amber_fluid wrote:

The Bedge wrote:Delicious.

You’re all dirty old men who should know better.................

A lot of B-team about today. We're miles off topic!

Pfft, chicken, If you're really having a dip you'd change Brisbane and St Kilda to 1-24 not 1-39

I don't mind the theme to be honest. Yes its now repetitive, but getting those celebs out there is a good thing, and I think just chucking them in the normal tribes and ignoring the fact they have a profile would be strange.

I'm loving how #ArrogantAndy's game has been blown up.
Poor Sarah, clearly had no idea. I had to chuckle at her gloating to the camera that she's got 3 people (her +2) voting for Andy and he's therefore going to go, despite it being a clan of 8 and 3 votes was never enough! haha

Agree re Shaun, poor bugger. Not only sits on the sidelines while his team mates win a flag in 2017, and finishes stranded on 99 AFL games, but then Survivor wacks him on the chumps team! haha. Ah well, don't feel too bad for him, he still gets to go home to Megan Gale.

You must lead a real sad life.

He might, but he does raise a couple of interesting points and questions though.
Absolutely.
Both Adelaide clubs bucked the AFL trend and had less members this year which would be a concern.
Seems that fans are voting with their feet which is fair enough

Didn't Essendon's numbers follow a similar pattern after Colonial Stadium opened?
From 1999 to 2001 Essendon Members jumped 21%, before falling back by 2003, with only 1 in three of those 21% staying on (ie: 7% increase from 1999 to 2003)

By comparison: Port From 2013 to 2015 jumped 36%, and by 2019, have retained a 30% increase over 2013 figures.

Don't get me wrong, PAFC should be concerned their numbers have gone backwards 3 of the last 4 years, however, after a strong spike thanks to the new shiny oval, its not surprising there has been a short term correction back towards something more sustainable.

A 30% increase today from back in the footy park days, would suggest the move has still been a good thing.

RB wrote:Don't we have a ridiculously good record at Lord's? This'd be the match we least want to see interrupted by weather.

Long term yes, went something like 75 years without a loss there, but more recently its been ok at best. Lost 2 of the last 3 I believe.

People looking at the 8 days between the first and second tests, but not the 3 days between the 2nd and 3rd. Clearly patto isn't going to play both 2 and 3. If the selectors think he's a better fit for the third than the second (or his replacement is better at Lords than the 3rd test) then I'm happy to back them in. No issues for mine with Patto being rested as required - assuming he plays the third test obviously.

As for Hazlewood or Starc to come in, Starc clearly provides a bigger point of difference to Siddle than Josh, however I still think Josh is different enough from Peter that its fine to play both. Josh will get the ball to do a bit off the seam no dramas. Siddle is more your grinder keeping it tight. Starc's point of difference while being a big + for him, isn't enough for mine to overcome the negative of him leaking runs. As others have said, the Poms want to hit boundaries and get themselves out if they don't hit one for a few overs. Josh's added control over Starc outweighs the lack of variation in our attack.

I'm backing the selectors in, looking forward to tonight's action!

Everyone is missing UK’s point about this...it hasn’t been the saviour either on field or off field that the footy club thought it would be.

Is that his point though?

For mine, he's complaining about state government expenditure, not the onfield success of Port Adelaide:

5 years after spending $600 mill of tax payers money on Adelaide Oval we are back to where we started with a broke PAFC.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love the PAFC to be doing better than it currently is, but if his point is that the move to the oval was meant to improve the club, I don't understand why he keeps including the price of the oval redevelopment in his comments.

“If their players need a drink (water) they can go to the bench to get it — in short if they want to behave like children, we’ll treat them like children.”

This comment doesn't read well at all. I recon the league would like to have that one again.

Ban the players and fine the club, no issues, but to then ban waterboys and make a snide comment about it as well is poor form from Thebby HQ IMO.

We'll wait for Booney to sort through that I reckon, a bit tricky with a tie for 2nd.

I'd assume the $120 would just be split between the two, so $60 each, less their own entries means $40, or two other members to transfer to each of the two tied in 2nd.

