Chaffey is fine leave him alone.

[Dyer'ere]

You forgot J.Carr, dmx. Did Chaffey tag Luke Ball? Games on Brad Johnson (not sluggish) and K.Cornes were okay or better.

Paul Williams set off after one Brett Deledio during that game. As quick as him. You're right, though, Chaffey hasn't done well on many of the quicker players. Williams is the exception, to date.

J Carr is another example of a player that doesnt have explosive pace, just knows how to find the ball but doesnt have the afterburners of a Judd or B. Harvey. Williams used to be explosive pace, the guy is into his 30s now man, things kind of slow down, when you are over 30 in AFL and have had a few hammies, just ask R Harvey.
Who was he running with agains tthe saints? was it ball? or was it Dal Santo?

Yes DMX, Carr is slow. For a test of Williams's speed NOW refer to the footrace he had with Brett Deledio last Saturday. We don't have to guess.

 

[dmx]

You forgot J.Carr, dmx. Did Chaffey tag Luke Ball? Games on Brad Johnson (not sluggish) and K.Cornes were okay or better.

Paul Williams set off after one Brett Deledio during that game.  As quick as him. You're right, though, Chaffey hasn't done well on many of the quicker players. Williams is the exception, to date.

J Carr is another example of a player that doesnt have explosive pace, just knows how to find the ball but doesnt have the afterburners of a Judd or B. Harvey. Williams used to be explosive pace, the guy is into his 30s now man, things kind of slow down, when you are over 30 in AFL and  have had a few hammies, just ask R Harvey.
Who was he running with agains tthe saints? was it ball? or was it Dal Santo?

Yes DMX, Carr is slow. For a test of Williams's speed NOW refer to the footrace he had with Brett Deledio last Saturday. We don't have to guess.

dont recall it Dyerere, but i think you are missing the point about explosive speed, off the mark speed. There is a difference. Williams is fast but from a standing start he cant burn like the others.

 

[1965]

Put Caffey onto

A slower player and a

Good match it be

:hihi

 

[lamb22]

DMX, As a semi professional punter you expect to lose more times than you win.  Most punters like yourself would expect or hope to win each time they put  a bet on -  that is why mug punters (you as demonstrated by your last post) lose and professional punters (sometimes) win.

Now here is the maths lesson - read closely. Assuming that most bets are losers, the only way you will win is if your odd assessing is better than the bookies.  This of course rarely happens as bookies know maths (unlike you) and dont like losing their money.  But bookies cant cover all matters at all times and when they offer a window of opportunity good punters step in.

Re Hyde on his early season form showed he was able to play a BOG game and also showed he was a consistent ball winner, showed he could run and evade and showed he had blonde hair/tips.  Bookies assess their market so that the total percentages of any horse (say) winning the race equals 1 and then skew it by framing at at 125 or 140% of 1, thereby giving them their margin.  To combat the bookie, we tried to frame our market to 85 or 90% based on our assessment criteria to give ourselves a theoretical margin.

Long story short,  Re Hyde - if assessed as better than 1001-1 shot and pre season he was , lets say a 1 in 500 chance and I had a 1 dollar bet on him and 499 similar 1 in 500 chances, at the end of those 500 bets I would expect 1 bet to win and net result would be no gain/no loss.  If someone gave me 1001-1 for all those 500-1 chances and I got the same winning result I would double my money.  That is the concept of 'over the odds'.  The way a professional punter makes money is small margins on a proveable system times turnover.  The emotion is taken out of a race situation as losses are expected and factored in.

Now that the maths lesson is finished I noticed you still having picked up on the subtlety of my comment that Chaffey would be captain and play 300 games.  Really DMX you are slipping!!!

 

[dmx]

As a semi professional punter you expect to lose more times than you win.  Most punters like yourself would expect or hope to win each time they put  a bet on -  that is why mug punters (you as demonstrated by your last post) lose and professional punters (sometimes) win.

Now here is the maths lesson - read closely. Assuming that most bets are losers, the only way you will win is if your odd assessing is better than the bookies.  This of course rarely happens as bookies know maths (unlike you) and dont like losing their money.  But bookies cant cover all matters at all times and when they offer a window of opportunity good punters step in.

Re Hyde on his early season form showed he was able to play a BOG game and also showed he was a consistent ball winner, showed he could run and evade and showed he had blonde hair/tips.  Bookies assess their market so that the total percentages of any horse (say) winning the race equals 1 and then skew it by framing at at 125 or 140% of 1, thereby giving them their margin.  To combat the bookie, we tried to frame our market to 85 or 90% based on our assessment criteria to give ourselves a theoretical margin.

