2025 Fixture

[Nick DalSanto Claus]

"The mean hides a multiple of sins," is a mantra my former stats lecturers used. What about the mode? The poor relation of the averages' trinity. Discuss.

[SaintPav]

The nerve I hit was your inability to engage with the actual fixture analysis. Instead of addressing:

- Front-loaded interstate travel (3 in first 5 is inequitable)
- The AFL's own stated priorities
- Missing marquee games
- Actual schedule equity as per AFL’s own guiding principles on page 4 of their fixture guide.

https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/docume ... LowRes.pdf

From my own analysis, the fixture meets the AFL’s technical requirements but seems to disadvantage us in subtle ways, particularly around front loaded interstate travel, scheduling and broadcast exposure.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

You've resorted to:

- Comments about high school math
- Dismissive responses
- Personal remarks
- Avoiding the substantive issues

If you want to discuss the actual fixture, I'm happy to. If you just want to make snide comments about perceived education, that says more about your argument than mine.

You questioned my intelligence and insinuated you were so superior that you would take advantage of me in a business situation in your first response. And then in your second suggested I could possibly need your help understanding maths.

I only questioned your intelligence after 4 "lengthy responses" (which apparently weren't engaging with your fixture analysis) and you proceeding to triple down on the idea your calculation had anything to do with our 2025 fixture (remind me again which number of 12, 9.5 or 2.5 represented our 2025 fixture again?).

I don't want this to end because you are my favourite type of guy, so sure you are right that you are unable to comprehend any information to the contrary. My 4 "lengthy responses" might as well have been static which I guess explains why you might think that out of all that all I have done is question your intelligence.

Apologies to the rest of the forum for crowding out any other discussion. I can't apologise you you though, you came at me first and I even gave you the opportunity to acknowledge your mistake and back out at the start.

Awww. You’re my favourite guy too, Dave.

Sorry I upset you. It was a mild joke which you clearly haven't taken well.

We're just looking at this from different angles - you through Fox's overall rating system, me through deviation from expected fixture difficulty based on AFL's groupings. Nothing to keep getting our knickers in a knot about.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

The AFL defines their methodology quite specifically:
- Groups teams by 2024 ladder position (Top 6, Middle 6, Bottom 6)
- Uses this to determine who plays who twice
- Structures fixture difficulty based on previous year's performance

You mention comparing "2025 draw difficulty to 2024 performance" but then say using 2024 position (12th) isn't valid - could you explain what comparison you mean?

Do you know Fox's methodology for rating fixture difficulty? Seems important to understand their process if we're using their rating.

Since AFL explicitly uses 2024 ladder position to structure the fixture, how else would you suggest measuring if a draw is fair for where we finished? We need some kind of baseline for comparison.

[SaintPav]

"The mean hides a multiple of sins," is a mantra my former stats lecturers used. What about the mode? The poor relation of the averages' trinity. Discuss.

This is an interesting statistical philosophy question!

The mean (9.5 in our case) can indeed hide significant variations and skews in data. That's why just saying a draw is "10th hardest, close to average" tells us very little about actual fixture difficulty.

The mode would tell us what ladder position/difficulty rating appears most frequently - but in AFL fixture rankings, with 18 unique positions, there can't be a mode since no position occurs more than once.

This relates back to my original points about fixture difficulty:

1. Looking just at mean/median positions masks real differences in draw difficulty
2. The ordinal ranking (10th) tells us nothing about magnitude of difference from other draws
3. We need more context than just "average" position to understand true fixture equity

That's why I tried using our actual ladder position (12th) as a baseline for measuring deviation - to get beyond simple averages that can "hide sins."

Fox's simple "10th hardest" ranking ignores critical factors like having 3 games in Adelaide in the first 5 weeks - something that could derail our season as we saw last year. Raw difficulty rankings don't capture how the timing and clustering of tough games can have disproportionate impacts on a team's entire season.