With that said, Booney, I'm happy to forgo any prize. If there are any members out there doing it a bit tough allocate them as transferring to me and just tell them to keep their cash. And if no one is doing it tough, allocate me the two biggest drunks and tell them to buy themselves a couple of extra pints!

Waiting 4 a Mate wins the $340
Ice Bank Myself and Trader share the $140 ($70 each)

Congrats LM and JK , very impressive effort.

Everyone ok with that?

Yup, looks good, and thanks Booney for arranging the comp.

Simon H, Col $20 each to Trader. I'll send $10 to Trader.

Simon , Col , Booney , I'll only waste it, so instead please buy something small for your kids/misso/yourself or donate it to a worthy cause.

I recon they'll push Khawaja up to open, with Harris making way.
Smith comes in at 3 or 4 (labuschagne the other spot), and then Marsh at 6 to replace Wade.
Starc to replace Pattinson.

Why does/should the GF have to be at a neutral venue? If you're the highest ranking side, and earned the right, and your ground is suitable then why cant you play at home?

Calm down Chris Scott.
Genuine question.. surely you'd like to host a Div 1 PNU Grand Final if allowed wouldn't you? ;)

Great deal for Payneham

After you win, how many of the volunteers want to keep working? Most want to get on it and celebrate. Far better being at a neutral club where you don't have to keep everything running.
If you lose, no way you want to stick around and keep serving those gloating kn0bs from the team the umpires helped win. ;)

SPOC have picked up Shaminda Eranga. 41 tests for Sri Lanka.
Played at Prospect last season, only managed a handful of A Grade matches, so obviously something went down. Yeah his back went down....couldn't bowl and ended up in their 2's from memory
He has been plagued by back injuries since he first played a test for Sri Lanka in 2011. Will be a great pick up if his body is ok.

Is it this guy? http://www.espncricinfo.com/srilanka/content/player/267414.html

He's only played 19 tests but appears to be the same name.

He's only 33, you would assume he's going to be reasonable still!

Eranga is playing as a batter only I believe.

Probably a good thing, otherwise Steinway would report him for an illegal action:
https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/16333154/sri-lanka-fast-bowler-shaminda-eranga-bowling-action-ruled-illegal

SPOC boys fairly happy with the news that Holm (27:32), Coad (32:44) and W O'Malley (67:22) are apparently all off to Thebby HQ tomorrow night for various incidents on the weekend.

Video: https://www.dartfish.tv/Player?CR=p132071c324807m4998430

IMO, Coad's hit is late but probably gets off. The other two, especially O'Malley, look in trouble.

All 3 incidents ended with nothing happening. Be interesting if that was a Northern Suburbs Club what the penalties might have been.

As far as I'm aware there are never penalties for matters that aren't reported or investigated or considered by the Tribunal in any event, regardless of geography.

So the whole thing was a beat up by Trader and nobody was even reported or faced the Tribunal??

Correct, there hadn't been a post in here for 9 days so Wedgie slipped me $50 to get the chat going again.

Wines, Ebert, Powell-Pepper, Boak, Rockcliff - all inside mids really (they have slight differences but would all be in the same broad category).

I don't want to see the club trade Wines, but I don't have an issue with it being considered.

I'd love a mid that could hit a target.

Surprised that Luke didn't send Pia back to camp, rolled the dice and had to bluff Abbey, where as if he'd sent Pia back to camp it would have been an easy vote with Bayden and Harry both voting Abbey no dramas.

I can only assume he was trying to make it seem like a 'big move', but in reality it seemed to be a risk for no real gain, other than building his resume. Will be interesting to see if the jury like him for it or not.

What wasn't clear to me or not, was if he had to play it at final 5, or if he could have held it another episode. IE: if he fails to pick up immunity next time round, could he have sent himself back to camp to give himself a guaranteed spot in the final 3.

Ok is there any legs in this from the Para Districts thread....

Hearing a few guys in Adelaide turf are finding out if there can be a court injunction on the compulsory helmets rule....
Not sure how far they’ll get but let’s hope they win cause helmets are crap!!!

Court injunction? lol

No one is forcing anyone to wear a helmet. It's a voluntary cricket comp. If you don't want to wear one, don't play. You're free to play BLCA if you don't want to wear one.

