2008: Geelong beat Hawks (Rd 17)
2007: Port beat Geelong (Rd 21)
2006: Swans beat Eagles(QF)
2005: Eagles beat Swans (QF)
2004: Brisbane beat Port (Rd 11)
2003: Collingwood beat Brisbane (QF)
2002: Collingwood beat Brisbane (Rd 8?)
Tank Rd 14?
![Razz :P](./images/smilies/icon_razz.gif)
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
Just like every side we played the next week were winning. It is called coincidence.Sam23 wrote:Results of the last game the teams in the Grand Final played.
2008: Geelong beat Hawks (Rd 17)
2007: Port beat Geelong (Rd 21)
2006: Swans beat Eagles(QF)
2005: Eagles beat Swans (QF)
2004: Brisbane beat Port (Rd 11)
2003: Collingwood beat Brisbane (QF)
2002: Collingwood beat Brisbane (Rd 8?)
Tank Rd 14?
Geelong also beat PA in Round 9Sam23 wrote:
2007: Port beat Geelong (Rd 21)
?
Well the past 7 grand finalist lost their match against their opponent the last time they played them.bigcarl wrote:what about 1971?
hawthorn beat us by 2 points in the second semi and by 7 in the grand final.
interesting stats, but there's no real pattern.
the only thing you can say with any certainty is that the team that kicks the highest score will win.
All it means is that it is getting closer to side that wins the last time they played will also win the GF.Sam23 wrote:Well the past 7 grand finalist lost their match against their opponent the last time they played them.bigcarl wrote:what about 1971?
hawthorn beat us by 2 points in the second semi and by 7 in the grand final.
interesting stats, but there's no real pattern.
the only thing you can say with any certainty is that the team that kicks the highest score will win.
Seems like a bit of a pattern to me?>
i wouldn't read too much into it.Sam23 wrote:Well the past 7 grand finalist lost their match against their opponent the last time they played them.bigcarl wrote:what about 1971?
hawthorn beat us by 2 points in the second semi and by 7 in the grand final.
interesting stats, but there's no real pattern.
the only thing you can say with any certainty is that the team that kicks the highest score will win.
Seems like a bit of a pattern to me?>
Please re read the first post.saintsRrising wrote:Geelong also beat PA in Round 9Sam23 wrote:
2007: Port beat Geelong (Rd 21)
?
haha im not!bigcarl wrote:i wouldn't read too much into it.Sam23 wrote:Well the past 7 grand finalist lost their match against their opponent the last time they played them.bigcarl wrote:what about 1971?
hawthorn beat us by 2 points in the second semi and by 7 in the grand final.
interesting stats, but there's no real pattern.
the only thing you can say with any certainty is that the team that kicks the highest score will win.
Seems like a bit of a pattern to me?>
Please read that Geelong also beat PA that year in Round 9.Sam23 wrote:Please re read the first post.saintsRrising wrote:Geelong also beat PA in Round 9Sam23 wrote:
2007: Port beat Geelong (Rd 21)
?
Of course its coincidence. Lets go all the way back to 1897 and see who wins the last game before the GF and if its 60% or higher I will go with you but just to pick the last 7 years and say there is a pattern isnt correct. Also you picked 1966 so it must be true.perfectionist wrote:The stat shows, that when teams are close in ability, and that is often the case in GFs, then planning is important. And the most recent game between the two teams would be an excellent place to start. Only a complete idiot would suggest that coaches should ignore the last game between the two teams and then say that a reversed result was "just coincidence".
i wouldn't be drawing any conclusions from stats in 1897. otherwise we'll start making the claim that kicking more than 20 points a game is a pretty good score. the last seven years are a lot more relevant than the aggregation of the first hundred because the game changes over time.plugger66 wrote:Of course its coincidence. Lets go all the way back to 1897 and see who wins the last game before the GF and if its 60% or higher I will go with you but just to pick the last 7 years and say there is a pattern isnt correct. Also you picked 1966 so it must be true.
The point the other person is saying is the side that loses learns from the loss and changes things to try and change the result next time they play. Why wouldnt that have happened years ago.bergholt wrote:i wouldn't be drawing any conclusions from stats in 1897. otherwise we'll start making the claim that kicking more than 20 points a game is a pretty good score. the last seven years are a lot more relevant than the aggregation of the first hundred because the game changes over time.plugger66 wrote:Of course its coincidence. Lets go all the way back to 1897 and see who wins the last game before the GF and if its 60% or higher I will go with you but just to pick the last 7 years and say there is a pattern isnt correct. Also you picked 1966 so it must be true.
probably because there was no coaching staff, just a player-coach. and everyone in the game worked full-time. there's a big difference between full-time professional footballers with video analysis and heaps of support staff, and amateurs playing for fun.plugger66 wrote:The point the other person is saying is the side that loses learns from the loss and changes things to try and change the result next time they play. Why wouldnt that have happened years ago.
yeah, i mostly agree. but seven years is quite a long coincidence - it's possible to toss a coin seven times and get heads each time, but the probability of that happening is 1/128. and it's especially surprising because you'd expect the bias to be the other way.plugger66 wrote:I do agree the other sides would learn from the previous games just saying it is a coincidence that the side that lost the last game have won the GF in the last 7 years.