 2008. I think this "Dockers premiership window" article is going to become an annual event - I certainly read at least a dozen this time last year.

Again you seem to be of the opinion I think Ross is bad at what he does. I don't think this at all. I just think his game plan is the wrong one for the talent he has. I think he is actually a better coach than Roos. However, Roos was masterful in that he won a premiership with a bunch of average players that statistically were the worst team to win a premiership in the AFL era. Ross lost with statistically one of the best teams to ever play the game in the AFL era. Go have a look yourself at the offensive/ defensive capabilities of the Swans 2005 team relative to the base line average for the year. Then go compare the Saints using the same metrics for the 2009 and 2010 years. Again, I don't think you fully understand what I am saying, and that is partially my fault. I don't believe Ross has a bad game plan. I think he has a bad game plan for the crop of players he had and currently has. He wasted talent in 2009 and before you say it, Ross is not entirely responsible for finding that talent. This is a misconception by many as it is the job of the selection committee and board to decide on players, which Ross has input on also, but not entirely. Ross had huge amounts of talent and went with the wrong game plan. I believe if he used a more offensive game plan at Saint Kilda then he would have beaten Geelong. Now we will never know, but what we do know is his current defensive plan has failed 3 times and luck has been a factor. As outlined to you - luck is more likely to determine the outcome of a game if indeed you go defensive. So in summary - if you have the roster (which I believe Ross had) to go offensive, then go offensive. If you don't (which was Roos 2005) - go defence. Ross has it the wrong way around and we are seeing the same things unfold at Freo as we did at the Saints.

Rick - in a close game there is often an element of luck that determines the result. It doesn't mean the winner didn't deserve to win, but it also doesn't mean the loser deserved to lose. It is what it is and the winner gets to rejoice and the loser ponders on what could have been. But in reality it also usually means that there probably wasn't a lot between the sides. So I find it absurd that you criticise Lyons game plan and say it won't work as if he was getting battled by the opposition. He had a average losing margin of 9 points in 3 GF's. That doesn't mean he deserved to win and it doesn't mean he didn't make mistakes. But what it does mean is the opposition had to work hard to beat him and only just managed to do so. It is possible to argue that the oppositions game plan was better - but it could only be a little bit better. It is also possible to argue that the result had little to do with the effectiveness of the respective game plans - it could have been any or all of the other factors I have outlined in previous posts. You put some much faith in your stats and laws of probability but your theories also seem to assume that all other things are equal - both team have the same talent, number of injuries etc. The Milne example was only used to illustrate how close Lyon got to a flag. Of course there are a lot of variables in a game and the Pies would have also had many chances to seal the win as well. The point was that there was a very fine line between winning and losing - or in that case a draw. Sorry Rick - I won't see things differently. I think his record shows he is an excellent coach. If he never wins a flag then that would be a travesty because I think he is as good a coach as any in the league. (And I will mention again that I am actually an Eagles supporter. I would love it if he became our coach - with all due respects to Adam Simpson!)

I think I'll stick with just one of your points, because I think it highlights where we significantly disagree in both principle and how probability works. You mentioned Milne running onto the ball and it bouncing at an awkward angle as the reason the Saints lost the game. Had it bounced normally the Saints would have won the game. As mentioned below to Dal, I'm going to assume from this statement you believe that 'if the player had kicked the goal after the siren' they would have won in that case? If you do believe in this statement - well... I just can't argue with you any further about it, because it just doesn't make sense from a probability point of view and heres why. Firstly, we can't turn back time. Secondly, if we could then it stands to reason I can take each individual incident in the game that negatively impacted upon the opposition and turn it into a favourable outcome. We could then go through the entire game and look at all the fortuitous events and how did they pan out relative to their probable outcome. Once this is done we could then potentially draw a conclusion based on probability who had the unluckier game. Not done yet... After achieving this you would then have to work out a value on how this affected the likely outcome of the game and what each individual event was worth from a points scorn point of view. Finally, you would then have to also take into account the butterfly affect, because if you change one event at the start of the game, it inevitably will potentially affect the end of the game in some way. Now this is course it not taking into account the human factor and how the opposition coach would have reacted to each and every one of the these possible changes in the game. You see Mikey, not only do you need a time machine to be able to test this out, it just wouldn't stack up from a probability point of view. I'm pretty educated on this, but I wouldn't even know where to start to try and figure out an outcome that has so many variables. I think we will have to agree to disagree, as I don't think we are on the same wave length at all when it comes to the laws of probability and how that affects the result of a game. You really need to look at the entirety of the match. Although you were being sarcastic before, I do think you were falling trap to using to small a sample size and using isolated examples to make a point. You have again done it here and it just doesn't make sense. When you think about that for a few hours, I'm betting you will see things in a different light.

