Chris Walker free to go - Roosters

[Big Panther Cool]

take a statistics class BPC.

Tell your mate Renowned League Fraud that Wad

 

[Renowned League Expert]

For the very reason that I have outlined several. I mean, it's getting embarrassing that I have to keep repeating these things. Once more: I used a large sample of crowds because if I'd used, say, this years crowds, or even crowd figures from the last five years, you (and others) would have immediately said that Roosters crowds are up only because they have been successful in that time period. So to counter that argument, I used a large sample. There is no other way. You either use current figures, recent figures or all figures.

Yes, 17,000-18000 over the last few years. But if I were to use that figure for the *Roosters* over the last few years, you'd reject it instantly as being not indicative of overall support -- which indeed it isn't. Same applies to Penrith.

But you can't have it both ways, kids.

It isn't a "false claim". Penrith *does* have the lowest average home crowd in that time period. To say that "Penrith is the most poorly supported team in the NRL" does not imply present tense at all. I didn't specify the tense. Since I've specified it ad nauseum in the past, I didn't feel it was necessary to then go ahead and specify it one more time.

Now run along ... surely you must have some homework to do?

And where is your proof that Penrith has the lowest average home crowds? It's a false claim, because you've got nothing to back it up..

I've posted the relevent statistics a half dozen times. I'm not about to do it again as it seems to go in one ear and out the other.

http://stats.rleague.com/rl/crowds/summary.html

Interesting that you mention population demographics. Quite true -- for such a "young" area full of young families -- Penrith should have much better crowds.

 

[Big Panther Cool]

For the very reason that I have outlined several. I mean, it's getting embarrassing that I have to keep repeating these things. Once more: I used a large sample of crowds because if I'd used, say, this years crowds, or even crowd figures from the last five years, you (and others) would have immediately said that Roosters crowds are up only because they have been successful in that time period. So to counter that argument, I used a large sample. There is no other way. You either use current figures, recent figures or all figures.

Yes, 17,000-18000 over the last few years. But if I were to use that figure for the *Roosters* over the last few years, you'd reject it instantly as being not indicative of overall support -- which indeed it isn't. Same applies to Penrith.

But you can't have it both ways, kids.

It isn't a "false claim". Penrith *does* have the lowest average home crowd in that time period. To say that "Penrith is the most poorly supported team in the NRL" does not imply present tense at all. I didn't specify the tense. Since I've specified it ad nauseum in the past, I didn't feel it was necessary to then go ahead and specify it one more time.

Now run along ... surely you must have some homework to do?

And where is your proof that Penrith has the lowest average home crowds? It's a false claim, because you've got nothing to back it up..

I've posted the relevent statistics a half dozen times. I'm not about to do it again as it seems to go in one ear and out the other.

http://stats.rleague.com/rl/crowds/summary.html

Interesting that you mention population demographics. Quite true -- for such a "young" area full of young families -- Penrith should have much better crowds.

What the f*** is wrong with 17/18000+ average home crowds? Don't give me that crap. Penrith's attendance record was smashed three times in 2003, yet you say that Penrith's crowds should be better?

And where are your population comparisons?

How about I give you an analogy here Renowned League Fraud. What if I was to say to you that Souths are a better and a far more successful club than the Roosters??

Think about it.

And why are you sidestepping your promise of choking on a Stetson?

 

[Renowned League Expert]

For the very reason that I have outlined several. I mean, it's getting embarrassing that I have to keep repeating these things. Once more: I used a large sample of crowds because if I'd used, say, this years crowds, or even crowd figures from the last five years, you (and others) would have immediately said that Roosters crowds are up only because they have been successful in that time period. So to counter that argument, I used a large sample. There is no other way. You either use current figures, recent figures or all figures.

Yes, 17,000-18000 over the last few years. But if I were to use that figure for the *Roosters* over the last few years, you'd reject it instantly as being not indicative of overall support -- which indeed it isn't. Same applies to Penrith.

But you can't have it both ways, kids.

It isn't a "false claim". Penrith *does* have the lowest average home crowd in that time period. To say that "Penrith is the most poorly supported team in the NRL" does not imply present tense at all. I didn't specify the tense. Since I've specified it ad nauseum in the past, I didn't feel it was necessary to then go ahead and specify it one more time.

Now run along ... surely you must have some homework to do?

And where is your proof that Penrith has the lowest average home crowds? It's a false claim, because you've got nothing to back it up..

I've posted the relevent statistics a half dozen times. I'm not about to do it again as it seems to go in one ear and out the other.

http://stats.rleague.com/rl/crowds/summary.html

Interesting that you mention population demographics. Quite true -- for such a "young" area full of young families -- Penrith should have much better crowds.

What the f*** is wrong with 17/18000+ average home crowds? Don't give me that crap. Penrith's attendance record was smashed three times in 2003, yet you say that Penrith's crowds should be better?

And where are your population comparisons?

How about I give you an analogy here Renowned League Fraud. What if I was to say to you that Souths are a better and a far more successful club than the Roosters??

Think about it.