[St Dave]

The nerve I hit was your inability to engage with the actual fixture analysis. Instead of addressing:

- Front-loaded interstate travel (3 in first 5 is inequitable)
- The AFL's own stated priorities
- Missing marquee games
- Actual schedule equity as per AFL’s own guiding principles on page 4 of their fixture guide.

https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/docume ... LowRes.pdf

From my own analysis, the fixture meets the AFL’s technical requirements but seems to disadvantage us in subtle ways, particularly around front loaded interstate travel, scheduling and broadcast exposure.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

You've resorted to:

- Comments about high school math
- Dismissive responses
- Personal remarks
- Avoiding the substantive issues

If you want to discuss the actual fixture, I'm happy to. If you just want to make snide comments about perceived education, that says more about your argument than mine.

You questioned my intelligence and insinuated you were so superior that you would take advantage of me in a business situation in your first response. And then in your second suggested I could possibly need your help understanding maths.

I only questioned your intelligence after 4 "lengthy responses" (which apparently weren't engaging with your fixture analysis) and you proceeding to triple down on the idea your calculation had anything to do with our 2025 fixture (remind me again which number of 12, 9.5 or 2.5 represented our 2025 fixture again?).

I don't want this to end because you are my favourite type of guy, so sure you are right that you are unable to comprehend any information to the contrary. My 4 "lengthy responses" might as well have been static which I guess explains why you might think that out of all that all I have done is question your intelligence.

Apologies to the rest of the forum for crowding out any other discussion. I can't apologise you you though, you came at me first and I even gave you the opportunity to acknowledge your mistake and back out at the start.

Awww. You’re my favourite guy too, Dave.

Sorry I upset you. It was a mild joke which you clearly haven't taken well.

We're just looking at this from different angles - you through Fox's overall rating system, me through deviation from expected fixture difficulty based on AFL's groupings. Nothing to keep getting our knickers in a knot about.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

The AFL defines their methodology quite specifically:
- Groups teams by 2024 ladder position (Top 6, Middle 6, Bottom 6)
- Uses this to determine who plays who twice
- Structures fixture difficulty based on previous year's performance

You mention comparing "2025 draw difficulty to 2024 performance" but then say using 2024 position (12th) isn't valid - could you explain what comparison you mean?

Do you know Fox's methodology for rating fixture difficulty? Seems important to understand their process if we're using their rating.

Since AFL explicitly uses 2024 ladder position to structure the fixture, how else would you suggest measuring if a draw is fair for where we finished? We need some kind of baseline for comparison.

I wouldn't say you upset me, you confused me with poor comprehension in a way that made me laugh repeatedly because of the combination with how sure of yourself you were. Kind of in a boss from The Office way, everyone else can see the nonsense but they are so sure of themselves.

I addressed all this way back. Try rereading it. Get a friend to help. Probably start by working out which part of your calculation assessing the difficulty of our 2025 draw (again you used 12, 9.5 and 2.5) actually represented the difficulty of our 2025 draw. Once you work out how to get that critical data point in your calculation (use whatever data set you like, Fox, AFL, your own rankings) you will probably find you land pretty close to where you want to be.

[nostalgicsaint]

Where our draw is brilliant is in terms of 6 and 5 day breaks.

It's easy to underestimate the value of 7 day+ breaks.

[SaintPav]

The nerve I hit was your inability to engage with the actual fixture analysis. Instead of addressing:

- Front-loaded interstate travel (3 in first 5 is inequitable)
- The AFL's own stated priorities
- Missing marquee games
- Actual schedule equity as per AFL’s own guiding principles on page 4 of their fixture guide.

https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/docume ... LowRes.pdf

From my own analysis, the fixture meets the AFL’s technical requirements but seems to disadvantage us in subtle ways, particularly around front loaded interstate travel, scheduling and broadcast exposure.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

You've resorted to:

- Comments about high school math
- Dismissive responses
- Personal remarks
- Avoiding the substantive issues

If you want to discuss the actual fixture, I'm happy to. If you just want to make snide comments about perceived education, that says more about your argument than mine.

You questioned my intelligence and insinuated you were so superior that you would take advantage of me in a business situation in your first response. And then in your second suggested I could possibly need your help understanding maths.

I only questioned your intelligence after 4 "lengthy responses" (which apparently weren't engaging with your fixture analysis) and you proceeding to triple down on the idea your calculation had anything to do with our 2025 fixture (remind me again which number of 12, 9.5 or 2.5 represented our 2025 fixture again?).