Yes Balthazar, i did watch the freo game in R21 against us, for which i referred too as the 'fleeting glimpses of attacking intent'. And, they were very impressive As for whether he style has changed, can be seen in the fact the team has scored less this year, than last. which, i am sure you will counter by saying teams are better defensive, but we can return by saying freo is the same old Freo, and we would end in a nil all draw , debate wise

Rick - the problem I have with yours and other critics view of Lyon is that your argument is too one-dimensional. Having a good game plan is only one aspect of what is required to win a flag. There are a multitude of other factors that will play an important role - some are within the coaches control and some are not. In one of the GF's Stephen Milne was running onto the ball in front of him into an open goal when the ball took off at an angle I have rarely seen in a game of footy. It was a freakish occurrence that cost the Saints victory and no game plan could have anticipated that. If the ball had bounced "normally" the Saints would have won and your game plan arguments would be largely irrelevant. Lyon is an astute coach and I am sure he spends a lot of time thinking about his game plan. But he also has to work with the players he has at his disposal and how he can get the best out of them. Simply arguing that if he changed his game plan he would have won is fanciful and totally unrealistic in my view. I have a friend who is well connected at St Kilda and his view is that what Lyon did at that club was extraordinary and he got the absolute best out of that playing list. He has the capacity to make ordinary players into good players and good players into great players. Flags are extremely tough to win and - as I have said many times - Lyons failure to win one so far does not mean that either he or his game plan are duds. His coaching style has consistently put his side in contention to win a flag - which means that whatever he is doing is still better than most other teams in the comp. The fact that he has come very close on 3 occasions - including last year - also indicates that he is doing most things right. The reason he hasn't won at least one is probably a combination of the game plan, the cattle, injuries, the quality of the opposition and just plain bad luck (like the fickle bounce of a ball) Stats only tell you so much and as - I tried to highlight - can sometimes present a deceiving view of reality. Chris Scott 25% win ratio for 13/14 looks bad - but most critics would think he is doing a pretty good job and is getting the most out of his current list. I think the same can be said for Lyon.

No, he hasn't stuck with the same style. You're a Hawks fan. Did you watch r21? Nothing like 2013 or round 3, for that matter Freo plays a less defensive, more one on one style this year and leave someone stationed forward a lot more. It frees up faster transition - which has been pointed out elsewhere e.g. http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/insider-the-freo-funnel-the-efficient-dockers-are-the-afls-corridor-kings/story-fndv8h5w-1227055710440 Freo is scoring more comparatively too, as the average for points scored is down across the league. A fair achievement with their highest goal scorer from last year sidelined for 17 weeks and given their undeniable issues with forward line structure in this period. Either Ross is playing the same way as last year and Freo fans, who watch their games most and have consistently argued the game style has changed, are wrong. Or casual observers from other teams are wrong. I know which I believe.

I think that is my main gripe with Lyon, in that he has shown an inability to change, or evolve for want of a better term. Even when given reason to do so. He talked the talk at the start of this year, but bar a few fleeting glimpses of more attacking intent has not walked the walk as seen in Freo scoring less this year than last. And as you rightly point out he has had every reason to be more attacking, as a response to other teams being more defensive. But, still he has stuck steadfast with his known style Which mystifies many

No I have enjoyed the conversation and no I didn't pick up the sarcasm so I apologise for that. It's not that I don't like Ross, far from it. I said at the start I find him and interesting character and one I like to study for my own interests. The point I'm trying to make is that if you play ultra defence (like him and Roos do), then you open yourself up to luck determining the outcome more so than offensive football. If we now take Ross in isolation we can see this trend. As you have indeed pointed out he has been very good in finals, I'm not disputing that. What I am saying is he has a bad record when it comes to winning the most important thing, the GF. Luck has come into the occasion for him on at least two of those occasions and it didn't go his way. No one wants to be remembered as the bridesmaid 4 x running and I/m betting Ross is the biggest believer of that. What I think he needs to do is tinker his game plan to be more offensive. Sure he has been in the last 3 games of the year, but I would dispute 2 of those games are not really a good indicator. Hawthorn had already stitched up 2nd spot and we can see this since they still finished 2nd despite losing that game. Will be completely different in a Prelim I can assure you. The other was the Lions. I'm not seeing much of a change in their game style as a whole over the season, nor against the Swans. I know he said he wanted to kick 2-3 more goals a game and that's a good start, but I think he is going to do what he does best in this finals campaign and go defensive again. If that happens then I think the board needs to chat with him about that. I think he has got an extremely talented squad and I don't want to see him waste it like he did with his Saints list.

Rick - I guess you missed the sarcasm and hidden message in my stat quoting. The point I was making was that stats can be misleading and you can often manipulate them to make your argument appear stronger than it really is. We all know that Lyon has lost/drawn 4 GF's. What I was pointing out was that the best winning ratio Lyon could achieve in those years was 67% - equal to his home and away record. The only way he could have improved on that was to win one - which we know he didn't. Your 50% stat gives the impression that his sides have underperformed in finals - and we know that is not true. If the Dockers make the GF this year - which is highly unlikely, but would be a remarkable achievement - and lose then his winning ratio will again be 50%. And losing a GF would hurt but would not be a disgrace because at this stage Sydney and Hawthorn appear to be much stronger and healthier sides. Yes he would like to win one - so would the other 11 coaches who haven't - but if you leave out the GF's his finals record is extremely impressive. And if you look at his GF record where he lost one by 12 pts, drew one and lost another by 15pts then - statistically - you would have to acknowledge that his sides have performed well in GF's but just fallen short. But yes continuing this discussion is probably futile - you clearly don't like Lyon and I don't think there is anything I could say that will change your mind.

