PLC Sydney Senior A qualified for Octos in Group D: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...qhy7yL814cC7DQ3WFv0QpWti5U/edit#gid=868861410To my knowledge- PLC didn't actually make the final, Aloys will be versing Pymble this week.
I've seen a 'program' for tomorrow night and it lists Aloysius v Pymble. Offical ISDA page has no mention. I wonder what happened to PLC.This PLC v Aloys debate has been wiped from the official ISDA draw completely.
I’ve heard the adjudication has been better this year than other years with very few surprise decisions. Interested in others’ feedback on this point. Admin could improve but that also relies on schools / adj’s posting accurate results in a timely manner.I've seen a 'program' for tomorrow night and it lists Aloysius v Pymble. Offical ISDA page has no mention. I wonder what happened to PLC.
Time for some new blood at ISDA. This season has been substandard in many ways.
With the potential schedule change thought I would update the preview of Aloys v Pymble.Onto the Octos mega preview.
1. Aloys v PLC Sydney
Fresh from the World individual debating and public speaking competition, where one PLC speaker placed 4th overall, PLC beat Kincoppal to qualify. They also have one speaker who made the IGSA seconds and a home ground advantage this Friday. The problem for them though is St Aloysius. They have 2 speakers who made CAS seconds and state callbacks, one of which who debated in their firsts last year. They are also on an undefeated run having easily won the pool rounds. 3/7 wins is concerning for PLC as was their loss to St Lukes, so Aloys will win this one.
2. Knox v Cranbrook
After ending Joeys’ undefeated run on Friday, Cranbrook find themselves on familiar ground against their CAS foes Knox. Knox have been consistent in the hardest Pool, have 2 speakers who made CAS thirds as well as a returning speaker from their firsts team last year. Whilst Cranbrook are in great form, Knox will be too strong as they usually beat Cranbrook.
3. Joeys v Queenwood
After 4 wins in a row, Queenwood then crashed with 3 straight losses whilst Joeys’ undefeated run came to an end last Friday. This Joeys team is good but not as good as last year’s. They do however have a great coach who has turned around their seniors performance in recent times. Queenwood on the other hand have a speaker who made state callbacks and I’ve heard they were unlucky in at least one of their losses, so in a major upset I’m tipping Queenwood.
4. View v St Andrews
This one I will keep brief - View.
5. Grammar v Monte
importantly for Grammar they are in an easy draw to the semis thanks to their win against Knox on Friday night.
The Grammar team is reportedly fired up about missing out on state representation and comparisons to other Grammar teams. Expect a fierce showing against Monte. They have a returning speaker from last years ISDA winning team and have strength across the bench evidenced by 2 speakers making state callbacks. They were also in the hardest pool with the only blemish a perplexing loss against Roseville college.
Monte have been going pretty well but will need to improve their rebuttal style if they are to beat Grammar.
Grammar in an emphatic victory.
6. Shore v Kincoppal
Both teams have had a pretty good run in the pool rounds. Shore are a pretty solid team but one has to question team selection as there is suggestion that their debater who made the state team is not in the their firsts ?! Maybe they will adjust the team for octos.
Whilst Kincoppal have improved out of sight finishing ahead of PLC and Pymble, my feeling is Shore will win this one.
7. Scots v Ravenswood
Congratulations to Scots on their undefeated run in a harder pool. With this form and boasting a state speaker they should win easily you’d think. I’m interested in the commentary suggesting a Ravenswood upset - maybe some anti Scots sentiment there. Ravenswood do have good individual speakers but they only won 3 times and just qualified in the easiest pool. It would take an almighty upset to beat Scots.
8. Barker v SCEGGS
The matchup of the round. SCEGGS won isda B last year. They are a well balanced team and have an IGSA seconds debater who made state callbacks. They are also very well coached. The concern is their loss to Tangara but they steadied the ship after that. Barker has a state debater in their team who also made CAS firsts last year. They have been very consistent and unlucky in both their losses. That being said, I’m giving this to SCEGGS in a minor upset as I think the strength of their 3 speakers will beat the brilliance of Barker’s state speaker.
You should read at least the first two pages.I’ve heard the adjudication has been better this year than other years with very few surprise decisions. Interested in others’ feedback on this point. Admin could improve but that also relies on schools / adj’s posting accurate results in a timely manner.
Ok I’ll bite. You really need to check your facts. Which pool are you referring to ?Let’s go through them:Just looking at who has qualified for octos, there looks like there’s a pretty strong trend. Not a single girl’s school is in the top 2 of any of the pools (with barker being the only co-Ed), which is surprising, given how strong some of the schools are. Coupled with the fact historically strong schools like abbotsleigh didn’t even qualify, it looks as if some gendered bias is coming into play within adjudication. I just hope the same cant be said of the upcoming rounds.
A quick look at the rankings tab on the unofficial sheet shows this to be unfounded speculation. Anyone with strong knowledge of the scene this year could give you numerous reasons why specific schools might not be performing, but this forum is no place for that.Just looking at who has qualified for octos, there looks like there’s a pretty strong trend. Not a single girl’s school is in the top 2 of any of the pools (with barker being the only co-Ed), which is surprising, given how strong some of the schools are. Coupled with the fact historically strong schools like abbotsleigh didn’t even qualify, it looks as if some gendered bias is coming into play within adjudication. I just hope the same cant be said of the upcoming rounds.
I think who beat who is very relevant when the poster was suggesting gender bias and mentioning schools like Abbotsleigh - who in fact ended up beating the boys schools and losing mainly to girls schools.In the interests of lies, damned lies and statistics:
I count 11 boys schools from 32 teams.
Of those, 7 finished above every girl or co-Ed school in their group, 1 finished below one coed school and of the last 3 one finished above a non-boys school. 8 of 11 finished above every girls school in their group.
I think any analysis based on margins or any other metric - even who won against whom - in the spreadsheets cannot provide any insight into the existence or absence of gender bias in the adjudications.
No.Abbotsleigh - who in fact ended up beating the boys schools
abbotsleigh’s only wins were against boys schools so if gender bias existed against girls schools, they should be on 0 wins. That’s how illogical this all is.No.
Abbotsleigh beat 3 out of 4 boys schools.
Who beat whom cannot provide any insight into the existence or absence of gender bias in the adjudications.
This assertion is not refuted by the poster’s suggestion of gender bias. It in fact asserts the poster is incorrect.
Thanks for clarifying.Octos started last week and finish tonight.