Are we a real chance to win?

[Guest hangon007]

Membership of 26,800 is a great start after 3 dismal seasons.

Why does the way we play effect our membership? I would have thought your either a supporter or your not!

Looks like we'll comfortably get to 32,000

You can never take anything for granted we should be 35,000+ easily by now.

Edited March 26, 2010 by hangon007

[Hulett Packard III 166]

No, but what relevance does that have on todays game?

What an idiotic question to ask on a forum about this topic!

[titan_uranus 25,019]

Hawthorn are unbelievably over-rated. Unbelievably.

If we can score early (by that I mean not go into quarter time 4 goals down as has been the case in so many matches we've played recently), maybe establish a bit of a lead, I think we're in with a real chance.

We won't win if we're playing catch-up.

[Oliver Hill 0]

Hawthorn,regardless of some of their 'gun' players out.

I think as supporters of a bottom club it becomes easy to expect the worst, but in reality we should be an even money chance today.

It's your best players that nearly always determine the outcome of a match. The Hawks are missing Franklin, Sewell, Rioli, Bateman, Burgoyne, plus their first two rucks. They've also lost Croad from the teams that usually pumped us.

Hodge, Mitchell, Roughead, Lewis, Brown versus Davey, Green, Bruce, Jamar, Bate

The Hawks still have the edge in top end talent, but not by a lot and our lesser lights arguably shade theirs.

My head tells me that we're right in this game. My Melbourne nervousness tells me we're likely to lose.

[e25 5]

My $50 at 19-1 for a 40pt win says otherwise.

Such is my confidence / stupidity

[Roost It 1,434]

My $50 at 19-1 for a 40pt win says otherwise.

Such is my confidence / stupidity

Bet of the day

[Little Goffy 14,545]

Hmm... thinking about the age/games comparison of Hawthorn and Melbourne.

Another one of those cases where the use of average just makes a mess of things!

Left to run the course, a team gains 484(+finals) games of experience in a year. Plus 40ish years of age (1 year each, yeah?)

Here's a scenario -

If McDonald and Bruce retire at the end of this season, that'll be about 450 games and 28 years of age taken off our list (assuming replacements are 18. One more delisting, say of Bell or Johnson, would mean that on paper we have a less experienced team next year than this year. Either of those guys would also bring the 'age' drop to 35. So the average team age would go up by... about a month and a half. If Danny Hughes, at 23, doesn't kick on from the rookie list, we'd be younger next year than this year.

The most likely scenario is that, at the end of NEXT season, we will have added perhaps ten games per player, and maybe four months age. On paper. On avergae.

But that time will see most of Watts, Scully, Trengove, Grimes, Jurrah, Strauss, Gysberts, Tapscott, Blease, McKenzie, Garland, Bennell, Wonaeamirri, Maric and Petterd all going from very few games to around 50 or more.

So the broad stats tell a completely different story to the reality. Today's stats lesson - don't trust averages. Always break your sample into segments.

[darkhorse72 1,917]

every time a team walks onto the park it can win...ours is no different..

[rusty_kingswood 0]

I will be so disappointed I will just about go home if that happens.

So C & B did you leave??

To be honest, I this time round, I wouldn't be disappointed if you did cobba..

[Retrospective 104]

I'm looking forward to going to a football game that I want us to win. It's been a while.

Today is the first day that we'll see where the side is truly at, and what needs to be worked on.

Go Dees.

And where do you think we are BD?