Johnk - Michael said Longmire had made the side as "brilliant as it is" which was in the present tense. I think Longmire is a very good coach and certainly the 2012 flag was a great achievement. But you could also say that he inherited a very good list/culture from Roos and the recruiters at Sydney have done a brilliant job. If you are comparing coaches then you need to compare Apples with Apples and if the Dockers recruiters had managed to snare a Buddy or Tippett - or both - then the Dockers would be also be a much stronger side. You still need to be a good coach to win a flag - but losing GF's doesn't necessarily mean you are a bad coach. You may not have had the cattle, or you had injuries to key players at the wrong time. Or maybe luck wasn't on your side. I think if you are making comparisons between Longmire and Lyon you need to take a lot more into consideration than whether or not they have coached a side to a flag.

Mikey I guess we will have to leave it at that Mikey, that is I have no idea what you are on about when it comes to stats. You do realise 'sample size' comes into it when looking at stats don't you? Firstly, you can take isolated incidents all over the place like you have done, but I can assure you if you do what you have done then any credible institution is going to laugh at you. Secondly, I never said Scott was a great coach. I said he started out well, but at the same time inherited a great team. Don't make stuff up. Thirdly, I said Ken Hinkley could become a great coach in reference to you 'not so many great coaches around to chose from' comment. Refer to my above comment with regards to sample size when trying to make it sound like Hinkley is a dud. Thirdly, the Bomber Thompson comment is just ludicrous and makes me wonder why I have spent the time conversing with you. Apart from the fact he took over a team that has all sorts of issues, he always knew Hird was coming back. Use logic buddy, you don't really think he is going to change Hirds game plan too much, nor recruit who he wants for his game plan if he isn't going to be there a year later. Seriously, think before commenting. On top of this look at Bombers all over coaching record and don't just use a small sample size (such as one year). Refer to my comments again at the top. If you do this you will see he has a very good finals record relative to his home and away record. Fourthly, you can juggle all you like the maximum percentage obtained in a finals series for win/loss in a single year. I'll educate you again and refer to comment one at the top on sample size. You don't understand what I'm saying so it's pointless trying to explain it further. In summary it's simple. Ross has a large sample size for us to compare. His home and away record is vastly different to his finals record. If I had time I could probably statistically show this to be significant. If you want to under stand stats on some of what I said then click on my profile and read my article on offence vs defence. That I did spend a week on and I did show statistical significance However, if you don't under stand stats (which I suspect you don't) then really there is no reason to chat further about it.

Of course the better team won on the day, otherwise they wouldn't have won. But it is a bit circular. By the same token, footy is a game of momentum, and if you don't take proper advantage when you've got it, especially when the stakes are so high, you can so easily pay the ultimate price (in footy terms that is).

Fair enough on playing the excuse card, all that counts in the end is If you get the four points or not. We've missed those players in the past more than we would now.. Suffice to say I'd not be 10-2 worried about taking on the Hawks if we're near full strength. Getting a change in structure of your game plan right can be a challenge as a few teams have found this year. Most teams have tightened up defensively this year and the average points scored scored across the comp as a whole has gone down, so holding on points scored from last year probably counts for an increase in relative terms. I do think you are underselling the Hawks from last year, to think it's Ross Lyons fault Freo didn't get over them in the GF. There's plenty that needs to go right to win a GF, as Malcolm Blight and plenty of others can attest to, especially given you're usually playing one of the best, if not the best, teams of the year for the highest stakes there are in the game. Gumbleton and Sylvia were gambles to fill some critical roles attack-wise. Sylvia may pay off in 2015 and beyond, although I do hope we don't need him. Gumbleton was a bust, but yeah they were hoping for a ready made key forward and he was there and relatively cheap in trade terms.

My apologies Dalgety, i think you offering players being out to explain Freo’s record against us is an excuse, it would be like me saying we losdt to you guys a few weeks back b/c of the players we had out. Both cases do not cut the mustard, for it was 22 on 22 in all case with the better team on the day winning. i agree with your gripe on the unfairness of having to go to Tassie for WA teams. As for my thoughts on Lyon, I agree he is a great Coach, and a lot of what you say, but the fact remains that he can get teams to the GF, but has struggled to win one. He defensive style might lord it over most, but is countered by the best team, which puts a focus back on him to counter them- which he has struggled to do. And, after last year he even conceded the need to be more attacking, but, strangely has score more points last year to this. in his defence he was relying on the Dons recruit Gumbleton to be that 2nd big forward the team most needed, as well as Sylvia to add to their scoring threat, but both, who he were right to bank on for they were gems in juniors have come up short for whatever reason