Heck, even still, you're free not to wear one in ATCA, it just means your team will lose all its points. Still, the choice is yours.

Seriously, what a bunch of knobs. In this day and age of people suing associations, there was little choice but to bring in the rule, especially after what happened with Hughes a few years back. Get on board and wear a helmet or go play elsewhere.

Doesn't matter now, but I was going to ask what the rules were about how long players had to wait to bat if they didn't field, seeing Harris was off the field for so long. I thought it the length of time they were off the field? But then I found this-
https://sports.stackexchange.com/questions/16391/how-long-does-a-fielder-have-to-wait-before-he-can-bat-if-he-has-missed-the-whol

Thanks DK. Didn't think it was as strict as if bowlers were off but thought it was something. If not, Arjuna and Inzamam would never have been out there,
Those rules sound reasonable, but obviously they aren't using them this series?

Coz remember the other year against South Africa in Adelaide and Du PLessis declared coz Warner was off the field for a couple overs when they were 9-for
Yeah obviously not using those rules in this series and yes that was a strategic declaration from du Plessis as he knew Warner hadn't been back on the field long enough to be able to open the batting.

As he was injured, as the result of a blow, it's fine. (IE: He didn't do a soft tissue injury, or just went off for a shower). He was injured when the ball struck his hand, therefore, he can resume batting, (or even bowling) as soon as he wanted to:

24.3 A player’s absence will not incur Penalty time if,
24.3.1 he/she has suffered an external blow during the match and, as a result, has justifiably left the field or is unable to take the field.

TheBull wrote:so somebody cut through the rubbish for us...Why was he given the flick if he was such a good coach....

Good coaches are expensive and the club is busy buying out a number of property owners adjacent park 9 so they can get their redevelopment approved.

Good to see the ATCA getting a mention in this guys efforts to travel the country raising money for men's health:

https://www.aviewofaustraliafromfineleg ... as1lHxw6GU

Cummins dismissal of Rizwan, no ball or Legal delivery lads?
I can't f**king believe it was not called a no ball, I'd be absolutely roperable and making enquiry if I was Pakistan.

And then god knows how Kettleborough didn't see/hear the nick off of Afridi's bat when he edged to Paine off Starc. That was a howler.

The issue with the no-ball call is that on field it wasn't called a no-ball, so the TV umpire needs conclusive evidence to overturn. For mine, it was as close as you can get to being a no-ball without having clear proof (ie: a bit of white line beyond the raised part of his shoe would have been conclusive).

I think it was a no ball, but I don't have an issue with it not being overturned.

Agreed the missed nick was very poor, but even more so when Paine almost didn't review it!!!!!!

8-2, I too would have gone with Dean but not to be.

I think Dean cost themselves when they got caught in the lie about promising people top 2 or top 3.

It was a jury stacked with the Tommy's mates, and they were just waiting to find a reason to justify them giving their mate the cash.

I thought Dean's game was almost perfect, lost a lot of the luck elements of the game, put on the weaker tribe, was outnumbered at the tribe swap and was outnumbered post merge, survived all that, found idols, won immunity twice, won the fire challenge. Basically had a perfect resume.

Tommy's argument was he played a good social game and that gave him all the information. Dean needed to attack that point and say that his Social game meant Tommy fed him all that info, so he had it too. He had all the information Tommy had, and he had jewellery to boot.

To be honest, it was a very disappointing winner in terms of rewarding the best player.

Need to add the american sex worker to the list.
She posted that anyone who sent proof of donations to the aussies would receive a nude in return for every $10 they donated.
She had raised over $700k US before Instagram shut her down for selling porn.
Can you pm me some please?

PM Sent, you may have to zoom in a little to check out the goods, god didn't bless me in that department.

Hanson clearly the best on average who would be the top 5 best batsmen and top 5 best bowlers in adelaide turf? Would make for an interesting conversation...

A1 all time (entered into mycricket) - batting (1 per run) and bowling (20 per wicket) points.

