No Oppo Supporters OPPOSITION OBSERVATION XXXIX

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just another ****wit media knob trying to generate clicks by standing out from the pack of other useless campaigners trying out predict each other, creating a succession of increasingly outlandish claims and ultimately just noise.
Wish we had more Jake Nials.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Yeah absolutely, Ottens said himself that night that he's a cat through and through, hope he enjoyed the game.
Remember when that dumb campaigner got a garden stake stuck up his arse?
 
This is ridiculous. Sydney are currently a game and percentage clear on top after being 13-1, but have hit poor form. So they’d likely not finish top-2 of their group and miss the finals despite winning more games than anyone before finals start…. Hmmmmm…

I’m really not sure why that’s a problem. To miss the top two, in a group of four, you’d probably need to lose two of your three games and losing two games would’ve put you out under the final four (-1971), final five (1972-1990), final six (1991-1993), and final eight (1994-).
 
I’m really not sure why that’s a problem. To miss the top two, in a group of four, you’d probably need to lose two of your three games and losing two games would’ve put you out under the final four (-1971), final five (1972-1990), final six (1991-1993), and final eight (1994-).

Maybe I misunderstood your concept? You said finals started after teams broke out into their groups of 4 and played their 3 x games. So a team who wins the MOST games before the finals start … may not make the finals. Whilst a team who wins perhaps 6 less games does make the finals. Doesn’t make sense to me. But all ideas are worth exploring.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 
Maybe I misunderstood your concept? You said finals started after teams broke out into their groups of 4 and played their 3 x games. So a team who wins the MOST games before the finals start … may not make the finals. Whilst a team who wins perhaps 6 less games does make the finals. Doesn’t make sense to me. But all ideas are worth exploring.

The idea is:

  1. Home and away season: Everyone would play everyone in the first 17 rounds (18, including Tasmania)
  2. Group/pre-finals stage: The top 12 would split into three groups of four for the next three rounds (with each group winner and runner-up progessing)
  3. Finals
Finishing top of the ladder after the home and away season would remain an advantage - all they’d need to do to retain the number one seeding for the finals is top a group containing sixth, seventh, and 12th; and they’d still make the finals if they were second in the group.

Moreover, under any system there are things that could happen without it being a bad system. For instance, under the current system, fifth could win a lot more games in the home and away season than eighth but lose in the first week of finals.
 
Hardwick’s attempt to get all these RFC people reminds me of SOS he would recruit players from his previous clubs almost like he had no confidence in making his own decisions on players- needed the assurance that others had rated them highly at club he was previously at.
I reckon it’s a bad sign for Dimma. It’s like his success was from others not him. Maybe just what I want to believe but I might be right.
Spot on forensically
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top