Well we know you've been dedicated the town crier job and of "Aussies have done something we've done" police as you seem to bring every little thing up and have a whinge about it.
Amazed the boxing champ failing a drug test hasn't been put up in headlights yet. Off your game a bit?
Bomber wrote:Well we know you've been dedicated the town crier job and of "Aussies have done something we've done" police as you seem to bring every little thing up and have a whinge about it.
Amazed the boxing champ failing a drug test hasn't been put up in headlights yet. Off your game a bit?
Hadn't seen that, how funny.
Back to zero Aussie world heavyweight champions again. I'm actually disappointed to hear that, was looking like he'd be fighting Haye pretty soon.
Bomber wrote:Well we know you've been dedicated the town crier job and of "Aussies have done something we've done" police as you seem to bring every little thing up and have a whinge about it.
Amazed the boxing champ failing a drug test hasn't been put up in headlights yet. Off your game a bit?
Hadn't seen that, how funny.
Back to zero Aussie world heavyweight champions again. I'm actually disappointed to hear that, was looking like he'd be fighting Haye pretty soon.
B sample yet untested, but I wouldn't hold my breath. At least if its tested positive, then fair game, unlike Essendon players.
God is an Englishman wrote:he's denying it, at least the Essendon player and Sharapova had the decency to admit it.
To be fair, he doesn't look the sharpest tool in the shed and is unlikely to know what he had for breakfast this morning. That said, I wouldn't say it to him directly.
6 team comp - doesn't need a final - top team wins, simple (as it did up to 1982). That said, I hear they are looking at first past the post again as most finals in recent years have been almost farcical.
Bomber wrote:6 team comp - doesn't need a final - top team wins, simple (as it did up to 1982). That said, I hear they are looking at first past the post again as most finals in recent years have been almost farcical.
Finals in 4 days cricket are pretty strange. Especially when one team doesn't even have to go for the win.
Both of those had a better WDL ratio than South Australia.
It's irrelevant to the discussion. The team on top is the one that earns the most points. SA earned more bonus points.
Under the previous system (where first innings points were awarded), all three teams would have ended on 5 Outright wins (30 points), 1 First innings win (1 point). It would've then come down to Run Rate, which I'm gathering SA would have led (based on the actual batting bonus points received this season)
Slinky_Pete wrote:It's irrelevant to the discussion. The team on top is the one that earns the most points. SA earned more bonus points.
Under the previous system (where first innings points were awarded), all three teams would have ended on 5 Outright wins (30 points), 1 First innings win (1 point). It would've then come down to Run Rate, which I'm gathering SA would have led (based on the actual batting bonus points received this season)
As Slinky has said, that's the system. It encourages you to take wickets and score runs. It's an attempt at an equaliser when games can be weather affected or a non Win/Loss result for various reason.
Slinky_Pete wrote:Under the previous system (where first innings points were awarded), all three teams would have ended on 5 Outright wins (30 points), 1 First innings win (1 point). It would've then come down to Run Rate, which I'm gathering SA would have led (based on the actual batting bonus points received this season)
Didn't first innings win be two points? Under that system Victoria would have had 30 points, New South Wales 26 points and South Australia 22 points. Bonus points is a load of bollocks.
Slinky_Pete wrote:Under the previous system (where first innings points were awarded), all three teams would have ended on 5 Outright wins (30 points), 1 First innings win (1 point). It would've then come down to Run Rate, which I'm gathering SA would have led (based on the actual batting bonus points received this season)
Didn't first innings win be two points? Under that system Victoria would have had 30 points, New South Wales 26 points and South Australia 22 points. Bonus points is a load of bollocks.
Whether it is 2 points or 1 point doesn't matter.
Dunno how you count any team on less than 30. All 3 teams had 5 wins in 2015/16.
Of the draws/losses incurred, all 3 teams only had 1 first innings win each. So 1 or 2 points.
In fact, I missed QLD, who hypthettically had 5 outrights, and 3 First innings wins. They would have been top.