 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: Half-time and full-time margins in GFs since 1961 |  |
|
I have listed below the half-time and full-time margins in all VFL/AFL GFs since 1961 and highlighted in bold the matches where the leader at half-time failed to win the GF.
In summary, there are 15 matches out of 51 (and 6 out of the last 14) in which the half-time leader failed to win the game. Of those, the only larger half-time leads than the 'Pies had on Saturday were in the 1970  and 1984 (albeit, the lead in that match was only 25 points) GFs. North also led by 24 points in 1998.
The scores (except for 2010) are taken from various old VFL/AFL footy records. The half-time and full-time margins are my mental arithmetic.
1961 Dogs by 8; Hawks win by 43. Turnaround 51 points
1962 Dons by 13; Dons win by 32
1963 Cats by 16; Cats win by 49
1964 Demons by 11; Demons win by 4
1965 Dons by 8; Dons win by 35
1966 Pies by 1; Aints win by 1 Turnaround 2 points
1967 Tigers by 16; Tigers win by 9
1968 Filth by 13; filth win by 3
1969 Tigers by 26; Tigers win by 25
1970 'Pies by 44; filth win by 10 Turnaround 54 points
1971 'Aints by 2; Hawks win by 7 Turnaround 9 points
1972 Filth by 45; filth win by 27
1973 Tigers by 26; Tigers win by 30
1974 Tigers by 20; Tigersw win by 41
1975 North by 20; North win by 55
1976 Hawks by 19; Hawks win by 30
1977 North by 2; drawn. Notably, Collingwood led by 27 at the last change. Turnaround 2 points
1977 replay North by 11; North win by 27
1978 North by 4; Hawks win by 18 Turnaround 22 points
1979 Filth by 1; filth win by 5
1980 Tigers by 43; Tigers win by 81
1981 Filth by 1; filth win by 20
1982 Tigers by 11; filth win by 18 Turnaround 29 points
1983 Hawks by 57; Hawks win by 83
1984 Hawks by 25; Dons win by 24. Notably, the Dons still trailed badly (almost 4 goals) at the last change. They stormed home with a 9 goal final quarter. Turnaround 49 points
1985 Dons by 18; Dons win by 78
1986 Hawks by 21; Hawks win by 42
1987 Filth by 11; filth win by 33
1988 Hawks by 49; Hawks win by 96
1989 Hawks by 37; Hawks win by 6. Notably, the Cats almost snatched this with an 8 goal to 3 last quarter.
1990 'Pies by 34; 'Pies win by 48
1991 Hawks by 10; Hawks win by 53
1992 Cats by 12; Eagles win by 28 Turnaround 40 points
1993 Dons by 37; Dons win by 44
1994 Eagles by 23; Eagles win by 80
1995 Filth by 40; filth win by 61
1996 North by 2; North win by 43
1997 Aints by 13; Crows win by 31 Turnaround 44 points
1998 North by 24; Crows win by 35 Turnaround 59 points
1999 North by 20; North win by 35
2000 Dons by 41; Dons win by 60
2001 Dons by 14; Bears win by 26 Turnaround 40 points
2002 Bears by 8; Bears win by 9
2003 Bears by 42; Bears win by 50
2004 Bears by 1; Port win by 40 Turnaround 41 points
2005 Swans by 20; Swans win by 4
2006 Eagles by 25; Eagles win by 1
2007 Cats by 52; Cats win by 119
2008 Hawks by 3; Hawks win by 26
2009 Aints by 6; Cats win by 12 Turnaround 18 points
2010 'Pies by 24; drawn Turnaround 24 points
Last edited by Pies4shaw on Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:11 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
 |
RudeBoy
Joined: 28 Nov 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| So basically, the team in front at half time generally wins the game. |
|
|
|
|
1eyedpie 
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Location: Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| RudeBoy wrote: | | So basically, the team in front at half time generally wins the game. |
Yea I knew that leading into last saturdays game and thought we were in the box seat to take out our 15th flag!
Someone forgot to tell the boys its called the premiership qtr (3rd) for a reason!
