2011 Ladder Predictions

[ossie85]

Adelaide finished 5th in 2009, and Freo in the bottom 4. 1 year later and Freo finish 6th and Adelaide out of the finals.

Richmond have Jack Riewoldt. Better than any Carlton forward. Richmond have Chris Newman and Brett Deledio in the backine. So to say that Richmond have 'literally only midfielders' is a lie when Riewoldt, Newman and Deledio are genuine A grade players. I rate Damien Hardwick as a better coach than Brett Ratten.

The latter half of the season is generally a better ranking of teams then the first half. I'm not confident Richmond will make the 8 by any means, nor am I confident that Richmond will finish above Carlton. I'm just saying that it isn't that unlikely.

And the mosquito fleet is overrated :)

[hawk_88]

Taking the most current data is probably a better indication of form next season. The second half is certainly going to to be more accurate than the first half.

The development and Yarran and Garlett won't do much for your side. Your forward structure is incredibly flawed and relies too much on these players as it is. It was the lack of quality talls around them that caused issues, not these guys under-performing.

Lachie Henderson hasn't show a great deal. Given a lot of opportunities last year without showing much. Big guys take time, and clearly he still needs time if he is going to be the player Blues fans think he will be. If you are carrying your hopes of success next season on his shoulders you will be disappointed.

Again with Luke Mitchell (and Watson and McCarthy for that matter), expecting a first year KPP to perform at any consistent level to generate consistent team performances is laughable. They certainly aren't going to be building any structures around players without a single AFL game to their name, so I can see the addition of these players being the catalyst for Gibbs to return to the midfield.

Your midfield may improve, but to say it can only improve is clearly a fallacy. However your midfield was never really an issue. Your poor defence and flawed forward structure mean you leak goals and at times struggle to score them. The recruiting may help fix these issues in 2-3 years time, but will have a minimal short term effect.

[Junktimer]

Adelaide finished 5th in 2009, and Freo in the bottom 4. 1 year later and Freo finish 6th and Adelaide out of the finals.

Richmond have Jack Riewoldt. Better than any Carlton forward. Richmond have Chris Newman and Brett Deledio in the backine. So to say that Richmond have 'literally only midfielders' is a lie when Riewoldt, Newman and Deledio are genuine A grade players. I rate Damien Hardwick as a better coach than Brett Ratten.

The latter half of the season is generally a better ranking of teams then the first half. I'm not confident Richmond will make the 8 by any means, nor am I confident that Richmond will finish above Carlton. I'm just saying that it isn't that unlikely.

And the mosquito fleet is overrated :)

huge backdown from, richmond finishing above carlton, already contradicting yourself.

"The other current 7 top 8 teams I think are better than Carlton. Melbourne, Richmond, North Melbourne are improving. And all three have better all-round teams."

How does richmond have a better all round team than carlton when you could only name three A-grade players, and saying Newman is an A-grade player is being very generous.

[hawk_88]

and saying Newman is an A-grade player is being very generous.

Saying rubbish like that isn't going to help your credibility in this discussion.

[ossie85]

I'm predicting Carlton to miss the 8. I'm not guaranteeing it! If I could see the future, I'd be a rich man :)

Carlton have 2 A-graders. Judd and Murphy. Gibbs is close, but not just yet.

[hawk_88]

Ultimately it isn't the A-graders that win you premierships. Hawthorn is the prime example of this.

[Junktimer]

if newman is an A-grader then im pretty sure gibbs is.

i am happy to use stats if need be.

[BoredSaint]

the only a-grade DEF is Goddard :P LOL jk newman and gibbs are both pretty good too :D

[hawk_88]

Generally stats don't mean a great deal. One's quality can be masked by their playing environment which in the case is the Richmond footy club. Performing so poorly over a period of time will adversely affect your stats.

Also there is a massive difference in age which means different playing styles, training techniques, game plans etc.

Raw data means very little out of context. To use stats in any valid way to further your argument will be quite difficult as you would have to account for the above variables and many more. Even then context can still be applied to the presented data.

I welcome you to present us with some well formed data to make your point however the work required to present something remotely valid is probably disproportionate to the point you are trying to make.

To put it simply, don't try to validate your opinion with stats unless you know what you are doing. Ultimately this is a subjective opinion and as with most things in the world the prevailing opinion is followed until something happens and opinions change.

With this sort of thing there is no right answer. You have an opinion that you failed to convince us of and we have one that we failed to convince you of. Come the end of round 22 2011 we will know whose foresight was most accurate.