I don't want this to end because you are my favourite type of guy, so sure you are right that you are unable to comprehend any information to the contrary. My 4 "lengthy responses" might as well have been static which I guess explains why you might think that out of all that all I have done is question your intelligence.

Apologies to the rest of the forum for crowding out any other discussion. I can't apologise you you though, you came at me first and I even gave you the opportunity to acknowledge your mistake and back out at the start.

Awww. You’re my favourite guy too, Dave.

Sorry I upset you. It was a mild joke which you clearly haven't taken well.

We're just looking at this from different angles - you through Fox's overall rating system, me through deviation from expected fixture difficulty based on AFL's groupings. Nothing to keep getting our knickers in a knot about.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

The AFL defines their methodology quite specifically:
- Groups teams by 2024 ladder position (Top 6, Middle 6, Bottom 6)
- Uses this to determine who plays who twice
- Structures fixture difficulty based on previous year's performance

You mention comparing "2025 draw difficulty to 2024 performance" but then say using 2024 position (12th) isn't valid - could you explain what comparison you mean?

Do you know Fox's methodology for rating fixture difficulty? Seems important to understand their process if we're using their rating.

Since AFL explicitly uses 2024 ladder position to structure the fixture, how else would you suggest measuring if a draw is fair for where we finished? We need some kind of baseline for comparison.

I wouldn't say you upset me, you confused me with poor comprehension in a way that made me laugh repeatedly because of the combination with how sure of yourself you were. Kind of in a boss from The Office way, everyone else can see the nonsense but they are so sure of themselves.

I addressed all this way back. Try rereading it. Get a friend to help. Probably start by working out which part of your calculation assessing the difficulty of our 2025 draw (again you used 12, 9.5 and 2.5) actually represented the difficulty of our 2025 draw. Once you work out how to get that critical data point in your calculation (use whatever data set you like, Fox, AFL, your own rankings) you will probably find you land pretty close to where you want to be.

Alrighty then.

Just more snide comments and ad hom attacks while still not addressing the key issues.

Interesting.

[St Dave]

The nerve I hit was your inability to engage with the actual fixture analysis. Instead of addressing:

- Front-loaded interstate travel (3 in first 5 is inequitable)
- The AFL's own stated priorities
- Missing marquee games
- Actual schedule equity as per AFL’s own guiding principles on page 4 of their fixture guide.

https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/docume ... LowRes.pdf

From my own analysis, the fixture meets the AFL’s technical requirements but seems to disadvantage us in subtle ways, particularly around front loaded interstate travel, scheduling and broadcast exposure.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

You've resorted to:

- Comments about high school math
- Dismissive responses
- Personal remarks
- Avoiding the substantive issues

If you want to discuss the actual fixture, I'm happy to. If you just want to make snide comments about perceived education, that says more about your argument than mine.

You questioned my intelligence and insinuated you were so superior that you would take advantage of me in a business situation in your first response. And then in your second suggested I could possibly need your help understanding maths.

I only questioned your intelligence after 4 "lengthy responses" (which apparently weren't engaging with your fixture analysis) and you proceeding to triple down on the idea your calculation had anything to do with our 2025 fixture (remind me again which number of 12, 9.5 or 2.5 represented our 2025 fixture again?).

I don't want this to end because you are my favourite type of guy, so sure you are right that you are unable to comprehend any information to the contrary. My 4 "lengthy responses" might as well have been static which I guess explains why you might think that out of all that all I have done is question your intelligence.

Apologies to the rest of the forum for crowding out any other discussion. I can't apologise you you though, you came at me first and I even gave you the opportunity to acknowledge your mistake and back out at the start.

Awww. You’re my favourite guy too, Dave.

Sorry I upset you. It was a mild joke which you clearly haven't taken well.

