Talking Footy

well played Pies =D>

its hilarious these fools see a score of 100pts v 50pts and think its more lopsided than 25 v 10.

Such clowns

Gee there were a few blowouts in the nRL this week. 40 v 10, 32 v 10, 30 v 10 and 42 v 10. What would the AFL comparisons be?

Xman wrote:

well played Pies =D>

its hilarious these fools see a score of 100pts v 50pts and think its more lopsided than 25 v 10.

Such clowns

well of course it is cockhead

I've seen 3 converted tries scored in less then 5 minutes .. meaning a 10-25 deficet can be overcome in our game
hell
Penrith Lead St George by 25-0 in the mid 1970's with 5 minutes to go
only to be beaten 28-25 by the Dragons


however
I'd doubt any bumbling pack of singlet wearers could pull back 50 pts in 5 minutes


& the lesson ends ................ here

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

well played Pies =D>

its hilarious these fools see a score of 100pts v 50pts and think its more lopsided than 25 v 10.

Such clowns

well of course it is cockhead

I've seen 3 converted tries scored in less then 5 minutes .. meaning a 10-25 deficet can be overcome in our game
hell
Penrith Lead St George by 25-0 in the mid 1970's with 5 minutes to go
only to be beaten 28-25 by the Dragons


however
I'd doubt any bumbling pack of singlet wearers could pull back 50 pts in 5 minutes


& the lesson ends ................ here

It's irrelevant what could be done, it's what IS done! I've seen teams pull back leads of 45 points in one quarter. Scoring is higher in ARs so it's easier to get back from a large deficit.

It's all relative and the fact you can't see it is hilarious but expected

piesman2011 wrote:

Didn't I show statistically that the NRL comp was more lopsided percentage wise. I think it is just the big numbers that get the NRL supporters on this forum a little confused. Oh wait a minute ..... Troll on KE.

Oh pies, you're starting to sound like Xman here. Statistically? Percentagewise? These terms mean jack diddly squat and are nothing more than a diversionary tactic to hid from the facts. And you know it :D

Lopsided essentially means imbalanced. It doesnt mean a 'statistical percentagewise' comparison between apples and oranges, which is what you've awkwardly and invalidly put together.

Look in essence this see saw describes the AFL comp last season, which was the most lopsided in the history of the org.



The fatcat fools down at AFL HQ came up with ridiculous policies which effectively ensured that there was a massive gap between the top 6 teams and the bottom six teams. This can be proven by looking back at the final ladders of previous comps, where never before have so many teams at the bottom of the comp won so few games. The NRL did not have this chasm between its top teams and bottom six. No, it was much more balanced comp in re to wins and losses than was the oh so predictable AFL 2012 comp.

Comprehende?[/quote]

pies wrote:

Talk all you want about AFL policy and your interpretation of a competition that you dont really follow. Add a few cool looking pictures to add empacisis to your lack of substance and all that you get is a whole lot of ramble and no real substance.
I deal in hard cold stats. Your competition is more lopsided and the only way to prove me wrong is show the stats. Lots of big numbers just seams to confuse you guys into believing a fallacy. Show me the stats or shut up.

Pies pies pies. I've made the statement and I know it to be true. I've checked it in regards to past lopsided years and it's also been supported by statements in the media and by leading AFL figures such as nic maxwell. No such statements have been made in RL circles or RL media. So how's about you shut yo gob with your wishy washy unsupported statistical percentagewise skunk dung piece of research you've conducted and instead try and prove me and my supported statements wrong?

How you like them apples pies? You like them apples?

King-Eliagh wrote:

piesman2011 wrote:

Didn't I show statistically that the NRL comp was more lopsided percentage wise. I think it is just the big numbers that get the NRL supporters on this forum a little confused. Oh wait a minute ..... Troll on KE.

