Sydney v Essendon betting

[Daniel]

Sydney have been posted by Centrebet at the amazing odds of $8.50 (7.5 to 1) to beat Essendon at the SCG on Sunday. Although the Bombers are heavy favourites for a reason, one would have to say that those are pretty inviting odds in a two-horse race.

Sydney are also receiving a 38.5 points start if you want even money odds. Do Essendon deserve that kind of favouritism? Obviously the bookies think they do.

 

[sainter]

It is pretty remarkable but on Essendon's recent form you would have to say it is deserved.

I thought the Kangaroos paying $3.50 for a win last week was pretty attractive too.

But giving the swans a 38 point start? I think I might have a few dollars on that.

 

[jod23]

I wouldnt waste my money the Bombers by 120 points

2000 the year of the Eagle

 

[Daniel]

I hope you got some money on, sainter. It almost looked like a big pay day for anyone who had backed Sydney for a while.

 

[Bloodstained Angel]

Couldn't believe the bookies gave Sydney a 38 point start so I jumped on and collected big time !

Just on Sundays game - I was extremely underwhelmed by this so-called 'champion' Bomber outfit. If it wasn't for highly dubious umpiring and two terrible Swans clangers in defence, Essendon would have been rolled easily.

Any Bombers people wnat to talk about it ?

 

[Dave]

"Highly dubious umpiring" eh? So Sydney didn't benefit from any dud decisions? As for the turnovers, that's what good sides do, they create errors from pressure.

Over all I was pretty happy to get the win given the guys have been "up" for a fair while and also that we've struggled against the Swans in Sydney. In the end had we not missed some easy shots the marigin would have been greater.

Credit to the Swans, a gutsy performance.

 

[Bloodstained Angel]

Dave

The two clangers I had in mind were when Bomford carried the ball too far and Fosdike kicked out on the full. Both incidents were just plain terrible un-forced errors which directly resulted in Essendon goals and which were our own silly mistake - not the result of pressure from the Essendon players.

Two clangers - two goals - and that was the winning margin - enough said ?

On the umpiring, I'm not so daft as to suggest that the umpiring cost us the game or that we didn't get a few 'favours' of our own but I will say one thing : I know he is supposed to be a champion full-foward and all that but Matty Lloyd is paid the softest free-kicks I have ever seen any full-forward win.

Take the first 1/4 for instance when he was paid in the goal square for in the back against Schauble. Look at the replay, Schauble is not grabbing him, Schauble has eyes only for the ball and Lloyd falls over with an almost soccer like display as soon as Scahuble touches him.

C'mon get real ! - champion full forwards don't need soft, 50-50 free kicks to score goals - but evidently Lloyd does.

He would get more free kicks in a game than Lockett did in his entire career.

I'm not whinging or whining or saying biased umpiring costs us the game but sheesh - you really have to wonder sometimes why some full-forwards can't take a trick while others appear to be the teachers pet.

 

[Dave]

BSA, look closely at that Lloyd/Schauble contest and you'll see that Schauble does grab Lloyd's jumper (it clearly came away from his body and this is why I believe the free was paid, umpires generally tend to be red-hot on this though they did miss one to Luff later in the game) - I watched this last night a couple of times after Pluggers comments about it.

What you say about Plugger is true, he struggled to get many free's during his career, but much of the blame for that lies at his own doorstep due to the way in which he played the game before he went to Sydney. You might think Lloyd's a "teachers pet" compared to Plugger, but ask yourself, how many players has Lloyd almost choked into unconsciousness? How many players faces has he smashed in? Despite what they say I believe umpires DO remember these incidents and allow it to affect their decisions.

As for receiving the "softest free's", if you watched him play every week you'd see just as many "hard" ones let go.

Clangers: Why did Bomford run too far - were the options upfield covered? Did Fosdike kick oof because he knew the game was slipping away and tried to do too much? There's more than just physical pressure exerted in a game - just because a player looks to be in the clear you don't know what he's hearing (ie opposition players yelling "your hot").

All in all I thought it was a good game and showed how true what our coach said to us earlier this is:

"18 good footballers will always be beaten by 18 footballers who want the ball more"

Unfortunately for the Swans our guys decided in the last quarter they wanted the pill a little more.

 

[Bloodstained Angel]

Yeah I agree Dave - it was a great game and I think that Essendon in the end deserved their win. But my point about Matty Lloyd is that he is alone in Full-forwards that consistently win the 50-50 decisions - why ?

Look I'm not having a grizzle about how Lockett was hard done by - you are right alot of time it was his own silly fault but I am trying to use the example of Lockett and compare it to Lloyd to illustrate that I believe Lloyd gets far too many free-kicks for a FF.

If Schauble was with any other FF in that first quarter incident on Sunday it would have been play on (rushed behind). Can you honestly say the umpires would have paid that free kick if it was Paul Hudosn, Tony Modra or Scott Cummings ? Hmmmmm

As I said it makes you wonder sometimes ...

On the Bomford and Fosdikes incidents I was sitting in the Dally Messenger stand and had a good look at both. Bomfords was a real shocker as he had a paddock in front of him and two Swans making space downfield. There was absolutely no excuse for his error. Fosdike had just cleared a pack and I don't think he really saw a number of close options in the mid field, instead he bombed it and it flew off the side of his boot. - So I bguess you can't be too hard on the guy especially after he had such a good game otherwise.

 

[Dave]

BSA, after reading your post in the other thread I'm wondering whther your schitzo!

As for Lloyd, if it'd been Modra or Carey, yeah I reckon the free would've been paid. Hudson's a hard call as he doesn't body much like that.

As for Lloyd getting too many free's as a FF, do you also think Nick Holland gets too many? Carey?

 

[Bloodstained Angel]

Carey - definitley not
Holland - I don't honestly know

Just my totally subjective, totally unscientific opinion.

Can any stats-minded people help us out ?

Settle it for once snd for all - Is Matty Lloyd the Umpires pet ?

 

[sandie]

BSA you have to be kidding.
Not only is Queen Carey the umpires favourite, but also the medias, he is untouchable.

------------------
Mantis

 

[Bloodstained Angel]

We'll agree to disagree on that one sandie ...

 

[sainter]

Daniel,

I had my money at Crown on Saturday night ready to back the swans with the 38 point start

Yet in my wisdom, I decided to back the Mary Pierce - Magnus Norman double instead.

In terms of football results and backing a winner, it is fair to say that the year 2000 will not go down as one of my favourites.

 

[Daniel]

Oh no! If anything, you should have just backed Pierce. It's all too easy in hindsight, I suppose..

 

[Razza]

You lost, we won,stop copying the eade school of whinging. Two goals ahead last qtr all you had to do was outscore us.If you had clangers bad luck!! had a little choke did they?? just watch the replay and see schwass's effort. What a star , Russell crowe eat your heart out. Get over it.....

 

[sainter]

Daniel, I will just stick to the footy in the future!

 

[jod23]

ok so i said earlier in this post that the swans would lose by 120 points well i was wrong and credit to the swans. But all of this is good lets hope the Dons keep that bad form for another week so the Eagles can be victorious!!!

2000 the year of the Eagle