Balotelli wrote:That's an interesting concept Cruie, good stuff.
I would say that Sacred Heart out performed Westminster by some distance though - they won divisions 1A and 1B, they reached the cup final and their 3rd team was a lot more competitive than Westminster's 3rd team, in a higher division too. Windsor and Westminster had great seasons by all accounts, but divisions 1A and 1B are a big step up from 2A and 2B. Winning 1A and 1B in the same year (and in such a competitive season) is an amazing effort by Sacred Heart.
There's a very infamous quote about statistics ... Well, there's a few; but I think the one that is most applicable here is that
you can make them say whatever you want them to say.
First thing to note is that there is an incredibly small difference between Westies performance and SHOC. 0.06 of a point per game. That is nothing. But the two are an interesting comparison (Div1a and 1b champions versus D2A Runners-Up and D2B Champions). I'm a great believer in the phrase that
you can only beat what is put in front of you, and both of those clubs did exactly that in winning their championships. However, both struggled with their third teams.
Compare them to Mercs. Statistically, across the board, Mercs have had a
better season than either of them. But they have
only won D3 (of the 4 they competed in). If I were Mercs I would be praising the strength in depth of the club (internally they may have different views about what the table shows - including a view that it shows nothing much at all ... there are people at our club who would say exactly that!).
SHOC have had a fantastic season - as Title-Holders and Cup Runners up ... but statistically, they have not utilised the resources of their club as well as Mercs. Now, if you go and ask both clubs who had the better season, I'm pretty sure both would agree that SHOC did ... But - statistically, over the whole - it's not quite true.
Second thing to say; this way of looking at the performance over the year has an under-lying assumption - That each team (within each club) is competing "at the correct level for their ability". And so it is very possible to look at the results and pull out clubs where this MIGHT not have been true. Windsor Gardens is a very easy example to pick on (probably with
some justification). You've picked out Westminster as another who has benefitted from that, Balotelli ... Personally, having been part of a club that played in D2A, I don't think they have played
below their level. I think they have been incredibly impressive within their level. They beat us (Mt Barker) 3-2 at their place and 1-3 at our place. 6-3 on average isn't what I would call an easy ride, just very impressive (and they lost to Norwood ... more on them in a moment).
Norwood, statistically the best 2-team Club. And quite definately the team hardest to score against in D2A!! Now, Norwood won nothing at all ... And they are far from the only club in that boat - but they have had a very impressive season and if I were a member of their coaching-team I would be very pleased indeed. With the small number of resources at their disposal they have competed very well indeed (I think).
So this isn't about who won the trophies - It's the exact opposite of that. Uni-White won the cup, this year and so I would imagine are happier with their season than we were. But look at the figures in the table ... Should they be?? It's not a statement, it's a question - One that can only be answered if you go to interview the people behind both clubs.
Another question: From the statistics, it appears that the most difficult number of teams to operate (to get the very best out of) is TWO. Why would this be?
Thanks for the comments, Balotelli ... I don't think there is a right or wrong answer, it's just food for thought. And - like all statistics - can be used to demonstrate almost anything you want
)