We're just looking at this from different angles - you through Fox's overall rating system, me through deviation from expected fixture difficulty based on AFL's groupings. Nothing to keep getting our knickers in a knot about.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

The AFL defines their methodology quite specifically:
- Groups teams by 2024 ladder position (Top 6, Middle 6, Bottom 6)
- Uses this to determine who plays who twice
- Structures fixture difficulty based on previous year's performance

You mention comparing "2025 draw difficulty to 2024 performance" but then say using 2024 position (12th) isn't valid - could you explain what comparison you mean?

Do you know Fox's methodology for rating fixture difficulty? Seems important to understand their process if we're using their rating.

Since AFL explicitly uses 2024 ladder position to structure the fixture, how else would you suggest measuring if a draw is fair for where we finished? We need some kind of baseline for comparison.

I wouldn't say you upset me, you confused me with poor comprehension in a way that made me laugh repeatedly because of the combination with how sure of yourself you were. Kind of in a boss from The Office way, everyone else can see the nonsense but they are so sure of themselves.

I addressed all this way back. Try rereading it. Get a friend to help. Probably start by working out which part of your calculation assessing the difficulty of our 2025 draw (again you used 12, 9.5 and 2.5) actually represented the difficulty of our 2025 draw. Once you work out how to get that critical data point in your calculation (use whatever data set you like, Fox, AFL, your own rankings) you will probably find you land pretty close to where you want to be.

Alrighty then.

Just more snide comments and ad hom attacks while still not addressing the key issues.

Interesting.

Lol, you asusmed you would upset me. As I have been saying the while time you are just making me laugh and the more you dont engage with anything I say the funnier it is, becasue you actually do realise your error but you have dug to deep to possibly acknowledge it. For about the 8th time:

You said you were analysing our actual 2025 draw. Which part of your calculation assessing the difficulty of our 2025 draw (again you used 12, 9.5 and 2.5) actually represented the difficulty of our 2025 draw?

[The_Dud]

Would love to see the math on how a couple of 80 minute plane rides over 5 weeks is going to derail our whole season

[SaintPav]

Thanks Dud. Adding something profound to the conversation as always - still waiting for you, Dave or anyone else to explain the AFL's or Fox's 'black box' difficulty ratings.

And if we end up 1-4 at the start of the season, we'll see how much those "80 minute plane rides" matter for early season form and momentum.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

[Yorkeys]

Would love to see the math on how a couple of 80 minute plane rides over 5 weeks is going to derail our whole season

If they were sightseeing flights over King Island and the games following were at Marvel, maybe not a lot of harm. Still if 80 minute flights did any good every club would be doing them pregame and begging for that to be incorporated into their draw. But for some reason they don't.

[The_Dud]

Brisbane started last season 2-5, hopped on a plane every second week, and travelled 3 times in the Finals.

Luckily no one told them how insurmountable all those things were!

[St Dave]

Thanks Dud. Adding something profound to the conversation as always - still waiting for you, Dave or anyone else to explain the AFL's or Fox's 'black box' difficulty ratings.

And if we end up 1-4 at the start of the season, we'll see how much those "80 minute plane rides" matter for early season form and momentum.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Have you been waiting longer than I have for you to explain which part of your calculation assessing the difficulty of our 2025 draw (again you used 12, 9.5 and 2.5) actually represented the difficulty of our 2025 draw?

Because if you want that info you should probably ask the people who wrote it, they might even get back to you faster than you trying to explain those 3 numbers to me.

[SaintPav]

Thanks Dud. Adding something profound to the conversation as always - still waiting for you, Dave or anyone else to explain the AFL's or Fox's 'black box' difficulty ratings.

And if we end up 1-4 at the start of the season, we'll see how much those "80 minute plane rides" matter for early season form and momentum.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Have you been waiting longer than I have for you to explain which part of your calculation assessing the difficulty of our 2025 draw (again you used 12, 9.5 and 2.5) actually represented the difficulty of our 2025 draw?

Because if you want that info you should probably ask the people who wrote it, they might even get back to you faster than you trying to explain those 3 numbers to me.

I’ve already explained it Dave.

Your entire argument is based on the Fox rating system that you don't even know the methodology for.

Bizarre.

[St Dave]

Thanks Dud. Adding something profound to the conversation as always - still waiting for you, Dave or anyone else to explain the AFL's or Fox's 'black box' difficulty ratings.

