by Brodlach » Fri Dec 30, 2022 8:18 am
Brodlach wrote:Rory Laird might end up the best IMO, he is an absolute jet. He has been in great form at the Bloods
by am Bays » Fri Dec 30, 2022 10:16 am
by Lightning McQueen » Fri Dec 30, 2022 10:25 am
am Bays wrote:Agree with @Broadlach
Top 3 are putrid, the fifth is no other option go to.
What is interesting the majority of the list here are brands not individual beers.
by Corona Man » Fri Dec 30, 2022 10:34 am
by whufc » Fri Dec 30, 2022 11:09 am
Corona Man wrote:Mid strength beers are very popular in QLD… not sure why. Maybe a bit that way in NSW too?
by Corona Man » Sun Jan 01, 2023 11:49 am
by Jimmy_041 » Wed Jan 04, 2023 12:01 pm
by Booney » Wed Jan 04, 2023 12:06 pm
Jimmy_041 wrote:So, we've gone from:
Someone tests positive at the SCG so everyone gets locked down for 2 weeks
to
Picking a player despite testing positive the morning of the start of the Test
by Jimmy_041 » Wed Jan 04, 2023 12:13 pm
Booney wrote:Jimmy_041 wrote:So, we've gone from:
Someone tests positive at the SCG so everyone gets locked down for 2 weeks
to
Picking a player despite testing positive the morning of the start of the Test
Almost like we know more about the virus now.
Oh, and the vaccinated people who typically have milder symptoms.
Other than that, same.
by Booney » Wed Jan 04, 2023 12:22 pm
by DOC » Wed Jan 04, 2023 12:43 pm
by Trader » Wed Jan 04, 2023 1:07 pm
DOC wrote:What model of rectraspectrascope do you use Jim?
by DOC » Wed Jan 04, 2023 1:43 pm
Trader wrote:DOC wrote:What model of rectraspectrascope do you use Jim?
If no one was complaining back when the illogical rules were being put in place, then yes, you could say its a bet of retrospective complaining.
However there very much were people pointing out at the time about how over the top some of the rules were.
Therefore, this isn't a case of people complaining with hindsight, this is people pointing out the stupidity that was obvious from the start.
by am Bays » Wed Jan 04, 2023 2:30 pm
DOC wrote:Trader wrote:DOC wrote:What model of rectraspectrascope do you use Jim?
If no one was complaining back when the illogical rules were being put in place, then yes, you could say its a bet of retrospective complaining.
However there very much were people pointing out at the time about how over the top some of the rules were.
Therefore, this isn't a case of people complaining with hindsight, this is people pointing out the stupidity that was obvious from the start.
The only thing that was obvious from the start was how little was known about the virus(s) and everything associated with its spread, treatment, mutation etc.
No argument from me about how much things have changed (from lockdowns to picking test players).
by Trader » Wed Jan 04, 2023 2:49 pm
am Bays wrote:DOC wrote:Trader wrote:DOC wrote:What model of rectraspectrascope do you use Jim?
If no one was complaining back when the illogical rules were being put in place, then yes, you could say its a bet of retrospective complaining.
However there very much were people pointing out at the time about how over the top some of the rules were.
Therefore, this isn't a case of people complaining with hindsight, this is people pointing out the stupidity that was obvious from the start.
The only thing that was obvious from the start was how little was known about the virus(s) and everything associated with its spread, treatment, mutation etc.
No argument from me about how much things have changed (from lockdowns to picking test players).
Agreed Doc
To me the analogy is good test batting.
Play in the "v" for the first 50-60 balls - you may miss a few long hops and easy fours but you're "getting in" then you can "manage" the bowling
Yeah some of the early rules about Covid especially after we had initially dealt with it (in the 40-60 ball range) were a bit head scratching and indicated w that perhaps we were being over cautious but now after 34 months we "are in" and can play normally
All IMO
by Jimmy_041 » Wed Jan 04, 2023 2:53 pm
DOC wrote:Trader wrote:DOC wrote:What model of rectraspectrascope do you use Jim?
If no one was complaining back when the illogical rules were being put in place, then yes, you could say its a bet of retrospective complaining.
However there very much were people pointing out at the time about how over the top some of the rules were.
Therefore, this isn't a case of people complaining with hindsight, this is people pointing out the stupidity that was obvious from the start.
The only thing that was obvious from the start was how little was known about the virus(s) and everything associated with its spread, treatment, mutation etc.
No argument from me about how much things have changed (from lockdowns to picking test players).
by Lightning McQueen » Wed Jan 04, 2023 3:03 pm
by am Bays » Wed Jan 04, 2023 3:04 pm
Trader wrote:am Bays wrote:DOC wrote:Trader wrote:If no one was complaining back when the illogical rules were being put in place, then yes, you could say its a bet of retrospective complaining.
However there very much were people pointing out at the time about how over the top some of the rules were.
Therefore, this isn't a case of people complaining with hindsight, this is people pointing out the stupidity that was obvious from the start.
The only thing that was obvious from the start was how little was known about the virus(s) and everything associated with its spread, treatment, mutation etc.
No argument from me about how much things have changed (from lockdowns to picking test players).
Agreed Doc
To me the analogy is good test batting.
Play in the "v" for the first 50-60 balls - you may miss a few long hops and easy fours but you're "getting in" then you can "manage" the bowling
Yeah some of the early rules about Covid especially after we had initially dealt with it (in the 40-60 ball range) were a bit head scratching and indicated w that perhaps we were being over cautious but now after 34 months we "are in" and can play normally
All IMO
I think most people would agree with the general analogy.
The questions came however when we were on day 4 of the test match, 550 runs in front and we are still playing in the V.
The logic of playing in the V early was fine, the length of time it took to start to play some shots was not, IMO.
Statewide Lockdowns 6 months after the vacine was rolled out for example, that's still playing in the V when we were miles on top in the match.
I wrote a long-ish post in the Covid thread on Jul 27th 2021 questioning the costs of over the top protections.
I flagged the impacts they would have on the cost of living.
Come the middle of 2022 and inflation jumped to 40 year highs.
This was not unforseeable.
Anyway, the best thing about these debates is we'll never know if they were too cautious for too long, as we won't be re-running the simulation with different inputs. It's a one off and we just have to accept the actions we were forced to take.
by Jimmy_041 » Wed Jan 04, 2023 3:07 pm
Lightning McQueen wrote:F*** me, can we keep the Covid shit for the Covid thread, I don’t visit that one for a reason, we don’t need it to spread
by gadj1976 » Wed Jan 04, 2023 9:28 pm
Lightning McQueen wrote:F*** me, can we keep the Covid shit for the Covid thread, I don’t visit that one for a reason, we don’t need it to spread
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |