What They're Saying - The Bulldogs Media Thread - Part 4

Remove this Banner Ad

TiAn_ said:
Under Bev we’ve turned the following into finals appearances, so at least not all hope is lost yet:

2015: 5-5
2019: 4-7
2020: 5-6 (0-2)
2022: 3-5
Click to expand...
Agree there’s hope but why do we have to make it so hard for ourselves? As anyone can tell you none of those years turned into a top 4 finish.

Then again, as the reigning premiers we started 2017 in commanding form IIRC … and ended up missing out on finals altogether!

Head scratching stuff, isn’t it?
 
TiAn_ said:
Under Bev we’ve turned the following into finals appearances, so at least not all hope is lost yet:

2015: 5-5
2019: 4-7 (2-4)
2020: 5-6 (0-2)
2022: 3-5 (0-2)
Click to expand...

For a grand total of 0 finals wins.

Early wins are important, if for no other reason that you can manage the playing group more effectively when every week in the back end of the season isn’t a quasi-elimination final.

Until Bevo and the group get over that hump we won’t be serious challengers imo. Hope they all prove me wrong obviously, but teams that are hovering at 50/50 win/loss late in the season aren’t typically going to trouble the real contenders.
 
hutchy31 said:
For a grand total of 0 finals wins.

Early wins are important, if for no other reason that you can manage the playing group more effectively when every week in the back end of the season isn’t a quasi-elimination final.

Until Bevo and the group get over that hump we won’t be serious challengers imo. Hope they all prove me wrong obviously, but teams that are hovering at 50/50 win/loss late in the season aren’t typically going to trouble the real contenders.
Click to expand...

And we were 7-3 last year and missed finals.

This is why everyone at the club including Bev speaks of our issue being “consistency”.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

This year is so open. If we can peak before finals we are good a chance as any. Just need to make finals first, keep the form and no injuries. Sydney are flying at the moment, that may change yet even if is doesn't we can trouble them, I'm sure of it.

I've said this many times and usually get hounded down. Its a lot harder for us to make top 4 compared to others. We generally get the rough end of the draw, Geelong in Geelong, Port for gather last year, plenty of travel to Darwin, Tassie etc etc.

Not quite as easy as 16 to 17 games and the MCG like some clubs.
 
LondonBulldog said:
This year is so open. If we can peak before finals we are good a chance as any. Just need to make finals first, keep the form and no injuries. Sydney are flying at the moment, that may change yet even if is doesn't we can trouble them, I'm sure of it.

I've said this many times and usually get hounded down. Its a lot harder for us to make top 4 compared to others. We generally get the rough end of the draw, Geelong in Geelong, Port for gather last year, plenty of travel to Darwin, Tassie etc etc.

Not quite as easy as 16 to 17 games and the MCG like some clubs.
Click to expand...
That’s why everyone was so outraged in 2016.* How dare we be anywhere near a Grand Final!

*some, though, were happy for us
 
Dogs_R_Us said:
That’s why everyone was so outraged in 2016.* How dare we be anywhere near a Grand Final!

*some, though, were happy for us
Click to expand...
Really? I thought it was the opposite
 
Dogs_R_Us said:
A certain cohort, that managed to draw in a range of haters. Or maybe it's just on here :(
Click to expand...
Probably just on here, I don’t go on the main board
 
Norm De Guerre said:
I like Kingy the beady eyed bastard again.

He says nice things about us.*



*Not enough to get me to watch 360 but.
Click to expand...

I was surprised that Dan Hannebury stated the Dogs are a top 4 calibre side and other positive comments on Sunday Crunch Time. Thought the Sydney guys would still be sooking about 2016.



From about 4:25
 
I have made this point at times this season for cautious optimism but we've actually played some good footy this season (as reflected by our percentage, which is third...) and have been somewhat unlucky (or inconsistent, if that's your view) that we've had big wins and narrow losses, when ideally, like Essendon have done, you'd rather even out that performance, overall performance being equal, for entirely narrow wins.

Doesn't help your ladder position, but in terms of predictive power for the future, a 60 point win and a 10 point loss is obviously a reflection than two 15-point wins.

