Jump to content

Talk:2010 NRL season

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

wooden spoon drought

[edit]

I removed this sentence from the lead section

Heading into the 2010 season, the Manly-Warringah Sea Eagles will have the equal-longest wooden spoon drought of any existing foundation club (tied with Balmain which had not won the wooden spoon between 1911-74, and then merged with the Western Suburbs Magpies to form the Wests Tigers, having never won the award since its inception in 1947. Should they not finish last, Manly-Warringah's wooden spoon drought will extend to 64 years.

Leaving aside that this is inappropriate for the lead section, I was going to paste it later in the article but there are a few problems with it. First, Many are not a "foundation club", i.e. they did not join in 1908. Then it says Balmain did not "win the wooden spoon between 1911-74", and then immediately contradicts that by saying the award's "inception" was in 1947. Lastly there is no source for this claim (shouldn't be too hard to find one though). Once these are fixed up it could go back in I suppose. --Amaher (talk) 11:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that the 64 erroneously includes the three seasons of the Northern Eagles. Manly's current streak is 60, and hence not notable yet.

Mark Flanagan

[edit]

Just saw the transfer section, noticed Mark Flanagan from Wigan Warriors was missing, he has moved to the Wests for the upcoming season, i'll leave it up to one of you Aussies to change the page accordingly. --Tukogbani (talk) 14:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ladder Progression - How should the storm be represented in the early rounds of the season?

[edit]

Ok, this is going to be a tricky one.. Do we:

Suggestion: Whatever we do here has to be replicated in the 2002 season eventually. Bulldogs had a similar problem that year (although they finished with some points in the end.) The key will be the wording of the release:

The club will lose all competition points earned to date in 2010

They lose the points they had (they aren't deemed NEVER to have had them) - up to round 6, they have points.

and also the right to accumulate points going forward in 2010 (competition tables will record wins and losses but the club will not be awarded competition points on the basis of any wins).

Option 3 is the right one here. Definitely put an asterisk next to the reset result. 121.208.18.179 (talk) 13:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.--Jeff79 (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have fixed it such that the first six rounds still stand in terms of points then they are wiped.. When I get around to doing the 2002 progression I will be including the bulldogs as competition leaders until they lost the 37 points Bevstarrunner (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Musings on the Results Page

[edit]

I'm loath to suggest MORE work on that page than already exists - but should we have some method of indicating when matches went to extra time (gold font/highlighting of the match, perhaps?). I'm not sure - on one hand, a win in golden point is treated as a win in extra time for all intents and purposes (comp points, differential), but on the other, those matches are played with different rules (the extra time, with more interchanges and auto-finish on a tiebreaking score). They also don't happen too often, which might make them notable. It's certainly not a priority, but it might be food for thought. 121.208.19.90 (talk) 12:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation

[edit]

"Had the Melbourne Storm (who until this season had not missed the finals since 2002) not been deducted competition points, the finals set-up would be like this..." But there were deducted, and the final eight finished the way they did. There is no place for our encyclopedia for speculation on what may have been. Otherwise we might start the 1999 article saying "the Dragons would have been premiers but for Ainscough's shot on Smith which saw Melb get the 8 pt try & win the GF" or how about "had the Roosters won every game they lost in 1966 then they would have been premiers instead of wooden spooners". -Sticks66 12:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.--Jeff79 (talk) 15:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2010 NRL season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_NRL_season&oldid=1211466171"