Marion 2021 nominations up, or are they?

StevieBee wrote:Question - the terrible AGM minutes suggest an event that would run at a loss would not be run. Margins on this one would be thin?

This was what I was thinking as well StevieBee! You never want to see carnival's not being able to be run but if that is what the agreement was it just makes it confusing I think

Novice mark is 6 right?
New athlete won the novice 120 by 5 metres. Started off 8.50m?
New Kid in Gift final, ran off 6?
why 2.5 between two new runners?
Standard looked terrible. hardly anyone breaks 13 except for first 3 in 120 final. Winner 12.52 and beats 4th by 5m. big gaps watching the vids

Baltimore Jack wrote:Novice mark is 6 right?
New athlete won the novice 120 by 5 metres. Started off 8.50m?
New Kid in Gift final, ran off 6?
why 2.5 between two new runners?
Standard looked terrible. hardly anyone breaks 13 except for first 3 in 120 final. Winner 12.52 and beats 4th by 5m. big gaps watching the vids

Maybe the novice mark for a novice 120 is different then an open 120, thats the only explanation I can think of. If not, I've got no clue

In the 120m and 120m Novice why were there 2 athletes running their 1st meet in the SAAL, one given the Novice 6m mark and another 8.5m?
Cailen Hejka wins comfortably in the Novice off 8.5 in his 1st SAAL run, must think this SAAL stuff is easy as and Michael Moschou comes 2nd comfortably ahead of the rest of the pack in the 120m final.
In the 120m mens final its 1st and 2nd then clear daylight over the rest of the field, good to see this handicap system is providing high quality close racing, NOT!

Speedy wrote:

Baltimore Jack wrote:Novice mark is 6 right?
New athlete won the novice 120 by 5 metres. Started off 8.50m?
New Kid in Gift final, ran off 6?
why 2.5 between two new runners?
Standard looked terrible. hardly anyone breaks 13 except for first 3 in 120 final. Winner 12.52 and beats 4th by 5m. big gaps watching the vids

Maybe the novice mark for a novice 120 is different then an open 120, thats the only explanation I can think of. If not, I've got no clue

Checked the "Essential Documents" on team app and the SAAL have 120 mens and Novice both at 6m novice marks. I know the reason why. They have no idea on what they are doing, using a handicap system that does not work, no surprise because we have said this last season and the season prior and yet here we again, 1st meet in on another season and they are still F'ing it up.

StevieBee wrote:Question - the terrible AGM minutes suggest an event that would run at a loss would not be run. Margins on this one would be thin?

Absolutely Spot On Stevie
Gossips has told me that the meeting penciled in for Nov 27th is in a lot of strife.
Gossips has told me that it could be relocated and athletes run for less prizemoney.
You have heard it first on Talking Pros

Z Score wrote:The 1600m was a Screamer, New lad on the Committee wins by 10 secs , only ten athletes and theres 65 seconds from first to last.
Long live distance racing with the saal.

Not a good look to jump on the committee and win your next 1600m race by 10 seconds.
WOWEE

Young Michael Moschou is a great talent, good effort running 2nd in a gift on debut. Without Blyzno there he wins easily.

Sweeney wrote:Young Michael Moschou is a great talent, good effort running 2nd in a gift on debut. Without Blyzno there he wins easily.

Thats OK for gifts pre the new system. but the standard of the race was poor.
Made up of novice kids, vets or hopelessly out of form hacks plus Bayliss   .
Moschou made to look like Incentivise against that field.
His stablemates would have been laughing their tits off watching their newbie smash the field bar Blyzno.

Is there anywhere you could find the results from Marion?

donatello wrote:Is there anywhere you could find the results from Marion?

Not the easiest to find, but if you go here on the SAAL Team App https://saal.teamapp.com/fixtures?_list=v1 and go 'Current Meeting Program' you'll find them. They might also be on the SAAL website under the results section.

Not easy to chase up but Admin is right on the money.
The longer the results go without being posted, where they normally are , you begin to wonder WHY.
Then you go back and start looking at results a bit closer.
Yep , its all clear to see .
No stewarding at this meeting,so they would be having a big giggle about it.
Just do your sums and work out the MPS .So much for a handicap system which has you running at your best all the time.
Will be waiting for the Mumbles report on the meeting to see if the athletes , and theres at least 3 I can see to see if there were any issues.
If not they are down right Cheats.

Admin wrote:

donatello wrote:Is there anywhere you could find the results from Marion?

Not the easiest to find, but if you go here on the SAAL Team App https://saal.teamapp.com/fixtures?_list=v1 and go 'Current Meeting Program' you'll find them. They might also be on the SAAL website under the results section.

Thanks Admin! Makes perfect sense for results to not be under... the results tab... on TeamApp

donatello wrote:

Admin wrote:

donatello wrote:Is there anywhere you could find the results from Marion?

Not the easiest to find, but if you go here on the SAAL Team App https://saal.teamapp.com/fixtures?_list=v1 and go 'Current Meeting Program' you'll find them. They might also be on the SAAL website under the results section.

Thanks Admin! Makes perfect sense for results to not be under... the results tab... on TeamApp

Dont be silly that would be logical.

