2019 FW2 Sat - Storm 32-0 Eels @ AAMI

[The Rosco]

Eels by 8

Its so wrong to take pleasure in another's misery.
On the other hand, its Rhyno.

 

[thorson1987]

Surely a 90 point turn around is the largest for a team in finals history?

Yep.

 

[Perth Red]

Totally professional performance by the storm. I was wondering if Bellamy had made his first major coaching erro in dropping Croft for Hughes but should have known better

Excitingly we get the real GF before the main event.

 

[Saxon]

Yep.

The impressive thing here is that the Souths one was in the days of 3 point tries!
81 - SOU (1956) def WES 45-7, lost 36-33 v BAL

 

[GongPanther]

Speak for yourself. Parra can EAD. I enjoyed every moment of tonight until I allowed myself to dwell on the fact that the Storm were heading to yet another prelim.

And that is where it ends. Easts V Canberra/Souths GF is one to either look forward to.

 

[GongPanther]

Surely a 90 point turn around is the largest for a team in finals history?

Wondered about this last night. in the past 11 years Mel in 2008 had a 68 point swing when they rolled Cronulla 28-0, then got fisted in the GF 40-0.

 

[GongPanther]

Yep.

He has the method wrong. It should be by difference of result by "total turnaround". The Souths V Wests is 41 point turnaround, not 81, as the Canterbury match is 56, not 78. That is the way it has been done all along. The idiot doing that stat is trying to re-write history.

 

[thorson1987]

He has the method wrong. It should be by difference of result by "total turnaround". The Souths V Wests is 41 point turnaround, not 81, as the Canterbury match is 56, not 78. That is the way it has been done all along. The idiot doing that stat is trying to re-write history.

Thoughts @madunit

 

[madunit]

He has the method wrong. It should be by difference of result by "total turnaround". The Souths V Wests is 41 point turnaround, not 81, as the Canterbury match is 56, not 78. That is the way it has been done all along. The idiot doing that stat is trying to re-write history.

The stat is clearly explained. It is points scored in a win + the points scored in a loss.

That was explained from the outset, very clearly.

There's nothing wrong with it. Not rewriting anything.

If It said "Margin turnaround" then you'd be right. But it doesn't. It says points. And it explains how it's calculated. There's zero to whinge about.

 

[GongPanther]

The stat is clearly explained. It is points scored in a win + the points scored in a loss.

That was explained from the outset, very clearly.

There's nothing wrong with it. Not rewriting anything.

If It said "Margin turnaround" then you'd be right. But it doesn't. It says points. And it explains how it's calculated. There's zero to whinge about.

Yes, I did notice this, but never have I seen this method applied. So how long has this stat been around?

 

[madunit]

Yes, I did notice this, but never have I seen this method applied. So how long has this stat been around?

Why does it matter?

 

[GongPanther]

Why does it matter?

Like I stated, I've never noticed that stat before. Unless you don't know, just simply state that you don't. No pressure mind you.

 

[madunit]

Like I stated, I've never noticed that stat before. Unless you don't know, just simply state that you don't. No pressure mind you.

I don't know if it previously existed, I don't care if it did and most importantly, it does not matter if it did.

It is clearly defined and explained. You are one of 3 people who have whinged about it. And all 3 completely misunderstood it and then had a go at me because they didn't read the clear explanation properly. And then they let their ego refuse to let them accept that they made an error.

Just because you've never noticed something before doesn't make me an idiot.

Just because you refuse to understand a clearly explained formula, doesn't make me an idiot.

Why should there only be a few limited number of statistics that can only be used? The evolution and advancement of statistics is paramount to better analysis and understanding.

I think you need to get over it and move on with your whinge. It is a clearly explained statistic. If you don't like it, fine. If you don't understand it, or don't want to, fine.

That doesn't make me an idiot.

I don't seek an apology either. I've already accepted you got it wrong an that you'll never admit it.

And so, to save me wasting anymore of my time explaining the already explained to a disrespectful moron, if you wish to argue further, just reread my posts constantly until you wear yourself out.

I've got some new stats to put together just to piss you off even more.

Good day sir.

 

[GongPanther]

I don't know if it previously existed, I don't care if it did and most importantly, it does not matter if it did.

It is clearly defined and explained. You are one of 3 people who have whinged about it. And all 3 completely misunderstood it and then had a go at me because they didn't read the clear explanation properly. And then they let their ego refuse to let them accept that they made an error.

Just because you've never noticed something before doesn't make me an idiot.

Just because you refuse to understand a clearly explained formula, doesn't make me an idiot.

Why should there only be a few limited number of statistics that can only be used? The evolution and advancement of statistics is paramount to better analysis and understanding.

I think you need to get over it and move on with your whinge. It is a clearly explained statistic. If you don't like it, fine. If you don't understand it, or don't want to, fine.

That doesn't make me an idiot.

I don't seek an apology either. I've already accepted you got it wrong an that you'll never admit it.

And so, to save me wasting anymore of my time explaining the already explained to a disrespectful moron, if you wish to argue further, just reread my posts constantly until you wear yourself out.

I've got some new stats to put together just to piss you off even more.

Good day sir.

An idiot you are obviously not, and I clearly, in my mind, wasn't having a whinge. A frank and open discussion is what I thought I was having, and you've turned all defensive and offensive with the insults.

I don't have form in eluding that anyone in here is an idiot, or a moron. And in my lifetime, there hasn't been anyone who I have suitably dealt with who didn't have it coming to him.

 

[madunit]

An idiot you are obviously not, and I clearly, in my mind, wasn't having a whinge. A frank and open discussion is what I thought I was having, and you've turned all defensive and offensive with the insults.

I don't have form in eluding that anyone in here is an idiot, or a moron. And in my lifetime, there hasn't been anyone who I have suitably dealt with who didn't have it coming to him.

You said

"The IDIOT doing that stat is trying to rewrite history"

That was me who wrote it and you attacked me without provocation, so you deserve and should expect some level of offence being taken.

 

[GongPanther]

You said

"The IDIOT doing that stat is trying to rewrite history"

That was me who wrote it and you attacked me without provocation, so you deserve and should expect some level of offence being taken.

Oh...I thought you got that from a statisticians website like channel Nine does. Like I said, I wasn't trying to provoke you, so it's all good?

 

[madunit]

I did get it from a statisticians website. Mine. Rugby League Project.

I don't really give two hoots to be fair. But I'll defend myself when I've been called an idiot for no reason, as most humans do.

I've moved on.