_________________
Never disperse your focus unless absolutely necessary. Face one adversary at a time!
BARRACK HARD! |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| RudeBoy wrote: | | So basically, the team in front at half time generally wins the game. |
That's a very droll, if slightly reductionist, view of those numbers, RB. 
I was intending (hopefully without forcing anyone to swallow the unpalatable obvious) to point out that only twice in the last 51 GFs has a team led at the main break by more than Collingwood did on Saturday and failed to win the flag. 
I thought that suggested, perhaps, that, amongst other things, a bit more emphasis might need to be placed upon how the team approaches the second half this week. Alternatively, it might suggest that if the 'Pies can lead by a little more at half-time this week, it will not be likely to matter much what the 'Aints do in the second half, since no-one in the last 40 GFs has lost after leading by more than 25 points at the main break.
Personally, the figures served to explain to me why I had that "This can't possibly be happening" feeling in the second half - it really ought not to have been happening because, statistically speaking, it is extremely unlikely. |
|
|
|
|
1eyedpie
Joined: 10 Mar 2005
Location: Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Champion Data also have a statistic that in any game if a side has a lead of 30 points or more at any time of the game they have a 95% chance of winning the game. Thats right 95% chance!
You can imagine how I felt when Trav missed the two sitters before half time.
I believe with our fast starts out of the blocks this year the club knows about this info also!
_________________
Never disperse your focus unless absolutely necessary. Face one adversary at a time!
BARRACK HARD! |
|
|
|
|
woodys_world69
Joined: 04 Jul 2005
Location: Brisbane
|
| Post subject: | |
|
stats are made to be broken
come on saturday......this is taking to long |
|
|
|
|
This Random Guy
Joined: 20 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
How about this?
Of the previous 50 grand finals the team that lost the first half has won the second half only 21 of 50 times, 42%. But of those teams that lost the first half and won the second half, 14 of 21 times, 67%, they won the game.
You let a team back in in the second half, 2/3 of the time they'll overrun you. We dodged a bullet. |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| This Random Guy wrote: | How about this?
Of the previous 50 grand finals the team that lost the first half has won the second half only 21 of 50 times, 42%. But of those teams that lost the first half and won the second half, 14 of 21 times, 67%, they won the game.
You let a team back in in the second half, 2/3 of the time they'll overrun you. We dodged a bullet. |
Thanks, RG - this was very interesting. It warranted a detailed reply, which I prepared but lost when I went to post it (grrrrr!).
I think the summary was that if you look at the 28 games where a team lead by more than 15 points at half-time (13 of which involved leads of between 16 points and 4 goals), the team which led at half-time won 24 (86%), lost 3 and drew 1. Interestingly, of the 13 matches where the half-time lead was between 16 points and 4 goals, only North in '98 and the 'Pies in 2010 failed to win (and both lead, coincidentally, by exactly 24 points).
Thus, perhaps, your point may be in part a reflection of the fact that grand final half-time margins are usually not that large - of the 14 "winning" turnarounds you identified, only 3 involved a half-time margin of more than 15 points ('70, '84 and 1998). |
|
|
|
|
3.14159 
Joined: 12 Sep 2009
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| RudeBoy wrote: | | So basically, the team in front at half time generally wins the game. |
And the team in front at the End *[u]usually[u] wins?
*(The 1980 Night G-F!) |
|
|
|
|
Pied Piper 
Joined: 20 May 2003
Location: Pig City
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pies4shaw wrote: | | RudeBoy wrote: | | So basically, the team in front at half time generally wins the game. |
That's a very droll, if slightly reductionist, view of those numbers, RB.
I was intending (hopefully without forcing anyone to swallow the unpalatable obvious) to point out that only twice in the last 51 GFs has a team led at the main break by more than Collingwood did on Saturday and failed to win the flag.
I thought that suggested, perhaps, that, amongst other things, a bit more emphasis might need to be placed upon how the team approaches the second half this week. Alternatively, it might suggest that if the 'Pies can lead by a little more at half-time this week, it will not be likely to matter much what the 'Aints do in the second half, since no-one in the last 40 GFs has lost after leading by more than 25 points at the main break.
