Two weeks ago Ken wondered aloud on 'weekend reflections' that it might not work all that well on Troppo. It had only attracted between four and ten comments in the past. Anyway, the very thread he wrote this on attracted some interesting comments. Last week's weekend reflections is still going - 81 comments and counting.
So who's going to start it off this weekend?
Don't look at me, I'm not doing it.
Congratulations to Andrew Bartlett on Crikey's nominating his as the best blog by a parliamentarian.
Apparently the lions and the lambs drank together at the Clock Hotel on Thursday evening. Tim Blair and Tim Lambert ended up in the same taxi while the bulk of the party lost the plot and went home leaving the others to drink in the dawn.
This is the Jason report on Catallaxy which has a link to photos by Tim Lambert.
Ludwig Mises was born 125 years ago! This is a piece in CIS Policy on his achievements.
From Catallaxy on the unfortunate confrontation between Mises and Popper in the Mont Pelerin Society.
Eagles by a point! Eveyone I knew said it was too close to call and some of us seriously considered punting on a draw.
Seeing the Swans didn't come onto the field until after half-time, they did remarkably well to get that close.
Incidentally I hadn't noticed before today that the Swans' jerseys have the letters SMFC above the players' numbers. Keeping faith with old South Melbourne fans in Bleak City?
On an ironic note, it is possible that the Swans picked up that name during the 1930s when South Melborne recruited a number of talented West Australians who helped them to four grand finals in a row. They only lifted the silverware in one of the four: their star full forward Laurie Nash missed one of the big games when he was injured by a tram a few days before the event.
There is a story about the legendary photo of Nash perched on the shoulders of a rival to take a bit mark.
A college student had the photo on his wall and a visitor said "that's my father [or my grandfather]".
"I didn't know you were related to Laurie Nash"
"I'm talking about the man he's standing on."
What a GF. I can't help thinking that if my old Colliwobbles had been out there they would have been slaughtered. Perhaps even the Brissie Lions at the height of their powers. An awesome game.
Bill Day, winner of the 2000 Ernst and Young Entrepreneur of the Year Award in response to an academic asking him questions about failure.
I think it's more likely the Swans name came from the connection with South's ground adjacent to Albert Park Lake. Right up to the time South left Melbourne their most common "street" name was The Bloods. Other VFL clubs who experienced a nickname change were Essendon from the Same Olds (in their very early days) to the Dons then to the Bombers, and Melbourne from the Red Legs to the Demons.
Whenever South Melbourne played a fixture against St Kilda they were said to be playing for the Lake Premiership. St Kilda's ground was at the other end of Albert Lake.
St Kilda was the last team to win a Grand Final by one point (against Collingwood in 1966). It was their first flag and they haven't won one since.
Nice one Nicholas, and apart from sending himself up in a witty manner, what did Bill Day do to win the award?
OK, he is a kiwi who dives for things.
http://www.liveupdater.com/speakers/livearticle.asp?ArtID=-611669991
.
On the topic of achievement and mistakes, one of the many strong points of Thomas Barlow's book The Australian Miracle: An Innovative Nation Revisited is the reminder that we need to be willing to make mistakes if we want to achieve anything of value, but we also have to be prepared to learn from them. So Popperian!!
There is an Oscar Wilde epigram to the effect "experience is the name that we give to our mistakes" to which Popper added "the thing is to make them as quickly as possible".
And the good soldier Schweik "Lets look at this fair and square. Anyone can make a mistake and the more a man thinks about things the more mistakes he is bound to make."
Blogging from space!
http://spaceblog.xprize.org/
Joanne Lees has written a book about her horrendous experiences in NT. I don't usually read this type of book, but I do find the aftermath of the murder fascinating enough that I intend to read this one. This girl has been treated appallingly by the media, and by all accounts by the NT police. What is it about the cops in the top half of Oz (including Queensland and NT)? Their role in the Chamberlain case stains their reputation forever, now the recent damning case about the Palm Island aboriginal slaughtered by a cop bully boy who has been supported by the State Labor Government. No wonder these northern parts are a laughing stock throughout the rest of Australia. But it's no laughing matter.
Whyisitso,
How are the number of points by which a grandfinal is won by distributed eg binomial etc etc? What would be the expected time between any given differences in scores?
If State governments basically tell local governments what to do, why do we have LGs at all? Sure there may be some scope for them but why bother electing them as essentially the communities that elect them are ignored as LGs have to bow down to State Governments.
So shouldn't there be some form of separation powers between LGs and States? Or maybe we should just appoint an administrator to all LGs and be done with it?
