And it's not as if you don't value home ground advantage, EWS. You were willing to change your opinion on Origin III based entirely on the location of the game. 50/50 in Sydney. But QLD in Brisbane. That's in a two horse race ffs and you're giving me shit about not wanting to back a side that would have to win 3 away games in a row against 3 top 4 sides?
I don't really mind you saying it's hard to win from outside the top four because of the structure of it, because of HGA, etc etc. Those are actual logical points. I just think it's a bit silly to say it must be hard to win from outside the top four because no-one has done it since the formation of the NRL. It ignores the very way in which the top four is decided. Basically I don't mind your logic but I don't think your evidence is really worth anything at all.
So I can say it's hard to win from outside the top 4 because of HGA, but the historical fact that no one ever has, isn't supportive evidence of that? You put that down to coincidence, borne of the idea that the better side seems to come through in the end?
Yeah pretty much. The data is unreliable to a point of complete irrelevance because of the way the top four is formed.
Haha the funny thing is though, they only actually had to play one top four side in the final series and it was a Lockyerless Broncos outfit that was top four in name alone.
The new system will make it even harder for a side placed outside of the top 4 to win it. Cbf going through all the AFL years but; 2011 - Geelong (2nd) Vs Collingwood (1st) 2010 - Collingwood (1st) Vs St Kilda (3rd) 2009 - Geelong (2nd) Vs St Kilda (1st) 2008 - Hawthorn (2nd) VS Geelong (1st) 2007- Geelong (1st) Vs Port Adelaide (2nd) 2006 - West Coast (1st) Vs Sydney (4th) 2005 - Sydney (3rd) Vs West Coast (2nd)
Pretty big fuck off coincidence IMO. Maybe I just over-estimate home ground advantage. The Cowboys lose down in Sydney in the finals this year and yeah, it'll mainly be down to the fact that they're shit cunts who can't tackle but as if their horrendous record down south isn't the nail in their proverbial coffin. Would sell my soul to see a re-enactment of the 2005 GF if the Cowboys finished 4th and the Tigers 5th, and the GF was played at Suncorp instead of Sydney.
AFL's completely different, I think the home ground advantage is bigger and generally the gap between the top 3-4 teams and the rest is bigger than that in the NRL. Just a few weeks ago we saw 16th beat 1st. Just doesn't generally happen in AFL.
Clutching, I was saying that Manly keeping Hasler for this season wouldn't have worked as he would've had one eye on the Bulldogs. You were just flat out wrong, Manly did win despite the reason you gave.
And the evidence for that is? You implicitly advocated Manly getting rid of Hasler. They did, and they've gone down hill. Hasler on the other hand, has once again taken a side to the top of the table on the back of 10 straight. Mm. Would've loved to have seen them actually play the Broncos with Lockyer. You're right to say Manly won despite the reason I gave - because they didn't remedy it.
Is there any evidence that they would've won the comp if he was still there? No, because he didn't stay on. There was nothing wrong nor stupid about my statement, unlike yours which was flat out wrong.
His shoulder is fucked and could be gone for the season, he wouldn't have even been able to throw a punch. With Parker and likely Glenn gone for the final rounds, I don't see us winning another game. FMD.
Yeah, most likely. They are the only back rowers aiming up atm. Thaiday has been a joke, Gillett keeps declining season by season and Te'o is kinda retarded.
It was a clearly stupid statement which relied on nothing but a misconception about the effect of Hasler signing a deal in advance. You had no evidential reason to doubt his ability to focus on the Sea Eagles. I don't need evidence to show they would've won the comp. I only need to show that advocating the dropping of Hasler based on zero evidence is fatuous. And I think that's pretty easy to do. They've clearly gone downhill since his departure. Would they have declined with him still there? Yeah probably. Would they be a side capable of missing the 8 completely as they are and have been under Toovey? I bloody doubt it.
