Why is it that we get labelled as "flooders"????

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Chow-Chicker
You conveniently left out the 110 goals he kicked in 1995. It's a matter of you shifting the figures around (moving the goal posts) so that the figures fit your story.

Originally posted by Chow-Chicker
The way I see it, 1996-1999 Lockett kicked 459 goals out of a total of 1277.

Are you stupid or deluded, or do just like to accuse people of fudging the data because you can't work it out yourself?

Firstly, you quoted the figures of 1996-1999 above.

Secondly, you included 1995 goals for Lockett but not 1995 goals for the Swans team.

Thirdly, Eade wasn't coaching in 1995.

So who is manipulating figures...?

[Chow-Chicker]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Are you stupid or deluded, or do just like to accuse people of fudging the data because you can't work it out yourself?

Firstly, you quoted the figures of 1996-1999 above.

Secondly, you included 1995 goals for Lockett but not 1995 goals for the Swans team.

Thirdly, Eade wasn't coaching in 1995.

So who is manipulating figures...?

I still maintain you are conveniently leaving out data that should be included whenever you use averages to calculate statistcal analysis as a percentage, otherwise, you will always get an inaccurate and disproportinate indexation of real figures. Again, it depends on your angle and whether you add or leave out data to suit your arguments.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Chow-Chicker
I still maintain you are conveniently leaving out data that should be included whenever you use averages to calculate statistcal analysis as a percentage, otherwise, you will always get an inaccurate and disproportinate indexation of real figures. Again, it depends on your angle and whether you add or leave out data to suit your arguments.

Eade coached full seasons from 1996-2001. This is the data I used.

What would be the point in using data from 1995?

I find this an amazing accusation from you when you deduct 5 years of goals for Lockett from 4 years of goals for the Swans to conclude that Eade's Swans kicked less goals when excluding Lockett!!

[Chow-Chicker]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Eade coached full seasons from 1996-2001. This is the data I used.

What would be the point in using data from 1995?

I find this an amazing accusation from you when you deduct 5 years of goals for Lockett from 4 years of goals for the Swans to conclude that Eade's Swans kicked less goals when excluding Lockett!!

I remain unconvinced, however, if you keep trying you may eventually hit a bullseye.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Chow-Chicker
I remain unconvinced

Hardly surprising when you clearly have no idea!

[Chow-Chicker]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Hardly surprising when you clearly have no idea!

That's where you're wrong. I have an idea that you are simply fooling everyone on this site with your manipulative jargon in an attempt to confuse and distort actual facts. It is becoming tiresome and somewhat boring.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Chow-Chicker
That's where you're wrong. I have an idea that you are simply fooling everyone on this site with your manipulative jargon in an attempt to confuse and distort actual facts. It is becoming tiresome and somewhat boring.

LOL, yes nothing like deducting 5 years of Lockett's goals from 4 years of Swans goals to justify your claim... How about next you also deduct all of the goals Lockett kicked with StKilda and then make the comparison... hmm... Lockett kicked over 1300 goals, which is more goals than the Swans kicked under Eade from 1996-1999, so Eade's goal total excluding Lockett is negative, so Roos is far more attacking...

And then perhaps you should also include the years 1989-1994 as well to show how much less attacking Eade is as a coach relative to Roos...

[Chow-Chicker]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
LOL, yes nothing like deducting 5 years of Lockett's goals from 4 years of Swans goals to justify your claim... How about next you also deduct all of the goals Lockett kicked with StKilda and then make the comparison... hmm... Lockett kicked over 1300 goals, which is more goals than the Swans kicked under Eade from 1996-1999, so Eade's goal total excluding Lockett is negative, so Roos is far more attacking...

And then perhaps you should also include the years 1989-1994 as well to show how much less attacking Eade is as a coach relative to Roos...

Now you're resorting to sarcasm as a desperate measure. You appear a little flustered, and now you try to mock and mimick. You did this during the Davis saga and also during the Roos bashing threads. Try to be level headed and resist your propensity to fire cheap shots. Your arguments are yet to be proven or justified so it is suggested that you concentrate on those.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Chow-Chicker
Now you're resorting to sarcasm as a desperate measure. You appear a little flustered, and now you try to mock and mimick. You did this during the Davis saga and also during the Roos bashing threads. Try to be level headed and resist your propensity to fire cheap shots. Your arguments are yet to be proven or justified so it is suggested that you concentrate on those.

Au contraire - I'm not flustered at all - I'm perfectly comfortable with the analysis I have presented, whereas your attempts to counter it are the mark of someone angry, sputtering and not thinking.

I'm resorting to sarcasm because you simply refuse to address either the errors you made or the questions I asked, and at no stage have you attempted to critique my analysis, but instead simply cast aspersions as to me manipulating data dishonestly.

My arguments have been clearly set out. You have not been able to counter a single one of them and "I remain unconvinced" and "distort actual facts" and "shifting the figures around" and "conveniently leaving out data" are all attempts to deflect the argument away from your lack of understanding. This seems your MO given your efforts since you turned up here.

