2018 State of Origin Game 3 - Wed 11th July

[hindy111]

For Slater to be far ahead of others in the 4, 3, 2, 1 polling, Slater must have been given 3, 4 or 4, 4 by each of the judges for his two games.

So assume he got 4, 4 from each judge that means that he averaged over 2.666 over 3 games.

So for him to be streets ahead of other players, that would mean that no player got anywhere near 8 points accumulated over 3 games ?

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Well Teddy quite possible landed no points game 2. Slater could of landed 3. It was a close game. He cpuld of then had 4 in game 3.
7 points.

Teddy may of had 4 and 1 for game 3. Silly system but NSW had plenty of guys to share the points is it thsst bif a conspiracy ffs.
Look at the Dally m voting. Is 3 points always the best player or judt someones opinion? I never see the same 3 players on our own player of year votes.

 

[Gazzamatta]

I heard the medal was engraved a week ago.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

For Slater to be far ahead of others in the 4, 3, 2, 1 polling, Slater must have been given 3, 4 or 4, 4 by each of the judges for his two games.

So assume he got 4, 4 from each judge that means that he averaged over 2.666 over 3 games.

So for him to be streets ahead of other players, that would mean that no player got anywhere near 8 points accumulated over 3 games ?

Please correct me if I am wrong.

I think it's the average number you scored in games you played, in his case two.
So if he got 4 and 4 then it would be (4+4)×4=32
Say Tedesco got 4, 3 and 2 then it would be (4+3+2)×3=27

 

[hindy111]

This is complicated.

My man of series was either
Maloney, Cook or Teddy.

Latrell also great.

I dont need mathematics to determine it. Anoyne happy with one of those 3?

 

[emjaycee]

I think it's the average number you scored in games you played, in his case two.
So if he got 4 and 4 then it would be (4+4)×4=32
Say Tedesco got 4, 3 and 2 then it would be (4+3+2)×3=27

Why did u multiply slaters by 4 and teddys by 3?

Edit... the multiplier is the average ??
WTF is that about?

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

Why did u multiply slaters by 4 and teddys by 3?

Edit... the multiplier is the average ??
WTF is that about?

Yes. Sorry, could have worded that better. I suppose it goes some way to rewarding quality rather than quantity. But it's rubbish anyway, no way it should have been Slater.

 

[emjaycee]

Yes. Sorry, could have worded that better. I suppose it goes some way to rewarding quality rather than quantity. But it's rubbish anyway, no way it should have been Slater.

So that method really only rewards a player who gets MOM or closer in 2 games but only plays 2 games.

Imagine being MoM in 1 game and being outplayed by a point in 2 games

(4+3+2) × 3 = 27
vs
(0+4+4) x 4 =32

I know who had the better contribution to the series IMHO.

There are 34+ players across the series. Getting 3 points in 1 game and 2 in another is pretty f**ken hard to do.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

So that method really only rewards a player who gets MOM or closer in 2 games but only plays 2 games.

Imagine being MoM in 1 game and being outplayed by a point in 2 games

(4+3+2) × 3 = 27
vs
(0+4+4) x 4 =32

I know who had the better contribution to the series IMHO.

There are 34+ players across the series. Getting 3 points in 1 game and 2 in another is pretty f**ken hard to do.

That would actually be (4+3+3)×3.33=33.33, so you'd scrape in there. But I agree, getting a point at all means you've had a very good game. Their points system can too easily discard an entire game's contribution.

 

[strider]

For Slater to be far ahead of others in the 4, 3, 2, 1 polling, Slater must have been given 3, 4 or 4, 4 by each of the judges for his two games.

So assume he got 4, 4 from each judge that means that he averaged over 2.666 over 3 games.

So for him to be streets ahead of other players, that would mean that no player got anywhere near 8 points accumulated over 3 games ?

Please correct me if I am wrong.

I actually think it is quite possible for him to get it if its based on votes from each game

I dont think there were clear cut MotM in either of the first 2 games ... so if the points get spread between alot of players then a single player polling decent with all judges in 2 games could legitimately go well

Having said that, f**k qld

 

[Gronk]

I actually think it is quite possible for him to get it if its based on votes from each game

I dont think there were clear cut MotM in either of the first 2 games ... so if the points get spread between alot of players then a single player polling decent with all judges in 2 games could legitimately go well

Having said that, f**k qld

FFS

 

[hindy111]

Sounds like someone pushed the wrong numbers. No way those guys could work out that formula. Dalyes probably used the multply on slater and the plus on Teddy.

 

[Gazzamatta]

It appears Daley is every bit as bad selecting Queenslanders as he was selecting Blues.

 

[Eelogical]

It appears Daley is every bit as bad selecting Queenslanders as he was selecting Blues.

Coles recyclable bags in the car park.

 

[strider]

If there was genuinely nothing to hide, they should reveal all the votes ... but they wont cos it will likely expose qld bias

 

[Gary Gutful]

I thought Slater deserved it.

 

[strider]

I thought Slater deserved it.

f**kin queenslander

 

[TheParraboy]

I thought Slater deserved it.

the shoulder charge by Mitchell?

 

[Eelogical]

I thought Slater deserved it.

Ha! OK Mal.

 

[Eelogical]

the shoulder charge by Mitchell?

Penalty Broncos...POTS Slater!

 

[T.S Quint]

I actually think it is quite possible for him to get it if its based on votes from each game

I dont think there were clear cut MotM in either of the first 2 games ... so if the points get spread between alot of players then a single player polling decent with all judges in 2 games could legitimately go well

Having said that, f**k qld

Really?
Game 2 I might agree with you, but in Game 1 Tedesco was a clear winner.