Super Rugby play-offs: Stormers - Sharks in Cape Town (28/07/2012)

[Gena_ZA]

Friendships resumes on Mondays after the game, unless one watches it together, then we just keep drinking
In the match week we say things we should not, **** happens bud

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

I guess you will have to congratulate me on monday then.

 

[lynam1104]

Burn.

I reckon the shark momentum will be a big factor they looked in another class against the reds. However the Stomers will be tough to beat at home.

 

[Gena_ZA]

I guess you will have to congratulate me on monday then.

Kiss my ass, then again better if not
Nah, I'll do it now

"Well done on a good effort, but your team just wasn't up to the brutality of the Stormers"

 

[Gena_ZA]

This approach is far too aggressive for my nature, I back down like a poodle to a Pit Bull

Back to rugga:

I think a lot will depend on 4 key areas

- The availability of Duanne Vermeulen as without him the Sharks will dominate the collision and breakdown points, especially if they can nullify Skolisi
- Whether the two young centres of the Sharks can handle the experience of the Stormers in a crunch game like this
- Will the "better" front row of the Sharks fire or backfire like in the first match against the Stormers this year
- will the travelling catch up to the Sharks

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Ag, shame. After trampling a hapless Reds team I see Sharks supporters all over (and here as well) actually have some hope of continuing on past this weekend. Well, I suppose that meanstheir tears will just taste so much sweeter.

 

[big ginger 8]

INB4 BG8 says good write up.

Wow skill.

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

Vermeulen in doubt for Stormers Semi-final

Stormers strongman Duane Vermeulen is still in doubt for their home Super Rugby Semi-final against the Sharks at Newlands on Saturday.
http://www.superxv.com/news/super15_rugby_news.asp?id=35996​

 

[Draggs]

You have to ask, even if he is technically fit, how match fit will he be after three months of no competitive rugby?

 

[Darwin]

You have to ask, even if he is technically fit, how match fit will he be after three months of no competitive rugby?

I was thinking exactly the same thing. There is no way he will be playing at 100%, though Vermeulen at 70-80% may still be better than the other options they currently have at no. 8.....

 

[Dizzy]

No-one is saying the Chiefs or Crusaders don't have a chance of beating the Stormers in South Africa. I'm just suggesting that the Chiefs/Crusaders will have a much better chance of winning when playing at home against a Sharks team who have won less than 50% of their away matches this season, rather than away against a Stormers team who are unbeaten at home this season.......

Go the Sharks! I don't think either the Chiefs or Crusaders will beat the Stormers in South Africa, but I think they would have a much better chance of beating Sharks in New Zealand....

This should be a good game - at this stage I'd think the Stormers will be favourites, but I will wait until I've seen the lineups before making any predictions....

Sorry Darwin but I'm pretty sure you were the one who said it.

 

[Darwin]

Sorry Darwin but I'm pretty sure you were the one who said it.

?????

I stated I didn't think that the Chiefs/Crusaders would beat the Stormers in South Africa - by this I meant that the Stormers would be favorites in such a match (and I still firmly believe this). In no way was that meant to suggest that the Chiefs/Crusaders have no chance of beating the Stormers (as you seemed to suggest)! Being underdogs in a match is very different to having no chance in a match

I stick by my original statement: There is a much higher chance of a New Zealand team winning the tournament if the Sharks win this match.....

 

[Dizzy]

?????

I stated I didn't think that the Chiefs/Crusaders would beat the Stormers in South Africa - by this I meant that the Stormers would be favorites in such a match (and I still firmly believe this). In no way was that meant to suggest that the Chiefs/Crusaders have no chance of beating the Stormers (as you seemed to suggest)! Being underdogs in a match is very different to having no chance in a match

I stick by my original statement: There is a much higher chance of a New Zealand team winning the tournament if the Sharks win this match.....

I understand what you're trying to say, just read it as it was typed.
I guess if it was worded correctly then I wouldn't have "seemed to suggest" exactly what you said.

There is a massive difference between "I think the Stormers are favorites" and "I don't think the Chiefs/Crusaders will win" the same way you stated there is a difference between "underdogs" and "no chance"

 

[dudeabides]

The odds I've seen at p'power for this one are 4/9 Stormers at home, and 7/4 for the away Sharks. And that is not enough of a payoff to risk betting on the Sharks to me, am I wrong?

