3 hours ago, Vogon Poetry said:

Confirmation bias is a very difficult thing to overcome.  I have it but I'm aware of it and I'm the first to recognize Lewis's very good first half yesterday despite some errors.  

A begrudging but welcome acknowledgement of Lewis' contribution. I would add that his last quarter performance - as a Hodge-like general a kick behind play - was even more important than what he did in first half.

Having said this, game was won in the first quarter and a half, with four players in particular setting the standard and splitting the game open: Gawn, Viney, Tyson and Hogan. Great to see, especially from Max and Jesse, who emphatically answered a few DL doubters in the process. The extractor Tyson too.

Massive win. Now for the Kangaroos, whom we owe in more ways than one. Pity Vince is not playing. His recklessness wouldn't go astray this time around.

 

5 hours ago, big_red_fire_engine said:

I am not a Tyson hater but maybe we should go and look at his other 10 kicks. His disposal yesterday in most part was deplorable but he won the ball well and attacked the contest with vigour. His disposal was very similar his first couple of games after missing early in the year. Another one better for the run. 

It sounds to me like you're volunteering to go back and look at all his other disposals, brfe. I look forward to the comprehensive report

I prefer the grey area - the answer is usually there.

Watts wasn't 'pathetic' - he worked hard but started really unsure of the tempo of the game. Like Hogan, the club made the decision to play him and set them up for criticism because subsequent games will benefit.

Tyson is a ball magnet, a sloppy ball magnet... Moving past how that sounds...  but a magnet he is and only good players win as much footy as he does. He can make better decisions and not make a howler or two but if anyone thinks he isn't built for finals footy - please.

Finals isn't about lace out distribution, it is about winning contests and having a high workrate to effect the next contest.

Dom does that when fit and firing. 

 

14 minutes ago, binman said:

Top post VP, with a number of excellent points.

As you say the defensive unit is playing brilliantly together - the synergy is obvious. Synergy for the back half has always been critical, but now more than ever with  the zone defence being the key defensive strategy. And Melbourne play an incredibly aggressive zone, a real hallmark of Goody's philosophy.

Yesterdays game the back six just seemed to know where each other were at all times and had total trust, as you must do with a zone defence. So may times they worked the ball out in that triangle they use and there were so many examples of teammates coming to contests to help each other out and killing marking contest as the third man. Great stuff.

A player marking by themselves in the back half can look like just a poor kick from the opposing team but is often the result of the zone working really well, something i like watching from the top of the Ponsford and can be easy to miss on TV or from the wing live. Building a great zone takes a huge amount of time and effort and we have it working beautifully as the results reflect. 

I find confirmation bias really fascinating. Players like Tyson and Watts seem to polarise views, with some disliking aspects of their game a great deal. For some their errors seem to be like a flashing light and rarely seem to be mitigated by their good work. Whereas other players are universally loved and seem to get a pass with their errors and only praised for all their good work. Hunt is a good example. Everyone loves his dash and run yet i have not read a single criticism of his disposal in yesterday's game. It was woeful, going at a terrible 50%, with 5 clangers compared to the much maligned Tyon's 58.6% and 6 respectively.

Hunt's first two kicks were 20 metre kicks under little pressure straight to a Port player and third was a poor kick to a contest resulting in another turnover. Add to the fact that on a number of occasions he bombed it long into our forward line to our forwards disadvantage or straight to a port player and watched it go straight back out. And this was not an isolated performance. His disposal has always been average but quite poor in the last few weeks. Yet barely a harsh word is said about him. Don't get me wrong he was great yesterday and really important for us despite his poor disposal. Like Tyson.

In terms of confirmation bias a pet hate of mine is when commentators make a point about a player or a specific incident and it gets amplified here on DL and despite most saying how poor footy commentators are becomes almost a statement of fact. And conveniently reinforces the bias.

 

Nope. First kick he was flying through the middle, lowered his eyes and hit ANB. 

I'm not disputing that his disposal was no good, but be truthful with your argument. 

21 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

I just love how he posts.  He almost loves the enter button more than he loves Jordan Lewis.

i think his excess use of blank space says something telling about his brain

28 minutes ago, binman said:

Top post VP, with a number of excellent points.

As you say the defensive unit is playing brilliantly together - the synergy is obvious. Synergy for the back half has always been critical, but now more than ever with  the zone defence being the key defensive strategy. And Melbourne play an incredibly aggressive zone, a real hallmark of Goody's philosophy.

Yesterdays game the back six just seemed to know where each other were at all times and had total trust, as you must do with a zone defence. So may times they worked the ball out in that triangle they use and there were so many examples of teammates coming to contests to help each other out and killing marking contest as the third man. Great stuff.