Give it up - you have clearly shown you have no understanding of this at all.

[Chow-Chicker]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Au contraire - I'm not flustered at all - I'm perfectly comfortable with the analysis I have presented, whereas your attempts to counter it are the mark of someone angry, sputtering and not thinking.

I'm resorting to sarcasm because you simply refuse to address either the errors you made or the questions I asked, and at no stage have you attempted to critique my analysis, but instead simply cast aspersions as to me manipulating data dishonestly.

My arguments have been clearly set out. You have not been able to counter a single one of them and "I remain unconvinced" and "distort actual facts" and "shifting the figures around" and "conveniently leaving out data" are all attempts to deflect the argument away from your lack of understanding. This seems your MO given your efforts since you turned up here.

Give it up - you have clearly shown you have no understanding of this at all.

What's there to understand? Your mutterings about NOTHING!?You continue to bleat and bash your bongo drum about your opinions about how rubbish Roos is and how god-like Davis is. How about accepting the reality of actual events rather than trying to concoct fantasy. And yes, ever since I arrived here you've been nothing but a tin pot argumentative harlequin who clearly tries to undermine everyone elses opinion that is different to yours.

[Bloody Hell]

Originally posted by Chow-Chicker
Tredrea has been injured for the last season and a bit, so he's not as dominant as he used to be. You really musn't have seen much of Jonathon Brown if you think that he doesn't work as hard, if not harder, than Hall. Brown is just a machine, more dominant in the air, and just as physically intimidating. Lloyd works harder than most people give him credit for. He's a double centurian, and does lead up the ground more than most full forwards. Give him an injury free full season and he'll nudge the ton every time. Richo, well he's hot and cold, but when he's hot, he's unstoppable. Point being made is that most club's have a "Barry Hall" if not a better one.

As I said earlier in the thread I lived in Brisbane during the Lions reign - so I have seen Brown play, alot. He's a much better contested mark than Hall, there is no way he works harder. Lloyd works as hard as people give him credit for. He's a full forward. He can play up the ground as much as he likes - he's never going to cover the territory of a CHF. Richo is the laziest 'super star' KP in the comp. I have no idea why you mentioned him with the others.

[Chow-Chicker]

Originally posted by Bloody Hell
As I said earlier in the thread I lived in Brisbane during the Lions reign - so I have seen Brown play, alot. He's a much better contested mark than Hall, there is no way he works harder. Lloyd works as hard as people give him credit for. He's a full forward. He can play up the ground as much as he likes - he's never going to cover the territory of a CHF. Richo is the laziest 'super star' KP in the comp. I have no idea why you mentioned him with the others.

Fair enough re: Lloyd, Richo. The only reason I mentioned Richo is because of size and weight (comparing apples with apples). I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about Jonathon Brown. I find them very similar, and give Brown the points just on the marking issue.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Chow-Chicker
What's there to understand? Your mutterings about NOTHING!?You continue to bleat and bash your bongo drum about your opinions about how rubbish Roos is and how god-like Davis is. How about accepting the reality of actual events rather than trying to concoct fantasy. And yes, ever since I arrived here you've been nothing but a tin pot argumentative harlequin who clearly tries to undermine everyone elses opinion that is different to yours.

LOL you struggle to compose arguments so now you just rant and invent stuff. Where have I gone on about "how rubbish Roos is and how god-like Davis is"?

I always love it how I present data and logic behind my arguments and because the person I am arguing against is incapable of either constructing an argument or debating against someone else's they instead resort to the old "nothing but a tin pot argumentative harlequin who clearly tries to undermine everyone elses opinion that is different to yours". Absolutely pathetic.

[Chow-Chicker]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
LOL you struggle to compose arguments so now you just rant and invent stuff. Where have I gone on about "how rubbish Roos is and how god-like Davis is"?

I always love it how I present data and logic behind my arguments and because the person I am arguing against is incapable of either constructing an argument or debating against someone else's they instead resort to the old "nothing but a tin pot argumentative harlequin who clearly tries to undermine everyone elses opinion that is different to yours". Absolutely pathetic.

You're forgetting yourself a little here, and you are becoming irrational. Stop, inhale and think for a moment about how you continue to present arguments that are not proven and are not factual. They are merely hypotheticals. Stop professing to be a professor and stick to the main topic of argument.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Chow-Chicker
You're forgetting yourself a little here, and you are becoming irrational. Stop, inhale and think for a moment about how you continue to present arguments that are not proven and are not factual. They are merely hypotheticals. Stop professing to be a professor and stick to the main topic of argument.

Ummm... irrational would be the rants you have come out with.

My comments have been quite straightforward. I presented data to suggest that it is not clear that Eade was a more defensive coach than Roos.

You have failed spectacularly to counter that in any way and have resorted to ad hominem as usual.