James Stagg - 4,115 runs, 151 wickets = 7135pts
Mark Hanson - 4,661 runs, 114 wickets = 6941pts
Jack Dent - 1720 runs, 255 wickets = 6820pts
Brad Young - 1725 runs, 229 wickets = 6305pts
Sam Tyler - 3513 runs, 130 wickets = 6113pts
Phil Benwell - 3203 runs, 137 wickets = 5943pts

No one else over 5000.

Runs
Mark Hanson - 4661
James Stagg - 4115
Sam Hurburgh - 3573
Sam Tyler - 3513
Phil Benwell - 3203
Glenn Ashmead - 3050

No one else over 3000.

Wickets
Jack Dent 255
Brad Young 229
Jamie Marsh 228
Sam Richardson 214
Brad Muggleton 210
Tim Boucaut 200

No one else over 200.

Batting Averages (min 1000 runs)
Mark Hanson - 93.22
Paul Duffett - 54.24
Wes Thomas - 54.21
Corey Knight - 46.65
Glenn Ashmead - 46.21
Tom Brinsley - 42.16

Bowling Average (min 50 wickets)
Brad Young - 11.33
Matthew Rogers - 11.45
Tim Boucaut - 11.47
Muhammad Sheikh - 12.99
Jack Dent - 13.12

And just to keep the fielders happy:

Catches (Non-WK)
Jack Dent - 83
Phil Benwell - 69
Sam Tyler - 60
Brad Young - 51
Sam Hurburgh - 48

Keeping Dismissals (Catches and stumpings):
Michael Richardson - 206
Tom Tamblyn - 94
Josh Farmer - 84
Jye Bailey, Brad Campbell, Jake Boerema - 80

Yup dumb by Phoebe, also can't beleive Nick was stupid enough to play his extra vote.
IF they had the numbers 5-4 the extra vote wasnt needed and if they didn't at 4-5, the extra vote only sent them to a revote which they were bound to lose!

Q, you seem to focus on the fact they are addicted and that they no longer have a choice to stop, and while that might be true, many others look at the fact they made the choice to start.

Someone who has never had ice before, isn't addicted to ice.

Call me narrow minded, call me sheltered or ignorant or whatever term you come up with next, but I have yet to hear a good reason why these addicts should get a free pass for the choice they made when they first started taking the drug.

What are peoples thoughts about Sco Mo's claims 'Lockdown' isnt the answer and doesnt work.
Every medical expert seems to be advocating a mass lockdown whilst we have seen alot of other countries go down that path.
ScoMo is getting advice from medical experts. He doesn't make these decisions on his own.
Better to play it safe now, than pay for it dearly later. People just need to be conscious of their personal hygiene and not lose their minds (whoops...too late.)
Don’t disagree. I think the lack of trust in politicians (especially this one) doesn’t help. The government has to weigh up the significance of a wounded but not dead economy with harm minimization. They might be working to a different mortality rate to others though.

I’ve still got the kids out of school, aided by having the luxury of both the missus and I working from home. Tough decision now whether to back our thoughts in against those of our Pollies, coupled with a concern of the kids falling behind their peers.

I don’t think I’ve ever flip-flopped on such a range of thoughts, in such a short space of time, as I have in the past 5 days.

There are studies that suggest flattening the curve will see the mortality rate drop from 3% to 2.5%.
Assuming 60% of people catch it, that change from 3 to 2.5% will "save" in the order of 75,000 Australians. A substantial amount by anyone's count.

On the flip side, there are other studies that show unemployment increases the death rate by as much as 20%.
If you completely crash the economy and unemployment jumps 5%, out of a labour force of 15m, that's 750,000 extra unemployed, if 20% of them die as a result, that's 150,000.

I'm not sure you can say with certainty either set of numbers is correct. We've never seen CoronaVirus so can't say how beneficial flattening the curve will be, if 60% of people will catch it, etc. Similarly, the numbers around the increased risk of death from being unemployed, over what period, etc.
Therefore, you have to take the two 'results' with a grain of salt, but the takeaway should be you can't focus on one and completely ignore the other.

Flattening the curve is important, as is ensuring we don't send 100s of thousands of people into unemployment.

Q. wrote:

Trader wrote:

Q. wrote:If everyone catches it, a lot of people die.

Correct. And if we remain in lockdown for a long time, a lot of people die.
No good solution to this unfortunately.

