Tweet
I'd rather not play them in the NAB Cup and I think the AFL would probably prefer Brisbane and Sydney avoid them unless they have to meet in the final stages. The derbies or whatever we will call them need to be pretty special occasions and the first one IMO should be for points at ANZ.
-
-
Also note that the SCG will be unavailable for round one, so we'll be on the road (or the bye) to start the season unless we play at ANZ. I'll groan if it's the Saints again.Comment
-
GF may not be OCT first or maybe played elsewhere. Cricket Victoria refusing to give up the ground on that day. Maybe GF at ANZ stadium????Comment
-
If you were to offer "adequate" compensation then theorectically they could. Just cover the income they would have earned from the 300 fans that would have attended a shieffeld shield match if it had to be moved and even throw in a new drop in pitch for free and it wouldnt break more than $10k would it.Comment
-
-
I think the Victorian government would have a quiet word with Cricket Victoria before they let the GF go interstate. It's a massive earner for Victoria and there is no way it's going to be allowed to move when the ground isn't even going to be in use. Already the media are showing footage of the GFs and then cutting to the "crowd shots" of the Sheffield Shield matches or whatever they are. Very amusing and I don't think anyone's taking it too seriously. AD seems very sure he's not interested in discussing compensation deals, and though he could be bluffing, I think he realises the pressure that CV would come under if they play cute on this.Last edited by Kirkari; 6 August 2010, 11:04 AM.Superman still wears Brett Kirk PyjamasComment
-
Yeah you can see they're line of thought: Give them one day, then they ask for a week, then a month...
There's no cricket there for that month because they need to prepare the square. While technically CV has the MCG for 6 months October is lost to preparation and March is half lost in preperation for the AFL season. I wouldn't want my 6 months reduced to 4 for an extended AFL season.10100111001 ;-)Comment
-
4 points for a bye? Did they announce this too?
Last time the AFL had byes (1994), the ladder was sorted using the match ratio system, which ranked teams according to games won divided by games played. I think it's a silly system because sides that have played fewer games are ranked artificially high when they've won the majority of their games and artificially low when they have lost the majority of their games, particularly when there are drawn games in the mix.
Four points for a bye ranks sides that have played fewer games artificially high no matter what. It is based on the idea of a forfeit by a fictitious team.
IMO the most equitable and easy to understand system awards two points for a bye instead of four. Think of it being a 0-0 draw with a fictitious team instead of a fictitious forfeit. It ranks similarly to the match ratio system but is much easier to explain. Draws and byes are treated the same. The result is that teams are ranked according to games won minus games lost with draws and byes being disregarded. For the average mug fan, "two points for a bye" needs no further explanation.
When byes are in for one year only, a simple system is best.Last edited by Thunder Shaker; 6 August 2010, 11:09 AM."Unbelievable!" -- Nick Davis leaves his mark on the 2005 semi finalComment
-
In the past there were no points for a bye, I would assume that will be the same next season. As every team has 2 byes it all works out evenly in the end.Does God believe in Atheists?Comment
-
..And the Swans are the Premiers...The Ultimate Team...The Ultimate Warriors. They have overcome the highly fancied Hawks in brilliant style. Sydney the 2012 Premiers - Gerard Whately ABC
Here it is Again! - Huddo SENComment
Comment