A player marking by themselves in the back half can look like just a poor kick from the opposing team but is often the result of the zone working really well, something i like watching from the top of the Ponsford and can be easy to miss on TV or from the wing live. Building a great zone takes a huge amount of time and effort and we have it working beautifully as the results reflect. 

I find confirmation bias really fascinating. Players like Tyson and Watts seem to polarise views, with some disliking aspects of their game a great deal. For some their errors seem to be like a flashing light and rarely seem to be mitigated by their good work. Whereas other players are universally loved and seem to get a pass with their errors and only praised for all their good work. Hunt is a good example. Everyone loves his dash and run yet i have not read a single criticism of his disposal in yesterday's game. It was woeful, going at a terrible 50%, with 5 clangers compared to the much maligned Tyon's 58.6% and 6 respectively.

Hunt's first two kicks were 20 metre kicks under little pressure straight to a Port player and third was a poor kick to a contest resulting in another turnover. Add to the fact that on a number of occasions he bombed it long into our forward line to our forwards disadvantage or straight to a port player and watched it go straight back out. And this was not an isolated performance. His disposal has always been average but quite poor in the last few weeks. Yet barely a harsh word is said about him. Don't get me wrong he was great yesterday and really important for us despite his poor disposal. Like Tyson.

In terms of confirmation bias a pet hate of mine is when commentators make a point about a player or a specific incident and it gets amplified here on DL and despite most saying how poor footy commentators are becomes almost a statement of fact. And conveniently reinforces the bias.

 

Yours and VP's posts both beautifully reasoned and sensible. Excellent antidotes to bias and hyperbole. 

14 minutes ago, Webber said:

Yours and VP's posts both beautifully reasoned and sensible. Excellent antidotes to bias and hyperbole. 

Even the parts that aren't true. 

6 hours ago, stevethemanjordan said:

I love it when posters highlight one great kick out of countless terrible ones as if to prove that the player doesn't have an issue with their kicking.

 

Same can be said Steve about your critiquing of Omac.

Just saying 

51 minutes ago, Deestroy All said:

Nope. First kick he was flying through the middle, lowered his eyes and hit ANB. 

I'm not disputing that his disposal was no good, but be truthful with your argument. 

You're right  Just watched the first few minutes of the first quarter (and the rest of the q in review fashion). My bad. My memory was faulty. Perhaps i have some unconscious Hunt bias.

But my point wasn't to bag Hunt but to point out there was not a single criticism of him, despite his poor disposal all day. 

Having done my review of the first quarter hunts disposal came out not so great.  

As you say his first kick hit ANB. 

His second he kicked it, under little pressure, 15 meters to a Port player.

His third kick he tried to centre the ball from about 30 near the boundary, mishit it and it rolled through for a point.

His fourth kick he tried to clear from deep inside our 50 and under pressure kicked it straight to Harlett, who was all by himself for a 50 reentry.

His fifth kick he shanked a 'wobbly one' (or so Hudson said in the box) under some pressure and up against the boundary line 20 meters that missed his target and almost caused a turnover.

That was his possessions in the first quarter (unless i missed a handball, which i don't think i did). Five kicks. Only one hit a target and there were two clangers. To be truthful. 

He got comprehensively out marked by Ollie wines (no hanging offence given he is younger and Wines is much stronger) and his only other meaningful contribution in the quarter was his brilliant smother. For some players this sort of quarter would bring howls of derision and provide evidence of their weaknesses. But not Hunt. Because people love him.

Again don't get me wrong, i am not bagging Hunt. He is an excellent player. I love him. All players have their strength and weaknesses and like Tyson disposal is Hunts.

Tyson and Hunt share another similarity. They are both critical players for our chances in the finals, despite their weaknesses. 

Edited July 23, 20178 yr by binman

3 minutes ago, binman said:

You're right  Just watched the first few minutes of the first quarter (and the rest of the q in review fashion). My bad.My memory was faulty. Perhaps i have some unconscious Hunt bias.

But having done my review of the first quarter hunts disposal came out not great.  

As you say his first kick hit ANB. 

His second he kicked it, under little pressure 15 meters to a Port player.

His third kick he tried to centre the ball from about 30 near the boundary and miss kicked it along the ground for a point.

His fourth kick he tried to clear from deep inside our 50 and under pressure kicked it straight to Harlett, who was all by himself for a 50 reentry.

His fifth kick he shanked a 'wobbly one' (or so Hudson said in the box) under some pressure and up against the boundary line 20 meters that missed his target and almost caused a turnover.

