 |
. |
|---|
Recent comments
User login
Places to Visit
Rugby League
Sports
Tips
Will Ferrell QOD
Recent comments
-
1 day 11 hours ago
-
1 day 20 hours ago
-
2 days 9 hours ago
-
2 days 12 hours ago
-
3 days 12 min ago
I wish you guys would post here with your real names.
Anyway, i think we're talking about different things. If you're saying Storm fans are 'vindicated' insofar as they put up with a couple of tough years, but stayed loyal to their team, and that loyalty was rewarded - i'd agree. Their loyalty was justified.
However, do not agree that this anyway vindicates the team. As you note, front the front office down down the Storm rorted the system. That history remains. They not only besmirched the game for their fans, but for every fan who loves the game (see 'Scotty' below for a similar opinion on this). Nothing wipes that clean. That's what I'm talking about.
They deserved to win this year and are rightful premiers. Nothing can take that away.
p.s. I think we see the fight differently; but that's just a different of opinion.
Cheers
Meninga was nothing but a second rower who, in the time where back rowers played like props, was too scared to play in the middle.
The Jones article has nothing to do with money, does it? Maybe I misread "He’s a multi- multi-multi-millionaire and part owner of 2GB radio station. Some reports put him as the highest-paid media personality in Australia. And he didn’t start poor either – growing up on a bucolic dairy farm in Queensland and boarding at Toowoomba Grammar. There’s no rags-to-riches story here. Let’s face it, the last time Jones saw Struggle Street was from the back of a chauffeur-driven Mercedes."
P.S. You were actually the guy who thought that regulation was the same as prohibition, Bob. I said that prohibition was the most extreme form of regulation.
Over emotive tripe.. I will start by saying I am a Manly fan. And quite reasonably, this is the WORST possible Grand Final for Manly fans.
However, you are very wrong on many points. The Storm, as a unit from the playing group, to the front office, cheated the salary cap and got their just desserts for doing so. But in 2012, they fielded a legal side, with a different front office and the NRL watching their every move. As much fun as I have on game day calling the Storm cheats, I know I am doing it tongue in cheek. The Storm's loyal (but very ugly) supporter base - the true supporters, not the ones who turn up in Essendon scarfs - deserve this premiership, and the rest of the NRL should recognise their commitment through what must have been very difficult to overcome.
That leads me to the "vindication" tag. I think the Storm's fans' have the right to feel vindicated. They felt those premierships in 2007 and 2009 and we're very proud of them. The club had them rightfully stripped, but the fan's were left with the mess. They had no say or no part in the cheating, but had those memories ripped away from them. Their vindication comes in knowing they now have a premiership that the NRL cannot take away from them. And knowing their club is back on top of the pile, where they believed they belonged for many years, and they're doing it legally.
Also, as much as he deserves a punch in the face, Billy Slater isn't to blame for the brawl. First of all, Sam Perritt is a sook, and has always been one. Krisnan Inu has proved before he has no brains, and David Stagg had no place involving himself by hooking Slater's neck. Those 3 sparked the brawl. Billy Slater had every right to react back to Inu, and in turn, to Stagg. I don't like Billy Slater, in fact, I hate him - but I don't see how he acted with any petulance - and was far from provocative - both of those tags can sit squarely with Stagg and Inu.
Congratulations to the Melbourne Storm - but they are only minding Manly's premiership until 2013.
It frustrates me that there was media reports about giving them their premierships back. They have been found to be cheating and we shouldn't be holding this up as a fairytale experience. For four years they deprived other teams of not only competition points but finals opportunities. Which equates to so much these days.
Slater has always been a grub. Wasn't it him who stomped on Todd Payten's head for no reason?
Not even a buttburt one. In fact, given I'm not disposed to either team, I just called the blue the way i saw it.
But you're probably right. The Storm will make me mad in the coming years.
