so whats the score on this goal difference balony?

[Selhurst Saint]

And while I'm at it

Just watching/listening to the Adelaide/Freo game.

Commentators made a comment re - and I missed which team they referred to - "they played shorter quarters in Round 1 because of the heat"

I would assume it would be Adelaide in UAE. Whoever it was it would clearly impact on their goal scoring ability.
Anyone know?

Not when you are playing Collingwood it doesn't.

[Iceman234]

Well the way i see it every knows the system beforehand so all clubs know that the bigger score you get the better. And apart from using percentage which is also influenced by the weather no one has a better system.

Thanks P66 you hit the nail on the head.

That's exactly what I was saying - percentage is based on conditions and performance under those conditions.

As opposed to aggregate scoring - percentage is a much better indicator of performance as outlined above.

When I was playing footy I'd have given my lefty one year for my team to finish top because we scored more goals - we didn't get the advantage because of percentage and lost out. But that's the system and so it should be.

Yes everyone knows the system beforehand.

So if a club or a supporter/member doesn't agree with the system as it is - what should they do? Send yet another email to the AFL? Wow, my inbox is overflowing from their replies.

[plugger66]

Well the way i see it every knows the system beforehand so all clubs know that the bigger score you get the better. And apart from using percentage which is also influenced by the weather no one has a better system.

Thanks P66 you hit the nail on the head.

That's exactly what I was saying - percentage is based on conditions and performance under those conditions.

As opposed to aggregate scoring - percentage is a much better indicator of performance as outlined above.

When I was playing footy I'd have given my lefty one year for my team to finish top because we scored more goals - we didn't get the advantage because of percentage and lost out. But that's the system and so it should be.

Yes everyone knows the system beforehand.

So if a club or a supporter/member doesn't agree with the system as it is - what should they do? Send yet another email to the AFL? Wow, my inbox is overflowing from their replies. [/quoPercentage is alo influenced by the weather. If it is raining 4 gaoal to 2 may when it so even though your percentage that week will be 200 because you have scored so low it could alter by a huge amount the next week so either system is flawed when you play only 3 games.

[Iceman234]

Well the way i see it every knows the system beforehand so all clubs know that the bigger score you get the better. And apart from using percentage which is also influenced by the weather no one has a better system.

Thanks P66 you hit the nail on the head.

That's exactly what I was saying - percentage is based on conditions and performance under those conditions.

As opposed to aggregate scoring - percentage is a much better indicator of performance as outlined above.

When I was playing footy I'd have given my lefty one year for my team to finish top because we scored more goals - we didn't get the advantage because of percentage and lost out. But that's the system and so it should be.

Yes everyone knows the system beforehand.

So if a club or a supporter/member doesn't agree with the system as it is - what should they do? Send yet another email to the AFL? Wow, my inbox is overflowing from their replies. [/quoPercentage is alo influenced by the weather. If it is raining 4 gaoal to 2 may when it so even though your percentage that week will be 200 because you have scored so low it could alter by a huge amount the next week so either system is flawed when you play only 3 games.

So there is no argument?

You are agreeing that percentage is based on performance whereas aggregate scores are based on condiitions.


Which is my point exactly.

Percentage based incentive brings ALL teams and grounds back to an even playing field.

Would you rather play 3 games in a quagmire and score 13 goals while team B plays in sunshine and scores 45 goals.

Would you then be happy with playing your GF on their home turf with your blokes having boggy legs, sore calves, etc.


Where lies the problem P66? Where indeed?

[plugger66]

Well the way i see it every knows the system beforehand so all clubs know that the bigger score you get the better. And apart from using percentage which is also influenced by the weather no one has a better system.

Thanks P66 you hit the nail on the head.

That's exactly what I was saying - percentage is based on conditions and performance under those conditions.

As opposed to aggregate scoring - percentage is a much better indicator of performance as outlined above.

When I was playing footy I'd have given my lefty one year for my team to finish top because we scored more goals - we didn't get the advantage because of percentage and lost out. But that's the system and so it should be.

Yes everyone knows the system beforehand.

So if a club or a supporter/member doesn't agree with the system as it is - what should they do? Send yet another email to the AFL? Wow, my inbox is overflowing from their replies. [/quoPercentage is alo influenced by the weather. If it is raining 4 gaoal to 2 may when it so even though your percentage that week will be 200 because you have scored so low it could alter by a huge amount the next week so either system is flawed when you play only 3 games.

So there is no argument?

You are agreeing that percentage is based on performance whereas aggregate scores are based on condiitions.


Which is my point exactly.

Percentage based incentive brings ALL teams and grounds back to an even playing field.

Would you rather play 3 games in a quagmire and score 13 goals while team B plays in sunshine and scores 45 goals.

Would you then be happy with playing your GF on their home turf with your blokes having boggy legs, sore calves, etc.


Where lies the problem P66? Where indeed?

No I am saying that both can have the same problem because of conditions. Like I said team A may win its first game by say 30 points to 15. Percentage is 200. Then second week does exactly the same. keeps same percentage Week 3 it wins say 120 to 110. Percentage drops to 128

Team B wins first game 120 to 60 second game 120 to 110 Percentage at that stage is 141 and final game 120 to 80 percentage is 144 which is higher even though it didnt win 2 games by doubling the score of the opposition.

[Iceman234]

Agree to disagree - or do I?

How long has our game been based on the percentage system?

IMO three games is enough to establish a percentage system, especially in a pre-season series.

As opposed to aggregate.

Can't wait to see your positive aggregate system come into the real season.

I am sure the clubs and supporters will welcome it.

Are you serious P66 that you think this is a good system?

Or are you just arguing for arguments sake?

[Iceman234]

[quote="plugger66
No I am saying that both can have the same problem because of conditions. Like I said team A may win its first game by say 30 points to 15. Percentage is 200. Then second week does exactly the same. keeps same percentage Week 3 it wins say 120 to 110. Percentage drops to 128

Team B wins first game 120 to 60 second game 120 to 110 Percentage at that stage is 141 and final game 120 to 80 percentage is 144 which is higher even though it didnt win 2 games by doubling the score of the opposition.[/quote]

So the team who kicked 30 points to 15 two weeks running - what conditions have they played in?

I'd think it was pretty crappy and they would be fairly stuffed.

Realistically to score that low from two teams it's usually pretty sh1tty conditions.

[plugger66]

Agree to disagree - or do I?

How long has our game been based on the percentage system?

IMO three games is enough to establish a percentage system, especially in a pre-season series.

As opposed to aggregate.

Can't wait to see your positive aggregate system come into the real season.

I am sure the clubs and supporters will welcome it.

Are you serious P66 that you think this is a good system?

Or are you just arguing for arguments sake?

No I am pointing out they both have faults when it is over 3 games that is all. And it is only a practice game. Are you knocking the AFL for arguments sake. PS didnt what I said with the scores prove that conditions affect both systems.

[Iceman234]

Agree to disagree - or do I?

How long has our game been based on the percentage system?

IMO three games is enough to establish a percentage system, especially in a pre-season series.

As opposed to aggregate.

Can't wait to see your positive aggregate system come into the real season.

I am sure the clubs and supporters will welcome it.

Are you serious P66 that you think this is a good system?

Or are you just arguing for arguments sake?

No I am pointing out they both have faults when it is over 3 games that is all. And it is only a practice game. Are you knocking the AFL for arguments sake. PS didnt what I said with the scores prove that conditions affect both systems.

Yep but IMO the aggregate system has many more flaws

[Bernard Shakey]

It's a practice game for F*** sake. Get over it.