That was his possessions in the first quarter (unless i missed a handball, which i don't think i did). Five kicks. Only one hit a target and there were two clangers. To be truthful. 

He got comprehensively out marked by Ollie wines (no hanging offence given he is younger and Wines is much stronger) and his only other meaningful contribution in the quarter was his brilliant smother. For some players this sort of quarter would bring howls of derision and provide evidence of their weaknesses. But not Hunt. Because people love him.

Again don't get me wrong, i am not bagging Hunt. He is an excellent player. I love him. All players have their strength and weaknesses and like Tyson disposal is Hunts.

Tyson and Hunt share another similarity. They are both critical players for our chances in the finals, despite their weaknesses. 

Tyson has also played 49 more games than Hunt. Hunt still feeling his way. 

Of course Dom has his strengths, it's just that his mistakes are simple ones, that can be fixed, and happen too often. I don't think it's unreasonable or bias or hyperbole to want him to fix them and become a better player. 

25 minutes ago, Deestroy All said:

Tyson has also played 49 more games than Hunt. Hunt still feeling his way. 

Of course Dom has his strengths, it's just that his mistakes are simple ones, that can be fixed, and happen too often. I don't think it's unreasonable or bias or hyperbole to want him to fix them and become a better player. 

It's the 'happen too often' part of your assessment that is entirely subjective, and potential evidence of bias, particularly when put up against your stating the obvious that you 'want him to fix them and become a better player'. Of course we all want every player to be as good as they can be, it's the repetitive lack of apparent objectivity in judging their performance (relative to other players) that binman is highlighting. His seems a rock solid argument and yours just isn't. 

45 minutes ago, Deestroy All said:

Tyson has also played 49 more games than Hunt. Hunt still feeling his way. 

Of course Dom has his strengths, it's just that his mistakes are simple ones, that can be fixed, and happen too often. I don't think it's unreasonable or bias or hyperbole to want him to fix them and become a better player. 

Sorry DA i think you are missing my point. I wasn't comparing Tyson and Hunt as players. I was pointing out in my rather long winded fashion something i find interesting about confirmation bias. That some players errors do not seem to get much attention, whereas other's errors get highlighted.

It might be that people really dislike a certain part of a players game and perhaps this a trigger for them. For example we'd all be rich if we got a dollar for every comment on DL about Watts's perceived lack of intensity (good smother by the by wattsy) or examples of this perceived flaw. Or more positively a dollar for every bit of praise for Hunt's dash and energy or examples of this strength. 

Anyway i find the idea of confirmation bias interesting as it applies to the propensity by posters to see errors by some players to confirm perceived weaknesses. 

And by the by, as you might recall Tyson was receiving criticism on DL for his disposal in first season at the dees when he had as few games under his belt as Hunt does now. 

Out of interest what's your opinion as to why Hunt receives little, if any, criticism on DL for his poor disposal week in week out?

Edited July 23, 20178 yr by binman

8 hours ago, At the break of Gawn said:

Geez, David King was heaping the praise on us in the first half.

Some of OMacs spoils into dangerous space were terrible. He's still a long way off despite significant improvement. Waite or Ben Brown might embarrass him next week if norf are on.

Yeah I think there were about three that he spoiled where I was just like, "oh god what's he doing?"

 

9 hours ago, Farmer said:

Max was great in the first half. Nearly back to his best till he got injured

Yeah I got to watch the first half last night (my time), he was right back to his old self. I think he hurt himself right at the end of the 2nd quarter. Up until then he was right in everything, bodes well for the next few weeks if he comes up ok. 

1 hour ago, Nasher said:

It sounds to me like you're volunteering to go back and look at all his other disposals, brfe. I look forward to the comprehensive report

His first quarter highlights of his only 5 kicks below (only had 6 for the rest of the game(. Times are quarter countdown. 

Q1 18.16 Tyson kicks it from D 50 towards the middle of the ground to Ebert

Q1 11.32 Tyson kicks from wing 40m down ground to contest halved.

Q1 7.44 Tyson takes handball from Hogan and kicks point from 40m. Apologises for not hitting up Petracca.

Q1 5.12 Tyson takes ball just inside 50 and kicks to top of goal square to Wines

Q1 00.37 Tyson takes handball from Jetta D50 and kicks it over JKH to halved contest

 

Edited July 23, 20178 yr by big_red_fire_engine

Really, really impressed with yesterday's win. We had 5 or 6 half-baked returning players up against a top 4 side with no injuries and we dominated from the start. Should have been 10 goals up at half time and in fact that inefficiency in the first half is what kept the door open for them. They also got back into it with Gawn's rolled ankle stopping his dominance and Viney, Tyson and Salem all visibly tiring.