Personally, the figures served to explain to me why I had that "This can't possibly be happening" feeling in the second half - it really ought not to have been happening because, statistically speaking, it is extremely unlikely. |
This might be an unpalatable suggestion, but the turnaround might have something to do with St Kilda lifting massively in the second half. It's not like we just dropped our bundle; they raised their game and refused to give in. Credit to them. Frankly we did really well to get back on level terms after Goddard put the Saints in front.
_________________
"The greatest thing that could happen to the nation is when we get rid of all the media. Then we could live in peace and tranquillity, and no one would know anything." - Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pied Piper wrote: | | This might be an unpalatable suggestion, but the turnaround might have something to do with St Kilda lifting massively in the second half. It's not like we just dropped our bundle; they raised their game and refused to give in. Credit to them. Frankly we did really well to get back on level terms after Goddard put the Saints in front. |
No such thing as an "unpalatable suggestion" if its cogently put PP - and yours always are.
This thread wasn't intended to suggest that the turnaround happened because Collingwood dropped its bundle. I think there are a whole bunch of reasons (some of which I think I understand and many of which I am sure I do not because I am neither a coach nor a player) for the turnaround and I've read about some suggestions in other threads. I just posted this because I thought the stats are susceptible to interesting analysis and I hadn't seen them presented anywhere. What happened seemed a bit unusual on the day - what the stats suggest is that the second-half was a somewhat unlikely event, however one views it.
What one takes from that, I don't know. Perhaps, that it was an aberration and won't happen again. Or, perhaps, that there are certain elements of the game plan in the 2nd half that couldn't be executed because of the effort in the first half. But, whatever the explanation, plainly something occurred in the 2nd half that was not only game-changing in the context of the day but historically unusual, as well.
That's all. |
|
|
|
|
Pied Piper
Joined: 20 May 2003
Location: Pig City
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ There was an interesting article in The Australian today which goes some way to answering your questions. Collingwood have been fast starters all season; the Saints on the other hand are second-half specialists. Essentially they play rope-a-dope, playing extremely physical footy and scoring in short but deadly bursts as their opponent tires. (Unfortunately I can't find the link.)
It wouldn't have stood up on Saturday if we'd taken better advantage of our first-half opportunities, but the thing is, Cloke's misses aside, the Saints grant very few easy chances to score. When you think of how hard the chances we did convert were - Dids from outside the boundary, Daisy's wobbly torp, plus one lucky 50 metre penalty - and the picture becomes clearer. Basically, the Saints give you next to nothing, and that's why everyone finds them so hard to beat, including us.
_________________
"The greatest thing that could happen to the nation is when we get rid of all the media. Then we could live in peace and tranquillity, and no one would know anything." - Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen |
|
|
|
|
jack_spain
Joined: 03 May 2008
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pied Piper wrote: | | Essentially they play rope-a-dope, |
That makes sense to me.
We've just got to hit them harder, like George Foreman.  |
|
|
|
|
Trezegol
Joined: 16 Sep 2005
Location: Doncaster East
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Despite our forward 50 entries in the 2nd qtr, the score flattered us. We weren't playing well at all, outside of a few players.
we doubled st kilda's entries in the 3rd qtr, yet we were still outscored.
We played not to lose on saturday, rather than to win. That is exactly what happened when we played the saints in rd.3 and geelong in rd.9.
Collingwood will dictate the outcome of this week's game, not St Kilda. The saints can't play any better. If we harass and run, we will blow the game out of the water. If we harass, but don't run, st Kilda will win. |
|
|
|
|
Pied Piper
Joined: 20 May 2003
Location: Pig City
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ The reason there was so little run and carry is that St Kilda didn't give us a chance to do so - they chased, harassed and tackled even harder. Don't forget we have basically copied their game plan from last year, except we are more attacking with it and so score more heavily. St Kilda succeeded in slowing the game down, forcing it to be played on their terms.
_________________
"The greatest thing that could happen to the nation is when we get rid of all the media. Then we could live in peace and tranquillity, and no one would know anything." - Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
