Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="WASSHHH, post: 3325966, member: 9424"] I get your Lockyer point, but it’s also not truly accurate. Lockyer retired (which was definitely at least a season early) at 34, which was 6 years post 28 as you’ve suggested. 34 is 121.4% of 28. Bennett was 68 when the Broncos shafted him. 121.4% of 68 is 82. Had Lockyer retired at 36 (which he could have easily done IMO), the comparable Bennett age would be 87. I really don’t think Bennett will be the head coach of an NRL team at 82, let alone 87. So if I had to guess, I think it’s pretty reasonable to assume Bennett will likely retire by 75. Which is 110.3% of 68. Back to Lockyer; applying the 110.3%, he’d be almost 31. Still too young given how he was going, but not as ridiculous to suggest as 28. What’s the point? 31 is far less powerful in the context of your hyperbole. Now normally I wouldn’t give a shit. But I’m bored and because you are incredibly literal with pretty much everything and everyone, I made the exception. You’re welcome and good night 😉 [/QUOTE]

No members online now.

Total: 115 (members: 0, guests: 115)