And if we end up 1-4 at the start of the season, we'll see how much those "80 minute plane rides" matter for early season form and momentum.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Have you been waiting longer than I have for you to explain which part of your calculation assessing the difficulty of our 2025 draw (again you used 12, 9.5 and 2.5) actually represented the difficulty of our 2025 draw?

Because if you want that info you should probably ask the people who wrote it, they might even get back to you faster than you trying to explain those 3 numbers to me.

I’ve already explained it Dave.

Your entire argument is based on the Fox rating system that you don't even know the methodology for.

Bizarre.

Oh sorry, I must of missed your explanation of which part of your calculation assessing the difficulty of our 2025 draw (again you used 12, 9.5 and 2.5) actually represented the difficulty of our 2025 draw? Maybe it was in a post I didn't see because you didnt reply to me?

Good thing that you have it because you can clear this all up by just repeating it here, or better yet quoting your original post, that way I will see it amonst all the others.

I appreciate you are just learning about listening to people who know more than you, but I dont think it is bizzare to do that, in fact I think most people do it all the time. Just recently I have been listening to my Doctor and my Accountant (even just in the footy stats world there is Champion Data and sites like https://www.wheeloratings.com/afl_index.html), and I dont feel the need to interrogate all their methodogies to understand the advice/information they are giving me.

[CURLY]

Would love to see the math on how a couple of 80 minute plane rides over 5 weeks is going to derail our whole season

You are clueless.

[SaintPav]

Thanks Dud. Adding something profound to the conversation as always - still waiting for you, Dave or anyone else to explain the AFL's or Fox's 'black box' difficulty ratings.

And if we end up 1-4 at the start of the season, we'll see how much those "80 minute plane rides" matter for early season form and momentum.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Have you been waiting longer than I have for you to explain which part of your calculation assessing the difficulty of our 2025 draw (again you used 12, 9.5 and 2.5) actually represented the difficulty of our 2025 draw?

Because if you want that info you should probably ask the people who wrote it, they might even get back to you faster than you trying to explain those 3 numbers to me.

I’ve already explained it Dave.

Your entire argument is based on the Fox rating system that you don't even know the methodology for.

Bizarre.

Oh sorry, I must of missed your explanation of which part of your calculation assessing the difficulty of our 2025 draw (again you used 12, 9.5 and 2.5) actually represented the difficulty of our 2025 draw? Maybe it was in a post I didn't see because you didnt reply to me?

Good thing that you have it because you can clear this all up by just repeating it here, or better yet quoting your original post, that way I will see it amonst all the others.

I appreciate you are just learning about listening to people who know more than you, but I dont think it is bizzare to do that, in fact I think most people do it all the time. Just recently I have been listening to my Doctor and my Accountant (even just in the footy stats world there is Champion Data and sites like https://www.wheeloratings.com/afl_index.html), and I dont feel the need to interrogate all their methodogies to understand the advice/information they are giving me.

Apology accepted.

I'm done with this Dave; you sound like a broken record. Your smug superiority and ridiculous appeal to authority arguments aren't adding anything.

Like I’ve attempted to explain, we're looking at this from different angles. You refuse to acknowledge the AFL's weighted rule system and can't explain Fox's methodology, while demanding explanations I've already provided.

For someone claiming to be amused, you sound pretty worked up.

Time to let it go.

[saynta]

Would love to see the math on how a couple of 80 minute plane rides over 5 weeks is going to derail our whole season

You are clueless.

[St Dave]

Oh sorry, I must of missed your explanation of which part of your calculation assessing the difficulty of our 2025 draw (again you used 12, 9.5 and 2.5) actually represented the difficulty of our 2025 draw? Maybe it was in a post I didn't see because you didnt reply to me?

Good thing that you have it because you can clear this all up by just repeating it here, or better yet quoting your original post, that way I will see it amonst all the others.

I appreciate you are just learning about listening to people who know more than you, but I dont think it is bizzare to do that, in fact I think most people do it all the time. Just recently I have been listening to my Doctor and my Accountant (even just in the footy stats world there is Champion Data and sites like https://www.wheeloratings.com/afl_index.html), and I dont feel the need to interrogate all their methodogies to understand the advice/information they are giving me.