From what?

Unemployment leads to heart attacks, strokes, diabetes and suicide.
Not to mention domestic violence, etc.

Tony Clifton wrote:How do they decide wicket keeper in the team of the year? Are there votes from umpires each game?

Number of dismissals not necessarily a good indicator of quality IMO

Correct, umpires votes over the season, each keeper then gets an average (must have kept a minimum of 8 of the 11 games I think).

Staggered that people keep downplaying it

Don't be too staggered, it's effected HIS way of life.

Been dealing with this stuff a bit online today from some mates .. The fact we're doing OK in SA seems to trivialize the issue for many. I get the economic concerns for the future and dont dispute them, but for me it has to be people first.

Do you realise that with a failing economy you get more deaths right?
To say you're putting people first is false. You're voting to prevent covid deaths in the hope that we don't get unemployment deaths later on.

Not sure if you saw 60 minutes last night but they had a guy on there that explained it fairly well.

He gave the example of road deaths. You could set the death toll to zero if you changed the speed limit to 5km/hr, but we don't, we choose to allow some people to die for the benefit of reduction in transport times. The same goes for covid, we need to find an acceptable level of covid deaths and get on with it.

Some people don't like speaking about death, it's too confronting for them. Other people are able to compartmentalise it and make a rational decision.

100,000 people have died from covid world wide. In that same period, over 20million people have died.
100,000 sounds like a massive number, but in the context of 20 million, it's not that significant.

Been dealing with this stuff a bit online today from some mates .. The fact we're doing OK in SA seems to trivialize the issue for many. I get the economic concerns for the future and dont dispute them, but for me it has to be people first.

Do you realise that with a failing economy you get more deaths right?
To say you're putting people first is false. You're voting to prevent covid deaths in the hope that we don't get unemployment deaths later on.

Not sure if you saw 60 minutes last night but they had a guy on there that explained it fairly well.

He gave the example of road deaths. You could set the death toll to zero if you changed the speed limit to 5km/hr, but we don't, we choose to allow some people to die for the benefit of reduction in transport times. The same goes for covid, we need to find an acceptable level of covid deaths and get on with it.

Some people don't like speaking about death, it's too confronting for them. Other people are able to compartmentalise it and make a rational decision.

100,000 people have died from covid world wide. In that same period, over 20million people have died.
100,000 sounds like a massive number, but in the context of 20 million, it's not that significant.

Yes mate I do understand and whilst death is confronting it’s just as natural as birth so I get that too. 100,000 isn’t a lot in the scheme of things, but how many more would it be if there weren’t protective measures in place in most countries across the planet? No perfect solution available yet (ie, cure or vax), so whilst I worry about my children’s future with an enormous economic hole to fill, I still prefer the option that saves a massive number of lives in the here and now. Accept that others might not see it that way.

Good response.

Only clarification from me would be I am not pushing for no restrictions (I'm not pushing for anything either, simply discussing options). Rather, I am questioning if the current restrictions are too harsh.

All along we've been told we need to flatten the curve to ensure we don't overwhelm the health system, this i am comfortable with and agree we should do.

The Aust goverment have stated they are increasing the number of ICU beds from 2000 to 7500, getting ready for a peak of 5500 covid-filled ICU beds.
That seems fair.
However, when you look at the stats, Australia wide, there are 82 people in ICU beds due to covid.

82 out of 5500. Less than 1.5%

Let me restate, I have no issues with flattening the curve to get it under 5500 ICU beds, however keeping it at 1.5% of capacity to me suggests we have tighten things up too much.

Even in Adelaide people defend Trump. :lol:

Even in Adelaide they attack Trump! :lol: ;)

The USA's numbers look worse cause of their size.

Looking at a per capita basis, their handling of it doesn't seem quite so bad (still hasn't been great).

Granted different countries are at different stages of their curves, so these numbers will shift over time, but right now, the US are mid-table (but climbing quickly).

Cases/Million population:
Spain 3723
Switzerland 2997
Italy 2687
Belgium 2685
Ireland 2325
France 2195
USA 1855
Netherlands 1600
Germany 1578
UK 1383
Sweden 1133
Canada 717
Singapore 556
NZ 283
Australia 251

It is also worth noting the above is likely to be somewhat distorted as countries have different criteria for allowing a test to occur.