On the distribution of winning margins, I suspect there is no pattern but I have all the results up to 1984 at fingertips so will check out later in the day.
In 1964 the margin was 2 (Melb d Coll) 1965 1 (St K over Coll)
but my guess is that most will fall in the range 10-25 points.
Rafe,
I thought St Kilda's victory over Collingwood was in 1966.
Your guess of ranges of margins may well be right, but my recollection is that a good number of grand finals result in overwhelming wins by the victors.
I agree with WIIS. Most GFs are rather dissapointing spectacles over by half way through the third quarter often and usually by half way through the last quarter - which means the teams are about 30 points apart at that stage - though often the losing team will kick the last couple of goals making it look closer than it was.
Perhaps the increasing professionalism and competitiveness of the game has made GFs closer in recent years. From memory 2002 - about nine points between Collingwood and Brisies, 2003 - a walkover by Brisses, 2004 a strong win by Port Adelaide - maybe 20 points or more. Last year a kick, this year a kick. That's pretty good going.
On another subject we hear about 'run ons' in the game, and it's clear that some sides dominate for a while and then the other does. But I wonder how much the pattern of scoring - both during games and strings of wins and losses - cannot be statistically distinguised from random behaviour which our own sense of narrative then analyses into good and bad form.
Chris Lloyd or someone else might know what's been done on this - I presume someone's done some investigation.
I didn't watch the Grand Final. I figured it would be a good opportunity to go to the gym. The gym has been getting very packed of late on the weekends, and I figured during the grand final it would be nice and empty. It certainly was nice and empty. It was shut!
If you're in Sydney, Rex, that may have had more do do with the long weekend.
Incidentally the Swan's strong comeback in the second half (though ultimely unsuccessful) was reminiscent of Ron Barassi's Carlton against Collingwood in 1970. Carlton came from a 44 point deficit at half-time and won by 10 points.
There is a book 'Human Accomplishments" by Charles Murray (of Bell Curve fame) in which, at one level of review, he statistically analyses human accomplishments.
He analyses sport where mainly as a warm-up exercise asthere are clear measures of accomplishment in sport.
For Golf the component skills are distributed in bell curves but the tournament victories are distributed on a lotka curve.
I found the book interesting. Unfortunately he seems not to have realised how important AFL is in the field of human accomplishment.
Rafe having results back only to 1984 in my experience of AFL tragics makes you only in the tyro class.
I'm very old fashioned in sport (as much else). I still think statistics are a blight on the endeavour and that the umpire is the guy who takes the decision. My ilk will soon all have converted or passed away.
Back in the eighties I had a book of results called "Toohey's Guide to Every Game Ever Played" which detailed quarter by quarter scores of every VFL game since its beginning in 1896 through to 1982. I can't find it now - must have loaned it to somebody. It contained a narrative page about every season highlighting the main events of the year. Also in the book are Brownlow Medal votes for each year down to at least ten or twelve top scorers, as well as each year's top goalscorers, and the full ladder. A great reference. I wish I could find it! Great for trivia buffs. For example what year did the wooden spooners (for that year) also win the premiership?
"Other VFL clubs who experienced a nickname change were Essendon from the Same Olds (in their very early days) to the Dons then to the Bombers, and Melbourne from the Red Legs to the Demons."
And Hawthorn used to be the Mayblooms before they changed to the Hawks in about 1942. Don't think they would ever have won a premiership without the name change!
Yes, my reference is the Toohey's Guide.
Yes, the one point St K victory was 1966, following a loss to Essendon in 1965, 105 to 70
Too busy to finish the job but this is the picture from 1897 to 1945
1897 The top four each played each other in the finals. Essendon prevailed over Geelong, Collingwood and Melbourne by winning all three encounters. It is likely that Essendon v Melbourne created a record low score (1.8 14 pts beat 0.8 8 points).
1898 With eight clubs there was plenty of time after two rounds to play an elaborate finals series in two pools. Teams 1, 3, 5 and 7 played each other in pool A. Teams 2,4,6,8 played each other in Pool B. Then the winner of pool A (Fitzroy) played the winner of pool B (Collingwood). Fitzroy won but Essendon topped the ladder and had the right to challenge for the title. They challenged but lost 3.5 (23) to Fitzroy 5.8 (38).