This was generally reflected in power rankings (the statistical kind)

squiggle.com.au

Power Rankings - Squiggle

AFL Power Ratings from the internet's finest models.
squiggle.com.au squiggle.com.au

Following the completion of:

Pre-season: 10th
R0: 9th
R1: 11th (L 45 Melb)
R2: 8th (W 48 GC)
R3: 9th (W 76 WC) [note, our overall rating obviously improved, but a large win was expected, and other clubs leapfrogged us)
R4: 9th (L 4 Gee)
R5: 10th (L 29 Ess)
R6: 9th (W 60 Saints)
R7: 9th (L 24 Fre)
R8: 10th (L 7 Hawks)
R9: 9th (W 91 Ric)
R10: 4th (W 27 GWS)
R11 5th (L 14 Syd)
R12: 3rd (W 18 Coll)
R13: 6th (L 43 Bri)
R14: 3rd (W 67 Fre)

Few things to take out of this:

Firstly, we were probably never as bad as the W/L record suggested. We started the year as 9th on power rankings and hovered around 9th-10th for the rest of the season. Our draw was probably harder than just looking at the teams because we played very few interstate teams at home (only GC and WC, which we duly won both games comfortable). Even with our smallish home crowds even at Ballarat, statistically, it is just better to play at venues when the crowd support is nearing 100% at you.

We sort of blew it with Sydney and Brisbane losses (notwithstanding that both contribute to the crowds!) but the fact is even with Brisbane a good team a loss at home is more destructive, hence the dropping 3 spots.

The GWS win where the margin could have been much greater if we'd kicked straighter and a dominant, away performance in the wet against another top team was a far greater win and bumped us up more than we probably think.

Counterbalance is that competitive performances interstate - even if not wins - means you won't sink like a stone, especially if you're solidifying our position with big wins aganst crap teams. Defeating Freo over there would have done wonders for a two-goal swing for finals spot, but it proved that were were still holding onto being a finals-relevant team.
 
threenewpadlocks said:
I have made this point at times this season for cautious optimism but we've actually played some good footy this season (as reflected by our percentage, which is third...) and have been somewhat unlucky (or inconsistent, if that's your view) that we've had big wins and narrow losses, when ideally, like Essendon have done, you'd rather even out that performance, overall performance being equal, for entirely narrow wins.

Doesn't help your ladder position, but in terms of predictive power for the future, a 60 point win and a 10 point loss is obviously a reflection than two 15-point wins.

This was generally reflected in power rankings (the statistical kind)

squiggle.com.au

Power Rankings - Squiggle

AFL Power Ratings from the internet's finest models.
squiggle.com.au squiggle.com.au

Following the completion of:

Pre-season: 10th
R0: 9th
R1: 11th (L 45 Melb)
R2: 8th (W 48 GC)
R3: 9th (W 76 WC) [note, our overall rating obviously improved, but a large win was expected, and other clubs leapfrogged us)
R4: 9th (L 4 Gee)
R5: 10th (L 29 Ess)
R6: 9th (W 60 Saints)
R7: 9th (L 24 Fre)
R8: 10th (L 7 Hawks)
R9: 9th (W 91 Ric)
R10: 4th (W 27 GWS)
R11 5th (L 14 Syd)
R12: 3rd (W 18 Coll)
R13: 6th (L 43 Bri)
R14: 3rd (W 67 Fre)

Few things to take out of this:

Firstly, we were probably never as bad as the W/L record suggested. We started the year as 9th on power rankings and hovered around 9th-10th for the rest of the season. Our draw was probably harder than just looking at the teams because we played very few interstate teams at home (only GC and WC, which we duly won both games comfortable). Even with our smallish home crowds even at Ballarat, statistically, it is just better to play at venues when the crowd support is nearing 100% at you.

We sort of blew it with Sydney and Brisbane losses (notwithstanding that both contribute to the crowds!) but the fact is even with Brisbane a good team a loss at home is more destructive, hence the dropping 3 spots.

The GWS win where the margin could have been much greater if we'd kicked straighter and a dominant, away performance in the wet against another top team was a far greater win and bumped us up more than we probably think.

Counterbalance is that competitive performances interstate - even if not wins - means you won't sink like a stone, especially if you're solidifying our position with big wins aganst crap teams. Defeating Freo over there would have done wonders for a two-goal swing for finals spot, but it proved that were were still holding onto being a finals-relevant team.
Click to expand...
I agree there are grounds for cautious optimism but these power rankings do very little for me. I don't even think they are very good for their predictive power because we are just so ... well, unpredictable.

We are 9th going into the bye. After this round all teams will be back on an even number of games played. If results go a certain way we could slip to as low as 12th, but we'd still be only one win out of the top 8. So the opportunity is there and we aren't just relying on other results going our way. We still control our own fate.

