19 hours ago, Webber said:

Certainly all science is fluid rjay, but a lot less than non-scientists would believe. The problem currently, and it's a very dangerous  trend, is that poorly informed opinion is too often mistaken as evidence, and presumption given the same weight as fact. 

Science must be fluid, and every scientist should be a sceptic looking for proof or confirmation that what is accepted as fact is in fact true.

That is why I find the prejorative use of the term sceptic for climate change deniers inappropriate.  Everyone should be a sceptic, which does not mean they doubt all accepted 'facts', just that they test them. 

On 03/05/2017 at 11:03 AM, leave it to deever said:

Of course we do. We are Melbourne supporters. An oft angry and disgruntled mob.

We're mad as hell........................

1 hour ago, Wells 11 said:

I think thats probably right....but who goes out? A tall ( given our ruck situation I doubt it) or a small. Bugg? ANB? JKH? 

I get the feeling Hogan and Stretch will come in, with JKH being dropped and ANB possibly being rested.  I suppose there might also be an outside chance that Wagner could come in at the expense of melksham, but I get the feeling he may get one of two more games at Casey to get himself up to speed first.

9 minutes ago, Demon77 said:

We might need 3 tall backs if they bring Vickery in.

Oh no !!!!!! Hope they dont bring Vickery back in !!!!!   He is a damaging player when he's on and is an effective spare ruckman.

2 minutes ago, pineapple dee said:

Oh no !!!!!! Hope they dont bring Vickery back in !!!!!   He is a damaging player when he's on and is an effective spare ruckman.

Yes, but damaging for which team?

19 hours ago, Webber said:

Certainly all science is fluid rjay, but a lot less than non-scientists would believe. The problem currently, and it's a very dangerous  trend, is that poorly informed opinion is too often mistaken as evidence, and presumption given the same weight as fact. 

A trend being actively encouraged by a certain orange world leader.

1 hour ago, hardtack said:

Yes, but damaging for which team?

History tells us that players considered spuds play well against us.

2 hours ago, pineapple dee said:

We're mad as hell........................

 

59 minutes ago, AzzKikA said:

History tells us that players considered spuds play well against us.

But, let us all hope, that history is what is in the past.  We are the new Demons 2017 model!?

Just now, monoccular said:

But, let us all hope, that history is what is in the past.  We are the new Demons 2017 model!?

Mono, I sure hope so.  What could be worse than getting ripped to shreds by Vickery!?

2 hours ago, Demon77 said:

We might need 3 tall backs if they bring Vickery in.

wouldn't give vickery a second thought

8 minutes ago, monoccular said:

But, let us all hope, that history is what is in the past.  We are the new Demons 2017 model!?

bit early for that call... Freo send their regards

We need this win and say 3 more out of the following five which would have us at 7-5 half way through the season.

The unknown is how the structure holds up without Gawn and Spencer.

The Bombers ruckman was not exactly on fire so our Pedersen and others game plan is yet to be put to a real test.

Edited May 4, 20178 yr by Diamond_Jim

2 hours ago, Demon77 said:

We might need 3 tall backs if they bring Vickery in.

Their forward line isn't very tall.

Hibberd, who I didn't mention above, is more than capable of stopping Gunston or O'Brien while T.Mc or Frost shut down Roughead.

If Vickery plays we could play with 17 a-field 

I'd rather see another small / rotating midfielder contest the influences of Puopolo, Bruest, and Langford. 

On 02/05/2017 at 6:39 PM, Vogon Poetry said:

I've been following this game for a long time and know that when knowledgable footy people have a view that differs from mine they are most likely right and I should at least consider their position before dismissing it out of hand. I think you should be asking yourself why you differ from people who make a living out of footy, notably Goodwin and Worsfold.

FWIW Tyson has had two excellent seasons and a poor one and IMO had a slow start to this season.  But his poor season and this season coincided with significantly interrupted preseasons and I know when he gets it right he's a very good player.  I think he's working into good form now and will be valuable to us and unlike some I'm prepared to consider his positives as well as his negatives. I think you're wrong with Tyson and the coaches votes on Sunday make you look a little silly. Funnily enough while you can always disregard statistics when it doesn't suit your argument it's much harder to dismisses coaches votes.

 

I'd be interested to know who gave him the two votes, because both coaches would obviously see it from different angles. If Worsfold gave the two votes, he may well have noticed the quantity of possessions Tyson had rather than the quality. Being opposition coach, he spends the entire game watching his own team play, rather than what individuals from the opposition are doing.

If Goodwin gave them, then it'd be different. 

Regardless, I still maintain that his game was far from damaging and due to the ball pinging back and forth throughout most of the game thanks to awful turnovers, it's really not that surprising that Dom was able to get more outside ball last week given the amount of times players would be out of position. To me it helps explain why he had such a high uncontested possession count.

Like Oscar McDonald and many players before them both, sometimes circumstances mean that individuals are given more leeway than others at AFL level. That is a fact. I called for Oscar to be dropped after a handful of ordinary games in which I thought he wasn't offering the team enough as well as making too many mistakes.. Posters laughed it off with the typical, "you hate Oscar McDonald/Goodwin clearly doesn't agree" yadayada.  

And now similarly, I feel as if Dom isn't providing enough of a positive influence (disposal count aside), yet he is being persisted with just as Oscar was. The only thing that I have continued to say is that I believe Dom will be playing at Casey soon enough if he continues to play the way that he is.

