Rd26 2024: Non Parra games

[RustedonEel]

Beat melbourne when they were going for 19 or was it 20 in row couple of years ago

Think we were 10/1 to win that game

Plus beat the Ruff couple of times when odds were high for a win

Correct. Amazing how people let their hate for a person cloud their memory.

 

[Mickyd39]

Robbo's whinge in the presser about Whiteheads tackle on Smith is an all time classic sook.
He needs to worry about the grubs in his team before he starts throwing stones.
The bloke is an absolute F Wit.

 

[PARRA_FAN]

Robinson's side is very lucky that it was 14-12 in the end and thank goodness the better team one because the Roosters got some very lucky calls. Some of the decisions in that game were some of the worst officiating Ive ever seen. Raiders were penalised for an accidental knee on Butcher. I had no idea why the Roosters got a penalty of Walker's injury. That supposed hip drop was just an unfortunate for Smith and he was already injured anyway. Robinson then blames Whitehead who was just trying to check on Smith's welfare. P1ss off you grub. I hope they get knocked out in straight sets.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

To sound like Mr Escobar

How many premierships we won in that time?

*games

Premierships isn't a granular enough metric to support much of an assessment. For example, for the entirety of Gutherson's Eels career, only four clubs have won the comp. Thirteen clubs have failed to win premierships. The way to distinguish these clubs is by win rate, because it is different for all of them, while the number of premierships is identical (zero).

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Raiders also had their halves out and lost Ropana early so basically their spine. Ricky's always seems to be able a few times a year get his side up against a top shelf side when they are 5 or 6-1 odds.
BA I don't think did it once in 11yrs. He is a far better coach.

Sticky is far better than most coaches. He is elite.

 

[the phantom menace]

Thirteen clubs have failed to win premierships. The way to distinguish these clubs is by win rate, because it is different for all of them, while the number of premierships is identical (zero).

Would not a better way to distinguish them be by how close they have come to winning a premiership in that time, and how often?

Number of times as grand finalists, then number of times as semi-finalists (reaching final four), etc?

Lock it in Eddie!

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Would not a better way to distinguish them be by how close they have come to winning a premiership in that time, and how often?

Number of times as grand finalists, then number of times as semi-finalists (reaching final four), etc?

Lock it in Eddie!

It's increasingly more granular than number of premierships but still based on very limited data. Number of wins is significantly more data, and therefore supports a more accurate assessment.

 

[the phantom menace]

An asssessment of something admitted not as relevant to the item of actual interest, which is winning premierships (or getting as close as you can.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

An asssessment of something admitted not as relevant to the item of actual interest, which is winning premierships (or getting as close as you can.

Premierships is just a low granularity function of team strength. A far more granular function of team strength is games won. There's no magic formula to winning premierships that doesn't apply to winning other sorts of games. If the team is good enough and plays for long enough it will win grand finals.

 

[Twizzle]

poor brave chooks

 

[Stagger eel]

poor brave chooks

how will they survive with only 15 rep players left in the squad? ....maybe we should lobby the NRL to suspend the comp.

 

[lucablight]

Premierships is just a low granularity function of team strength. A far more granular function of team strength is games won. There's no magic formula to winning premierships that doesn't apply to winning other sorts of games. If the team is good enough and plays for long enough it will win grand finals.

I don’t agree with this (that if you play long enough you’ll win grand finals). During our last two periods of being regular finalists (premiership window if you will) (05-09) and (19-22) we were potentially good enough but never won a grand final.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I don’t agree with this (that if you play long enough you’ll win grand finals).

I said if they’re good enough.

During our last two periods of being regular finalists (premiership window if you will) (05-09) and (19-22) we were potentially good enough but never won a grand final.

Those are petty small windows though, and there were stronger teams than ours in that time, except in ‘05. It would’ve been nice for those stronger teams to fall over during those years but the only time the strongest team did shit itself was in 2005 when it was us.

 

[lucablight]

I said if they’re good enough.

Those are petty small windows though, and there were stronger teams than ours in that time, except in ‘05. It would’ve been nice for those stronger teams to fall over during those years but the only time the strongest team did shit itself was in 2005 when it was us.

I think saying if they’re good enough is a superfluous comment. It’s like saying a team is likely to win if they score more points than the opposition.

We got unlucky in 2005 losing Fui and Hindmarsh on the cusp on the finals. They were our two best forwards. I don’t think that’s stated enough. I’d actually argue that 2007 was a bigger missed opportunity. We had a crazy good backline of Hayne, Inu, Tahu, Grothe all at the peak of their powers along with Peak Cayless, Hindmarsh and Fui.
2021 was a huge missed opportunity as well. Penrith were really busted but we just couldn’t land the killer blow. Even though we made the grand final in 2022 that team didn’t have the same defensive steel. I’d argue both of those teams (07 and 21) were good enough to go all the way.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I think saying if they’re good enough is a superfluous comment. It’s like saying a team is likely to win if they score more points than the opposition.