Oh pies, you're starting to sound like Xman here. Statistically? Percentagewise? These terms mean jack diddly squat and are nothing more than a diversionary tactic to hid from the facts. And you know it :D

Lopsided essentially means imbalanced. It doesnt mean a 'statistical percentagewise' comparison between apples and oranges, which is what you've awkwardly and invalidly put together.

Look in essence this see saw describes the AFL comp last season, which was the most lopsided in the history of the org.



The fatcat fools down at AFL HQ came up with ridiculous policies which effectively ensured that there was a massive gap between the top 6 teams and the bottom six teams. This can be proven by looking back at the final ladders of previous comps, where never before have so many teams at the bottom of the comp won so few games. The NRL did not have this chasm between its top teams and bottom six. No, it was much more balanced comp in re to wins and losses than was the oh so predictable AFL 2012 comp.

Comprehende?

pies wrote:

Talk all you want about AFL policy and your interpretation of a competition that you dont really follow. Add a few cool looking pictures to add empacisis to your lack of substance and all that you get is a whole lot of ramble and no real substance.
I deal in hard cold stats. Your competition is more lopsided and the only way to prove me wrong is show the stats. Lots of big numbers just seams to confuse you guys into believing a fallacy. Show me the stats or shut up.

Pies pies pies. I've made the statement and I know it to be true. I've checked it in regards to past lopsided years and it's also been supported by statements in the media and by leading AFL figures such as nic maxwell. No such statements have been made in RL circles or RL media. So how's about you shut yo gob with your wishy washy unsupported statistical percentagewise skunk dung piece of research you've conducted and instead try and prove me and my supported statements wrong?

How you like them apples pies? You like them apples? [/quote]

Good to have you back more on this site, now that the regualar season has begun. Sorry didnt mean to touch a nerve with my accurate statistical analysis. I would agree that the introduction of GWS and Gold coast have added two easy beats to the competition over a last few years. But facts are facts the NRL statistically is more lopsided we cant ignore statistical facts just because they go against what you believe to be true.

Lets look again at round 1 this year converting the NRL scores into AFL scores (lets say multiply them by 5)

Roosters V Rabbitohs : 50 to 140 (10 to 28)
Broncos V Sea Eagles: 70 to 110 (14 to 22)
Eels V Warriors: 200 to 50 (40 to 10)
Bulldogs V Cowboys: 60 to 120 (12 to 24)
Panthers V Raiders: 160 to 50 (32 to 10)
Storm V Dragons: 150 to 50 (30 to 10)
Sharks V Titans: 60* to 50 (12* to 10)
Knights V Wests 210 to 50 (42 to 10)

7 of the 8 games this round were blow outs. The only game that was close was won by players now known to be recently on equine drugs (the reason behind the asterisk). So 7 blow outs and 1 illegally won by a team which should end up with no points this premiership season. And you have the gall to call the AFL lopsided. I will keep you updated for the rest of the season.

:_<> Oh pies. You've not done much quantitative research before have you?

Lets look again at round 1 this year converting the NRL scores into AFL scores (lets say multiply them by 5)

Ahhh that's about as valid, relevant and intelligent as a pauline hanson statement to parliament on immigration. It's about as clever as sprinkling crud on your icecream.

Dear lordy pies! Give yourself an uppercut and go back to the drawing boards bud ... 'lets say multiply them by five', that's gold!

King-Eliagh wrote:

:_<> Oh pies. You've not done much quantitative research before have you?

Lets look again at round 1 this year converting the NRL scores into AFL scores (lets say multiply them by 5)

Ahhh that's about as valid, relevant and intelligent as a pauline hanson statement to parliament on immigration. It's about as clever as sprinkling crud on your icecream.

Dear lordy pies! Give yourself an uppercut and go back to the drawing boards bud ... 'lets say multiply them by five', that's gold!

Finally some logic from you KE. =D> =D> But let me tell you why I picked 5. its sloppy I give you that and a little inprecise, however it is easy to understand,let me explain. The average amount of points in an AFL game is about 180. multiplying it by 4 woud have ended up bringing most scores well below that average. 5 made it close to this average and 6 was to much. I could have been more precise but I chose to keep it simple. Speaking of quantative observations,I havent seen any from you all I see is qualatative subjective arguments with little or no real substance. Bring on more logic. Keep up the good work.

