The New Sudoku Players' Forum

[Cec]

Well, the TV coverage of the pole vault was excellent but unfortunately not so for Aussie jumper, Steve Hooker, who finished a disappointing ninth. The event was won by Brad Walker of the USA clearing 5.86 metres (19feet 2.5 inches).

After clearing 5.76m, Hooker chose to pass the next height of 5.81m expecting to clear the next height of 5.86m. I suspect Hooker regretted this decision due to a wind change which made jumping difficult - this was evidenced by the relatively low winning height of 5.86m. As a last resort to win the title, Hooker chose but failed to clear 5.91m with his third and final jump. This left him stranded in ninth position because eight other vaulters had all cleared 5.81m which has probably never happened before in a vaulting competition.

This isn't the first time the favourite for this event has "come un-stuck" in passing the lower heights. Some years back (in an Olympic Games from memory), the odds-on favourite and still the current world record holder Sergey Bubka (6.14m) passed all the lower heights then failed with three unsuccessful attempts to clear his chosen "entry" height of 5.80m or thereabouts. I can never understand the logic of passing a few lower heights as these athletes would presumably be fit and, in my opinion, it's better to "remain" in the competition rather than attempt to come from behind to win - particularly if weather conditions change as occurred during this event.

Cec

[udosuk]

Oops Cec, Carlton did lose to the Melbourne Demons and your team didn't get the #1 draft pick despite losing the final match and "winning" the wooden spoon. As Hud and I observed in the NBA during the last season, tanking games for draft picks often doesn't work out, and will only earn the disappointment from the fans.

A bit about MLB baseball: we have another no-hitter pitched today, by the BoSox rookie pitcher Clay Buchholz in his 2nd career game. Another guy from the Minnesota Twins, Scott Baker, was 3 outs away from a perfect game before a walk and a single in the 9th inning dropped him to a 1-hitter shutout.

[Cec]

"Oops Cec, Carlton did lose to the Melbourne Demons and your team didn't get the #1 draft pick despite losing the final match and "winning" the wooden spoon. .".

Richmond would have got the #1 draft pick after losing to St Kilda and provided Carlton beat the Melbourne Demons which unfortunately it didn't.. As I previously mentioned, Carlton's loss to the Demons thus prevented Richmond getting the $1 draft pick.

Cec

[udosuk]

The first two finals so far are both exciting 3-point victory to the home team, and I won't be surprise if tonight's game turns out to be a 3-point victory for the hated Collingwood. But I like the performance of Lance Franklin the Hawks hero who scored 7 goals including the winning goal in the dying seconds today. It seemed he couldn't missed even from 60 metres away. If he could play like that in every game I'd bet the Hawks to win it all.

[Cec]

"...I won't be surprise if tonight's game turns out to be a 3-point victory for the hated Collingwood. But I like the performance of Lance Franklin the Hawks hero who scored 7 goals including the winning goal in the dying seconds today...."

I'm not a Collingwood fan either but it looks like they have got the Swans measure in leading by 40 points well into the last quarter. I agree with you about how good Lance Franklin is and to think my team Richmond could have had this guy in our team as well as Roughhead (don't know his christian name) had Richmond taken the option of selecting these two players from the draft pick a couple of seasons ago.

Cec

[udosuk]

Well, the Swans bowed out in disgrace. They could have been in top 4 or even the top 2 had they not lose a few 1-pt games and a tie, because of their much superior point percentage compared to all teams except the Geelong Cats. Well, one fewer sport for me to care about.

The player's full name is Jarryd Roughead.

[Cec]

Thanks udosuk for supplying the christian name of Jarryd Roughhead. By coincidence, I noticed his full name was mentioned in today's sports section of the Herald-Sun concerning the Hawks' exciting win over Adelaide.

Whilst I can't envisage the Australian Football League will ever change the long established system of awarding four premiership points for the winning team of a "home and away" match irrespective of whether the team wins by only one point or a 100 points or more I can well relate to your feeling that the Swans were unlucky not to make the "top four" teams who get the "double chance" come finals time.
Personally I've always thought that a system used by some other sports, eg badminton, is fairer, which uses solely a percentage system - being the points scored "for and against". Under such a system, Sydney would have finished second on the final ladder and hence the "double" chance which the top four teams now get.

The bright side udosuk is that your team reached the grand final for the last two years winning one and losing one... Oh how I'd love Richmond to have had that success This joke might help you feel better.....

A cocky footballer, who over-rated his playing ability, asked his coach why he was demoted to the "Thirds" team. The coach replied.. "Because we haven't got a Fourth's team".

Cec

[udosuk]

Thanks for the words & the joke Cec.

I wasn't thinking about changing the points system for the AFL, because I still think wins and losses are the most important results in matches. I was just commenting about the Swans failures in winning close games probably cost them a few spots on the ladder and ultimately their title chances.

BTW never knew that badminton "uses solely a percentage system". I thought it's like tennis and uses only matches/sets/games.

[Cec]

"...BTW never knew that badminton "uses solely a percentage system". I thought it's like tennis and uses only matches/sets/games. "

In hindsight, I got a bit carried away in thinking of a local badminton competition I played in for many years where the ladder was determined according to the total points scored by the team and not on the games won. I'm not sure how higher level badminton competition is decided but I suspect that points are awarded for "rubbers" or games won.