I thought, though, that our fourth quarter, where after giving up those two early goals we then locked it down inside our 50, was a really incredible effort given we were obviously tiring after Darwin and with a number of rusty players. I thought Lewis was exceptionall across half back.

Hibberd and Jetta are making our defence so much stronger. Hogan is clearly working into form and was dominant all game (it wasn't just the marking, it was the repeat leads up the wing to make space, make a contest, pressure and tackle). Garlett seems to have gotten over the sore hamstring and was obviously better for it.

I thought Trengove was a good role player and I can see him holding his spot over, say, JKH when Jones comes back. I'd love to see him get another game or two before we make a call on him.

Such an important win for the season though - with Richmond, Sydney, Essendon and the Dogs all winning we have to keep winning (West Coast losing today helps though).

23 hours ago, Clint Bizkit said:

Watts was terrible, one of his worst ever games. Half-hearted, weak and lazy.

If his skills and touch were off then he could be forgiven, but not effort.

Not everyone can play well, but no need to sugar coat it.

Lazy he was not. Gut running all day, up and down the ground.

Clearly, though, he had lost a lot of touch, super fumbly.

On 7/22/2017 at 5:50 PM, america de cali said:

Very impressed with Hogan's ground work when the ball went to ground at contests. Won it well and rewarded with three goals. Great to see him improve this aspect of his game. 

5 hours ago, Vogon Poetry said:

The one certainty on DL is that no matter the result Tyson and Oscar will be criticised.

We kept Port to 60 odd points and PA talls kicked 3 goals between them.  Dixon got his in a mismatch with Hibberd and Westoff got one when he threw Frost aside.  I can never understand these decisions and if someone can explain them to me I'd appreciate it.  The other was when Westoff got a handball late in the last and kicked a great goal from the angle.  But I'd imaging in some way Oscar was culpable for all three and the midfield really responsible for applying pressure that made our defensive job easy.  My view is somewhat different.  I think Oscar played very well and the defensive unit as a whole exceptional against dangerous opposition.

Tyson is more difficult to judge.  But for me getting the contested ball is the best trick in the business and Tyson does this.  Goody mentioned him specifically in his presser.  Goody doesn't praise for the sake of it.

Confirmation bias is a very difficult thing to overcome.  I have it but I'm aware of it and I'm the first to recognize Lewis's very good first half yesterday despite some errors.  Those that don't like Oscar and Dom will always get the chance to confirm their opinions every week but it's tiresome and I'd argue doesn't provide balance.

Great win D's.  I enjoyed it immensely and I enjoyed Oscar and Dom's 52 possessions and their contribution to a great team win.

I commend both of you for your comments on Hogan and Lewis respectively. Both of you have made your criticism of them known so I appreciate both of you for acknowledging their improved performances.

Also Vogon, I agree with you - I thought OMac was solid all day and he is clearly improving. I also thought Tyson was one of our best - yes, he has those clangers which he needs to eradicate from his game but our clearance dominance in the first half was driven by him (along with Viney and Oliver, of course, but Tyson clearly played a strong role in the middle).

8 minutes ago, binman said:

Sorry DA i think you are missing my point. I wasn't comparing Tyson and Hunt as players. I was pointing out in my rather long winded fashion something i find interesting about confirmation bias. That some players errors do not seem to get much attention, whereas other's errors get highlighted.

It might be that people really dislike a certain part of a players game and perhaps this a trigger for them. For example we'd all be rich if we got a dollar for every comment on DL about Watts's perceived lack of intensity (good smother by the by wattsy) or examples of this perceived flaw. Or more positively a dollar for every bit of praise for Hunt's dash and energy or examples of this strength. 

Anyway i find the idea of confirmation bias interesting as it applies to the propensity by posters to see errors by some players to confirm perceived weaknesses. 

And by the by, as you might recall Tyson was receiving criticism on DL for his disposal in first season at the dees when he had as few games under his belt as Hunt does now. 

Out of interest what's your opinion as to why Hunt receives little, if any, criticism on DL for his poor disposal week in week out?

Because Hunt has only played 36 games. And you see his disposal mentioned each week on here. Not to the extent of Tyson, but most reasonable posters give younger players a break. 

Tyson has played 85 games. He should be comfortable and poised enough not to turn and kick blindly into 50 under minimal, if any pressure, and not to run 5 metres from a marking stoppage and handball straight over the boundary line. Basic things a senior player shouldn't be doing. 

As for bias, I consider myself to be fair not biased. I always wanted Watts to give more effort and use the gifts he's been given, simple things like using his pace, and using his height and jumping for the ball. I was relentless on it. I doubt you could find one post where I've criticised him since he started doing those things. 

