"Due a loss" or "Peaking too early".

[innsaneink]

Hard to find NRL only records.
Dogs in 02 did 17....but, err...

 

[innsaneink]

How many in a row did Parra win in 2001?

10

Penrith 8 in 03
WTs 8 in 05

 

[jonno_knights]

Well in 2001, Newcastle only lost 1 game with A.Johns in the side after round 5 (Lost to the Sharks in the game he was suspended). That was good for 15 wins from 16 games.

Brisbane won 14 from 16 (with 1 draw) in the lead up to 1998. The 'loss they needed to have' coming against parra in the major semi. They won 11 from 12 in the lead up to 200 as well, the loss coming in the final round (resting players?? Lockyer didnt play that game, but played either side of it)

Roosters won 9 in a row in 2002.

 

[StormHi]

I'm glad we haven't peaked too early.

One of the funniest things I have seen written this season Awesome had me laughing for ages. :lol:

 

[Grapple]

* Dragons won their last two regular games before going on to win all 3 finals games (5 streak) in 2010.... Same 5 streak happened to Melbourne in 2009 and Newcastle in 2001.
*Manly went on a 6 streak in 2008 that included the GF.
*Brisbane went on a 7 streak in 1997 that included the GF, same with Penrith in 2003.
* Storm went on a 9 streak in 2007 that went up to and included the GF win. (granted they paid their players more than anyone else) Canberra also matched this winning streak in 1989 and so did Brisbane in 1992.
*Canterbury won 10 in a row in 2004 until rd 24 in which they lost, then lost in their first finals match, but went on to win their next 3 and the GF.

but....

* Tigers had a 9 streak before losing and getting knocked out to that crazy try from Inu in 2011.
* Storm won 12 in a row in that same year (2011) before losing 3 of their next 4 and getting eliminated.
*In 1995 Manly had a 15 streak, only lost 3 games in the year.... one of which was the GF.



It's kind of beside the point though. The point is - why is losing a game "for the sake of it" before the finals better than winning one? Yet to see any real convincing argument for that theory.

 

[BunniesMan]

* Dragons won their last two regular games before going on to win all 3 finals games (5 streak) in 2010.... Same 5 streak happened to Melbourne in 2009 and Newcastle in 2001.
*Manly went on a 6 streak in 2008 that included the GF.
*Brisbane went on a 7 streak in 1997 that included the GF, same with Penrith in 2003.
* Storm went on a 9 streak in 2007 that went up to and included the GF win. (granted they paid their players more than anyone else) Canberra also matched this winning streak in 1989 and so did Brisbane in 1992.
*Canterbury won 10 in a row in 2004 until rd 24 in which they lost, then lost in their first finals match, but went on to win their next 3 and the GF.

but....

* Tigers had a 9 streak before losing and getting knocked out to that crazy try from Inu in 2011.
* Storm won 12 in a row in that same year (2011) before losing 3 of their next 4 and getting eliminated.
*In 1995 Manly had a 15 streak, only lost 3 games in the year.... one of which was the GF.



It's kind of beside the point though. The point is - why is losing a game "for the sake of it" before the finals better than winning one? Yet to see any real convincing argument for that theory.

How about season after season of proof? Success breeds complacency. Having a stumble before stumbling becomes fatal does more good than bad.

 

[Grapple]

How about season after season of proof? Success breeds complacency. Having a stumble before stumbling becomes fatal does more good than bad.

Ok then, no problem so show me some proof. It would help if you could pin point how many wins a team needs before they become complacent.

Were the 2007 Storm complacent? Canberra in 1989? Brisbane in 1992? Penrith in 2003? Manly in 2008?

 

[typicalfan]

Peaking too early just subscribes to the fact all teams want to be playing their best footy at the right time of the year. Of course you can say teams want to be playing their best footy every week but that is perhaps too idealistic. Also playing your best all year teams may pick up on your tendencies while hitting your straps at the end of the year may prevent that from happening. Look at the Roosters in 2002 who left their run late, as did the Tigers in 2005.

And teams don't win forever so the longer they go without losing, the closer they inevitably come to losing.

 

[firechild]

Ok then, no problem so show me some proof. It would help if you could pin point how many wins a team needs before they become complacent.

Were the 2007 Storm complacent? Canberra in 1989? Brisbane in 1992? Penrith in 2003? Manly in 2008?

You're talking about streaks that include premierships. Manly got hammered by Souffs in a high scoring game (44-26 or thereabouts IIRC) in round 23 2008 which knocked out any complacency and they went on to have no more than 1 try scored against them in any of those last 6 games. Their F/A in the finals series was 110-12.

 

[Grapple]

You're talking about streaks that include premierships. Manly got hammered by Souffs in a high scoring game (44-26 or thereabouts IIRC) in round 23 2008 which knocked out any complacency and they went on to have no more than 1 try scored against them in any of those last 6 games. Their F/A in the finals series was 110-12.

40-32. Next game they went on to hammer Wests. But they weren't on a streak at the time, that's the point. Everyone here is arguing we "need" to lose. I'm arguing we don't.

History shows Manly also lost the game before that one against Melbourne 16-10. They did have an impressive F/A though in the end though, but was it the Souths game that turned them around or the combination of two losses in a row late in the season? Kinda hard to prove either way I would've thought.