Long story short,  Re Hyde - if assessed as better than 1001-1 shot and pre season he was , lets say a 1 in 500 chance and I had a 1 dollar bet on him and 499 similar 1 in 500 chances, at the end of those 500 bets I would expect 1 bet to win and net result would be no gain/no loss.  If someone gave me 1001-1 for all those 500-1 chances and I got the same winning result I would double my money.  That is the concept of 'over the odds'.  The way a professional punter makes money is small margins on a proveable system times turnover.  The emotion is taken out of a race situation as losses are expected and factored in.

Now that the maths lesson is finished I noticed you still having picked up on the subtlety of my comment that Chaffey would be captain and play 300 games.  Really DMX you are slipping!!!

:rofl
naaa lamby if someone gave you a 1001-1 for a 500-1 pop, they saw you coming from a mile away man. you semi pro you. 
So he was over the odds at 1001-1 but not over the odds at 500-1. What were his odds then lamby? how did the pro like you assess his chances? was it around 800-1? So lets now take a look at the last 800-1 shot that has saluted in the brownlow. Over to you.8)

 

[Joshnbeks Dad]

You forgot J.Carr, dmx. Did Chaffey tag Luke Ball? Games on Brad Johnson (not sluggish) and K.Cornes were okay or better.

Paul Williams set off after one Brett Deledio during that game.  As quick as him. You're right, though, Chaffey hasn't done well on many of the quicker players. Williams is the exception, to date.

Im pretty sure Cogs had the run with role with Ball & Chaff was on either DelSanto or Hayes both of who killed us. Newman took Brad Johnson, can't recall who Chaff got against the Doggies. Chaff did stand Cornes.

 

[lamb22]

As a semi professional punter you expect to lose more times than you win.  Most punters like yourself would expect or hope to win each time they put  a bet on -  that is why mug punters (you as demonstrated by your last post) lose and professional punters (sometimes) win.

Now here is the maths lesson - read closely. Assuming that most bets are losers, the only way you will win is if your odd assessing is better than the bookies.  This of course rarely happens as bookies know maths (unlike you) and dont like losing their money.  But bookies cant cover all matters at all times and when they offer a window of opportunity good punters step in.

Re Hyde on his early season form showed he was able to play a BOG game and also showed he was a consistent ball winner, showed he could run and evade and showed he had blonde hair/tips.  Bookies assess their market so that the total percentages of any horse (say) winning the race equals 1 and then skew it by framing at at 125 or 140% of 1, thereby giving them their margin.  To combat the bookie, we tried to frame our market to 85 or 90% based on our assessment criteria to give ourselves a theoretical margin.

Long story short,  Re Hyde - if assessed as better than 1001-1 shot and pre season he was , lets say a 1 in 500 chance and I had a 1 dollar bet on him and 499 similar 1 in 500 chances, at the end of those 500 bets I would expect 1 bet to win and net result would be no gain/no loss.  If someone gave me 1001-1 for all those 500-1 chances and I got the same winning result I would double my money.  That is the concept of 'over the odds'.  The way a professional punter makes money is small margins on a proveable system times turnover.  The emotion is taken out of a race situation as losses are expected and factored in.

Now that the maths lesson is finished I noticed you still having picked up on the subtlety of my comment that Chaffey would be captain and play 300 games.  Really DMX you are slipping!!!

:rofl
naaa lamby if someone gave you a 1001-1 for a 500-1 pop, they saw you coming from a mile away man. you semi pro you. 
So he was over the odds at 1001-1 but not over the odds at 500-1. What were his odds then lamby? how did the pro like you assess his chances? was it around 800-1? So lets now take a look at the last 800-1 shot that has saluted in the brownlow. Over to you.8)

Still struggling with maths poor old DMX, Mathematically a real 800-1 shot should salute every 800 years. Most likely though a bookie 800 -1 shot is a 1500-1 shot, so I would expect an 800-1 shot to win every 1500 years. However I am so certain that I am willing to wager with you $1000.00 that an 800-1 shot will win the brownlow in the next 1500 years. I will hold funds till bet end. PM me and I will tell you where to send your wagered amount.

PS Hydey was not 1001 at the relevant time and no bet was wagered.

 

[Dyer'ere]

Thanks J&B. I couldn't remember the Saints game from Chaff. I obliterated part of the experience.

