hawks vs saints sc points?

[ants]

how can the saints players get loads more points than the hawk players? when they got thumped!!! its like sc is saying the saints were a lot better???

[GoLions]

They got like 43 more points all up? Hardly "loads more"

Saints had more disposals, more marks and more tackles than the Hawks, which is always a good way of getting points I hear.

[axe9]

+1

[PICCOLLO]

Hawks more efficient. They kick long. When you got the ball, you cant tackle.
Seems wrong in theory but thought it was about right.

[Holz]

They got like 43 more points all up? Hardly "loads more"

Saints had more disposals, more marks and more tackles than the Hawks, which is always a good way of getting points I hear.

its loads more for a team that got pumped. Usually you would expect the hawks to get 1-2 hundred in that thrashing.

[GoLions]

They got like 43 more points all up? Hardly "loads more"

Saints had more disposals, more marks and more tackles than the Hawks, which is always a good way of getting points I hear.

its loads more for a team that got pumped. Usually you would expect the hawks to get 1-2 hundred in that thrashing.

Saints got like 200 more DT I think, so it sort of balanced out

[meow meow]

Rocket Science 101

Sean Dempster takes a contested mark
Kicks to it Roberton
Roberton marks it and kicks it to Steven
Steven marks and then hits NROO on a lead
NROO kicks a point

Say this happens 10 times a match. Saints score 10 points. Saints lose by 40
Say NROO kicks 10 goals instead. Saints win.

Dempster, Roberton and Steven score the same amount of points REGARDLESS OF THE RESULT OF THE MATCH. All their plays were effective, so they score well as a result. What NROO does has no bearing on their individual SC scores.

[honza]

how can the saints players get loads more points than the hawk players? when they got thumped!!! its like sc is saying the saints were a lot better???

Now compare the 10 lowest scoring saints to the 10 lowest scoring hawks.


Drum roll please