3 > 2 > 1 vs. Bulldogs

[hitman82]

Without make-up, Good looks exactly like Wayne Bennett. True story.

Wayne Bennett looks exactly like Clint Eastwood.

 

[Izz]

The strength of a person's opinion can be measured by how they react when someone holds a different view.

(nah, i dunno what it means either, but it sounds good)

 

[hitman82]

Wise words, Yoda

 

[Izz]

Very true.

Have nothing against these threads, but to me, the whole 3-2-1 thing is pretty flawed for at least two reasons... 1. there's no set criteria for how everyone should rate players performances and 2. so much happens off the ball that we either don't pick up, or we aren't able to see at all. Many of the game-changing events in a game happen because of multiple players, but we tend to only notice the one with the ball (e.g. Heremaia's 1st(?) try, think it was Packer that draws the markers his way, helping Aaron to make his break from dummy half).

Very true.

Taking that even further, one could argue that Johnson's first try assist really came down to Heremaia putting the line defense in two minds by moving well out of dummy half (thanks to Rusty's quick play the ball), the superb line Lillyman ran to suck in two defenders, and the line Taylor ran once he got the pass

Second try assist, it could be argued, was similar again, except this time it was Luck running the great decoy and Mateo cutting back in once he got the pass.

One could even argue that all Johnson had to do was throw the final pass.

I'm not saying that's the case, but rating individual players all comes down to personal opinion at the end of the day, doesn't it? So why fight? Can't we all just be friends? ;-) \\\\/ :lol:

 

[Meth]

lol

That's exactly what you said in post 39 dimwit

This is like arguing with a dishrag

 

[Penrose Warrior]

Wayne Bennett looks exactly like Clint Eastwood.

Then, from now on, I will call Lavina by the name - Clint. It kinda sounds like something else, which is ideal.

I think there is a set criteria for 3-2-1, is there not? Pick the 3 people you thought had the most influence and rank them accordingly?

 

[JoeD]

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ7ygo1O2174ASGDM7tY4w-nuuYPDvBaNNyNmKfYuVe89HgaxR_ug

Wayne Bennett holding a little girl. (Her name is Sophie)

 

[Martli]

Very true.

Have nothing against these threads, but to me, the whole 3-2-1 thing is pretty flawed for at least two reasons... 1. there's no set criteria for how everyone should rate players performances and 2. so much happens off the ball that we either don't pick up, or we aren't able to see at all. Many of the game-changing events in a game happen because of multiple players, but we tend to only notice the one with the ball (e.g. Heremaia's 1st(?) try, think it was Packer that draws the markers his way, helping Aaron to make his break from dummy half).

I wouldn't say this makes it "flawed" - It's meant to be a bit of fun, not the Dally Ms.

 

[The European Polynesian]

:lol: It certainly does! I picked Mannering last week, when I thought he had an outstanding game. This week I thought he was just decent, so I didn't.
Merely pointing out that he's getting loads of points when in my opinion there were 3 - 5 players who were clearly better performers on the day. Comprende?

I thought he played well all round as well as setting up a crucial try and making Josh Morris look like a toddler all game - deserved points this week.

I was just pointing out the irony ov you saying that Mannerings didn't deserve his points this week, yet people were giving them anyway, when you were one ov about 2-3 who didn't give him 3 last week.

 

[ozbash]

I wouldn't say this makes it "flawed" - It's meant to be a bit of fun, not the Dally Ms.

aww, c'mon. fun ?

 

[Auckland4ever]

I wouldn't say this makes it "flawed" - It's meant to be a bit of fun, not the Dally Ms.

I know. But people are arguing about how other people are voting. If there's no rigidly defined criteria on how and what to judge, then no one is necessarily right or wrong, which is the main point I was making. As you say, it should just a bit of fun.

(And it is flawed, but no more so than the Halbergs, even less in fact).

 

[_addict]

I know. But people are arguing about how other people are voting. If there's no rigidly defined criteria on how and what to judge, then no one is necessarily right or wrong, which is the main point I was making. As you say, it should just a bit of fun.

(And it is flawed, but no more so than the Halbergs, even less in fact).

Insomuch as while we have favourites, we aren't likely to exclude someone from the get-go?

 

[Rich102]

Sorry, I'm late this week.

Lillyman 33
Mannering 33
Maloney 32
Heremaia 21
Locke 18
Rapira 11
Johnson 3


24 Voted

 

[Rich102]

What was that saying about opinions and arseholes?

Democracy is a beautiful thing people, let us all embrace it.

Well said!
We all have a vote and use it as we see fit.
We have avoided formal guidelines for voting and, by and large, I think it works well; particularly when it comes to the season results. (A player scoring consistently will rate higher than a player who has an occasional blinder.)

If anybody disagrees and wants to draft a set of guidelines for voting please do so.

 

[Constraint]

I'm glad the extremely serious business of casually voting 3-2-1s on an unofficial fansite merits such intense argument and discussion. Keep it up, guys, good entertainment.
Presuming I'm too late (since the next round's almost half-done and all) but
Lillyman - 3
Maloney - 2
Locke - 1

 

[ozbash]

I'm glad the extremely serious business of casually voting 3-2-1s on an unofficial fansite merits such intense argument and discussion. Keep it up, guys, good entertainment.
Presuming I'm too late (since the next round's almost half-done and all) but
Lillyman - 3
Maloney - 2
Locke - 1

Sorry Constraint, not enough tryscorers :lol:

 

[Meth]

Well said!
We all have a vote and use it as we see fit.
We have avoided formal guidelines for voting and, by and large, I think it works well; particularly when it comes to the season results. (A player scoring consistently will rate higher than a player who has an occasional blinder.)

If anybody disagrees and wants to draft a set of guidelines for voting please do so.

We don't need formal guidelines. I think it tends to work out about right in the end