Looks like I've mixed up the Footscray game. :-[ Can't remember who he picked up. Cogs got Cooney, IIRC.

Oh, that's right. It was Giansiracusa for a bit and Eagleton for some.

Nathan Eagleton 17 4 21 8 0 2 1 1 1 1
Daniel Giansiracusa 18 14 32 13 0 1 1 1 1 1

Not a happy day.

 

[dmx]

Still struggling with maths poor old DMX,  Mathematically a real 800-1 shot should salute every 800 years.  Most likely though a bookie 800 -1 shot is a 1500-1 shot, so I would expect an 800-1 shot to win every 1500 years.  However I am so certain that I am willing to wager with you $1000.00 that an 800-1 shot will win the brownlow in the next 1500 years.  I will hold funds till bet end.  PM me and I will tell you where to send your wagered amount.

PS Hydey was not 1001 at the relevant time and no bet was wagered.

ok where do i send the money lamby? hold on, 1500 years? ahhhh, you are just trying to suck me in to giving you my money, knowing full well that we wont be around in 1500 years huh? Phew, thank god i saw the light, that is the last time i am getting involved there lamby, semi pros like you are dangerous to deal with. 8)

 

[Joshnbeks Dad]

Thanks J&B. I couldn't remember the Saints game from Chaff. I obliterated part of the experience.

Looks like I've mixed up the Footscray game.  :-[ Can't remember who he picked up. Cogs got Cooney, IIRC.

Oh, that's right. It was Giansiracusa for a bit and Eagleton for some.

Nathan Eagleton              17 4 21 8 0 2 1 1 1 1
Daniel Giansiracusa      18 14 32    13       0       1       1       1       1       1

Not a happy day.

Lets say he got Giansiracusa cos that helps the anti Chaff argument.

 

[lamb22]

As a serious response to your previous request, it is almost impossible that an 800-1 shot will win the brownlow as the final brownlow odds are framed on disclosed form (i.e at end of season)  but I am sure that many winners were in the 100's before the season started.  I would suggest that Dipper and Brian Wilson, maybe even Wanganeen as he was only 19 at the time I think, were over the odds pre season and in the 100s.

 

[Dyer'ere]

Either way it supports the widely held view that Chaff can't handle the pace. Each of those guys has some zing. (I agree with dmx on this one. )

I remember Eagleton burnt our boy at the fifty. Chaffey overcommitted because he had to hit turbo to get there and ended up with a mouth full of lawn.

Did you think Williams looked right on the weekend?

 

[lamb22]

Thanks J&B. I couldn't remember the Saints game from Chaff. I obliterated part of the experience.

Looks like I've mixed up the Footscray game.  :-[ Can't remember who he picked up. Cogs got Cooney, IIRC.

Oh, that's right. It was Giansiracusa for a bit and Eagleton for some.

Nathan Eagleton              17 4 21 8 0 2 1 1 1 1
Daniel Giansiracusa      18 14 32    13       0       1       1       1       1       1

Not a happy day.

Lets say he got Giansiracusa cos that helps the anti Chaff argument.

Hartigan was on Eaglton early got 12 touches kept Eagleton to one in the first quarter from memory.

Jackson was on Giansiracusa for a while and lost him a fair bit.

 

[dmx]

Did you think Williams looked right on the weekend?

no but purely because i am still baffled that chaff actually did the job he did, but again i doff my hat to the Chaffster. Now do it for 2 in a row Chaff. 8)

 

[OUCH-That Hurt]

Chaffey did a good job in the Crows game..

 

[Dyer'ere]

Chaffey did a good job in the Crows game..

Goodwin, who was in red hot form, prior.

 

[OUCH-That Hurt]

Excactly! Doesnt that mean he has played two good games in a row...

Fair dinkum guys GIVE HIM A BREAK!

Hird or Johnson this week

 

[1965]

Excactly! Doesnt that mean he has played two good games in a row...

Fair dinkum guys GIVE HIM A BREAK!

Hird or Johnson this week

A big call that is

To play the Chaff on the Hird

I think maybe not

:spin

 

[dmx]

Chaffey did a good job in the Crows game..

Goodwin, who was in red hot form, prior.

on this one Dyere, i will ask you the question youasked me about Williams, Goodwin wasnt 100% that night and it was even mentioned in the commentary too. 8)

 

[Dyer'ere]

Yeah DMX, the both had losers' limp. ;D