SA Footy

Sitting at the breakfast table this morning and I stated my disappointment in the Sunday Mail for using the crap AFL style of percentage to put on the SANFL table.
I also announced that the Bulldogs had 322% and the Cats 300% in the AFL.
My daughter said "But I thought you could only have 100%"?
I said she was right but the AFL style of working % out meant you could have more than 100%.
My daughter then said "That's stupid!".

Ahhh, how true.

Also I hope the Advertiser has different best players to the Sunday Mail as Deano Howard was clearly BOG!!

Hopefully this is just a once off stuff-up. I was also very disappointed with the way the percentage was shown. What next, 4 points for a win. Keep the SANFL the way it is, not aN AFL clone.

I think not Wedgie - same match stats in the Tiser tomorrow. The "syndicate" is not happy because as you said Wegdie and backed up by the match committe Howard was our best then I would say Brett White and Krieg. All are the "money"men!

I wonder what is worse - that a professional sports journo could bugger up something that has been in place for decades, or that the sports editor could miss it?

Pretty piss poor effort.

Pseudo wrote:I wonder what is worse - that a professional sports journo could bugger up something that has been in place for decades, or that the sports editor could miss it?

Pretty piss poor effort.

Probably whats alot worse is the fact that this is not the first time that the Advertiser/sunday mail has stuffed something up. Really is a ametureish paper at the moment.

Probably whats alot worse is the fact that this is not the first time that the Advertiser/sunday mail has stuffed something up. Really is a ametureish paper at the moment.[/quote]



Presumably the same sub-editor that approved the Matt Slade story

I noticed that too, hopefully its just a Mail stuff up and the SANFL hasnt decided to change it.

The Norwood v Glenelg result from the reserves was also wrong at the front of the sport. Sure no big deal but they should get it right.

Yes very sloppy work by the mail in recent times. I said before ametureish but then again ive seen ameture papers before and the mail probably isnt even up to that standard at the moment. But all is good as there was a double spread about ben hart and what he thought about each coach he had.

At least people in local or amatuer papers actually care about what they put their name too.

To be honest, I still do not understand why people but the Tser or Mail at all.

While waiting for a felafel this evening I flicked through the Mail.

WHAT A COMPLETE LOAD OF SHITE!

Stan and fa, is the Mail amature, amatuer or amateur?

Perhaps all three.

Everyone can stop torching the brand new Advertiser building, the %'s are back to traditional SANFL style now... The Star Force Group & Army have been taken off stand-by now...

The Advertsier web site has the %s calculated correctly, but this year its a final four apparently!

Final 4? WHAT THE! It's still the final five from where I sit.

MightyEagles wrote:Final 4? WHAT THE! It's still the final five from where I sit.

Not anymore. If its in the ADvertiser it nust be right,

redandblack wrote:Stan and fa, is the Mail amature, amatuer or amateur?

How about "unprofessional"?

PS with Westies having the bye, will we be seeing you down the Bay?

MightyEagles wrote:Final 4? WHAT THE! It's still the final five from where I sit.

And Glenelg is in the five!

Hooray! We're going to win the flag!

Not sure yet, pseudo, but a bit of a chance.

r&b - weather it be amature or amatuer, its not something eyed be happy to put my name too...

This weeks AFL Record had a mention of the AFL method vs the SANFL method of calculating percentage.. after a few jabs about 5c deposits on cans, I expected the usual anti SANFL crap..

Surprisingly they backed the SANFL method of calculation percentage as the more sensible and representative of a teams dominance.

They don't know why we went with 2 points and the VFL etc decided on 4 however.