AI was correct at the time when it published the Stats Insider info. Argue with it at your peril. It's an AI's perogative to change it's mind based on Stats Insider changing their's What can we to do about it It knows where we live.
So five hours after giving the game to Carlton it has changed its mind.
Quote
The upcoming AFL Round 12 match between Carlton and Port Adelaide is generating a lot of interest and predictions. Here’s a summary of what the experts are saying:
Port Adelaide is entering the match with a three-game win streak and is currently in third place on the ladder. They’ve had a strong season so far and have been performing well, especially against lower-ranked teams1. Carlton, on the other hand, started the season strongly but has faced challenges due to injuries. They are currently in eighth place but have shown resilience with two wins from their last three games
The match prediction from various sources is mixed. One source predicts Port Adelaide to win by 29 points, while another has a closer game with Port Adelaide winning by 8 points. Yet another prediction based on 10,000 game simulations has Port Adelaide winning with a score of 87-82 It’s important to note that Carlton has won the two most recent meetings against Port Adelaide, including a 50-point victory in last year’s clash1. However, Carlton has historically struggled at the Adelaide Oval against Port Adelaide, with an average losing margin of 76 points
While predictions lean towards a Port Adelaide victory, the dynamic nature of AFL means that the outcome is far from certain. It should be an exciting match to watch!
On a serious note, Should we be a little concerned that some of our prime movers might be hobbled a bit by the new interpretation of the holding the ball rule? The Umpires may be out to make a statement and hit this game pretty hard from the get go to send a message to teams playing later.
AI was pretty close to the result last week It looks like a close one.
Quote
The upcoming AFL match between Carlton and Port Adelaide is generating quite the buzz! According to the latest predictions and betting odds:
Stats Insider has simulated the match 10,000 times using advanced analytics and gives Carlton a 56% chance of winning the game at Marvel Stadium1. The predicted final score from these simulations has Carlton winning 84-80
Interesting... We're now getting regular incidents of Trump making gaffes or saying the wrong thing or things out of context...not in the calculated way he has done in the past, but more in line with an elderly man with diminishing faculties. If these debates go ahead it will be interesting to see how he goes in a structured session where he is not in control. It was kind of thought he would have little trouble outshining Biden. Rightly or wrongly that was the expectation. So really all Biden needs to do is match Trump or go close...and he'll get a boost.
The downside of using it in the VFL is the overall standard is lower. The conditions and the grounds are worse. As a result, it would be 'uglier' than it would be at AFL level.
No doubt there would be a few issues, but it's better to trial it properly and see how it goes than to introduce it at senior level and then have to abandon it because of unforeseen problems.
Yep I thought about the VFL. I'd be quite happy to see it trialled there first for a season or two. Senior coaches would get an opportunity to see it in action and work out strategies to cope with the new approach. We'd all be able to see the benefits, and any problems. It would also probably give the second tier competition a bit of a boost as folks tuned in to see the new rules in action.
The unknown though...is the 'unknown'. We can visualise it, we can run our own scenarios looking at games and how things might go, but they'll come with a bit of bias either way.
Until you run a proper trial, the problems and the tactics used to nullify the rule won't be apparent. And you can almost guarantee there will be unforseen consequences to such a change. I think it's probably a fair guess to assume that initially it may result in more stoppages as players get pinged and both ball-players and tacklers delay and dwell on the contest and contact.
So any trial would require a bit of time before any benefits are realised and it becomes a fixed rule. Not sure how you accomplish that.
Inconsistency is the big issue at the moment. It's all over the shop.
The time of the game is another huge factor. With all these close games there is a definite reluctance by the umpires to blow the whistle. Some might consider that a good thing, maybe it is, but blatant infringements are being ignored and in effect the rules aren't determining the game, it's the umpires lack of action...or sometimes the decision to act. When they do occasionally pay them it stands out and legitimate decisions are labelled trivial and not in the spirit of the game. Players are urged to play out the game, the umpires shouldn't get to clock off with ten minutes to go.
I'm not averse to giving the removing the prior opportunity a go. But I think we need to see it trialled before we make the change to determine how much of a difference it would make. Just for a bit of fun I watched a quarter a few weeks ago and tried to 'umpire' it on the basis of get the ball and if tackled release it virtually immediately in a proper manner...no prior. Of course it may very well have been my interpretation, but I only counted 4 occasions when it would have made a difference...when a free might have been paid. I'm guessing it was probably a lot greater on the weekend I wonder how much difference it would make to the game, but we won't know unless we trial it...with umpires a bit more accomplished than my good self
Much prefer him forward. He takes risks, takes the game on, which can be costly in the backline, but an asset up forward. See how he goes in the weeks ahead.
I think we don't make too many changes next week. Just go with Tom as the one ruck.
I really can see the benefits of both options. It's why it's hard to come down in favour of just the one approach.
Horses for courses is OK, but making that judgement would take a fair bit of analysis.
The thing I need to see more of is... how either option works consistently against quality opposition. If we'd gone with just one ruck against Sydney...how would we have fared? Gold Coast in Melbourne wasn't quite the same level of difficulty...and that can distort comparisons. Port in Adelaide will be a tough ask and if the one ruck works equally as well as it did yesterday that's a point in it's favour.
Some free kick numbers. At 3/4 time it was 4-14 (I screenshotted to a friend) It was then 5-15, 6-16 and then we got the last 5 jn a row to 'even it up' to 11-16....and some of them were definitely not there.
I've never heard the crowd chant "bull-$h!t" so many times in a game. At least 3 times it was loud and clear and directed at the umps. There was also the 'umpire is a wanker' chant that was brought out of retirement too. When you have 40k at the game and a coach talking about the umps you know something needs to be looked at.
Thankfully, we managed to come out of it with a win anyway.
Yep Voss in his press conference was pretty clear. Umpire decisions are something that he doesn't normally dwell on...at least not publicly. For him to mention it, meant he found some of the decisions a bit baffling. He trod a fine line, stating that it's something we need 'clarification' on because the umpires are obviously interpeting things a little different to us and the way we're instructing players.
In other words....he thought they were "bullsh**t " decisions too.
Voss a bit unsure with some of the umpiring decisions... so is going to seek clarification.
Kind of suggested that while he's happy with the Pitto/TDK combination and that they are developing well, TDK's efforts "have given us a lot to think about" which may suggest...."they have a lot to think about" going forward. I don't think anything is set in stone.
The thing is that the rucks are just one 'variable' in a host of 'variables' that have to be considered, including players, in, players out, opposition, weather conditions even venues.
In the GWS game Tom kicked three and Pittonet gave the midfield an armchair ride.
If we look at the teams we played with two rucks, vs the teams we played with one at the start of the year...how were they all going at the time.
It's impossible to be definite. We can have a view, but it will probably sort itself out as the season progresses. Having both is a handy backup position if we do decide to go with just one, because odds are they won't both be available for all games.
