Buoyed - or perhaps blinded - by recent successes, the Funds have launched a record-equalling 21-bet salvo at the very much suspecting TAB Sportsbet bookie, amongst these wagers another fur-raiser from Chi. He's made 4 wagers this week totalling about 27.5% of the Fund, 3 of them on favourites, but the fourth on Melbourne at $2.80. Such is his faith on the Dees' going back-to-back he's put 16% of the Fund at risk.
Chi's faith in the Dees is mirrored, though with considerably less conviction, by Prudence and Hope, as odd a pairing in wagering as they are in life. Prudence has about 1.5% on the Dees as one of its 6 wagers for the weekend, which total around 20% of the Fund. Its other wagers are on teams ranging in price from $1.12 (Adelaide, 5.6%) to $1.60 (Sydney 3.3%).
Hope has 5.3% on the Dees and two other wagers: 2% on Sydney at $1.60, and 0.3% on Hawthorn at $1.45. In total Hope has put about 7.5% of the Fund at risk.
New Heritage has nothing on the Dees but has 54% of the Fund on 5 other teams. The largest wager is 12.7% on Adelaide at $1.12 and the most improbable is 9.2% on Sydney at $1.60. New Heritage's aggregate wagering of 54% in this round is its third-highest aggregate for the season, trailing only the 64% of Round 13 and the 60% of Round 7.
Line Redux has found 3 acceptable risks for the weekend: the Dogs giving the Pies 12.5 points start, Sydney giving Essendon 8.5 points start, and West Coast receiving 32.5 points start from the Saints.
Looking at the wagers across the Funds I note that Sydney, for the second time this season, finds itself with a wager from every Fund. No other team has enjoyed such unanimous support even once, let alone twice, from our 5 Funds this season.
In total, those Investors with the Recommended Portfolio have about 24% of their Initial Funds at risk, which is the second highest aggregate this season, behind only the proportion that was at risk in Round 13, which was 0.6% higher.
Here's the week's Ready Reckoner:
On tipping:
* The Dogs are 12-1 favourites over the Pies, with FTS the only Pie-eyed tipster.
* Sydney are 8-5 favourites over the Dons, though the Dons have the support of 4 of our top 5 tipsters, excluding only BKB. ELO is tipping an 11-point Sydney win and has this as its Game of the Round.
* Carlton are unanimous favourites over the Tigers.
* Geelong are 12-1 favourites over the Lions. HSH, as has often been the case this season, finds itself the lone tipster supporting the underdogs. Chi, though siding with the Cats, predicts only a 5-point margin making this one of his two Games of the Round [he's trying to cut back to just a couple a week].
* Adelaide are unanimous favourites over Fremantle.
* Hawthorn are 11-2 favourites over the Roos. The Roos' 2 supporters include the highly-ranked STM II and the lesser-ranked EI I.
* Port Adelaide are 9-4 favourites over the Dees. Amongst the Dee-favourers are Shadow and STM II. Chi also tips the Dees but by only 5 points, making this his Alternative Game of the Round.
* St Kilda are 12-1 favourites over West Coast and it's once again HSH that is the outlier.
On line betting:
* Chi favours: the Dogs, Sydney, Carlton, Brisbane, Fremantle, Hawthorn, Melbourne and West Coast
* ELO favours: the Dogs, Sydney, Carlton, Geelong, Fremantle, Hawthorn, Port Adelaide and St Kilda
I was reviewing the extended ladder (which can be downloaded from the MAFL Stats site each week) and noticed how strong the Saints' defence has been this season. While their attack has been more than acceptable - they rank 3rd overall in terms of points scored - their defence has been 250 points better than any other team in the league. That's almost 3 goals better per game.
Adelaide, 5th on the ladder, are another team whose success has been based more on defence than attack. They're ranked 9th on Points For and 4th on Points Against. Carlton, who sit 7th on the ladder, have instead relied on attack. The opposite of the Crows, the Blues are ranked 4th on Points For and 9th on Points Against.
In general, defence has had a larger bearing on teams' competition points so far this season than has attack, as evidenced by the slightly higher (in absolute terms) correlation between Competition Points and Points Against (-0.92) than between Competition Points and Points For (+0.85). Put another way, variation in Points Against explains about 12% more (ie 0.92 squared vs 0.85 squared) of the variation in Competition Points than does Points For.
2 comments:
That's an interesting point about winning games with defence - although I don't think we'll be seeing defenders attracting the same money and profile as a good full-forward anytime soon!
Does the pattern play out in past seasons?
Mitch,
True to form, you ask a very interesting question.
It turns out that, across the years, Points Against has been a better predictor of Competition Points than has Points For. Points Against has outperformed Points For in 65 of the 112 years before this one, which is about 58% of the time.
In more recent seasons, defence has been even more important. Across the period 1990-2008, Points Against has been a better predictor of Competition Points than has Points For in 13 seasons out of 19 - in other words, for about 68% of seasons.
Indeed, there's only been one full decade in which offence has been a better predictor than defence: 1930 to 1939 during which Points For was a better predictor of Competition Points than Points Against for 6 of the 10 seasons.
Footy, it seems, has almost always been mostly about defence.
Post a Comment