20-01-2013, 08:47 PM
I still haven't heard any counter-argument to my assertion that the '80 point rule' is simply unfair as it stands? If I'm just plain wrong please tell me. I
If others believe that it's unfair, but giving teams the flexibility to provide players with a more equal share of stronger games is more important, I'd be interested to know why they believe this.
W.Dragons 4.5 -3.5 Hamilton
Publ. Live Publ. Live
2349 2265 A Tate 0.5 S Burns-Mannion 2342 2314
2249 2238 A Burnett 0.5 A Muir 2270 2290
2164 2158 A Minnican 1-0 P Coffey 2273 2279
2144 2142 M Orr 0.5 J Redpath 2242 2246
2007 2083 H Olsen 0.5 S Tweedie 2218 2229
1923 1869 R Kynoch 0.5 P Jamieson 2203 2189
1877 1850 E Sloan 1-0 C Tweedie 2066 2083
1845 1720 E Campbell 0-1 T Donohue 2012 1953
Looking at yesterday's match in more detail with regard to an 80 point rule/ 50 point rule, using the Published gradings would have allowed the teams to field the following board orders with
an 80 point rule
Hamilton
1, 2 and 3 in any order
2, 3, 4, 5, 6 could all switch
4, 5, 6, 7 likewise
and boards 7 and 8 could swap.
For Dragons
3 and 4
6 and 7
7 and 8
Live ratings at 80 points difference give the following
Hamilton
1 2 3 and 4 could play in any order
2 3 4 and 5 likewise
4 5 and 6 could swap
Dragons
1 and 2
2 and 3
3 and 4
4 and 5
6 and 7
Under a 50 point rule
Published
Hamilton
2 3 and 4 in any order
4 5 and 6 in any order
Dragons
3 and 4
6 and 7
7 and 8
Live
Hamilton
1 2 and 3 could swap
2 3 and 4
3 4 and 5
5 and 6
Dragons
1 and 2
3 and 4
6 and 7
The 50 point rule makes a difference, but there still isn't anywhere near parity. Any rule which allows this is clearly flawed in my opinion, regardless of who is involved. I would argue exactly the same thing if it gave Dragons an unfair advantage. Any opinions would be welcomed
If others believe that it's unfair, but giving teams the flexibility to provide players with a more equal share of stronger games is more important, I'd be interested to know why they believe this.
W.Dragons 4.5 -3.5 Hamilton
Publ. Live Publ. Live
2349 2265 A Tate 0.5 S Burns-Mannion 2342 2314
2249 2238 A Burnett 0.5 A Muir 2270 2290
2164 2158 A Minnican 1-0 P Coffey 2273 2279
2144 2142 M Orr 0.5 J Redpath 2242 2246
2007 2083 H Olsen 0.5 S Tweedie 2218 2229
1923 1869 R Kynoch 0.5 P Jamieson 2203 2189
1877 1850 E Sloan 1-0 C Tweedie 2066 2083
1845 1720 E Campbell 0-1 T Donohue 2012 1953
Looking at yesterday's match in more detail with regard to an 80 point rule/ 50 point rule, using the Published gradings would have allowed the teams to field the following board orders with
an 80 point rule
Hamilton
1, 2 and 3 in any order
2, 3, 4, 5, 6 could all switch
4, 5, 6, 7 likewise
and boards 7 and 8 could swap.
For Dragons
3 and 4
6 and 7
7 and 8
Live ratings at 80 points difference give the following
Hamilton
1 2 3 and 4 could play in any order
2 3 4 and 5 likewise
4 5 and 6 could swap
Dragons
1 and 2
2 and 3
3 and 4
4 and 5
6 and 7
Under a 50 point rule
Published
Hamilton
2 3 and 4 in any order
4 5 and 6 in any order
Dragons
3 and 4
6 and 7
7 and 8
Live
Hamilton
1 2 and 3 could swap
2 3 and 4
3 4 and 5
5 and 6
Dragons
1 and 2
3 and 4
6 and 7
The 50 point rule makes a difference, but there still isn't anywhere near parity. Any rule which allows this is clearly flawed in my opinion, regardless of who is involved. I would argue exactly the same thing if it gave Dragons an unfair advantage. Any opinions would be welcomed