....and what if the cupboard is so bare we don't have a choice BUT to play him?
Ah I see, we argued an out on a different definition of slavery to argue we never had slavery even though the evidence runs contrary to that.
So we can argue semantics, you are right, and I am wrong, we never participated in slavery despite the evidence showing otherwise. Is that it?
It's not semantics, it's fact. Australians have never owned other people,
Percentage is meaningless after three games.
A heavy loss or a big win can change percentage from a big positive to a big negative in one game.
Do you think Gold Coast will have a percentage of 191% at the end of the year?
Percentages won't settle as an indicator until well into the season.
No....its not meaningless. It very much has meaning and is displaying our form accurately.
Form is fleeting (we hope) and % can and will change throughout the year.
However, nobody in their right mind would say Gold Coast are struggling.
Nor would they say we are flying.
So again, certainly not meaningless.
Ah I see, we argued an out on a different definition of slavery to argue we never had slavery even though the evidence runs contrary to that.
So we can argue semantics, you are right, and I am wrong, we never participated in slavery despite the evidence showing otherwise. Is that it?
Chicken and egg.
Did he play the least amount of game time because he was no good?
Was he no good because he didn't get much game time?
Based on previous efforts, i'm going with the first one.
That leaves me with option 2....because we cant agree on anything at the moment
If it was because he was poor he won't be playing next week.
HOK also had the least game time of any Carlton player on the weekend- 44%
Chicken and egg.
Did he play the least amount of game time because he was no good?
Was he no good because he didn't get much game time?
Based on previous efforts, i'm going with the first one.
HOK also had the least game time of any Carlton player on the weekend- 44%
I was going to say the same thing as EB.
I think EBs point is that the judgement before a ball was kicked in anger was premature expectations.
After 3 games last year our % was 83.3%
After 3 games this year our % is 72.9%......and we were luckily enough to hold on and win one of them.
Based on form.....i'm taking last year.
Percentage is meaningless after three games.
A heavy loss or a big win can change percentage from a big positive to a big negative in one game.
Do you think Gold Coast will have a percentage of 191% at the end of the year?
Percentages won't settle as an indicator until well into the season.
I was going to say the same thing as EB.
I think EBs point is that the judgement before a ball was kicked in anger was premature expectations.
After 3 games last year our % was 83.3%
After 3 games this year our % is 72.9%......and we were luckily enough to hold on and win one of them.
Based on form.....i'm taking last year.
I know its hard to compare, but youre putting words in people's mouths again. Your contention was we'd go backwards where most were saying we wont miss Charlie. Thing is, are we missing Charlie? How about tdk? Or jsos?
Thing is this is what the discussion was.
Not whether or not we'd magically improve. How far back do we slide? Id wager with Charlie in, we might have done a bit better, but tdk was going anyway, and jsos is a hard one to quantify as he only averaged 12 games a season. What if he had missed these ones?
The Melbourne loss might not be as bad as we think, theyve at least got the bones of a premiership side there and some bonafide stars. We have a vanilla team, and we play vanilla footy.