 

[Darwin]

The odds I've seen at p'power for this one are 4/9 Stormers at home, and 7/4 for the away Sharks. And that is not enough of a payoff to risk betting on the Sharks to me, am I wrong?

I'd say it was almost worth betting on the Sharks at those odds. While having a week off can help freshen up a team, they can take time to get back up to speed again - if the Sharks were able to get an early try (or 2) on the board the Stormers may struggle to come back... especially as they would mainly be scoring in 3's!

I understand what you're trying to say, just read it as it was typed.
I guess if it was worded correctly then I wouldn't have "seemed to suggest" exactly what you said.

There is a massive difference between "I think the Stormers are favorites" and "I don't think the Chiefs/Crusaders will win" the same way you stated there is a difference between "underdogs" and "no chance"

It was worded correctly.

There is no difference between "I think the Stormers are favorites" and "I don't think the Chiefs/Crusaders will win".

The favourite by definition is: "the competitor thought most likely to win a game or contest, especially by people betting on the outcome."

Therefore stating "I think the Stormers are favourites" and "I think the Stormers will win" is saying exactly the same thing. Stating "I think the Stormers will win" is exactly the same as stating "I don't think the Crusaders/Chiefs will win". Therefore simple algebra tells us that "I think the Stormers are favourites" is the same as "I don't think the Crusaders/Chiefs will win"

 

[smartcooky]

I'd say it was almost worth betting on the Sharks at those odds. While having a week off can help freshen up a team, they can take time to get back up to speed again - if the Sharks were able to get an early try (or 2) on the board the Stormers may struggle to come back... especially as they would mainly be scoring in 3's!



It was worded correctly.

There is no difference between "I think the Stormers are favorites" and "I don't think the Chiefs/Crusaders will win".

The favourite by definition is: "the competitor thought most likely to win a game or contest, especially by people betting on the outcome."

Therefore stating "I think the Stormers are favourites" and "I think the Stormers will win" is saying exactly the same thing. Stating "I think the Stormers will win" is exactly the same as stating "I don't think the Crusaders/Chiefs will win". Therefore simple algebra tells us that "I think the Stormers are favourites" is the same as "I don't think the Crusaders/Chiefs will win"

Its soooooooo obvious that you're right Darwin.

Any idiot could see that. Its as plain as the nose on your face!!!

 

[Dizzy]

It was worded correctly.

There is no difference between "I think the Stormers are favorites" and "I don't think the Chiefs/Crusaders will win".

The favourite by definition is: "the competitor thought most likely to win a game or contest, especially by people betting on the outcome."

Therefore stating "I think the Stormers are favourites" and "I think the Stormers will win" is saying exactly the same thing. Stating "I think the Stormers will win" is exactly the same as stating "I don't think the Crusaders/Chiefs will win". Therefore simple algebra tells us that "I think the Stormers are favourites" is the same as "I don't think the Crusaders/Chiefs will win"

Lol.... I don't know if you're taking the **** or what...

This is what you said. "I don't think either the Chiefs or Crusaders will beat the Stormers in South Africa"


You gave me a definition of "favorite" yet that isn't even the word you used in the sentence that started this exchange.Perhaps if you had used it, your point would be valid.

That doesn't suggest the game can go either way.
It doesn't suggest the Stormers are merely favorites but the Chiefs/Crusaders could possibly win.
The only thing that sentence suggests is that you don't believe the Chiefs or Crusaders will beat the Stormers in South Africa and that's pretty much it.

 

[Draggs]

Its soooooooo obvious that you're right Darwin.

Any idiot could see that. Its as plain as the nose on your face!!!

In B4 Feic sees this and tears it to bits or something.




OK, I know he does physics...

 

[HB Scot]

Darwin...
Would have to agree with you there, that from Chiefs or Crusaders perspective a Sharks win is order of the day.

 

[Feicarsinn]

In B4 Feic sees this and tears it to bits or something.




OK, I know he does physics...

Huh? I wasn't going to say anything!




Although they are all just equations for mean value, so I don't see how they could tell you anything about probability. Oh, and the first two are exactly the same.

I'm not particularly good at probability and stats, I only really use them for experimental margins of error and QM and the like. But I digress...