 

[Biscuits]

The issue with winning streaks coming to an end has nothing to do with complacency or being worked out etc. The issue is the amount of intensity and physical effort to win football matches in the nrl is massive. No individual or team can maintain those levels indefinately, and it only takes a couple of players to be below their best for a loss to occur. The more games you win in succession does bring you closer to a loss, but for no reason other than the players being human. In manlys premiership winning seasons under hasler they seemed to operate on a 6-8 week cycle. They would build intensity for 6 weeks and then taper off, befoore starting to build again. They were good enough that when they tapered off they were usually still good enough to come away with a close win, but the people that watched them often enough and close enough could see their intensity was off. This happened too regularly for it not to have been part of their process. I am not sure if a similar thing is happening at the dogs as i havent paid enough attention. Maybe hasler has them working the same way and its just a bit of barba freakishness that has saved them when tapering off.

 

[Meapro Ham]

The problem with winning streaks is the longer they go on the greater the pressure becomes to maintain the streak. People start talking about records and then it becomes all about maintaining the streak rather than just taking one game at a time as the cliche goes.

Dogs are faced with that situation going into the finals. Already players are starting to talk down the streak saying they're not counting the wins. That's Des talkin. I'm sure they wouldn't mind taking a loss around about now so they can focus on just winning games just for winning's sake going into finals rather than having the added pressure of maintaining a winning streak.

 

[Ladmate]

Tigers last year was a perfect example of this. They were way too focused on winning 12 in a row for the GF that they ended up having much more pressure on them during the finals. A loss in the regular season would have helped them a lot. The Tigers in 2005 lost their last 2 games of the season. They ended up destroying every team in the way to a premiership. I doubt the 05 Tigers could have won 14 in a row. Those losses did them a world of good.

 

[Grapple]

Probably should've lost that one. Shame, might get complacent now.

 

[Tonearm Terrorwrist]

Peaking too early just subscribes to the fact all teams want to be playing their best footy at the right time of the year. Of course you can say teams want to be playing their best footy every week but that is perhaps too idealistic. Also playing your best all year teams may pick up on your tendencies while hitting your straps at the end of the year may prevent that from happening. Look at the Roosters in 2002 who left their run late, as did the Tigers in 2005.

And teams don't win forever so the longer they go without losing, the closer they inevitably come to losing.

The Roosters did not "leave their run" late in 2002 they didn't get a close to full strength team until the end of the year

 

[wibble]

Winning (and losing) "streaks" are nothing more than the result of teams not ever being 100% likely to win or lose no matter how good (or bad) they are.

That might sound so obvious as to be not worth mentioning, but the point is that streaks may have no significance whatsoever. If all teams were all a 50% probability to win every match (which I hope is not obviously the case) then some teams would still have winning and others losing streaks over the course of a season of many games.

The law of averages would mean that in the long run it is likely each teams winning and losing record would approach 50%/50%, especially as more games are played. In gambling, when people see a long streak of results, they think that it must be that a reversal of that streak is coming up, due to the law of averages. This is known as the "gambler's fallacy" as in most games of chance, previous results have no effect on future results. The fact that in the long run results will tend towards the expected results from the law of averages has no effect on each individual random experiment.

But there very well might be a trend in less random events like rugby league, or in sport in general, or in this NRL competition specifically (or just within one team), that makes a certain string of wins or losses more likely to be reversed due to some explainable phenomena (opponent's "lifting", taking games "casually" etc). It is certainly possible, but not necessarily the case, especially looking at the "streaks" teams go on in the NRL, which look very similar to the runs of wins and losses you'd expect from random outcomes with slight adjustments for better teams being more likely to win individual games (regardless of their previous few results).

The argument about winning back to back premierships (and teams "lifting" vs the premiers) is similar, and again the evidence does not seem really strong that teams that win premierships lose more games the following year at unusual rates compared to other top teams (obviously winning a lot of games means it is easier to do worse the next year).

The only way we could tell if winning "x" number of games makes a team more likely to lose would be with a multiple regression/correlation analysis, but my gut instinct without such an analysis would be to say that winning does not ever harm your chances of winning your next game.

 

[Grapple]

Thanks for that Wibble, well said!

 

[hunters]

Ok then, no problem so show me some proof. It would help if you could pin point how many wins a team needs before they become complacent.

Were the 2007 Storm complacent? Canberra in 1989? Brisbane in 1992? Penrith in 2003? Manly in 2008?

Parramatta and Saints - 2005.

 

[Sleep]

The Dogs might of peaked a bit early but they bounced back after a woeful start yesterday.

Manly and Melbourne look like they're starting to build momentum heading into the finals.

I still think Manly are the team to beat. At full strength and firing they'll beat any team in the comp.

 

[Danish]

For the dogs to not lose another game all year and take out the premiership, they'll need to equal the club record winning streak of 17 straight wins set by their illegal team in 2002.

History tells us that's quite a phenomenal feat, it's only been achieved once before in the dogs existence.

Cords are made to be broken, but if I were a dogs fan I'd probably feels more comfortable if they dropped a meaningless game in the last few rounds(let's say round 26 :sarcasm