"Judge us after 5 rounds"

[stuie 7,374]

Amazing isn't it considering all the 1st round picks and pp's we were handed....

Those who were in charge must stay right away

Get over it WYL. For your own sanity.

[Alcho Dee 269]

Last year at this time our percentage was 56, this year it's 67.

Now, let me explain... 67 is a higher number than 56. That means so far this year we've improved on the same time last year. Do you see how that works?

And in Mark Neeld's first year(2012) we managed 4 wins at a percentage of 67.5, what do you make of that?

[Alcho Dee 269]

Haha... Wow. Just when I think you couldn't miss any more obvious points.

We may be averaging 10 points less so far this year, but we're also restricting out opponents to 40 points less.

That's why we talk about percentage and not just points for.

Far out. Special kid you are.

Who is we, I made the point about 'points for' That is very different to percentage.

[Alcho Dee 269]

Stuie, put the knitting down FFS

[stuie 7,374]

Who is we, I made the point about 'points for' That is very different to percentage.

Seriously, you're not that dumb are you.

Points for means nothing if you're not also taking into consideration points against.

Yes last year we averaged 66, but our opponents scored 122.

This year we average 56 (so far), but our opponents average 84.

Get some context and some understanding of footy, please.

[stuie 7,374]

Stuie, put the knitting down FFS

Great post. Now you're just showing off with your footy understanding...

[stuie 7,374]

And in Mark Neeld's first year(2012) we managed 4 wins at a percentage of 67.5, what do you make of that?

Haha.. I make of it that you think Neeld was better than Roos. Which makes you pretty much the worst watcher of footy of all time.

I also make of it that your comparing a whole season under Neeld to 6 games under Roos. FMD.

Edited April 27, 2014 by stuie

[titan_uranus 25,059]

Who is we, I made the point about 'points for' That is very different to percentage.

Let me ask: what would you rather? Average points for of 66 with average points against of 120, or average points for of 56 with average points against of 84?

[Sir Why You Little 37,244]

Get over it WYL. For your own sanity.

Mind your own business light weight.

Beamer still loves you...

[stuie 7,374]

Let me ask: what would you rather? Average points for of 66 with average points against of 120, or average points for of 56 with average points against of 84?

Don't bother. He either doesn't get it or refuses to.

[stuie 7,374]

Mind your own business light weight.

Beamer still loves you...

Mind my own business on a public internet forum?

[Alcho Dee 269]

Let me ask: what would you rather? Average points for of 66 with average points against of 120, or average points for of 56 with average points against of 84?

Yes I rather the current situation, titan_uranus, I was simply showing Stuie an area that we have not improved on since last year, that being "points for".

Stuie seems to think we have improved in all areas which simple is not true.

Yes our percentage is better and the points against is considerably lower, all which I have recognised.

And still we are 17th on the ladder with a poor percentage, even with a better list than last year.

[Alcho Dee 269]

Mind my own business on a public internet forum?

Hey Stuie, found your reading glasses yet?

Edited April 27, 2014 by J VINEY FAN

[stuie 7,374]

Yes I rather the current situation, titan_uranus, I was simply showing Stuie an area that we have not improved on since last year, that being "points for".

Stuie seems to think we have improved in all areas which simple is not true.

Yes our percentage is better and the points against is considerably lower, all which I have recognised.

And still we are 17th on the ladder with a poor percentage, even with a better list than last year.

Show me exactly where I said that.

Also, points for is irrelevant if you're not also taking into consideration points against.

[stuie 7,374]

Hey Stuie, found your glasses yet?

Getting funnier every time. How do you do it?

[Alcho Dee 269]

Show me exactly where I said that.

Also, points for is irrelevant if you're not also taking into consideration points against.

You think it is irrelevant, but it actually is.

[Sir Why You Little 37,244]

Mind my own business on a public internet forum?

YES.

[stuie 7,374]

You think it is irrelevant, but it actually is.

Hahahahahahahaha classic.

[titan_uranus 25,059]

Yes I rather the current situation, titan_uranus, I was simply showing Stuie an area that we have not improved on since last year, that being "points for".

Stuie seems to think we have improved in all areas which simple is not true.

Yes our percentage is better and the points against is considerably lower, all which I have recognised.

And still we are 17th on the ladder with a poor percentage, even with a better list than last year.

I'd be surprised if Stuie thinks that. I'd be surprised if anyone thinks that. Simply put, we are not improving in all areas.

We are, though, improving in many areas. Points for is not one of them, but that makes sense given some of the injuries we've had and Roos' statements that the first focus was to tighten up the defence. What we are doing is ensuring that we don't get blown out of the water repeatedly. The strides we've made in stopping sides from doing this are immense and commendable. They have, to date, come at the expense of us kicking big scores. That hasn't stopped us being competitive in 5 of the 6 games so far.

[praha 11,246]

The team is 1-5.

I therefore judge them to be in the bottom 2 of teams in the league.

Fin

Mods pls close thread

[stuie 7,374]

The team is 1-5.

I therefore judge them to be in the bottom 2 of teams in the league.

Fin

Mods pls close thread

Haha classic Demonland syndrome. I wish my comment to be last because I think highly of my own opinion and hold no value in any one elses so close the thread after I have my say,

[Moonshadow 17,678]

Let me ask: what would you rather? Average points for of 66 with average points against of 120, or average points for of 56 with average points against of 84?

Unfortunately Titan, it's a bit like asking which would you rather eat...... a faeces sandwich or a vomit smoothie. Neither are palatable.

Edited April 27, 2014 by Moonshadow

[Bitter but optimistic 22,289]

Unfortunately Titan, it's a bit like asking which would you rather eat...... a faeces sandwich or a vomit smoothie. Neither are palatable.

Well we can't argue with that, you would be an expert on such matters Moon!

[Earl Hood 6,128]

Watching us last night then watching the Hawks vs the Toigs, good heavens how far away are we? Light years I think particularly given we have made a dogs breakfast of many of our past drafts and trading, not always of our own fault. The talent in the bank is very limited. We have been cruelled by injuries to the likes of Jurrah, Wonna and Clark for example. They had talent but couldnt sustain it.

Much of that was beyond our control but we have gone past a number of good players and picked duds. Are the latest picks, the right talent, well let us hope.

[P-man 13,366]

Watching us last night then watching the Hawks vs the Toigs, good heavens how far away are we? Light years I think particularly given we have made a dogs breakfast of many of our past drafts and trading, not always of our own fault. The talent in the bank is very limited. We have been cruelled by injuries to the likes of Jurrah, Wonna and Clark for example. They had talent but couldnt sustain it.

Much of that was beyond our control but we have gone past a number of good players and picked duds. Are the latest picks, the right talent, well let us hope.

The Tiges were horrible. Again.

I actually think we should, not could, roll them.