The numbers you folk provide are invalid and misleading. However they do suit your own needs in this matter so enjoy. But in the end you're comparing apples with oranges and multiplying by 5 to do so. It's the research of an 11 year old and you should be chastised for your approach

As for my quantitative work. I've already done a minor research based on good ol LG's assessment of two years which he believed were more lopsided than 2012. As I said I checked how many (i.e the 'quantity' of) wins the lowest teams in the 2 years LG gave me had scored. Came out something like the bottom two to three sides in the two years LG provided scored the same amount of wins than the bottom 5 or 6 sides in 2012. A significant difference when you factor in that the basketcases of 2012 had 5-6 other teams at their level to atleast compete again. The numbers tell us that the basketcase sides were very very rarely getting a win against a team other than another basketcase in 2012. This was also proven statistically in my bet against Xman where no basketcase side won two games against a non-basketcase side during the first 11, or was it 12? rounds of the AFL season.

Them's the facts and this is what has informed my statement that 2012 was the most lopsided year ever in the AFL, and perhaps of all time in all Australian sport. It certainly was a shambles... If you wish to argue against my statement then you will need to do the same objective analysis on the NRL 2012 comp, rather than pluck individual scores and "lets say, times them by 5" Still gets me that line! "lets say, times them by 5"

King-Eliagh wrote:

The numbers you folk provide are invalid and misleading. However they do suit your own needs in this matter so enjoy. But in the end you're comparing apples with oranges and multiplying by 5 to do so. It's the research of an 11 year old and you should be chastised for your approach

As for my quantitative work. I've already done a minor research based on good ol LG's assessment of two years which he believed were more lopsided than 2012. As I said I checked how many (i.e the 'quantity' of) wins the lowest teams in the 2 years LG gave me had scored. Came out something like the bottom two to three sides in the two years LG provided scored the same amount of wins than the bottom 5 or 6 sides in 2012. A significant difference when you factor in that the basketcases of 2012 had 5-6 other teams at their level to atleast compete again. The numbers tell us that the basketcase sides were very very rarely getting a win against a team other than another basketcase in 2012. This was also proven statistically in my bet against Xman where no basketcase side won two games against a non-basketcase side during the first 11, or was it 12? rounds of the AFL season.

Them's the facts and this is what has informed my statement that 2012 was the most lopsided year ever in the AFL, and perhaps of all time in all Australian sport. It certainly was a shambles... If you wish to argue against my statement then you will need to do the same objective analysis on the NRL 2012 comp, rather than pluck individual scores and "lets say, times them by 5" Still gets me that line! "lets say, times them by 5"

The multiplication was for the benifit of the RL posters to help them understand the big numbers involved in the sport of AR. Percentages were confusing the poor little critters so I thought I would make it easier for them to understand. I think it worked a treat and I haven't heard a peep from most of the posters on this site. However I know you love a good argument (like me) so its good to see that you have hanged around (despite the public flogging I have given you).
Heres some food for thought:

You are saying that 5 to 6 teams are basket cases (basket cases isn't very quantitative of you there mate) and by that I assume you mean their performances on the field have been very poor and have no real chance of improving for a long time. Do you really feel that that is the correct term? I think you mean that they are young and developing, rather then basket cases.

No doubt a few teams struggled in 2012, however you have used the term "the most lopsided year ever (all time) in Australian sport". Firstly how did you come to this conclusion? You got any evidence comparing it to say the 1912 NSWRL (or whatever it was called) or did you just pull that one our of your nether regions? Ive already shown percentage wise the NRL season was more lopsided in pervious posts (dig them up if you want to).