Tyson is critical to our success. Thinking otherwise shows a total lack for understanding for the game

28 minutes ago, big_red_fire_engine said:

His first quarter highlights of his only 5 kicks below (only had 6 for the rest of the game(. Times are quarter countdown. 

Q1 18.16 Tyson kicks it from D 50 towards the middle of the ground to Ebert

Q1 11.32 Tyson kicks from wing 40m down ground to contest halved.

Q1 7.44 Tyson takes handball from Hogan and kicks point from 40m. Apologises for not hitting up Petracca.

Q1 5.12 Tyson takes ball just inside 50 and kicks to top of goal square to Wines

Q1 00.37 Tyson takes handball from Jetta D50 and kicks it over JKH to halved contest

 

We have both said it for a while now but it is what stops Tyson getting to being a very good player. Today it is not just about getting the ball, it is also about good disposal. 

10 hours ago, Petraccattack said:

Hogans 2nd goal made me laugh the way he casually pushed aside that Port player with one hand.

 

Yet the Foxtel commentators called it a free not paid to Port. Hmmm.

It's really interesting (and sometimes disturbing) to read the different perspectives on a game.

I gave both Tyson and Omac votes yet clearly others disagree - vehemently.

That's sport I suppose.

I also find it interesting how so few of Demonland's membership give votes - even when we win!

19 hours ago, Nasher said:

By the way, I absolutely love love love the indigenous jumper. Haven't owned a footy jumper since I was a kid, but very tempted to make an exception for this.

i firmly believe all teams should wear them every round thats how good they are

This ‘confirmation bias’ fallback is the new, ‘Well, I trust the coach's opinion better than that of some bloke on the internet’ argument. It’s not confirmation bias, but the illogical defense against criticism toward a particular common aspect of a player’s game which in turn frustrates the critical party and makes it a greater focal point, leading to an increasingly exaggerated cycle of sharper and less-balanced criticisms and ever-more hysterical defences.

Tyson was rusty. He bombed to ball to the top of the square a few times. It was the wrong kick at the time as he had time to find a better option. It was his first game back after injury and he wasn't as bad as people are making out. 

Watts was also rusty, but he was well done on output and lacked effort at the contest. In hindsight he shouldn't have played but we got away with it.

Both will be much better for the run which is what I am getting excited about. Hogan was down on form the last few weeks and has found it again. Max has been well below par but bounced back again this week. (Injury clearly restricted him in the 2nd half)

We are nearly back to full strength. This week we got a win over a good team while still having a few players underdone and coming back from Darwin. [censored] enjoy it you peanuts.

11 minutes ago, Deestroy All said:

Because Hunt has only played 36 games. And you see his disposal mentioned each week on here. Not to the extent of Tyson, but most reasonable posters give younger players a break. 

Tyson has played 85 games. He should be comfortable and poised enough not to turn and kick blindly into 50 under minimal, if any pressure, and not to run 5 metres from a marking stoppage and handball straight over the boundary line. Basic things a senior player shouldn't be doing. 

As for bias, I consider myself to be fair not biased. I always wanted Watts to give more effort and use the gifts he's been given, simple things like using his pace, and using his height and jumping for the ball. I was relentless on it. I doubt you could find one post where I've criticised him since he started doing those things. 

You might be right, though not all oft criticized players with few games under their belt are afforded the same latitude. Tyson certainly wasn't in his first season at the dees on these boards. And i'm not sure what you mean by Hunts disposal being mentioned each week.? it is mentioned sometimes but rarely in a critical fashion - more in a he will clean that aspect up but jeez isn't he great to watch kind of way

But again i feel as if you are missing my point. I wasn't trying to defend Tyson or criticise Hunt. 

By the by in case there is a misunderstanding i'm not having a go at you or suggesting you are being biased. Though i would say we all have our biases. Personally mine are on the positive side. I tend to see good bits of play that conform things i rate about players and perhaps miss examples of weaknesses (though i try not to and for players i have found myself defending i am vert alert to them) .

On Tyson i agree his disposal is frustrating and needs to be improved. But there is a limit to how much it will be. And i find his errors frustrating. But i find all errors frustrating.

Without having a shot at you i'm not quite sure though what your point is about him other than as a senior player he should do better. He's probably not going to ever do much better. So perhaps he has found his level. 

Are you arguing we should not play him and he should play at Casey until he improves your required level? Or perhaps that we should trade him at seasons end (he would have currency and be in high demand - it could help in a trade for Lever). 

7 minutes ago, mattjm said:

i firmly believe all teams should wear them every round thats how good they are

Yep, screw 160 years of tradition.