It is a vindication. A vindication that cheating wins in the end, after winning the Grand Final with a nucleus of players formed together by cheating the system 2 years ago. Just as the Doggies did in 2004 after cheating the game in 2002. it sends a mesage that cheat and you might get caught but even if you do you will still win the comp soon there after. To me this is a shallow victory and another blight on the game. The Storm just like the Dogs in 2002 should of had the complete playing roster stripped bare and been forced to start again.
Slater didnt start the brawl, Inu did. Faux-tough guy Inu over reacted to Slaters fair attempet at stopping Sam Perrett.
Not surprising you blame Slater though, this article reeks of butthurt fan who cant get over the past. Yep, Melbourne cheated, now theyre premiers. Get over it. I hope they continue to make you mad over the coming years.
I have to say that in your habit of stupid comments, this is dumber than most. Aren't you the guy who thought regulation was the same thing as prohibition?
The Jones article has nothing to do with money. It's about spewing hate in the public sphere, and being held accountable if you do so.
Bob C
I have to say this is more accurate than your previous rants about Gina Rinehart but it still appears you have the same "this bloke has more money than me. wah. wah. wah. lets throw the toys out of the pram" chip on your shoulder.
Introducing challenges is only tinkering at the edges of a flawed system. It might solve one problem, but introduces at least two new problems and the system remains equally (or more) flawed. The new flaws are that a video ref mistake still costs a team its challenge, preventing further challenges that should have been permitted; and allowing incorrect decisions to stand if a team is out of challenges. It's a non-solution to a real problem. The controversy and endless whinging will continue, especially with the new breed of coaches. I remember when Brian Smith was the biggest whiner but now he's not in the top five.
To solve the problem, we need a clear goal of what the video ref system is there to achieve. I say it should put an end to TV replays and newspaper photos clearly showing that wrong decisions were made, since we'll never get 100% correct decisions. Wrong decisions are occurring in part because all the opinions and viewpoints of the on-field officials are lost when the decision is sent upstairs. The system should be:
1) The on-field officials makes a decision. This could be either public (preferred), or kept quiet pending the video review.
2) The video referee reviews the play. His only choices are definitely a try, or definitely not a try. He has no benefit of the doubt option.
3) If the video replays aren't definitive, the on-field referee's decision stands, (relatively) safe in the knowledge that he won't subsequently be proved wrong.
Of course, this is all meaningless until the video refs consistently get the vast majority of decisions right.
BTW, I love your one-eyed bulldogs view of plays. Greg Eastwood did not 'outpace' Inglis; he had a 10m headstart and was still run down in around 40m.
These lists are always difficult because of how subjective they can be but I was surprised by how much of it I agreed with.
I take issue with Dugan being rated so highly given how much football he missed (again) but he is a great talent.
Similary I would have placed Hoffman higher as he has been the Storm's most dominant forward in a number of games and I can't recall seeing him play better football. All in all a very good list and I look forward to part 2.
While all and sundry get caught up in the usual furore over the video ref easily the biggest issue facing our game (International Eligibility) has been conveniently brushed under the carpet. In April Josh Papalii declared he was Kiwi 100%, in September after a torrid badgering from QRL officials he now bleeds Maroon. That’s not to say I don’t think he qualifies to play for QLD as clearly he does having lived there since the age of 6, the point is that even Papilli admitted freely he did it for money, How many times during this whole saga has he said I really want to play for Australia ?
The ARLC by increasing SOO match payments and forcing players who do play SOO to commit to Australia is decimating Rugby League in NZ. So NZL contribute around 30% of the player pool in the NRL and up to 50% of the NYC so where is their slice of the pie to build sustainable growth in the game and develop pathways that incentivise Kiwis to choose to represent the place of their birth ?.
Cue all the Cayless, SKD, Nightingale, Pritchard, Beale, Hoffman & Fien calls.... well the difference is that they didn’t have to be coaxed financially to represent NZ, they did it out of honouring their heritage which they all have (apart from Fien, that was abhorrent) compare this to the disgraceful situation that emerged in April with James Tamou and now Papalii who did it for the money and money only.