Apology accepted.

I'm done with this Dave; you sound like a broken record. Your smug superiority and ridiculous appeal to authority arguments aren't adding anything.

Like I’ve attempted to explain, we're looking at this from different angles. You refuse to acknowledge the AFL's weighted rule system and can't explain Fox's methodology, while demanding explanations I've already provided.

For someone claiming to be amused, you sound pretty worked up.

Time to let it go.

Weird, you still don't seem to be able to tell me which number in your assessment of the difficulty of our 2025 draw (which you claimed was so superior) actually represents our 2025 draw.

Why would I be worked up? All I am asking you to do is explain how calculation relates to the difficulty of our 2025 draw (there were only 3 numbers 12, 9.5 and 2.5 remember), but you can't and your arrogance doesn't allow you acknowledge that you were wrong. It is so funny seeing all the ways you try to squirm out of answering what should be a simple question.

Who brought smug superiority in to this thread? Maybe examine your initial comment again?

I guess it might seem like I am being smugly superior, but I am only asking you to explain 3 numbers and how any of them relate to the topic of the thread. If you could do that there would be nothing to be smug or superior about. But you can't do that because your whole assessment (that you were so confident about) was flawed from the start.

[SaintPav]

Oh sorry, I must of missed your explanation of which part of your calculation assessing the difficulty of our 2025 draw (again you used 12, 9.5 and 2.5) actually represented the difficulty of our 2025 draw? Maybe it was in a post I didn't see because you didnt reply to me?

Good thing that you have it because you can clear this all up by just repeating it here, or better yet quoting your original post, that way I will see it amonst all the others.

I appreciate you are just learning about listening to people who know more than you, but I dont think it is bizzare to do that, in fact I think most people do it all the time. Just recently I have been listening to my Doctor and my Accountant (even just in the footy stats world there is Champion Data and sites like https://www.wheeloratings.com/afl_index.html), and I dont feel the need to interrogate all their methodogies to understand the advice/information they are giving me.

Apology accepted.

I'm done with this Dave; you sound like a broken record. Your smug superiority and ridiculous appeal to authority arguments aren't adding anything.

Like I’ve attempted to explain, we're looking at this from different angles. You refuse to acknowledge the AFL's weighted rule system and can't explain Fox's methodology, while demanding explanations I've already provided.

For someone claiming to be amused, you sound pretty worked up.

Time to let it go.

Weird, you still don't seem to be able to tell me which number in your assessment of the difficulty of our 2025 draw (which you claimed was so superior) actually represents our 2025 draw.

Why would I be worked up? All I am asking you to do is explain how calculation relates to the difficulty of our 2025 draw (there were only 3 numbers 12, 9.5 and 2.5 remember), but you can't and your arrogance doesn't allow you acknowledge that you were wrong. It is so funny seeing all the ways you try to squirm out of answering what should be a simple question.

Who brought smug superiority in to this thread? Maybe examine your initial comment again?

I guess it might seem like I am being smugly superior, but I am only asking you to explain 3 numbers and how any of them relate to the topic of the thread. If you could do that there would be nothing to be smug or superior about. But you can't do that because your whole assessment (that you were so confident about) was flawed from the start.

Get a grip; I've already explained this and your bad faith tactics are obvious. If you think my analysis is completely wrong, why are you investing so much energy into this? You sound very insecure.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

[The G Train Legacy]

Would love to see the math on how a couple of 80 minute plane rides over 5 weeks is going to derail our whole season

Have you ever flown regularly? I think it will be more than a couple of flights. Flying at altitude does impact on people, some more than others. I don't feel normal and am usually half deaf for about 48 hours, even after a 1 hour flight.

[St Dave]

Weird, you still don't seem to be able to tell me which number in your assessment of the difficulty of our 2025 draw (which you claimed was so superior) actually represents our 2025 draw.

Why would I be worked up? All I am asking you to do is explain how calculation relates to the difficulty of our 2025 draw (there were only 3 numbers 12, 9.5 and 2.5 remember), but you can't and your arrogance doesn't allow you acknowledge that you were wrong. It is so funny seeing all the ways you try to squirm out of answering what should be a simple question.