Nothing wrong with an average of 17,000. But that average is just for the last couple of seasons. Trouble is, Roosters supporters aren't allowed to only use recent figures. Overall, Penrith's average is just over 9,000. Nothing wrong with that, either. The overall average for all clubs is only 11,000.

Now to your analogy. You'd have to define "better" and "more successful".
More premierships? Sure. More internationals, yep.

I'd have to agree with you. If you use premierships and Australian representation as definitions of "better" and "more successful", Souths are superior.

But these things "better" and "more successful" are subjective, while crowd figures are not.

Population comparisons are pointless unless you look at particular demographics. The eastern suburbs are very much an ageing demographic, whilst the western suburns are a younger demographic. If you look at junior numbers, they'll back this up.

 

[MEATWAD]

How about I give you an analogy here Renowned League Fraud. What if I was to say to you that Souths are a better and a far more successful club than the Roosters??

First, crowd averages are numbers and therefore can be quantified. "Better" cannot be quantified so easily. But Souths *are* a "more successful" club, if by that you mean number of premierships won since 1908. They are the best in the league. It's pretty simple. It's about picking a measurement and quantifying it.

So crowd averages, how would you quantify them to assert your proposition that the situation isn't as RLE says? If you pick arbitrary dates (eg "since 2003") then you ought to be able to justify why this date should be preferred. RLE's data is all the data, the most statistically error free version of the data.

 

[Big Panther Cool]

For the very reason that I have outlined several. I mean, it's getting embarrassing that I have to keep repeating these things. Once more: I used a large sample of crowds because if I'd used, say, this years crowds, or even crowd figures from the last five years, you (and others) would have immediately said that Roosters crowds are up only because they have been successful in that time period. So to counter that argument, I used a large sample. There is no other way. You either use current figures, recent figures or all figures.

Yes, 17,000-18000 over the last few years. But if I were to use that figure for the *Roosters* over the last few years, you'd reject it instantly as being not indicative of overall support -- which indeed it isn't. Same applies to Penrith.

But you can't have it both ways, kids.

It isn't a "false claim". Penrith *does* have the lowest average home crowd in that time period. To say that "Penrith is the most poorly supported team in the NRL" does not imply present tense at all. I didn't specify the tense. Since I've specified it ad nauseum in the past, I didn't feel it was necessary to then go ahead and specify it one more time.

Now run along ... surely you must have some homework to do?

And where is your proof that Penrith has the lowest average home crowds? It's a false claim, because you've got nothing to back it up..

I've posted the relevent statistics a half dozen times. I'm not about to do it again as it seems to go in one ear and out the other.

http://stats.rleague.com/rl/crowds/summary.html

Interesting that you mention population demographics. Quite true -- for such a "young" area full of young families -- Penrith should have much better crowds.

What the f*** is wrong with 17/18000+ average home crowds? Don't give me that crap. Penrith's attendance record was smashed three times in 2003, yet you say that Penrith's crowds should be better?

And where are your population comparisons?

How about I give you an analogy here Renowned League Fraud. What if I was to say to you that Souths are a better and a far more successful club than the Roosters??

Think about it.

Nothing wrong with an average of 17,000. But that average is just for the last couple of seasons. Trouble is, Roosters supporters aren't allowed to only use recent figures. Overall, Penrith's average is just over 9,000. Nothing wrong with that, either. The overall average for all clubs is only 11,000.

Now to your analogy. You'd have to define "better" and "more successful".
More premierships? Sure. More internationals, yep.

I'd have to agree with you. If you use premierships and Australian representation as definitions of "better" and "more successful", Souths are superior.

But these things "better" and "more successful" are subjective, while crowd figures are not.

Population comparisons are pointless unless you look at particular demographics. The eastern suburbs are very much an ageing demographic, whilst the western suburns are a younger demographic. If you look at junior numbers, they'll back this up.

Subjective? Are you calling Souths 20+ premiership victories subjective? :roll:

What I'm trying to get at League Fraud, is that if I or another league fan would say to you that Souths are a far better team than the roosters, you would scream blue murder. Yet the stats prove this.

And in regards to the population comparisons, yes you're right - but I'm talking about population comparisons from back in the late 60's and 70's when Penrith started playing, as well as current populations.

The main point League Fraud, is you keep on stating that Penrith is the most poorly supported club in the NRL. Then you say that there's nothing wrong with Penrith's 9000 average crowd since 1967. So if there's nothing wrong with that, then don't say it. Then again, you're the only fool that keeps believing this tripe so if you want to maintain that stance then you're beyond help.

And juniors? Weren't you the one that once said that juniors were overrated??

Now how's that Stenson tasting there??

 

[Big Panther Cool]

How about I give you an analogy here Renowned League Fraud. What if I was to say to you that Souths are a better and a far more successful club than the Roosters??

First, crowd averages are numbers and therefore can be quantified. "Better" cannot be quantified so easily. But Souths *are* a "more successful" club, if by that you mean number of premierships won since 1908. They are the best in the league. It's pretty simple. It's about picking a measurement and quantifying it.