I did realize you weren't suggesting changing the points system for the AFL and I was merely expressing my thoughts that a percentage system of points for/against over the whole season is a fairer comparison of the sixteen teams in the competition.

Cec

[udosuk]

I am kind of glad that Australia lost to Zimbabwe in the Twenty20 World Championship. If the Aussies win every international cricket competition it will soon get too boring to watch.

[Cec]

ODI 20-over game cricket
With both India and Pakistan teams each scoring 141 runs, this superb match was decided in a farsical 10-ball "bowl out" contest where each team is allowed five bowls at the stumps without a batsman guarding it. India won because its bowlers hit the stumps with their first three balls whilst Pakistan failed to hit the stumps from their first three bowls and thus not being able to overtake India even if they bowled their final two balls.

Because this game was a "dead rubber" contest with both teams already qualifying for the Super Eights finals, I consider a tie would have been a just result. However, if a winner was to be decided then surely Pakistan should have been declared the winner because they lost only seven batsmen in reaching their score of 141 compared to India who lost nine of their batsmen to reach the same score.

Cec

[udosuk]

Cec, I think it was fair enough about the bowl-out. In basketball and baseball there is no "tie" in games because there must be a winner in each game. And the placings are important because the #1 and #2 teams of each group are assigned to different new groups in the 2nd stage. Surely the team finishing as #2 in that group will be in a much inferior situation to be grouped with Australia and Sri Lanka in the 2nd stage.

India was denied a certain victory by a rain-out in the match against Scotland. So if this game was decided as a tie Pakistan will be the #1 on virtue of having 1 more competition point. This will be unfair to the Indians. I don't think the number of wickets in a tie should be used to decide a match, dito for the number of balls used. If both teams score the same number of runs they're equally good regardless of the manner to reach that total. It's unfair to use the number of wickets or balls as a 2nd/3rd measurement because the order of who bats first already created a different circumstance for each team's batting innings.

Pakistan has only themselves (or their bowlers) to blame for not being able to hit the stumps in the bowl-out. Both teams were asked to do the same thing and Pakistan weren't equal to the task. I bet their bowlers will spend a whole day practising the bowl-out in case they need to do it again next time.

[Cec]

OK udosuk, I concede my suggested "tie" would not be a desirable result given your comments as to the placing of teams in the next groupings. However, I still contend a "bowling only shoot-out" is not the fairest way to achieve a result

"...If both teams score the same number of runs they're equally good regardless of the manner to reach that total...."

As cricket involves bowling, batting and fielding, then any "shoot-out" should incorporate these features. Because Pakistan lost "only" seven wickets to reach the same score as India who lost nine wickets, I fail to see how the teams are equally as good. It is reasonable to assume that Pakistan is a marginally better batting team than India yet was denied this advantage in a "bowling-only" shoot-out.

I notice that the local press has also criticised this type of shoot-out referring to the need to incorporate balance of bat and ball. I'm sure we could throw in more thoughts about this issue. I would hope the administration reviews how "tied" games should be played out to achieve a result to include batting for both sides. This could involve playing say another three overs, or alternatively, each batsmen faces only one ball.

Cec

[udosuk]

Today Pakistan defeated Australia, after defeating Sri Lanka yesterday. So Cec you're good in commenting that Pakistan is good. However I still stick to my belief that it was fair to decide the Pakistan-India by a bowl-out instead of giving them the match on virtue of losing fewer wickets.

My point is that even if 2 teams finish with the same number of runs with the same number of wickets fallen using the same number of balls, they still haven't played in identical circumstances because one team bats first. The pitch condition and psychological stress etc are different for each team. So it would be better to use only a single unique measurement to decide the winner, i.e. the number of runs.

And it isn't unusual for ball sports to use a single unique measurement to decide the winner. In soccer only the number of goals counts, and in draws we don't use the number of shots/corner kicks/freekicks etc to decide the winner. In basketball only points count and we don't use the number of fouls etc. In AFL the number of goals doesn't decide matches too. Numerous examples. I don't see why cricket should be special and use multiple measurements.

As for bowl-out doesn't involve all the skills, in soccer the shoot-out also doesn't involve passing, group defending etc but it has been used for many years. As long as both teams are asked to do the same thing I think it's fair enough.

Anyway, Pakistan will probably go through to the final 4, and Australia will need to fight for the remaining spot against Sri Lanka. I won't be surprised if they get eliminated. And New Zealand has beaten England too, so good for them. Where is emm I wonder?

BTW, this is my 2000th post here!

[Cec]

"... So it would be better to use only a single unique measurement to decide the winner, i.e. the number of runs...."

Unless I'm mis-interpreting your meaning here, this appears to be along the lines of what I finally suggested, ie. if both teams score the same number of runs then a result is decided on a single unique system of who scores the most runs in a "mini-play-off", either each team batting say another three overs or each player bats to face one ball - this would meet your criteria of both teams being asked to do the same thing.

On the Pakistan defeat of Australia last night, I thought it showed up the loss of Shane Warne and Glen McGrath has left a "hole" in the team where Australia had only three competitive bowlers - our other two bowlers, Michael Clarke and Andrew Symonds, were slaughtered by Shoaib Malik and Misbah-ul-Haq with their unbeaten 119-run partnership off 80 balls. With Ricky Ponting now out of the contest through injury I think you're right that Australia could be eliminated.

Congratulations on your 2000 posts.
Emm might be at the cricket

Cec