: Mon Jul 27, 2009 1:16 am  

Adeybull wrote:

If you take what Monster said for the other 3 clubs, but only 1 win for Wire against Quins (surely not...?) then on my guesses we'd finish 8th with 5 from 6 wins. And still 8th winning the lot. So yes, if its Wire go into their traditional late-term meltdown (oh please...oh please...) the I'd agree.

Hope springs eternal, although I feel you are making a BIG assumption regarding the Wire. That said...you putting money on it with the bookies? I suspect you'd get good odds!

Oddly enough, the only places offering odds have us only a fraction of a shade of odds behind Catalans and Warrington.

But you don't think Wire can beat Quins at home? Oh well if you're right then we must be top-8 certainties!

: Mon Jul 27, 2009 1:37 am  

The 50/50 record would put us 7th/8th now. Is there reason to believe that the bar will have been raised by the end of the season?

: Mon Jul 27, 2009 6:45 am  

Adeybull wrote:

And I'm six numbers from a lottery jackpot...

. For those of a mathematical bent, I reckon our chances of hitting Peter Hood's target of a decent run in the play-offs (six out of six then two in the post-season?) is x^8, where x is the average chance of success Bradford have in each game. Even if we were a rampant 9 times out of ten side, we'd only have a slightly better than two in five shout. And if we're round and about a 50/50 shot in each, I reckon we're a 0.3% chance of doing it. That's about the odds you have of winning a tenner on the lottery, isn't it?

: Mon Jul 27, 2009 6:50 am  

af wrote:

The 50/50 record would put us 7th/8th now. Is there reason to believe that the bar will have been raised by the end of the season?

Happy to send you my spreadsheet so you can try it for yourself!

: Mon Jul 27, 2009 6:52 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

But you don't think Wire can beat Quins at home? Oh well if you're right then we must be top-8 certainties!

You (deliberately...surely not! ) misinterpret what I said! Of course they can. My observation was regarding whether them only winning that one game is realistic!

: Mon Jul 27, 2009 8:02 am  

Adeybull wrote:

You (deliberately...surely not! :wink: ) misinterpret what I said! Of course they can. My observation was regarding whether them only winning that one game is realistic!

Perhaps we could sneak Menzies into one of their training sessions and get him to breathe over them?

: Mon Jul 27, 2009 12:04 pm  

Adeybull wrote:

You (deliberately...surely not! ) misinterpret what I said! Of course they can. My observation was regarding whether them only winning that one game is realistic!

how does your spreadsheet look regarding points difference? The bulls are looking at -100 with wakey, wire and quins at under -10.

: Mon Jul 27, 2009 12:35 pm  

phillgee wrote:

how does your spreadsheet look regarding points difference? The bulls are looking at -100 with wakey, wire and quins at under -10.

Fortunately, does not matter provided no more matches are drawn. We are on an odd number of points and the rest are on evens, so we would end up either ahead or behind each of those, never on the same points.

I did say at the outset that my model did not allow for draws. Obviously if draws happen then if necessary I'd have to build in something for points difference. Except I won't cos I can't be arsed. This was a quick exercise mainly for my own interest to determine what realistically were our chances.

: Mon Jul 27, 2009 12:55 pm  

Adeybull wrote: Happy to send you my spreadsheet so you can try it for yourself! i'll have a copy if thats alright adey...cieranblonde@hotmail.com is your best bet for an emai

Adeybull wrote: Happy to send you my spreadsheet so you can try it for yourself! i'll have a copy if thats alright adey...cieranblonde@hotmail.com is your best bet for an emai

: Mon Jul 27, 2009 3:31 pm  

We'll probably go the same again next week then. For once i'm not raving that I want Deacon dropped because he's starting to show improvement. As long as Burgess and Halley are ok to play then I think we'll see the same 17. If they aren't then I'd put Platt at FB, Kopzcak on bench in place of Burgess and then maybe Cook (?) or someone else at centre. Based on the last few games I don't think Sykes should be moved back to centre and as good as Jeffries has been I don't think we should move Sykes to accomodate him when we know which one will be here next season.