So crowd averages, how would you quantify them to assert your proposition that the situation isn't as RLE says? If you pick arbitrary dates (eg "since 2003") then you ought to be able to justify why this date should be preferred. RLE's data is all the data, the most statistically error free version of the data.

Meatwad, let me ask you this question. Do you honestly believe that Penrith are the most poorly supported club in the NRL??

 

[Renowned League Expert]

For the very reason that I have outlined several. I mean, it's getting embarrassing that I have to keep repeating these things. Once more: I used a large sample of crowds because if I'd used, say, this years crowds, or even crowd figures from the last five years, you (and others) would have immediately said that Roosters crowds are up only because they have been successful in that time period. So to counter that argument, I used a large sample. There is no other way. You either use current figures, recent figures or all figures.

Yes, 17,000-18000 over the last few years. But if I were to use that figure for the *Roosters* over the last few years, you'd reject it instantly as being not indicative of overall support -- which indeed it isn't. Same applies to Penrith.

But you can't have it both ways, kids.

It isn't a "false claim". Penrith *does* have the lowest average home crowd in that time period. To say that "Penrith is the most poorly supported team in the NRL" does not imply present tense at all. I didn't specify the tense. Since I've specified it ad nauseum in the past, I didn't feel it was necessary to then go ahead and specify it one more time.

Now run along ... surely you must have some homework to do?

And where is your proof that Penrith has the lowest average home crowds? It's a false claim, because you've got nothing to back it up..

I've posted the relevent statistics a half dozen times. I'm not about to do it again as it seems to go in one ear and out the other.

http://stats.rleague.com/rl/crowds/summary.html

Interesting that you mention population demographics. Quite true -- for such a "young" area full of young families -- Penrith should have much better crowds.

What the f*** is wrong with 17/18000+ average home crowds? Don't give me that crap. Penrith's attendance record was smashed three times in 2003, yet you say that Penrith's crowds should be better?

And where are your population comparisons?

How about I give you an analogy here Renowned League Fraud. What if I was to say to you that Souths are a better and a far more successful club than the Roosters??

Think about it.

Nothing wrong with an average of 17,000. But that average is just for the last couple of seasons. Trouble is, Roosters supporters aren't allowed to only use recent figures. Overall, Penrith's average is just over 9,000. Nothing wrong with that, either. The overall average for all clubs is only 11,000.

Now to your analogy. You'd have to define "better" and "more successful".
More premierships? Sure. More internationals, yep.

I'd have to agree with you. If you use premierships and Australian representation as definitions of "better" and "more successful", Souths are superior.

But these things "better" and "more successful" are subjective, while crowd figures are not.

Population comparisons are pointless unless you look at particular demographics. The eastern suburbs are very much an ageing demographic, whilst the western suburns are a younger demographic. If you look at junior numbers, they'll back this up.

Subjective? Are you calling Souths 20+ premiership victories subjective? :roll:

What I'm trying to get at League Fraud, is that if I or another league fan would say to you that Souths are a far better team than the roosters, you would scream blue murder. Yet the stats prove this.

And in regards to the population comparisons, yes you're right - but I'm talking about population comparisons from back in the late 60's and 70's when Penrith started playing, as well as current populations.

The main point League Fraud, is you keep on stating that Penrith is the most poorly supported club in the NRL. Then you say that there's nothing wrong with Penrith's 9000 average crowd since 1967. So if there's nothing wrong with that, then don't say it. Then again, you're the only fool that keeps believing this tripe so if you want to maintain that stance then you're beyond help.

And juniors? Weren't you the one that once said that juniors were overrated??

You're a simpleton. You must be. Look, I already agreed with you that if you use premierships as a guide, Souths are a better football team than the Roosters. No screaming blue murder. I agree with you.

By stating that Penrith is the most poorly supported team -- since 1967 -- in the NRL, I am not making a value judgement. It's YOU who is making that value judgement. It's no different to me saying the Sydney Harbour Bridge is smaller than the Golden Gate Bridge. That's not a judgement, just a fact.

OK, back to population demographics. Your theory is demonstrably false. If you look at Penrith's average home crowd in even their *second year* -- 1968 -- it was 9,200 -- a higher figure even than their total average (1967-2005) of 9,080! Clearly, population has little to do with it. As for junior numbers, I mentioned those because it's an indicator of the age demographic of the area. A younger demographic will mean more juniors, an older demographic, less. It's not rocket science, kid.

 

[MEATWAD]

Meatwad, let me ask you this question. Do you honestly believe that Penrith are the most poorly supported club in the NRL??

According to the only data I've seen, yes. Even though I might think this data is counter-intuitive, it's the only data that's been presented. Do you have any other data (data, not an argument) to show me otherwise? I believe the data.

 

[Johns Magic]

Uh yeh. Chris Walker sucks.

 

[MEATWAD]

Johns Magic, that point was settled on, even (especially?) by Roosters fans, a long time ago!

 

[Bernster]

Uh yeh. Chris Walker sucks.

Tell me something I don't know !!!