Southerntakeover
Too Sweet
Douglas won a best and fairest, and came second last year. They're not at all comparable. The suggestion was not to look at his form 10 years ago exclusively, it was to look over the entirety of a 10 year period. There's a substantial difference.
Your argument is that we should ignore all evidence, including the most recent, in favour of a small favourable sample size. When viewed as such does this argument really seem like a good one?
Your argument is that we should ignore all evidence, including the most recent, in favour of a small favourable sample size. When viewed as such does this argument really seem like a good one?