So when I compared AR scores to RL scores and tried to show them in a similar light, I was according to you comparing apples to orranges and according to you im not allowed to do that. The sad thing is that you seam to have no problems using terms like "the most lopsided year of Aussie sport ever" with no real stats. looks to me like you are comparing apples to oranges,to mangos to watermelon, etc, etc, when you compare AR season 2012 to every sporting competition in OZ ever. However this is ok for you to do for some reason.
One rule for you and another for me. Give yourself a big slap for being a hipocrite.

when will these Vicky Kicky Cockheads understand



lopsided has nothing to do with scores
its the ability of the participants to make an impact on the premiership

the NRL has probably 12 sides out of 16 capable of doing this
the VFL
probably 4 out of 18

our wooden spooner will win double the games theirs will
in fact our bottom 4 .... DID win double the combined number of games their bottom 4 did in 2012

& the lesson ends ..................here

Raiderdave wrote:

when will these Vicky Kicky Cockheads understand



lopsided has nothing to do with scores
its the ability of the participants to make an impact on the premiership

the NRL has probably 12 sides out of 16 capable of doing this
the VFL
probably 4 out of 18

our wooden spooner will win double the games theirs will
in fact our bottom 4 .... DID win double the combined number of games their bottom 4 did

& the lesson ends ..................here

4 AFL sides can possibly win the GF........

Nice one!

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

when will these Vicky Kicky Cockheads understand



lopsided has nothing to do with scores
its the ability of the participants to make an impact on the premiership

the NRL has probably 12 sides out of 16 capable of doing this
the VFL
probably 4 out of 18

our wooden spooner will win double the games theirs will
in fact our bottom 4 .... DID win double the combined number of games their bottom 4 did

& the lesson ends ..................here

4 AFL sides can possibly win the GF........

Nice one!

thats being generous

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

when will these Vicky Kicky Cockheads understand



lopsided has nothing to do with scores
its the ability of the participants to make an impact on the premiership

the NRL has probably 12 sides out of 16 capable of doing this
the VFL
probably 4 out of 18

our wooden spooner will win double the games theirs will
in fact our bottom 4 .... DID win double the combined number of games their bottom 4 did

& the lesson ends ..................here

4 AFL sides can possibly win the GF........

Nice one!

thats being generous

http://www.way2bet.com.au/sportsbet/AFL ... 9708/41939

http://www.way2bet.com.au/sportsbet/Rug ... 9710/41945

Hmmm, seems like the betting odds for both codes show 8-9 team are less than 20-1 to win the GF...

Dave, lying again or just plain stupid?

Well done for officially making yourself look like an idiot XMAN, links above proove to me beyond doubt that your a dumbarse as you are contridicting everything you and pies have said and basically supported the arguement that AFL is more lopsided. Please refer to the following:

1) The links you provided show that the biggest odds to win the competition in RL is $67, the biggest in AFL $1001

2) It also supports KE's comment which suggested the gap between top and bottom 6 teams makes AFL for such a lopsided competition. Your links and arguement proove him correct. There are 6 teams in your competion that are at odd ranging from 100/1 to 1001/1, and there are 8 from 18 teams that are 15/1 or less. Nearly spot on KE, great job and good research XMAN
Quote from KE above "The fatcat fools down at AFL HQ came up with ridiculous policies which effectively ensured that there was a massive gap between the top 6 teams and the bottom six teams."

3) 9 out of 16 sides are 15/1 or less in the RL or another way of looking at it more then 55% of the competition are a good chance

4) 8 out of 18 sides are 15/1 or less in AFL or only 44.4% are a chance

5) All of the other 7 sides in RL except 1 are 34/1 or nearly all sides have a some chance

AFL lopsides well yes you just prooved it.

RL lopsided, I don't think so. Parramatta and Penrith who were sportsbet favourite to win the wooden spoon at the start (I have the bets to proove it) of the season both won convincingly in round one. Both teams they beat have had there odds dropped.

Again well done XMAN, great research, excellent job of making youself look stupid and outstanding job of supplying an update which provide evidence based upon your own logic which support KE's comments in this thread =D>