Talking Footy

^^^^^^ men in birthday suits.

NSWAFL wrote:

Fix what? It shows that the punters in the AFL know more about the game than the NRL punters know about theirs. It's also a reflection on the lower scores in rugby league. How about the odds in the A-League right now? I'll bet they're just as close, even though it's far from a popular competition.

There's no problem. At all. The title of this thread is misleading.

it shows yr comp is cr@p devoid of upsets
& the people who make a living out of setting odds .. think the same

the A league is closer & more interesting
as is the S15

the NBL
the WNBL
the T/20 big bash
the baseball league
every sporting comp in this country

AFL... is pooh

Xman wrote:

It shows the AFL is a higher scoring game where the team that plays better has a greater chance of winning.

RL is a low scoring game, where a team can win by a stroke of luck or a poor ref call.

I know which I'd prefer.

its a bet for a win
not a points spread or points margin .. you flog

the bookies are in no doubt in the AFL .. its a snorefest
they have no such certainty in the NRL
its a lottery

NSWAFL wrote:

Don't give me that tanking BS. It doesn't exist.

denial .. you can't get wet in it

Prove that it exists then.

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

It shows the AFL is a higher scoring game where the team that plays better has a greater chance of winning.

RL is a low scoring game, where a team can win by a stroke of luck or a poor ref call.

I know which I'd prefer.

its a bet for a win
not a points spread or points margin .. you flog

the bookies are in no doubt in the AFL .. its a snorefest
they have no such certainty in the NRL
its a lottery

Lol

Went straight over your head.

Lower scoring games will always involve more upsets because one fluke or poor decision or ref decision can have a game changing impact.

Like soccer. One team dominates the game but fails to score because it's so hard. The other team flukes one from half way down the pitch and win. Who was the better team for the game? Not the fluky one that for sure.

Higher scoring games ensure the better team usually wins. They are more likely to capitalize on their overall better play around the ground.

AFL has upsets, but not from flukes or poor ref decisions. That's the way I prefer it.

That's the way I prefer it too!

NSWAFL wrote:

Prove that it exists then.

half a dozen AFL identities saying it does is proof enough for me

w hining little bitch saying it doesn't
just won't cut it for the defence .... K

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

It shows the AFL is a higher scoring game where the team that plays better has a greater chance of winning.

RL is a low scoring game, where a team can win by a stroke of luck or a poor ref call.

I know which I'd prefer.

its a bet for a win
not a points spread or points margin .. you flog

the bookies are in no doubt in the AFL .. its a snorefest
they have no such certainty in the NRL
its a lottery

Lol

Went straight over your head.

Lower scoring games will always involve more upsets because one fluke or poor decision or ref decision can have a game changing impact.

Like soccer. One team dominates the game but fails to score because it's so hard. The other team flukes one from half way down the pitch and win. Who was the better team for the game? Not the fluky one that for sure.

Higher scoring games ensure the better team usually wins. They are more likely to capitalize on their overall better play around the ground.

AFL has upsets, but not from flukes or poor ref decisions. That's the way I prefer it.

no apparently it went straight ova your head

lower scoring
higher scoring
it matters nil .. the better team wins regradless


these odds prove the AFL has a lot more average teams ... & Sh.it teams then the NRL does
the AFL has buggered up its comp
it is a pile of cats vomit

Raiderdave wrote:

NSWAFL wrote:

Prove that it exists then.

half a dozen AFL identities saying it does is proof enough for me

w hining little bitch saying it doesn't
just won't cut it for the defence .... K

LINKS!!

And higher scoring DOES matter. The lower the scoring the less likely the better team will win. The analogy given in soccer is perfect. You are showing just how little you understand AFL. But then what can we expect from an ignoramus like you?

NSWAFL wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

NSWAFL wrote:

Prove that it exists then.

half a dozen AFL identities saying it does is proof enough for me

w hining little bitch saying it doesn't
just won't cut it for the defence .... K

LINKS!!

And higher scoring DOES matter. The lower the scoring the less likely the better team will win. The analogy given in soccer is perfect. You are showing just how little you understand AFL. But then what can we expect from an ignoramus like you?

rubbish
the odds dicate the likelyhood of a result one way or the other
the bookies are saying they are far less likey to go " either" way in the AFL then in the NRL .... which is a far more even comp

And as for tanking
heres one of a thousand articles on it

but of course you'll stick yr head up yr @rse like all flogball dimwits do .. & deny this utter disgrace of a situation doesn't exist when it clearly does.
yr after priority picks .. you get the best of these by finishing lower ... onece you can't make the finals .... its tanking season
teams deliberately not trying .... & dopey AFL fans too stupid to realise

http://www.footywire.com/club/sports/pl ... raphy.html
Jason Akermanis, in an interview with radio station SEN, says he believes that tanking for draft picks occurs.
"My opinion, I think it does (happen), I think it's very difficult to prove. How they get away with it - players know nothing, of course - coaches get away with it with mismatches, it's as simple as that," Akermanis said.

"If the AFL thinks it's not happening, or thinks it doesn't happen, or it couldn't happen in the past then it will happen in the future. They have put their head in the sand.

"I've seen sides win the last game of the year and destroy a chance to get a priority pick and you want to see the crap that that's caused within clubs. The coach and stuff, they're put in very tough positions. That's why, at the moment with the AFL, that's where the problem is.

"I think it can happen. I think it has happened. I think the main problem is it's more attractive to lose. Simple as that. Once it's more attractive to lose at a certain point of the year, that's when you see the losses happen. It's going to happen in the next few months. Losing is more attractive."

That's not tanking that Aker is talking about. That's experimentation. He was probably paid to say that to be controversial like he usually is. To call it tanking is an epic fail of comprehension.

NSWAFL wrote:

That's not tanking that Aker is talking about. That's experimentation. He was probably paid to say that to be controversial like he usually is. To call it tanking is an epic fail of comprehension.

experimentation ....... ...............

you are an F wit

Tanking ... Rife in the AFL

a dirty seedy sport

Raiderdave wrote:

NSWAFL wrote:

That's not tanking that Aker is talking about. That's experimentation. He was probably paid to say that to be controversial like he usually is. To call it tanking is an epic fail of comprehension.

experimentation ....... ...............

you are an F wit

Tanking ... Rife in the AFL

a dirty seedy sport

Rubbish!

What happens in AFL is that teams prioritize the development of junior players over winning the game when it is clear they cannot make the finals. I for one would prefer a different draft system that did not benefit teams so much when the finish last or nearer the bottom of the ladder.

There is no such thing as deliberately playing poorly to lose.

It's a media beat up.

What he said. There's another BS point, for Dave this time.