Delusional Pearlers II

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Houli was on FSN last night and said something like "last year it was disappointing we were in the bottom half of the table but this year we're up there with the best teams" - lol, somebody show him the ladder because richmond are 12th, ****ing lol

He was talking about contested possessions to be fair.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Does anybody overrate their young kids as much as North supporters?
Seriously it is unbelievable that so many of them do, before last season I was hearing all this talk about the likes of Greenwood, Cunnington and Ziebell, I presumed they were all great but after watching a lot of them last season its honestly astonishing how much they overrate their own kids, even the ones who arent getting a game.
And of course the new kid on the block Aaron Black is the next victim.

North and Melbourne supporters are both guilty of over-rating their players.
 
Re: RS.

The brutal truth of the matter is: Kids that have an experienced support network thrive much earlier than those who don't. Kids who don't have much of a support network (the kids in our midfield) are significantly disadvantaged in these silly youth award nominations. This would also explain a plethora of arsehat reasoning of the autofellatio polls threads (Howlett >>>>>>>>>> Cunnington).

In short, the rising star is pretty much a useless chump change award.

North board.
Where "has played better football" is "arsehat reasoning".

The sad thing is OS is taking the piss, 99.9% of the time and not many of them realise, they lap it up and gurge it out.
 
Re: RS.



North board.
Where "has played better football" is "arsehat reasoning".

The sad thing is OS is taking the piss, 99.9% of the time and not many of them realise, they lap it up and gurge it out.

So the question remains - do North simply recruit poorly? Or do they take kids that otherwise might have been good players and 'North' them into rather mundane players.

I remember a quote from the draft camp from a year or two ago (can't be assed finding it); where Scott was talking about questioning players on "Why do they want to play for North Melbourne?" or other such nonsense.

FFS, the kids whilst polite in their responses would seriously be hoping they dodge that bullet - who wants to play for a broke, unattended rabble of a club?
 
So the question remains - do North simply recruit poorly? Or do they take kids that otherwise might have been good players and 'North' them into rather mundane players.

I remember a quote from the draft camp from a year or two ago (can't be assed finding it); where Scott was talking about questioning players on "Why do they want to play for North Melbourne?" or other such nonsense.

FFS, the kids whilst polite in their responses would seriously be hoping they dodge that bullet - who wants to play for a broke, unattended rabble of a club?

Well Goldstein turned down 7.5 mill to stay at north
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Pretty much spot on about the Rising Star. But then I'd argue the same thing about every individual award in a team sport.
Same here.

Funny fact though, did you know Jack Ziebell was favourite for the Rising Star award halfway through his first season with one betting agent?

Yeah, gun.
 
Don't know what it is with the Stanton hate... I've liked him for a couple years.

Quite a few of my mates who are bombers fans can't stand him. I just don't get it.
 
Don't know what it is with the Stanton hate... I've liked him for a couple years.

Quite a few of my mates who are bombers fans can't stand him. I just don't get it.

He's a wingnut in the #5.

We can't stand such types.
 
Yeah if I run in to Stanton somewhere i'd like to personally thank the guy for all his effort and what he's contributed to the club. The guy deserves all good things that come his way.
 
Yeah if I run in to Stanton somewhere i'd like to personally thank the guy for all his effort and what he's contributed to the club. The guy deserves all good things that come his way.

You usually will find him at the Bendigo matches helping out the young blokes. Really good guy.:thumbsu:
 
Customer works into work today proclaiming "the Tiges are on a roll!" I guess one win in a row IS a roll for them....

It’s two in a row, if you disregard umpiring.

That bloody umpiring - puts a side seven goals down.

That bloody umpiring - makes you kick 5.8 in a dominant quarter of footy.

That bloody umpiring – lets you sleep at night comfortable that it cost you a game, and your side isn’t just average.
 
It's all Bannister's fault. :(

And, actually, they had one more scoring shot, so, technically, y'know, they would have won, it's just that they didn't have the same composure, so, y'know, whatever, Effingdumb flogs.
 
It's all Bannister's fault. :(

And, actually, they had one more scoring shot, so, technically, y'know, they would have won, it's just that they didn't have the same composure, so, y'know, whatever, Effingdumb flogs.

You sound like Brissy Bumchum LN :eek:
 
Roby's delusional perception of his own intelligence:

I have spent 10 years researching AFL/VFL records, on top of monitoring matchday performances in modern times, to see what common factors are consistent and prominent for teams that win the premiership.

Premiership teams tend to have these common factors, some obvious some less so:

  • They win a lot of games and finish high on the ladder. No s**t
  • They tend to be able to blow most teams off the park. Revelation
  • They tend to not be blown off the park themselves. (The less times they do not get thrashed, the more likely they will win the premiership). The best teams don't lose by a lot. Please continue...
  • The consistently perform well against the better teams. You are amazing
  • They tend to have a harder draw. This suggests they become more match hardened, and the perform better in finals. The opposite is true for teams with soft draws. Only one I'd pay.
  • Teams with favourable umpiring during the home-and-away rounds tend to be overrated and under-perform in finals. Teams with unfavourable umpiring during the home-and-away rounds tend to be underrated and over-perform in finals. This is probably due to the fact that umpires tend to not blow the whistle as often in finals and thus having less influence. Debatable
  • They perform well in wet conditions. They perform well in various conditions... the sign of a good team. Why didn't I think of this already?
  • They have the fewest injuries to "key" players. Marry me, genius
  • They have a deep list (this seems to encourage players to perform better to keep spots). Oh I thought they'd have a s**t, shallow list
  • They tend to overturn poor records against particular teams in that year. They improve on their previous seasons. Brilliant.

Glad he put 10 years into that...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top