The disclaimer of being ‘good enough’ is to distinguish from teams that aren’t, which includes the Eels for much of the past 38 years. It’s a claim that can’t be properly tested, other than if they are the single team to win the comp in a given year. That’s the only team that has objectively proven to be good enough to win. But the fact of other teams not winning doesn’t prove none of them were good enough to win. We need to look at other subjective indicators, on which we obviously won’t agree.

We got unlucky in 2005

You can’t help bad luck.

losing Fui and Hindmarsh on the cusp on the finals. They were our two best forwards. I don’t think that’s stated enough. I’d actually argue that 2007 was a bigger missed opportunity. We had a crazy good backline of Hayne, Inu, Tahu, Grothe all at the peak of their powers along with Peak Cayless, Hindmarsh and Fui.
2021 was a huge missed opportunity as well. Penrith were really busted but we just couldn’t land the killer blow. Even though we made the grand final in 2022 that team didn’t have the same defensive steel. I’d argue both of those teams (07 and 21) were good enough to go all the way.

I think the years we were a realistic chance of winning the comp (in my opinion that is 10% or better chance) since 1986 were:

1998-2001
2005-2009
2019-2023

In that time we made three grand finals, so we weren’t far off. I’d argue that in all three games we faced an opponent that was at least superior on paper. In fact I would say all three teams overachieved to make the grand final, yes even the 2001 side. That was a solid squad elevated by Brian Smith genius to exploit a very poor ruck interpretation.

 

[the phantom menace]

Premierships is just a low granularity function of team strength.

But winning premierships what it's all ultimately about, ffs.

A far more granular function of team strength is games won. There's no magic formula to winning premierships that doesn't apply to winning other sorts of games. If the team is good enough and plays for long enough it will win grand finals.

Not some sustainable business model for achieving enduring mediocrity for a century.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

But winning premierships what it's all ultimately about, ffs.

It is but it takes some luck. Are Hagan and Maguire better coaches than Brian Smith? I think they were just lucky. Smith was very unlucky. If you can win a preliminary final there’s no reason you can’t win a grand final, and Smith won four preliminaries.

 

[the phantom menace]

It is but it takes some luck.

As does succeeding in life.

Are Hagan and Maguire better coaches than Brian Smith?

What's that got to do with why you need to look at how close a team specifically gets to winning a premiership, rather than some generic win-rate factor for all games?

I think they were just lucky. Smith was very unlucky.

Yes, you would leave it at over-simplistic luck.

If you can win a preliminary final there’s no reason you can’t win a grand final, and Smith won four preliminaries.

Yes, it seems Smith came closer to winning a premiership than BA did - would you agree? And if so that proves my point that it's worth looking specifically at win rates for games that put you close to winning a premiership, rather than ignoring or diluting that potential indicator.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

As does succeeding in life.

What's that got to do with why you need to look at how close a team specifically gets to winning a premiership, rather than some generic win-rate factor for all games?

Because 'all games' are required to win a premiership. Nobody ever won the comp from 9th place. Or even from 8th.

Yes, you would leave it at over-simplistic luck.

How else would lesser coaches than Brian Smith win premierships?

Yes, it seems Smith came closer to winning a premiership than BA did - would you agree?

They got as close as each other. Would you agree Hagan and Maguire got closer than Smith and Arthur?

And if so that proves my point that it's worth looking specifically at win rates for games that put you close to winning a premiership, rather than ignoring or diluting that potential indicator.

So should we compare their grand final win rate? It's 0% each. How about their preliminary final win rate (38% vs 100%)? Or do you have something very specific in mind?

 

[the phantom menace]

Because 'all games' are required to win a premiership. Nobody ever won the comp from 9th place. Or even from 8th.

Oh dear. No, you need (usually) to win 50% of games to get in the finals, and from there to win either three (if you're in the top four) or all four finals to win a premiership. You seem to refuse to accept the need for differential analysis of those finals games as a factor that ultimately determines success.

How else would lesser coaches than Brian Smith win premierships?

Because they have better win rates in finals, perhaps? Do the math and answer your own question - rather than refuse to do the maths.

So should we compare their grand final win rate? It's 0% each. How about their preliminary final win rate (38% vs 100%)? Or do you have something very specific in mind?

As per previous posts, you currently only look at all games win percentage. I'm proposing you could (should) at least look at finals games win percentage separately, and yes in a stratified manner if you like - preliminary finals, semi finals, preliminary finals, and grand finals....

Now that's proper analysis!!