Poupou Escobar
Post Whore
- Messages
- 91,379
It's more granular than wins. We won a stupid amount of close games last year. Luck is a bigger factor in such games.
Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Not since 4pm yesterday.
*glandular
Wins / Losses are all that matters. Points differential is a backup (depth?) consideration. It is only used to seperate teams on equal points.
That Cowboys roster wasn’t better than ours in 2017. We had our opportunities last year against a better team as well but collapsed due to other reasons apart from having an inferior roster.
That's how it's used by the NRL to determine position on the ladder, but come finals time, points differential is a better predictor of performance (ergo, it is a superior measure of the quality of a team).
Maybe not for a regular season game, but for a finals match they were more experienced. Twelve of those merkins won a premiership together two years earlier. They also beat the Sharks (defending premiers) and the Roosters in that finals series.
How could you know it had anything to do with any other factor than the inferior roster?
The Cowboys were missing Thurston and only made the finals because Canterbury pulled off a huge upset of the Dragons in the final round. They had also lost 6 of their last 7 games going into the finals. We collapsed after being in control of the game by leading 10-0 at halftime. The Sharks had a better roster than the Cowboys and should have beaten them as well. The Cowboys beat the Roosters but there was no Tedesco or Cronk in that team yet.
Who cares about the circumstances of them making the eight? Once they were there they had the finals experience to cause upsets. They also had a ton of Origin experience, the opposite of Parra.
Proof that Flanagan and Robinson can't coach? The Sharks also didn't have Tedesco/Cronk, and for that matter, neither did we. What a dumb f**king argument. We were missing Gutherson though.
We were already starting to run out of puff when we went for that goal. We were too reliant on our starting middle forwards for yardage, especially with Ferguson, Sivo and Mennings out.
But that's only one team and three weeks. Over 25 round you have to assume it evens out for all teams. Yes some teams have worse years than others due to injury, but when comparing full season statistics (e.g. points differential), you have to look at it over the whole year and for all teams rather than cherry picking a handful of games. Save the cherry picking for when you're discussing the results of a single game, but then be aware that luck plays a much bigger role in the outcome of such a small sample.
So you’re going to completely ignore form coming into the finals? Even if you want to claim that the Cowboys had more finals experience you don’t just get to hand wave away the fact that the Cowboys were considered a one man team (two man if you want to be generous and include Taumololo) and we’re expected to struggle after losing 6 of their last 7 games because it doesn’t suit your narrative. You’re overrating the role of the Cowboys supporting cast. We had the better team and it was reflected in the betting odds (we were $1.30 favourites).
I am. Plenty of teams have gotten flogged one week and then won the following week. The Panthers did it this year, Souths did it twice, as did Parra, Manly abd Canberra. The Roosters have followed a flogging with a win four times this year. The Titans have done it five times! We lose a game and you f**ken idiots decide we won't ever win again. It happens year after year. Form is what happened last week. This week is a new game.
No, the odds reflect form. If the odds accurately reflected the quality of a team I wouldn't have made so much money backing roughies this year.
Lol those guys at TCT are f**king delusional. They are still backing BA. It’s laughable.