Deaths / Million is a much more representative stat, but once again, some countries are counting differently (ie: only including those that made it to hospital).

Spain 390
Belgium 359
Italy 348
France 241
UK 178
Netherlands 172
Switzerland 136
Sweden 102
Ireland 82
USA 79
Germany 42
Canada 24
NZ 2
Singapore 2
Australia 2

I expect the USA to continue to climb up that ladder over the next month as they are still in their peak, rather than coming off like a lot of the European countries are. Will be interesting to see if they make it to the top of the list.
The way some people are talking you'd expect they are already there and double second place.

Why does the AFL and the NRL for that matter think they will be or should be exempt from travel restrictions and social distancing that we all are required to abide by?

Any premier that relaxes the restrictions without making it available for everyone will be voted out and I think they know that and will not allow it.

They don't have to lift the restrictions to get the hubs going.

They players are told where to go, they go there, sit for 14 days and then games start thereafter.

I suspect they'll also be allowed to "quarantine together' so they can spend that 14 days training and getting back up to "match fitness" before the games start.

Finally, don't forget now that tests are readily available, and results are turned around within a matter of hours, you'd expect they'll all get tested before and after their trips and throughout the period they are in camp together to help identify any flare ups as quickly as possible.

Could potentially see all comps regraded to say 8 teams each. 14 week season playing 7x2-day games.
Agreed Sunday's are out of the question.

I think there will still be the odd one dayer where you get an odd number of weeks between say the xmas break and australia day long weekend, etc.

With that said, I'd be happy if we cut down on the number of weekends we have off. For mine there is no reason why we couldn't be back playing on Jan 2nd. Play on the Australia day long weekend. Also no need to have the test match weekend off given we can't go to the games.

Should be able to get close to the full season in even if we didn't start til November if you played whenever we can.

Booney wrote:Red sky at night, shepherds delight
Red sky at morning, shepherds take warning

Spargo wrote:Red sky at night, shepherd’s delight
Red sky in morning, shepherd’s take warning

Red sky at night, shepherds' delight
Red sky in morning, shepherds take warning

They (America) haven't yet flattened the curve, 23,000 new cases overnight and over 2,000 deaths.

What is your definition of "flatten the curve"?

I always thought of it as stopping the increase in new cases per day.

https://miro.medium.com/max/1400/1*jOyyJwEmor8XSbngQEJRVg.jpeg

America has done this.

April 16th they hit a mammoth 4928 deaths.
April 18th 3770
April 22nd 2524
April 26th 2172
April 29th 2110

They clearly still have a substantial number of people falling off the perch each day, but to suggest they haven't stopped the exponential growth of the peak is inaccurate IMO.

NB: Obviously if your definition is to get within the capacity of the existing health system, then they'll never manage that as their existing health system was already cooked.

First line of that article states training is set to start from the 18th of may, yet so many clubs have already started. Not really an even playing field.

Are those already training just a group of 10 mates getting together for a run around? Or are they an official club session?
Can't stop the former, the later shouldn't be occurring.

So because some comps have increased their expenses and therefore can't run in a reduced capacity all comps should be punished and the 10,000+ footballers who want to play, can play, won't be allowed to?

As for your comments in relation to the CFL 'doing their duty' and 'protecting country leagues', these country leagues are the very comps who repeatedly thumbed their noses at the CFL and actively pushed back against things like salary caps and or points systems? I'm not surprised if the CFL don't feel protecting their leagues are high on their priority list.

I'm worried if we don't get some Aussie stats up here soon someone is going to murder someone, and given its covid related, the government will probably bump our number to 5 and keep us in lockdown longer, so, in the interests of getting sport back sooner...

Deaths per 1m of population:

Belgium 806
Spain 580
UK 546
Italy 545
France 437
Sweden 409
Netherlands 342
Ireland 327
USA 304
Canada 176
Brazil 116
Germany 101
Russia 27
Greece 17 (this seems very low)
Singapore
Australia 4
New Zealand 4

Baffles me how you can vote the league should go ahead based on all of the information at hand on restrictions and the effects on finances, player safety, workload on volunteers etc. yet pull your club and post on facebook it's because of those same reasons. People will say it's different, but it's not really. If you think it's not appropriate for you as a club to participate, then why should it be ok for your league to.