Who brought smug superiority in to this thread? Maybe examine your initial comment again?

I guess it might seem like I am being smugly superior, but I am only asking you to explain 3 numbers and how any of them relate to the topic of the thread. If you could do that there would be nothing to be smug or superior about. But you can't do that because your whole assessment (that you were so confident about) was flawed from the start.

Get a grip; I've already explained this and your bad faith tactics are obvious. If you think my analysis is completely wrong, why are you investing so much energy into this? You sound very insecure.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

If you consider being asked to explain yourself “bad faith tactics” I can see where you got this arrogance. From how you have tried to divert it would seem you have never been questioned or had to try to explain yourself in your life.

After I made a very simple comparison (comparing our ranking in a list with the average of the list) you came in the swinging with this post:

Very inspiring but totally irrelevant.

Need to use a proportional ratio.

Your raw rankings mask the real magnitude of difference as you are ignoring the base rate.

A 21% deviation from the average is significant.

I would love to do business with you someday.

You basically saw me kick a simple goal from the goal square and said “Nah that’s rubbish. Watch this” but instead of showing me up by doing a torp from 60 or something, you tripped over yourself and missed everything (which number in your analysis was representing the difficulty of our 2025 draw again?). I gave you the chance to say “whoops” and we could have both moved on at the start, but instead of just walking away you have kept coming back and trying and failing again and again.

My favourite was when you called pretty basic maths "statistical diversions and tricks" (that one got a good laugh out of some mates), but questioning the value of other peoples analysis just because you don’t fully understand the methodologies was pretty great too. I look forward to hearing about how your medical degree is going when you next need some advice from a doctor, or even just your detailed analysis of our performance next season given you don’t trust what Fox or ESPN or whoever publish. And I just remembered about your confidence about what a median is despite the definition being a quick Google away, so funny.

The insecurity is entirely on your side I think, this has been a laugh for me. This hasn’t been an investment of energy, seeing you try to squirm out of a simple question has been a net gain on my end. Sorry again to the rest of the forum who might have been trying to discuss next years fixture, I can only hope you have gotten half a laugh out of it too.

[SaintPav]

Weird, you still don't seem to be able to tell me which number in your assessment of the difficulty of our 2025 draw (which you claimed was so superior) actually represents our 2025 draw.

Why would I be worked up? All I am asking you to do is explain how calculation relates to the difficulty of our 2025 draw (there were only 3 numbers 12, 9.5 and 2.5 remember), but you can't and your arrogance doesn't allow you acknowledge that you were wrong. It is so funny seeing all the ways you try to squirm out of answering what should be a simple question.

Who brought smug superiority in to this thread? Maybe examine your initial comment again?

I guess it might seem like I am being smugly superior, but I am only asking you to explain 3 numbers and how any of them relate to the topic of the thread. If you could do that there would be nothing to be smug or superior about. But you can't do that because your whole assessment (that you were so confident about) was flawed from the start.

Get a grip; I've already explained this and your bad faith tactics are obvious. If you think my analysis is completely wrong, why are you investing so much energy into this? You sound very insecure.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

If you consider being asked to explain yourself “bad faith tactics” I can see where you got this arrogance. From how you have tried to divert it would seem you have never been questioned or had to try to explain yourself in your life.

After I made a very simple comparison (comparing our ranking in a list with the average of the list) you came in the swinging with this post:

Very inspiring but totally irrelevant.

Need to use a proportional ratio.

Your raw rankings mask the real magnitude of difference as you are ignoring the base rate.

A 21% deviation from the average is significant.

I would love to do business with you someday.

You basically saw me kick a simple goal from the goal square and said “Nah that’s rubbish. Watch this” but instead of showing me up by doing a torp from 60 or something, you tripped over yourself and missed everything (which number in your analysis was representing the difficulty of our 2025 draw again?). I gave you the chance to say “whoops” and we could have both moved on at the start, but instead of just walking away you have kept coming back and trying and failing again and again.