NZRL will always approach young players with NZ heritage but the only carrot they offer is the chance to represent their country which is and always should be the highest level. The current situation is terminal & only exacerbated by the narrow minded bigots such as Meninga, Stuart & co that will stop at nothing in their quest for state supremacy.
I don’t see any issue with players like Papalii representing both a state & a country (other than Australia) otherwise he and others in the future will always choose the money as he said a few times it was clearly a factor.
Nick, what do you think about the rules below ?
If the first rule is going to happen anyway then why not add the second rule ?
I’m sure in that Hunt, Carroll, Thorn, Tamou & Papalii wouldn’t think twice about having playing Origin and then for NZ.
It would also grow the International game greatly if the likes of Uate could play for Fiji , Mateo Tonga and could still play SOO.
Australia will always have the most depth so why do they have to lock in additional players with the lure of Origin ?
Do you think either Meninga or Stuart care about whether Tamou or Papalii play for NZ ?
They want them for Origin & origin only that’s why all the Papalii articles read “Papalii chooses Maroons over NZ” How many read Papalli chooses Australia over NZ ?
This is so simple isn’t it ?
I hope your dogs win and win well, good luck in the GF.
I know the bulldogs give away the most penalties in the competition and i dont want to complain about that, but can someone tell me why they we win so few penalties ?? it appears no matter what team they play, the opposition has faultless games.
For example The dogs won 4 penalties against the rabbitohs, three of which were high shots and the final penalty was for lashing kick by burgess... So the referees are trying to say that the bunnies did not breach the 10 at any stage in the game, were square at marker at all times and did not slow the play the ball at any stage?? But yet on the other hand all the bulldogs penalties were for slowing the ruck, not square and inside the 10 metres (6 in total).
Are the media affecting the refs, are they trying to make teams more evenly matched to the juggernaut that is the bulldogs, is it tall poppy syndrome ?? It has been most evident from when the winning run commenced... I would love an explanation of their interpretations and are the referees coaches dissecting the performances..... if so they are doing a poor job.. not good enough
G_DOG
And that was a win.
Thank you, captain. I hope to bump into your musings again.
Summary of recommended bets
0.5 units on Lenny Hayes to finish top-five overall at $11 (TAB Sportsbet) - loomed up, but finished tied for eighth on 19 votes.
1 unit on Scott Pendlebury to receive the most votes for Collingwood at $6.00 (Centrebet) - didn't start as well as I'd hoped, and never really in the frame.
0.5 units on Jordan Lewis to receive the most votes for Hawthorn (excluding Sam Mitchell) at $21.00 (Centrebet) - Thud. The moral of the story - don't bet on guys who have reputations as thugs.
1 unit on Ryan Griffen to receive the most votes for Western Bulldogs at $6.50 (Centrebet) - Ding ding ding! We have a winner!
1 unit on Simon Black to receive the most votes for Brisbane at $4.75 (Luxbet) - Missed out by two votes, with Rockliff and Rich sharing the spoils.
2 units on Jordan Lewis to poll more votes than Harley Bennell at $1.80 (Sportsbet) - Still investigating the hole in the ground that the aforementioned thus left behind.
2 units on Lenny Hayes to poll more votes than Brett Deledio at $1.95 (Sportsbet) - A 19-13 winner. Bless you Lenny.
In total, it was 8 units invested for a return of 6.5 + 2 x 1.95 = 10.4 units, or a Profit on Turnover of 30%. Not a bonanza by any stretch of the imagination, but a win is a win.
I couldn't pick this Hayes fellow out of a lineup, but if he comes top 3 I'll be in next year's BRW rich list. Top 5 and I'll cover my losses backing your system last year.