Live results arent live results either, Teams arent teams. Sponsors are only the Bay Shef sponsors (why not all sponsors for all meets or at least sponsors for current and/or coming meet?). Not much is what its suppose to be, but we should not be surprised!

Z.SCORES all over the place.
Orman well into the minus in the 120m then well on the positive side in the 300m.
Compared with all the others in both events and comparing her z score in both events doesnt make a lot of sense and its a good think No Stewerding at this meeting.

Can someone help me.
Im being told Im asking the wrong questions.
Well Brother Bean and lapdog Beck can you please reply to the following post.
Jan 13th 2019 Ryan Atkins win off 12m
Oct 14 2021 Ryan Atkins wins off 16m
Can we expect him to win off 20m in 2022.

Placings Open 300m 14/010/21
Atkins 33.79 off 16m 8.40 mps
Bulabek 34.39 off 22m 8.08 mps
Dowling 34.74 0ff 38m 7.54 mps

Them Chief Steward Mumbles comes in and declares Track Spongy, so adjustments are made
Atkins 33.42 off 16m 8.50mps
Bulabeck 34.02 off 22m 8.17mps
Dowling 34.36 off 38m 7.63mps

Yet on a much slower track back on 13/01/19
Atkins 35.22 off 12m 8.18mps
Bulabek 37.04 off 18m 7.61 mps
Dowling 38.55 off 18 7.32 mps

Exactly same track , much slower in 2019 but no adjustments to times made then in 2021 the track is rated as spongy by Mumbles and adjustments are made.
Both these lots of times end up in the computer to determine future handicaps
Perhaps Bean or Lapdog can come on here and explain why a slower track in 2019 received no adjustment when the SPONGY TRACK last weekend did.

Surely that cant be right.
Its a bit like say you run quicker up hill then you do downhill.
Who in the saal is fully credentialed to determine track ratings.
So, as it stands the track rated soft and spongy last weekend and required time adjustments was actually much quicker than the track rated standard grass back in 2019 where no time adjustments were made.
I see where you compared the times of this seasons placegetters which would be pretty fair I would say.
So as you mentioned , both lots of these times and adjustments are now in the system to determine future handicaps.
The Vics must be laughing their tits off.
This is an open forum and its good that you have asked the league for a reply.

As previously mentioned in this topic, Gossips stuck his keys into the turf , called it Standard Grass and no need for adjustments.
If you go back to 2019 , the track was so slow that none of the 300m heat runners from that day would have made the final on times at Marion 2021
Thats how slow the track was , yet it was dished up as normal with no adjustments.
So athletes that ran on that day in 2019 received a bonus of dubious times being put into the system , thats why you have a repeated winner on an inflated mark.
A system is only as good as the information entered

Hello Z and the Whisperer,

You seem to have missed one person that ran at both the 2019 and 2021 meet.

2019
Jarrad Dartnall- runs 36.84 off 21 = 7.53 MPS

2021
Jarrad Dartnall- runs 36.17 off 39 = 7.21 MPS

So, you said you need some help and that you’re asking the wrong questions. Now I’m not sure what questions you actually asked in your post, Z, but here goes nothing.

“Exactly the same track, much slower in 2019”- kind of contradicts yourself. But was it really slower in 2019?

Deng- runs slower in 2019- stumbled and pulled up with 15m to go (have a look at the video if you’d like). Could also argue that he has made very solid progress in the last few years as a runner.

Jack - seems to be a much more mature and experienced runner now so will obviously be running faster.

Jarrad- runs slower in 2021.

Me- not going to make a comment because unlike some people I don’t like to talk about myself on this forum.

Of course all runners ran slower at the 2019 meet. Everyone has come forward since then to run closer to the target time of 33secs.

Jack goes forward 20m

Jarrad goes forward 18m

I go forward 4m

Deng goes forward 4m

Now I’m not sure if either of you actually ran at both of these meets or just decided to come on here and try to spread misinformation that suits your argument. If you did run and have an experience of what both tracks are like then what are you doing coming on here and putting the league down? If you didn’t run, then you really don’t have an opinion on what the track was like other than pulling out some info that suits your argument.

#maketalkingpros(protrack)greatagain

Appreciate your imput Ryan , thats what this forum is all about.
I didnt make mention of the final in 2019 only the heat times so what Deng did in the final is irrelavant.
As for Jarrad , Im pretty sure hes an over 35 athlete now or very close to it and you dont get quicker as you get older and I would say that Jarrad is carrying a bit more pudding than back in 2019.
My concern is also that those athletes that showed up and ran last week , because their marks were adjusted will be disadvantaged over those that didnt run when a 300m is handicapped again.Think about it.
By the way Top Run last week and looking forward to your 400s down the track.

Its good to know that Bean still reads Talking pros and then still does the ring around to put someone else in the spotlight.

But I think I actually get it all.
The times in 2019 were much slower but the track was much faster than 2021. all makes sense to me.

Yeah I was referring to ‘Z scores’ hand picked results. Deng ran quite a bit faster in the heat in 2019 compared to the final which ‘ ZScore’ used in his/her/their nice little analysis.

