Jake Batchelor [merged]

[dwaino]

I'm struggling here, is there any chance we could connect with Stephen Hawking on this?

Working on a new standard model where hitting almost all targets actually equates to missing nearly all targets. Something to do with anti-kicking-efficiency, stargates, time spent in forward half and a dalek named spot.

[WilliamPowell]

 

SNIP

There's actually a lot I'd like to say .....

FYI : the pitcher is warming up again 

[Penelope]

I'm struggling here, is there any chance we could connect with Stephen Hawking on this?

Working on a new standard model where hitting almost all targets actually equates to missing nearly all targets. Something to do with anti-kicking-efficiency, stargates, time spent in forward half and a dalek named spot.

You forgot the co -efficient of 9

9 is a mathematical magical number, you can double it, quarter that number and then multiply by 2 and you end up with 9.

So what than means is that 1 out of 9 is nearly all. The inverse of that is that 1 out of 6 is nothing at all. Once you get into double figures this no longer applies

It's hard to grasp, but once you do, you can understand how the Tardis is bigger on the inside than the outside.

[YellowandBlackBlood]

I'm struggling here, is there any chance we could connect with Stephen Hawking on this?

Working on a new standard model where hitting almost all targets actually equates to missing nearly all targets. Something to do with anti-kicking-efficiency, stargates, time spent in forward half and a dalek named spot.

You forgot the co -efficient of 9

9 is a mathematical magical number, you can double it, quarter that number and then multiply by 2 and you end up with 9.

So what than means is that 1 out of 9 is nearly all. The inverse of that is that 1 out of 6 is nothing at all. Once you get into double figures this no longer applies

It's hard to grasp, but once you do, you can understand how the Tardis is bigger on the inside than the outside.

You can do that with any number al!

[Andyy]

Because you're being facetious idiots and picking on WAT instead of disagreeing like gentleman.

IMO Batchelor played well, did his role.

[Penelope]

I'm struggling here, is there any chance we could connect with Stephen Hawking on this?

Working on a new standard model where hitting almost all targets actually equates to missing nearly all targets. Something to do with anti-kicking-efficiency, stargates, time spent in forward half and a dalek named spot.

You forgot the co -efficient of 9

9 is a mathematical magical number, you can double it, quarter that number and then multiply by 2 and you end up with 9.

So what than means is that 1 out of 9 is nearly all. The inverse of that is that 1 out of 6 is nothing at all. Once you get into double figures this no longer applies

It's hard to grasp, but once you do, you can understand how the Tardis is bigger on the inside than the outside.

You can do that with any number al!

No you cant, only by starting with 9, can you end with 9   

[tony_montana]

except when he slots a goal ?

Did you watch the match on the weekend W.A.?

Batch hit most of his targets and provided as much run off HB as Houli.

Yeah I did and that's absolute crap. He missed nearly all his targets, he hit up one player in the forward line and wow, he kicked one goal. Does not have it at this level, is only there to fill a position, he is nothing special and is NAB/VFL at best.

Here is your original comment if you have forgotten it.

Does missing nearly all his targets equate with a disposal efficiency of 88.9%?

You said something blatantly wrong and been called out about it and you have tried to turn this into your usual baiting and belittlement woe is me squealing

Brilliant, from 8 kicks, wow, all up 9 disposals, Brownlow stuff this. 88.9% from 8 kicks, really, shouldn't that be 100% from that amount of kicks??? The other 10% must have been the crap I was watching being delivered into the forwards, which were way off line apart from one kick that actually hit a forward, however that one mark was contested..

So explain how I am "blatantly wrong"????? I said nearly all his targets were missed!!!! 8th lowest possession gatherer in the team on the day, magnificent!!! Everyone else's fav Morris was third lowest with 4, but what a leader eh!!!

   
                              K  H  D   M  H   O   FF

19Jake Batchelor   8   1   9   3   0   0   1

sorry wat, the point was his disposal which you've always criticised, not the amount of disposals which is a separate(but valid) issue. There is nothing wrong with his disposal, hes a good kick

[Yeahright]

80+ disposal efficiency equates to missing nearly every targett hahaha fmd

[🏅Dooks]

Well, that's that then.

So how's Batch gonna go against North?

[Yeahright]

Surely he'll miss every target again

[Hard Roar Tiger]

Surely he'll miss every target again

And Hanpson will be amazing in the 2's

[Yeahright]

Surely he'll miss every target again

And Hanpson will be amazing in the 2's

As long as Dimma rates him he gets my tick of approval

[🏅Dooks]

Surely he'll miss every target again

And Hanpson will be amazing in the 2's

Whoz Hanapsom?

[Owl]

Imhoteps son

[🏅Dooks]

Cheers