PropMike
Almost done for the year and the finals have got me thinking (between being astounded at the more experienced classy players being the ones to faulter and not being surprised by how bad the video refs have been) about how I don't like teams making it in with only a 50% win record, how its weird you play such a long season to go straight into sudden death finals & how the regular seaon should be shorter and the finals longer.
So here's a crazy and complicated idea that no one will like - reduce the regular seaon to 22 games and increase the finals series to 5 weeks, which would work like this:
The first 3 weeks is a round robin system, Team 1 would play 4, 6 & 8 and Team 2 would play 3, 5 & 7. In each game, which ever team finished higher on the ladder would get the home game. This is a great reward for finishing top 2 as you get all 3 home games and a real hindrance for finishing 7 or 8 as you get no home games. At the end of that, the top 4 teams (on wins & %) go into sudden death semi's, followed by the GF.
As much as I enjoy your article every week, you display some serious bone-headedness, Nick. To refer to Manly as "pretenders" and "imposters" is completely off the mark and extremely biased (expect nothing less from a Dogs fan, however). They have been one of the two most dominant clubs of the last decade, winning two premierships, appearing in 3 grand finals and winning one World Club Challenge, while not missing the play offs since 2004. Admittedly, that was the WORST game of footy I have seen Manly play in years (since either the 2010 semi against St George, or back to 2007 Grand Final), But for a good portion of the competition they were, and rightfully so, the #1 challengers to the "Bulldogs premiership". Look back over your colums and your power ranking tells me that you would agree with that. On Friday night, the team were never in sync with each other (Matai's pass to Tony Williams is a great example of this) and failed to match the Storm's intensity. I don't think they rolled over either, the more they tried the worse it got if you ask me. All create a recipe for a stinker, but hardly diabolical.
I am not even a Manly fan, but you owe the club's achievements alot more than completely denoting them. Grow up.
I just think you are rating Hayes far too highly. He'd need 20 votes at least for a top 5 finish and I cannot see him getting that. Also Deledio has had arguably his best season to date and has been far more consistent than Hayes. Pendlebury to top Collingwoods count is laughable. He missed 6 weeks and had to compete with Swan and Beams who were far better than him in the 2nd half of the season. Yes, he may be leading their count at the halfway point before his injury but Dane and Dayne will have easily caught up him by season's end. Don't mind your other bets, there are better bets out there though.
Cliff B is a genius. Anyone disagrees with me and I'll smite them with a lava lamp.
Bob
In answer to the question about dollars, it is really dictated by how much you want to spend.
The recommended bets come to 8 units (2 x 2, 3 x 1 and 2 x 0.5 units bets) in total.
If you're just looking for a small interest, $10 per unit would give you all of these bets for a total spend of $80. If you're a much bigger player and want to spend say $1,000 or more, you could scale everything up accordingly.
In my mind, I would think about the 0.5 unit bets as being about the same size as you might have on a 10-1 shot at the races, while the '2 unit' H2H bets might be a similar size to what you might normally bet on an AFL or NRL game.
It's really just about putting the bet sizes into a sensible context compared to how you might normally bet on sports/ racing when similar odds are being offered.
Hope that is of assistance.
I've looked through the three sets of votes (Age, 3AW, coaches) and converted to 3-2-1s where relevant. The totals for the key Brisbane protagonists are as follows:
The Age: Black 16 votes (polled 8 times), Redden 12 (7), Rockliff 9 (4), Rich 6 (3)
3AW: Black 15 (7), Redden 9 (5), Rockliff 8 (4), Rich 8 (4)
Coaches: Rockliff 12 (5), Black 8 (4), Redden 8 (4), Rich 4 (2).
In light of this and his history of being an umpires' favourite, I'm happy with the $4.75 taken for Black.
Love the methodology.
I'm on!!!
Wish us luck.
Peyton's neck is done already! He's finished and so are Denver!
In all seriousness, is week 3 the hardest week to punt on? We'll soon see. I'll keep riding SF.