Richmond vs Brisbane @ the 'Gabba - 2nd Qualifying Final, 2019

[julzqld]

Mini-me flew over from Perth bus Melb and said the Melb leg of the flt was full of Tiger supporters. We were in section 17 behind the cheer squad

[one-eyed]

Coaches votes (Hardwick & Fagan)

BRISBANE v RICHMOND
9 Shane Edwards (RICH)
9 Dustin Martin (RICH)
4 Dylan Grimes (RICH)
3 Lachie Neale (BL)
3 Luke Hodge (BL)
2 Dion Prestia (RICH)


GARY AYRES AWARD LEADERBOARD

10 Jamie Cripps
10 Tim Taranto
9 Shane Edwards
9 Dustin Martin
8 Luke Shuey
7 Patrick Dangerfield
7 Jacob Hopper

https://www.afl.com.au/news/2019-09-09/aflca-gary-ayres-award-early-lead-for-eagles-goalkicker-young-giant-

[Andyy]

Watch Dusty run them down...

[Thrasher97]

(from Sports Mate App)

Pretty easy for us to kick straight when we are kicking them from point blank, and they were trying to kick them on tighter angles and longer distances, forced them out wide. 

[Andyy]

^
They missed plenty of sitters IMO.

And Richmond kicked some genuinely difficult ones. Lots of snaps, on the run, Caddy from 50m, Jack from 60m etc, some dribbles.

[Thrasher97]

^
They missed plenty of sitters IMO.

And Richmond kicked some genuinely difficult ones. Lots of snaps, on the run, Caddy from 50m, Jack from 60m etc, some dribbles.

Definitely missed some sitters and we got some lucky ones but we were able to kick allot from the goal square (they weren't)

[one-eyed]

Champion Data claims we would have won by only 3 points if both sides kicked as expected at goal.


The Gabba thriller that wasn't

Look away now, Lions fans.

Brisbane would already be ruing what might have been had it kicked straighter in the first half of Saturday night's 47-point qualifying final defeat to Richmond.

The Lions' 8.17 (65) total is the fifth-most inaccurate finals scoreline since Champion Data began including complete misses in 2002.

The Tigers' 18.4 (112), on the other hand, was the fifth-most accurate by the same measure.

Champion Data's 'expected score' metric, which takes into account the difficulty of each shot and predicts the outcome, has put that hollow feeling into even sharper focus.

Brisbane should have boasted a two-goal half-time lead (instead of being down by about that margin), been within eight points at the last break (38) and lost by only three points (47).

EXPECTED SCORES BY QUARTER

TIME     BRISBANE       RICHMOND
QT          31 (30)*         15 (18)*
HT          53 (34)           41 (45)
3QT        69 (50)           77 (88)
FT          94 (65)           97 (112)

* Actual score in brackets

https://www.afl.com.au/news/2019-09-10/stats-files-the-tweaks-that-could-lead-the-pies-to-flag-redemption

[Andyy]

Oh please.

Metrics....

[pmac21]

Scoreboard pressure is also a metric, probably the most important.

[Chuck17]

Champion Data claims we would have won by only 3 points if both sides kicked as expected at goal.


The Gabba thriller that wasn't

Look away now, Lions fans.

Brisbane would already be ruing what might have been had it kicked straighter in the first half of Saturday night's 47-point qualifying final defeat to Richmond.

The Lions' 8.17 (65) total is the fifth-most inaccurate finals scoreline since Champion Data began including complete misses in 2002.

The Tigers' 18.4 (112), on the other hand, was the fifth-most accurate by the same measure.

Champion Data's 'expected score' metric, which takes into account the difficulty of each shot and predicts the outcome, has put that hollow feeling into even sharper focus.

Brisbane should have boasted a two-goal half-time lead (instead of being down by about that margin), been within eight points at the last break (38) and lost by only three points (47).

EXPECTED SCORES BY QUARTER

TIME     BRISBANE       RICHMOND
QT          31 (30)*         15 (18)*
HT          53 (34)           41 (45)
3QT        69 (50)           77 (88)
FT          94 (65)           97 (112)

* Actual score in brackets

https://www.afl.com.au/news/2019-09-10/stats-files-the-tweaks-that-could-lead-the-pies-to-flag-redemption

So instead of scoring in Q1 3 straight shots for 18, according to metrics we should have had two more scoring shots for 2 goals 3 points.

Righteo then.

[Diocletian]

...and of course because the play would've unfolded exactly same way from a centre bounce as it would've from a kick-in...

[Eat_em_Alive]

...and of course because the play would've unfolded exactly same way from a centre bounce as it would've from a kick-in...

Top post 

This seems to go amiss for many an AFL fan in the shoulda, woulda,, coulda arguments 

[Lozza]

Every single game result from the season gone could be analysed in exactly the same way, we beat them in two consecutive games, we were the better side, they hit us both times with their best punches and on both occasions we absorbed it and did what we do best....time to move onto bigger and better things.

[Tiger Khosh]

What’s the difference, we win either way. Couldn’t care less if it’s by 1 or 100 points.

[Owl]

Champion Data claims we would have won by only 3 points if both sides kicked as expected at goal.


The Gabba thriller that wasn't

Look away now, Lions fans.

Brisbane would already be ruing what might have been had it kicked straighter in the first half of Saturday night's 47-point qualifying final defeat to Richmond.

The Lions' 8.17 (65) total is the fifth-most inaccurate finals scoreline since Champion Data began including complete misses in 2002.

The Tigers' 18.4 (112), on the other hand, was the fifth-most accurate by the same measure.

Champion Data's 'expected score' metric, which takes into account the difficulty of each shot and predicts the outcome, has put that hollow feeling into even sharper focus.

Brisbane should have boasted a two-goal half-time lead (instead of being down by about that margin), been within eight points at the last break (38) and lost by only three points (47).

EXPECTED SCORES BY QUARTER

TIME     BRISBANE       RICHMOND
QT          31 (30)*         15 (18)*
HT          53 (34)           41 (45)
3QT        69 (50)           77 (88)
FT          94 (65)           97 (112)

* Actual score in brackets

https://www.afl.com.au/news/2019-09-10/stats-files-the-tweaks-that-could-lead-the-pies-to-flag-redemption

So instead of scoring in Q1 3 straight shots for 18, according to metrics we should have had two more scoring shots for 2 goals 3 points.

Righteo then.

Look, I like my quantum physics and schrodingers cat etc, but that bs theory is magical thinking not probability.  It would of worked maybe if they kicked one of those goals then the whole stuffing story changes from then on.