In an unbiased opinion, I think Malta should go through via more points scored, not for and against. The aim of F7's is to outscore your opponent, not hold them to less, since you can't control the opponents score. Malta outscored Australia in the two games, meaning their Articles were of higher quality in the judges opinion, making them the deserving team to go through. If Aus goes through on their FA because of beating a 2 man English team it'll be rubbish.
I agree with you up to a point mate. Yes, teams cannot control how many points the other team scores; there's no such thing as a good defensive side.
The effect the FA has is to moderate each team's performance by the performance of every other team they play. What it is, at both its most basic and most obtuse, is a measure of how seriously the team is perceived by their opposition.
In the Grand Final this year, the Baggers posted 7 articles in their clubhouse and chose the 5 best. They did this because they wanted to gain the highest score possible against their opponents (us). That they didn't do this for every match of the year signifies they perceive some teams to be harder than others, or some matches more important.
By this logic, the teams perceived as the best will tend to have the worst FA.
In this example, Malta may have faced teams with stronger line-ups than England, therefore giving them a worse FA.
What the FA rules should teach us then is 1) play your hardest every match and 2) F7s loves an underdog.
I don't have an issue with either of those lessons.
Ok, bagsies on using this for an article.