It's a cliche but like TiAn_ said we just have to take it one week at a time. Being ranked 2nd or 3rd or 4th best "power" team at the end of the H&A games through some complex computation won't be worth a pinch of the proverbial unless we are in the finals.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

dogwatch said:
I agree there are grounds for cautious optimism but these power rankings do very little for me. I don't even think they are very good for their predictive power because we are just so ... well, unpredictable.

We are 9th going into the bye. After this round all teams will be back on an even number of games played. If results go a certain way we could slip to as low as 12th, but we'd still be only one win out of the top 8. So the opportunity is there and we aren't just relying on other results going our way. We still control our own fate.

It's a cliche but like TiAn_ said we just have to take it one week at a time. Being ranked 2nd or 3rd or 4th best "power" team at the end of the H&A games through some complex computation won't be worth a pinch of the proverbial unless we are in the finals.
Click to expand...
Power rankings are as good as anything.

The point I'm trying to make that there's little statistical evidence - best measured by using past results to measure future ones - that wins and losses "mean anything" to be more meaningful final margins themselves have to mean something.

As I posted above, it's better for how likely you are to win future games to have won one game by 60 points and lost one by 10, rather than win two by even 20 points. Even though it's one win, vs. two.

The fact that was happening to us by never dropping below 9th-10th on rankings despite half the board wanting Bevo sacked is something. The two wins against WC and GC were dominant wins that pushed up our overall performances (and contribute, even indirectly, to the reason Hannerbery etc. rate us). The issue was not that we performed well and badly but rather that we didn't average out those performances to "only" win those games by four or six goals, transfer over the margin to the Geelong and Hawks games, and also win those. If we'd kicked three fewer goals in each of those games but one more vs Hawks and Geelong, we'd have actually played worse as a team (and I would rate us lower), but we would be much more likely to win the flag, even though we're a worse team. That's hard for people to understand, but the reason we kicked goals in some games but not the others is largely luck, even though that's hard to agree with.

Of course we're unpredictable. Every team is, to an extent, but there's no reason to think our future output should be any more or less unpredictable than other teams. Teams fall and rise all the time for reasons we may or may not understand.

We've consistently been better than Essendon all season - arguably we were even the better team on the day against them if you consider goalkicking accuracy to also be luck - yet they find themselves much higher than us on the ladder because they've simply distributed those performances in a more lucky fashion to translate to wins and losses.
 
threenewpadlocks said:
Power rankings are as good as anything.

The point I'm trying to make that there's little statistical evidence - best measured by using past results to measure future ones - that wins and losses "mean anything" to be more meaningful final margins themselves have to mean something.

As I posted above, it's better for how likely you are to win future games to have won one game by 60 points and lost one by 10, rather than win two by even 20 points. Even though it's one win, vs. two.

The fact that was happening to us by never dropping below 9th-10th on rankings despite half the board wanting Bevo sacked is something. The two wins against WC and GC were dominant wins that pushed up our overall performances (and contribute, even indirectly, to the reason Hannerbery etc. rate us). The issue was not that we performed well and badly but rather that we didn't average out those performances to "only" win those games by four or six goals, transfer over the margin to the Geelong and Hawks games, and also win those. If we'd kicked three fewer goals in each of those games but one more vs Hawks and Geelong, we'd have actually played worse as a team (and I would rate us lower), but we would be much more likely to win the flag, even though we're a worse team. That's hard for people to understand, but the reason we kicked goals in some games but not the others is largely luck, even though that's hard to agree with.

Of course we're unpredictable. Every team is, to an extent, but there's no reason to think our future output should be any more or less unpredictable than other teams. Teams fall and rise all the time for reasons we may or may not understand.

We've consistently been better than Essendon all season - arguably we were even the better team on the day against them if you consider goalkicking accuracy to also be luck - yet they find themselves much higher than us on the ladder because they've simply distributed those performances in a more lucky fashion to translate to wins and losses.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I can't agree. I see the point you're trying to make and I'm happy if it gives you comfort. It just doesn't do it for me.

I think the current ladder position is a fair reflection of our season (as is Essendon's for that matter). The fact that our recent form has generally been better than our early season form is certainly a cause for hope but we've still got it all to do if we want to make the finals. There's really not much between 2nd and 13th on the ladder. If we can show some consistency we'll get there.

Also I don't care too much what Hannebery or King or any other pundits say, even if they're all over us at the moment. I remember when all the experts wrote us off as just a side making up the numbers in the 2016 finals series. What a boring comp it would be if the experts were actually right most of the time!
 