My favourite was when you called pretty basic maths "statistical diversions and tricks" (that one got a good laugh out of some mates), but questioning the value of other peoples analysis just because you don’t fully understand the methodologies was pretty great too. I look forward to hearing about how your medical degree is going when you next need some advice from a doctor, or even just your detailed analysis of our performance next season given you don’t trust what Fox or ESPN or whoever publish. And I just remembered about your confidence about what a median is despite the definition being a quick Google away, so funny.

The insecurity is entirely on your side I think, this has been a laugh for me. This hasn’t been an investment of energy, seeing you try to squirm out of a simple question has been a net gain on my end. Sorry again to the rest of the forum who might have been trying to discuss next years fixture, I can only hope you have gotten half a laugh out of it too.

One does protest too much - priceless

[St Dave]

Weird, you still don't seem to be able to tell me which number in your assessment of the difficulty of our 2025 draw (which you claimed was so superior) actually represents our 2025 draw.

Why would I be worked up? All I am asking you to do is explain how calculation relates to the difficulty of our 2025 draw (there were only 3 numbers 12, 9.5 and 2.5 remember), but you can't and your arrogance doesn't allow you acknowledge that you were wrong. It is so funny seeing all the ways you try to squirm out of answering what should be a simple question.

Who brought smug superiority in to this thread? Maybe examine your initial comment again?

I guess it might seem like I am being smugly superior, but I am only asking you to explain 3 numbers and how any of them relate to the topic of the thread. If you could do that there would be nothing to be smug or superior about. But you can't do that because your whole assessment (that you were so confident about) was flawed from the start.

Get a grip; I've already explained this and your bad faith tactics are obvious. If you think my analysis is completely wrong, why are you investing so much energy into this? You sound very insecure.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

If you consider being asked to explain yourself “bad faith tactics” I can see where you got this arrogance. From how you have tried to divert it would seem you have never been questioned or had to try to explain yourself in your life.

After I made a very simple comparison (comparing our ranking in a list with the average of the list) you came in the swinging with this post:

Very inspiring but totally irrelevant.

Need to use a proportional ratio.

Your raw rankings mask the real magnitude of difference as you are ignoring the base rate.

A 21% deviation from the average is significant.

I would love to do business with you someday.

You basically saw me kick a simple goal from the goal square and said “Nah that’s rubbish. Watch this” but instead of showing me up by doing a torp from 60 or something, you tripped over yourself and missed everything (which number in your analysis was representing the difficulty of our 2025 draw again?). I gave you the chance to say “whoops” and we could have both moved on at the start, but instead of just walking away you have kept coming back and trying and failing again and again.

My favourite was when you called pretty basic maths "statistical diversions and tricks" (that one got a good laugh out of some mates), but questioning the value of other peoples analysis just because you don’t fully understand the methodologies was pretty great too. I look forward to hearing about how your medical degree is going when you next need some advice from a doctor, or even just your detailed analysis of our performance next season given you don’t trust what Fox or ESPN or whoever publish. And I just remembered about your confidence about what a median is despite the definition being a quick Google away, so funny.

The insecurity is entirely on your side I think, this has been a laugh for me. This hasn’t been an investment of energy, seeing you try to squirm out of a simple question has been a net gain on my end. Sorry again to the rest of the forum who might have been trying to discuss next years fixture, I can only hope you have gotten half a laugh out of it too.

One does protest too much - priceless

I don't see any of protesting, but you can believe whatever helps you sleep at night. I will miss the joy I got whenever I saw your name pop up in the replies.

Genuinely, calling maths we don't like "statistical diversions and tricks" feels like it could stick around for a while (and I work with numbers a bit if you couldn't guess).

[Brunswicksainter]

Would love to see the math on how a couple of 80 minute plane rides over 5 weeks is going to derail our whole season

Not so much the plane ride that is the issue it’s the nature of the crowd. It is immense on Adelaide away days, never see more one sided crowds which definitely impacts performance.

Having travelled to games at Perth, Geelong and Gold Coast in recent years they don’t compare at all.

[Otiman]

The focus has been on the competitiveness of the fixture, but at it's heart footy is entertainment.

No games in Qld and one in NSW - that's a bit rough for our supporters outside of Melbourne. (Unless you're in Adelaide!)