Talking Footy

King-Eliagh wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 12:11 pm

You two remind me of the two babbling muppets in the grand stand.

How's about you tell us ur thoughts on the topic for a change? Did the rlwc have more close games than the 2017 AFL finals?

King-Eliagh wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 1:11 am

SportCapital wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 12:40 am

King-Eliagh wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 6:07 pm

Oh dear lord. Gentlemen, gentlemen, and me AFL strugglers please lemme take the time to explain the thread once more mainly for those who find The abysmal 2017 AFL finals series difficult to get over.

This thread is about whether the rlwc would have more close, rather than lopsided, matches than the AFL finals series.

The answer to this question is quite simple. Yes, the rlwc had many many more close matches than the AFL finals. :D the answer is the notoriously lopsided rlwc had many many many more close matches than the AFL 2017 finals. So many more !

I know this is difficult to take me AFL fans, but it's fact. I know this will be difficult to read for the AFL fans but as was warned in the small print in the op, it would be foolish to suggest otherwise so I'm afraid.... you chumps are fools

:D

What the fuck is this dribble?
Let's start with some quotes from KE.
My personal favourite.
"Early warning for AFL fans. Please, be very careful if you decide to take me on on the premise of this thread. I just don't want you guys to look like a pack of doey eyed doofi again "

Another gem!
"And that then means my second prophecy has come true. The rlwc finals is already much much much much... much much much l less lopsided than than the 2017 AFL finals



That's fuckin hilarious

"

And this is pretty blatant.
":(/ ... Bow down bitches... which finals series was more lopsided? "

So, in not only the title, but a prophesy and a direct question.
You referenced lopsidedness.
You stated the RLWC were "much much much etc" less lopsided than the AFL finals.
I wonder how your prophesy stacks up against the data?
Let's see.

RLWC. 7 games.
AFL. 9 games.

RL- In 6/7 games the loser never lead at any time.(drawing even isn't the lead)
AFL- 2/9 games.
85% vs 22%

RL- In 3/7 games there was a single lead change, that's 3 total. (drawing even is a lead change)
AFL- 8/9 had 18 between them.
0.44/match vs 2.0/match
That takes care of the lopsidedness.
A clear leader there.

Now to your flip flop, back flip, squirm fest, what ever you want to call it. Which by the way screams of a looming defeat.
Pretty proud moment for you I'd have thought.
You'll carry a permanent scare from this now.

So how close were they.
RLWC- The winners scored a whopping 252% more points than the losers. (And that's in a "lower scoring" game)
That's a scoring ratio of 3.52 : 1 (for crap)
AFL- 82% more.
At 1.82 : 1
A clear leader there too.

I acknowledge that there was one extra close match in the RLWC than the AFL. (I bet a Bitcoin you'll run with this)
But really, this just backs your flip flop. So I understand the reason for you trying to change the terminology. It was your last gasp. But this thread is based on lopsidedness.

And remember everyone, this is just the finals. The picture gets much worse when you factor in the rest of the RLWC matches. Much worse!

Now this might be the first Forum I've ever posted in, but you just got a lesson from a total novice.
And remember-
To quote my favourite statistician.
"Without stats you're just a flog with an opinion"

"Much much much much much much" just doesn't cut it chump.

I'll part with your own words.
"I just don't want you guys to look like a pack of doey eyed doofi again"

Chalk it up to the SportCapital again.

Oh dear, here's a famous quote for ya champ "there's lies then there's damn lies... then there's statistics" you poor bastard, look at the trouble you've gone to desperately try and say the AFL finals had more exciting matches than the rlwc.

You poor docile bastard you!

Errrm lemme dumb it down for ya dumbo..have you tried looking at the scoreboard?

NlolRL wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 2:26 pm

How are you defining a closely fought contest? Seems to me that lead changes is far more objective than your subjective and biased opinion.

King-Eliagh wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 2:35 pm

NlolRL wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 2:26 pm

How are you defining a closely fought contest? Seems to me that lead changes is far more objective than your subjective and biased opinion.

oh sweet Jesus! Did you just type that?

Errrrmmmm wow the mind boggles how would one describe a close match? Errrrmm I dunno errrrmmmm maybe across all sports the universal definition of a close match would be one where the scores are close in the dying stages/at the end of the game?

You reckon that might be a fair definition there nlol? Or would that be me being subjective!?

Far out, I'm working with the bluntest of tools here, it's really quite unfair. It's not even close, it's like one of the 7 out of 8 AFL 2017 finals in here! I'm giving these three dunderheads an absolute drubbing and I'm not even trying. I mean, for fukks sake guys, do you all seriously not know what a close match means???

NlolRL wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:21 pm

The other factor to consider here is predictability. Australia were the overwhelming favourites to make the WC final and win it. Where as the crows swans and giants were either equally or more strongly favoured to be premiers than Richmond.