By voting for the league to proceed these clubs have given all clubs the opportunity to make their own minds up, which I think is the right thing to do.

Just cause club A doesn't want to play, doesn't mean they should also block clubs B, C and D from playing.
All clubs now have the opportunity to make up their own minds if they play or not.

I think its the best outcome possible.

If they just want to play footy, why don't they just play for Broadview?

Armchair expert wrote:Is this really worth a week?

https://www.afl.com.au/news/462036/matc ... ous-tackle

Yes.
Everyone was surprised when Burgoyne got off for his on Dangerfield and the AFL came out and said in future that would get a game.
This gets a game.

The figures our of the USA are astounding!!
How this cartoon character keeps his job baffles me.

The numbers look big cause they are a huge country.

Comparatively the yanks are in line with a number of other countries (for now, could end up far worse).

UK = 683 deaths per million.
USA = 488 deaths per million.

Spain 610, Italy 582, Sweden 570, France 464, Brazil 458

S Demon wrote:

The Bedge wrote:Well you don’t need a hairdresser.

Bahahahahahaha. Touché

I think you'll find it's spelt toupee.

This thread shows how much Bookies love SGM's :lol:

Backing short priced favourites to multi it up to a large collect is one of the worst moves you can make.

15 years ago when I was turning over substantial volume I played around with some mathematical models and it quickly became apparent how bad a strategy it was.

Lets say the average market is framed at 105% in head to head markets, and more like 108% in the exotic bets (players to kick a goal, get 20 disposals, etc).

If you do a 10 leg multi in a 108% market, all of a sudden the bookies edge has gone from 8% to 115% (1.08^10 = 2.15).
That is to say, if the price you are getting on your multi is 20:1, its chances of hitting are closer to 43:1.

You are far better off just finding a bet at long odds and having a crack at it. Both are unlikely, but at least you're only paying the 'vig' or 'juice' once, rather than 10 times on the same bet!

Oh don't worry, I totally understand why people still do it.
No different to driving down to Footy Park during the primus years to sit in the rain and watch us lose.
Or eating maccas for dinner. I know it's not a good idea, but I'm still going to do it, and I'm ordering the Oreo McFlurry as well.... oh, and adding hot-fudge topping too!

Have heard it mentioned a few times now that Hinkley is coaching better and smarter this year.
I have seen bugger all footy this year so just wondering how he is?
I’m not a big fan of his but he must be doing something different surely?

For mine the big thing is how we are using Dixon.
Previously he was on the wings and half back flanks then sprinting back to goal.

He's by no means a stay at home Full Forward like Dunstall back in the day, but he's spending a lot more time in front of the footy this year.

This is giving us a real structure, and we can attack from half back knowing the big fella will get to the contest as he's not standing next to the half back who is looking to play on.
Our small forwards are also able to get into the right spaces more often as they know if they get to Charlie's feet they've got a real chance of being in the play.

The other thing that's improved for mine is we have a bit of pace. Nothing lightning quick, but certainly less reliant on the plodders we previously had. (SPP, Wines, Rockcliff, Ebert, Boak vs Duursma, Rozee, Amon, Houstan).
Don't get me wrong, still a lot of those guys floating around, but the injection of some speed has certainly helped.

You sure he took the offer literally? There's just a hint of nudge nudge wink wink to that story ...
Already sent him a text with details - registered, committed, locked in for the weekend. 8) :lol:

Meanwhile there is a tall fit gay guy telling all his mates how he bumped into a teddy bear who invited him to a catch up in the south parklands on the weekend.

Bluedemon wrote:Is an ex-Sturt Premiership playing going to be puliing on the boots for PAC this weekend?

No.




PAOC have the bye.

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:Notice how Trader and Dutchy havent posted.... i reckon they are conceding defeat that there is nothing wrong with SGM[emoji3][emoji3][emoji3]

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Just catching up now.

And by the way, you'll notice he only did 3 legs, not 10.