LeeToRainesToRoach said:
Ta L2R. :fing32
Those stats again prove it's a bit of a myth. Not much in that at all really.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
6 Day break - a myth?
- Thread starter Sir
- Start date
Ta L2R. :fing32
Those stats again prove it's a bit of a myth. Not much in that at all really.
Tigers of Old said:
Maybe. From 2001 through 2005, the record was 19 from 57 (33.3%). Perhaps Victorian clubs have done things differently since then. Then again, perhaps it was just a statistical aberration.
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
Great work. Seems to sway a bit for the 8 days versus 6 days break. Extra 19 games won to the 8 day break team? Interesting at the other end. Seems that the much longer breaks are a disadvantage although not enough games to really draw a confident conculsion.
GoodOne said:
It's actually the other way, the Win & Win% columns are for the side with the 6 day break. I should've explained it a bit better.
geez bloody stats again.LeeToRainesToRoach said:
i remember a stat in the late 60s and early 70s. a team that beat us invariably lost the next week. the stats are flawed it doesnt take into account everyone doessnt travel the same amount it doesnt take into account the sides you are asked to play when travelling you guys know like the week before did you play wce or the quockers.
the claw said:
You can analyse things to a point where any value gets lost in the complexity, however over a large enough sample of matches, basic summary stats usually tell a tale as variations of the type you mention are evened out.
I prefer to be given facts before opinions and like to test so-called conventional wisdoms rather than blindly accept them, e.g. your claim above; teams which beat Richmond between 1967-1974 had a 21-25-1 record the following week, which doesn't support your claim that they invariably lost the following game ('invariably' being one of the most misused words used by football commentators, especially Dermie).
Having said that, I accept that many people place little or no faith in stats and prefer to trust what their eyes or instincts tell them. Situations regularly crop up in which it's better to go with gut feel, e.g. top poker players have an instinct for when to bet against the probabilities. There's no substitute for experience.
the claw said:
Stats are not a complete answer, but they are a useful guide for forming opinions. They should never be taken too seriously, but it would be equally foolish to discard well-researched stats altogether.
If it's not too big a drag, L2, since the 05 season are teams returning from Perth now advantaged the following week?
BTW I don't have any doubt that the returning from Perth thing was a fitness staff problem that has been worked out. Or at least that it's no accident that the numbers have so dramatically turned around. The fitness staff idea is conjecture, I s'pose.
BTW I don't have any doubt that the returning from Perth thing was a fitness staff problem that has been worked out. Or at least that it's no accident that the numbers have so dramatically turned around. The fitness staff idea is conjecture, I s'pose.