[ossie85]

^ tis true Hawka.

Newman and Gibbs play completely different games. One is a captain, general of developing defense, the other is a rising midfielder/rebounding defender. It would be like comparing Simon Prestigiacomo against Jordan McMahon and saying McMahon's better cos he got the ball more.

[Junktimer]

ok hawk if stats dont mean anything, what else can we base it on?

so all stats records and every other achievements achieved by such statistics because they aren't a true indicator?

ossie are you trying to liken jordon mcmahon to bryce gibbs? wouldnt put it past ya.

[ossie85]

Stats mean a lot JT.

No, Gibbs is far greater player than McMahon. But stats comparisons only work when players are similar types.

You couldn't use stats to compare Glenn McGrath and Ricky Ponting for example.

[Junktimer]

Generally stats don't mean a great deal. One's quality can be masked by their playing environment which in the case is the Richmond footy club. Performing so poorly over a period of time will adversely affect your stats.

Also there is a massive difference in age which means different playing styles, training techniques, game plans etc.

Raw data means very little out of context. To use stats in any valid way to further your argument will be quite difficult as you would have to account for the above variables and many more. Even then context can still be applied to the presented data.

I welcome you to present us with some well formed data to make your point however the work required to present something remotely valid is probably disproportionate to the point you are trying to make.

To put it simply, don't try to validate your opinion with stats unless you know what you are doing. Ultimately this is a subjective opinion and as with most things in the world the prevailing opinion is followed until something happens and opinions change.

With this sort of thing there is no right answer. You have an opinion that you failed to convince us of and we have one that we failed to convince you of. Come the end of round 22 2011 we will know whose foresight was most accurate.

i agree, it was hawk i was telling that to

[hawk_88]

Statistics are what they are, they are a number. Their meaning is in their use, which is problematic because through may tricks you can get statistics to say almost anything. Proper statistical analysis is possible but requires rigorous attention to detail. However the consistent measuring and recording (and I don't mean simple could but the environment and method of producing the event that is being measured) is absolutely necessary. This can't be achieved with sport. Which means comparisons between players in any valid way is near impossible.

What statistics are normally used are indicators. They are useful for identifying areas to further investigate using less concrete and more subjective methods.

For example, you might find that a full forward tends to be much less accurate from 30-40 meters than anywhere else and you investigate why.

The other major use of stats is aggregate metrics. A popular current example is heat maps.

However, any mathematically valid statistical comparison is near on impossible. They can still be subjectively interpreted so ultimately they achieve nothing in this context.

Like I said I welcome you to try, but as you may or may not have worked out, I know a thing or too about stats and will be able to rip holes. Like I said, you have a subjective opinion, we have a subjective opinion and ultimately there isn't a right opinion because their is no valid objective measure.

[Junktimer]

Still over 50% say Carlton to miss the 8.

The 2010 predictions saw 17 out of the 25 predictions leave Carlton out also.

Not enough respect is shown to what I believe will be a very dangerous side in 2011.

IMO best ladder so far has been McRooster's, boldest call has been ossie predicting the Tiges finishing above Carlton.

I have not made my ladder, so I will bump the thread in doing so.

1. Collingwood
2. Geelong
3. St Kilda
4. Carlton
5. Fremantle
6. Hawthorn
7. Sydney
8. Western Bulldogs
9. Adelaide
10. Melbourne
11. North Melbourne
12. Gold Coast
13. West Coast
14. Port Adelaide
15. Richmond
16. Essendon
17. Brisbane

The top 3 will most likely be those teams, maybe however in a different order, I definitely wouldn't say Collingwood are a certainty for the flag.

Carlton aren't a certainty for the 4, however I think that Freo won't rise this year, my reasoning being that Barlow will have a very interrupted preseason, Sandilands IMO will get injured a bit, and Pav is now 29, not entirely unlike Carlton, they rely heavily on their best few.

Hawks will improve slightly, but will not push for premiership, way too inconsistent.

Bulldogs and Sydney should do OK, but their best is behind them.

Adelaide were a little shell shocked early this year, and will push for finals selection, along with the Dees, who need another year of solid footy before they can start to make an impact.

North pretty stock standard at 11.

Gold Coast may do better than expected, I believe West Coast can improve a bit too, but need to sort out their spud defence if they ever wanna be good.

Port may be good in a few years, not this year though.

Rounding out the tail is Richmond, Essendon and Brisbane.  All lack talent and experience, Brisbane and Essendon to go through rebuilding stages.