 

* As an aside, I'm interested in knowing how far you extend your belief that if knowledgeable footy people have a view that differs from yours, they are most likely right and that you should consider their position before dismissing it? Generally, those who have played at higher levels seem to be spoken about as the ones who hold the most knowledge. Does that extend to a supporters forum like demonland? Putting egos aside here, there would obviously be plenty of supporters on here who have played at very high levels of football and would have therefore been exposed to a far greater level of detail within the game etc vs those who haven't. Surely their handle on the game would be superior to someone who hasn't played at that level and had the same experience? 

I'm of the assertion that the higher the level you play, the greater the understanding and knowledge of nuance and detail you have for that subject/sport. However, you don't need to be on the inner-sanctum of an AFL club so-to-speak to be able to see whether a player is having a visibly positive influence and contribution to a team's performance when dissecting each individual possession and disposal they have. Even if they get two coaches votes or even if they are still holding their spot in the team to this point. 

Edited May 5, 20178 yr by stevethemanjordan

2 hours ago, Deemented Are Go! said:

 

Im a Melbourne supporter. I have value

1 hour ago, stevethemanjordan said:

I'd be interested to know who gave him the two votes, because both coaches would obviously see it from different angles. If Worsfold gave the two votes, he may well have noticed the quantity of possessions Tyson had rather than the quality. Being opposition coach, he spends the entire game watching his own team play, rather than what individuals from the opposition are doing.

If Goodwin gave them, then it'd be different. 

Regardless, I still maintain that his game was far from damaging and due to the ball pinging back and forth throughout most of the game thanks to awful turnovers, it's really not that surprising that Dom was able to get more outside ball last week given the amount of times players would be out of position. To me it helps explain why he had such a high uncontested possession count.

Like Oscar McDonald and many players before them both, sometimes circumstances mean that individuals are given more leeway than others at AFL level. That is a fact. I called for Oscar to be dropped after a handful of ordinary games in which I thought he wasn't offering the team enough as well as making too many mistakes.. Posters laughed it off with the typical, "you hate Oscar McDonald/Goodwin clearly doesn't agree" yadayada.  

And now similarly, I feel as if Dom isn't providing enough of a positive influence (disposal count aside), yet he is being persisted with just as Oscar was. The only thing that I have continued to say is that I believe Dom will be playing at Casey soon enough if he continues to play the way that he is.

 

* As an aside, I'm interested in knowing how far you extend your belief that if knowledgeable footy people have a view that differs from yours, they are most likely right and that you should consider their position before dismissing it? Generally, those who have played at higher levels seem to be spoken about as the ones who hold the most knowledge. Does that extend to a supporters forum like demonland? Putting egos aside here, there would obviously be plenty of supporters on here who have played at very high levels of football and would have therefore been exposed to a far greater level of detail within the game etc vs those who haven't. Surely their handle on the game would be superior to someone who hasn't played at that level and had the same experience? 

I'm of the assertion that the higher the level you play, the greater the understanding and knowledge of nuance and detail you have for that subject/sport. However, you don't need to be on the inner-sanctum of an AFL club so-to-speak to be able to see whether a player is making a visibly positive influence and contribution to a team's performance when dissecting each individual possession and disposal they have. Even if they get two coaches votes or even if they are still holding their spot in the team to this point. 

give it a rest steve. we know your pov re tyson. restating it continually does not make it stronger.

we don't want you turning into another pro dee, do we 

46 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

give it a rest steve. we know your pov re tyson. restating it continually does not make it stronger.

we don't want you turning into another pro dee, do we 

I was only paying my respect by replying to @Vogon Poetry.

]I hope the best for Tyson and if he is playing this week, I hope he has a huge impact for us.

 

4 hours ago, monoccular said:

But, let us all hope, that history is what is in the past.  We are the new Demons 2017 model!?

Only if we make finals Mono ? Further Injuries aside I think we will 

4 hours ago, AzzKikA said:

Mono, I sure hope so.  What could be worse than getting ripped to shreds by Vickery!?

Being 10 goals up at 3/4 time against GWS, and then Scully gets 25 possies in the last, kicks 8, breaks Tracc's leg, gives Clearance an ACL, and gives Max religion who then retires. (and GWS win)

surely Hogan and Stretch in

Melksham and jkh out.

jetta  tmcd omcd

hibberd frost salem

stretch viney lewis

petracccca watts vince

garlett hogan hannan

Pedersen lewis Jones

oliver tyson anb bugg  

casey... kent white wagner kennedy trengove weideman Hulett brayshaw jkh Melksham harmes kielty m.king filopovic johnstone Maynard 

unavailable... garland gawn vdberger mckenna t.smith spencer j.smith 

Edited May 4, 20178 yr by spirit of norm smith
x

1 minute ago, spirit of norm smith said:

surely Hogan and Stretch in

Melksham and jkh out.

jetta  tmcd omcd

hibberd frost salem

stretch viney lewis

petracccca watts vince

garlett hogan hannan

Pedersen lewis Jones

oliver tyson anb bugg  

casey... kent white wagner kennedy weideman Hulett brayshaw jkh Melksham harmes m.king filopovic johnstone Maynard 

unavailable... garland gawn vdberger mckenna t.smith spencer j.smith 

JKH named in first 18 - no dice

5 hours ago, Deemented Are Go! said:

 

I tried that.

Didn't work.

12 minutes ago, Biffen said:

I tried that.

Didn't work.

I'm actually reasonably technologically challenged. You can do it, Biffen, I believe in you.

2 minutes ago, Deemented Are Go! said:

I'm actually reasonably technologically challenged. You can do it, Biffen, I believe in you.

That's exactly why I scream out the window from time to time.

4 minutes ago, Biffen said:

That's exactly why I scream out the window from time to time.

Try hurling some objects?