Thank you for actually presenting a genuine concern and adding something constructive to the forum. But looking at the results, the Z Scores looked pretty reasonable so I don’t think it would be an issue for many at all (three people ‘ran red’).

Thank you, appreciate it.

I’m not sure what cute nick names you’ve given to people ‘Z score’. But no one contacted me to say anything. Just trying to bring some sense to this forum #maketalkingprosgreatagain

Unsure as to why we’re even looking at times from athletes more than 2 years apart but I’m glad you get it now ‘Z score’, glad to hear it! Let me know if you need any more help in the future.

Hi Ryan,
I admit I don't understand the system. It confuses me.
I will give you an example.
Two athletes entered for the 70 at Flinders.
These are the stats and marks

ATHLETE A
MPS of 1 Year Runs:
6.355,
MPS of 3 Year Runs:
8.576, 8.551, 8.46, 8.459,
MPS of 5 Year Runs:
8.576, 8.551, 8.46, 8.459, 8.429, 8.416, 8.375, 8.353,
Base Mark
7.92m

ATHLETE B
MPS of 1 Year Runs:
8.415, 8.363, 8.204,
MPS of 3 Year Runs:
8.415, 8.363, 8.204, 8.19, 8.151, 8.125, 8.072, 8.065,
MPS of 5 Year Runs:
8.415, 8.363, 8.204, 8.19, 8.151, 8.125, 8.072, 8.065,
Base Mark
6.68m

The first one has higher MPS ratings in each category except the 1 year.
But A's i year run is so far from his best that would have to be disregarded.

Clearly athlete A is faster than athlete B.
BUT Athlete A gets the bigger handicap.
Why?

Ryan, you say there we "only" 3 that ran red in the 300 mens. You might also notice that 2 ran green, significantly slower. Thats 5 of only 11 that had a considerable or unacceptable improvement or noticeably slower than best form. Half of the field! Yep pretty reasonable????
Of course this is all acceptable when prize money is lower???

You mention Ryan why are we looking at Deng results from 2 years ago, Quote "Unsure as to why we’re even looking at times from athletes more than 2 years apart", I agree we should be looking at current results based on current data not 3 years ago or 5 years ago. But it seems you like this system however you contradict yourself. The system is based on results from 1,3 and 5 years but you question why are we looking at results from 2 years ago?

Anyway, no amount of discussion will ever convince me that this system works, so dont even bother trying, goes for anyone, dont text me on it or in person, I no longer have no interest in what you think. I respect your opinion but you are wrong.
We all have seen the mistakes over the past 2 years, we have all seen the constant changes to try to get this right, we have all seen the DQ's when it suits. We have all seen ridiculous inflated marks, we can all see who has the inflated marks all but handing them the win, athletes turning up 1st time and winning, we can all see the number dropping out fed up with how its run and how bad the handicaps are, the constant reduction competing at any meet and more specifically at the Bay. If you all think this great for the competition then I think you are all delusional.

Please don’t get it confused, in no way am I here to represent SAAL at all. What irks me is that people come on here and spew hate on SAAL. Some of it seems reasonable, some of it is just some information that people have decided to put up here to back up their argument that usually doesn’t paint the whole picture. I’ll be honest, I was skeptical as many were and still are but at the end of the day you can either support the league that we all love or you can go against it. If you choose the latter, that’s your choice, but why do you feel the need to come on here as grown adults using a fake name putting them down? If you don’t like it, then take your ball and go play somewhere else and leave the SAAL out of your mouth.

I don’t want to have any more discussions either ‘Top Sport’ so this will be the last reply on this thread you get from me.

Out of those 5 athletes 3 of them put at least one ‘acceptable’ performance on the board at Marion. 3/11 may be a little big, yes, but not as bad as you want it to seem.

Sorry, I do see the confusion. May have worded that wrong. When comparing times from the same athlete 2 years apart, I have a problem with that, yes. But when collecting data over a period of time on the one athlete, I don’t have a problem with it. Especially when the more recent data is more heavily weighted.

Now, it would be a lot more compelling if you guys came on here with the same issues, but ‘Baltimore Jack’ seems to have the complete opposite issue to you, ‘Top Sport’. ‘Baltimore Jack’ also happens to leave out some vital info which is what I have a problem with on this forum. Paint the whole picture.

Athlete A (aka Calum Scrivens- whom I happen to know personally and will do my best to leave that out of this) runs slow in the last year so has a larger base mark (edit: because of the last 12 months performance having a higher weight than older performances). Once the holiday reduction is added because of lack of runs in the past 12 months he goes back a considerable amount and receives the mark of 5.25.

Athlete B (aka Hudson Siegfried) who had a great season last year- well done to him. After applying the win reduction also receives 5.25.

I guess we will see how that unfolds on the weekend but I wouldn’t go out and say one athlete is better than the other until we see them both this season.

Again, I don’t want to argue on here and want to echo Luke’s comments on an earlier thread in that it is embarrassing the insults and accusations being thrown around here (in which I am now guilty and embarrassed of myself). I simply want to support the league that I have loved for a number of years so I will continue to do so by racing as much as possible with them.