NagoyaDog said:
I was surprised that Dan Hannebury stated the Dogs are a top 4 calibre side and other positive comments on Sunday Crunch Time. Thought the Sydney guys would still be sooking about 2016.



From about 4:25
Click to expand...

Some vindication for those of us who were howled down earlier this season when we claimed that we are a potential top 4 team that was massively underperforming.
 
Found this All Australian chat strange and a bit concerning that Laura Kane seems to be designated to the Bulldogs.

She had Bont on the bench as a lock but with an *. Noting this was Round 11 and he’s dominated since then but come on, he shouldn’t have an *.

Dale and Richards also mentioned, but no Naughton which is disappointing.

 
The Inbetweener said:
Found this All Australian chat strange and a bit concerning that Laura Kane seems to be designated to the Bulldogs.

She had Bont on the bench as a lock but with an *. Noting this was Round 11 and he’s dominated since then but come on, he shouldn’t have an *.

Dale and Richards also mentioned, but no Naughton which is disappointing.

Click to expand...

Checks to see if Kaiyne Kornhole is involved.

Answer yes.

Refuse to watch accordingly.
 
dogwatch said:
I think the current ladder position is a fair reflection of our season (as is Essendon's for that matter).
Click to expand...
The issue with this is that views like this consistently do worse at predicting future results than the statistical models.

www.theage.com.au

AFL Expert Tipsters | Footy Tips & AFL Tipping | The Age

Get the latest AFL 2024 season match tips and round by round predictions from our expert tipsters.
www.theage.com.au www.theage.com.au

There are 47 expert tipsters across the Herald Sun and The Age.

Five of them have at least 79 tips. 5 out of 47.

squiggle.com.au

Leaderboard - Squiggle

squiggle.com.au squiggle.com.au

27 statistical models. 20 out of 27 have at least 79 tips.

There are a few bad statistical models in that group (ie ones that could be improved, or don't use player ins/outs, whatever). The worst of these only have 75 tips.

14 of the 47 expert tipsters have fewer tips than the worst of the 27 statistical models.
 
The Inbetweener said:
Found this All Australian chat strange and a bit concerning that Laura Kane seems to be designated to the Bulldogs.

She had Bont on the bench as a lock but with an *. Noting this was Round 11 and he’s dominated since then but come on, he shouldn’t have an *.

Dale and Richards also mentioned, but no Naughton which is disappointing.

Click to expand...

Treloar not being mentioned is insane

These people clearly don't watch more than 1 or 2 games a week
 
The Inbetweener said:
Found this All Australian chat strange and a bit concerning that Laura Kane seems to be designated to the Bulldogs.

She had Bont on the bench as a lock but with an *. Noting this was Round 11 and he’s dominated since then but come on, he shouldn’t have an *.

Dale and Richards also mentioned, but no Naughton which is disappointing.

Click to expand...


If there's anyone that should have an * it's Kane herself.

Seriously. Making a mess of the game and the gaslighting garbage she's spewed out on the umpiring, the Petracca injury incompetence and the fixture/bye fiasco has been epic.

Classic example (like many it seems, both male and female - so nothing to do with gender - in the AFL industry) of a bog average middle manager that continues to fall upwards.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

What They're Saying - The Bulldogs Media Thread - Part 4

Similar threads

Testekill
Welcome to the Bulldogs Matthew Kennedy
2 3 4
Replies
91
Views
7K
Hoges64
Hoges64
Eastdog
Western Bulldogs and the MCG factor
2 3
Replies
72
Views
3K
Dogs_r_barking
Dogs_r_barking
Matthew Jelley
Fightback, Bulldogs documentary
Replies
1
Views
430
Inside The Kennel
Inside The Kennel
Mutt
Strategy Trade and List Management Thread Part 7 (opposition supporters - READ posting rules before posting)
299 300 301 302 303
Replies
8K
Views
404K
Hoges64
Hoges64
MaxiBont
Review Sam Darcy and the Bulldogs maul the Roos
5 6 7 8 9
Replies
214
Views
11K
JohnnySteel
JohnnySteel
Fossie 32
2025 Western Bulldogs Men's Sponsorship
Replies
4
Views
278
dogwatch
dogwatch
Dogs_r_barking
Fans Fight Back Against the (cough) AFL Media
Replies
6
Views
1K
Fossie 32
Fossie 32

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top