1899. Under the same system Fitzroy defeated South Melbourne 3.9 (27) to 3.8 (26).
1900 St Kilda started the season with a win, the first after 48 losses. They beat Melbourne by a point after the scores were tied but the Saints successfully pleaded that a Melbourne behind was kicked well after the 3/4 time bell. Fitzroy topped the ladder but Essendon beat them in pool A. Melbourne topped pool B and beat Essendon 7.3 (45) to 5.13 (43). Fitzroy challenged but lost to Melbourne 4.10 (34) to 3.12 (30) so Melbourne took the flag after two big losses to the Roys in the home and away games.
1901. Out of the final four, 1 played 3 and 2 played 4, then the winners played the grand final. Essendon d Collingwood 6.7 (43) to 2.4 (16).
1902 Collingwood d Essendon 60 to 27.
1903 Collingwood d Fitzroy 31 to 29.
1904 Fitzroy d Carlton 61 to 37.
1905 Fitzroy d Collingwood 30 to 17.
1906 Carlton d Fitzroy 94 to 45.
1907 Carlton d South Melbourne 50 to 45.
1908 Carlton d Essendon 35 to 26.
1909 S Melb d Carlton 38 to 36.
1910 Collingwood d S Melbourne 55 to 44.
1911 Essendon d Collingwood 41 to 35.
1912 Essendon d South Melb 47 to 33.
1913 Fitzroy d St Kilda 56 to 43.
1914 Carlton d South Melborne 45 to 39.
1915 Carlton d Collingwood 78 to 45.
1916 Fitzroy d Carlton 85 to 56.
1917 Collingwood d Fitzroy 74 to 39.
1918 South Melb d Collingwood 62 to 57.
1919 Collingwood d Richmond 78 to 53.
1920 Richmond d Collingwood 52 to 35.
1921 Richmond d Carlton 36 to 32.
1922 Fitzroy d Collingwood 79 to 68.
1923 Essendon d Fitzroy 63 to 46.
1924 Essendon topped the round robin in the final 4.
1925 Geelong d Collingwood 79 to 69.
1926 Melbourne d Collingwood 119 to 62.
1927 Collingwood d Richmond 25 to 13
1928 Collingwood d Richmond 96 to 63.
1929 Collingwood d Richmond 79 to 50.
1930 Collingwood d Geelong 100 to 70.
1931 Geelong d Richmond 69 to 48.
1932 Richmond d Carlton 92 to 83
1933 S Melbourne d Richmond 71 to 29.
1934 Richmond d S Melbourne 128 to 89.
1935 Collingwood d S Melb 78 to 58.
1936 Collingwood d S Melbourne 89 to 78.
1937 Geelong d Collingwood 122 to 90.
1938 Carlton d Collingwood 100 to 85.
1939 Melbourne d Collingwood 148 to 95.
1940 Melbourne d Richmond 107 to 68.
1941 Melbourne d Essendon 127 to 98
1942 Essendon d Richmond 132 to 79.
1943 Richmond d Essendon 86 to 81.
1944 Fitzroy d Richmond 66 to 51.
1945 Carlton d S Melbourne 103 to 75.
Found it! I'd put it into an old storage box. I've restored it to its proper place in my library!
OK so now we have got the data. Who has got the statistcs program to allow the first anaylsis of the data. Revealing for the first time the likelihood of a given final score.
For a number of seasons I paid for my footy tipping by tipping all home teams every week. Then the AFL did away with the concept in practical terms.
Rafe you can wrap the results of the analysis up in an article demonstrating the power of Popperonian analysis both in science and in social science.
"For example what year did the wooden spooners (for that year) also win the premiership?"
Not even Rafe have taken this one up. It was Fitzroy in 1916 when because of WWI the League was reduced to four teams. Fitzroy won only two out of 12 home and away games, finished fourth. The finals were conducted between the first four teams (!!!) and guess who won. Maybe some of their good players had returned from the front and played in the finals?
I should have read more of the text in addition to the grand final scores. University dropped out in 1915, reducing the league to nine, then in 1916 Essendon, Melbourne, Saints, South Melbourne and Geelong were missing. Geelong and South Melbourne rejoined in 1917, followed by Essendon and the Saints in 1918.
Melbourne, having the most loyal, courageous and community spirited players did not rejoin the league until the war was over. As you would expect, the lower classes carried on through the war as though nothing was happening.
I hadn't viewed 1916 in that light, Rafe. But of course Richmond, Collingwood, Fitzroy and Carlton were the lowest class of inner suburbs then, unlike their gentrified situations today. Although I dare say, elitist as they are today, their places in the left-right spectrum haven't changed at all. It's the working classes that have changed (to the right).
Incidentally in 1916, the lower classes were overwhelmingly the Irish, guided by Archbishop Mannix, who was instrumental in having the Conscription referenda defeated.