1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

 

Well it cost us the game last year in Adelaide so there's that....

I think Axis was laying out a bit of sardonic humour, not being literal.

It was a good win, but I don't know why, when we get 5 or 6 goals in front we play defensively and try to save the game  That was a great opportunity for a 10 goal win that we missed.

Be glad when Bowey comes back and can take Billings spot.

9 minutes ago, stinga said:

It was a good win, but I don't know why, when we get 5 or 6 goals in front we play defensively and try to save the game  That was a great opportunity for a 10 goal win that we missed.

Be glad when Bowey comes back and can take Billings spot.

I think the whole team ran out of Gas last night. 
it was a fantastic effort to defensively hold Adelaide to a loss

8 minutes ago, stinga said:

It was a good win, but I don't know why, when we get 5 or 6 goals in front we play defensively and try to save the game  That was a great opportunity for a 10 goal win that we missed.

Be glad when Bowey comes back and can take Billings spot.

Because going all out attack while still defending to a high standard is very very taxing, and we were coming off a 5 day break.

We did not have the energy to continue to attack and then run the other way to defend. Adelaide had fresher legs in the last, and so we did the least energy zapping thing we could do, we shut the game down, threw Petty behind the ball and made it a slog. We also had to sub Brown off who was spent, so we were down to JVR as the only tall up forward. 

Adelaide is very very good at scoring quickly. They had the momentum in the first 10 mins of the last (and the crowd), and had we tried to compete in a final quarter shoot out, we would have run out of legs and probably lost. 

A professional win, absorbing the Adelaide pressure in the first half, putting the foot down in the third, and shutting the game down in the last.

36 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

This is called randomness or noise. There are hundreds of decisions to be made every game and there is an element of randomness in those decisions due to the 'grey areas', as you say. But over the course of a game, a season or an era, it doesn't affect it as it's just noise. This randomness only makes the most miniscule of differences to a result, if any.

Think about it like somebody walking in the park with a dog on a lead. The dog will wander all over the place, but by the end of its walk it ends up near the owner holding the lead. The owner is the trend, as they just walk in a straight line towards the end of the park, whilst the dog is the noise. In the end it doesn't matter what the dog does because the owner determines where they end up.

In football, the team performance is the owner and the umpire's performance is the dog. Worrying about what the dog's doing is a fool's errand.

But what you call noise can affect an outcome.   For example, team A misses out on the finals because of a bad decision in round 2 costing them 4 points.  Sure, over the year they may have benefitted from bad decisions, but they don't necessarily balance out.   Maybe they won a game by 10 goals rather than 9 as a result of a bad decision in their favour.  That's unlikely to effect their being in the finals (though  not impossible), but to say  'on-average' they did neither well nor badly misses the point. Some bad decisions have bigger effects than others.

Elsewhere you argued that Richmond, when in multiple premiership winning form, did poorly on frees.  But that doesn't prove your point, there are other factors.  Maybe that just demonstrates how bloody good they were (or that they employed a successful tactic to give away frees to slow things or whatever).

I leave aside the so-called butterfly effect, thought there may be relevance here too.

Of course passionate supporters exaggerate the effect of bad decisions and whinge and carry on (part of the fun).  That obviously annoys some who see that as irrational.  But we shouldn't go to the other extreme and suggest that bad decisions can't effect things.

(I suggest you stay clear of dodgey (or doggy) metaphors.  Never a good way to make an argument because it leads down all sorts of rabbit holes as I have learnt to my cost over many years.)

4 hours ago, Jaded No More said:

I didn't follow Billings closely at St Kilda, because well, who cares about St Kilda.

I know he's had a lot of injuries throughout his career, but was he struggling with injuries a lot last year too? 

If he's still building back his fitness, it could certainly explain the fumbles, miss kicks and poor tackling we saw from him last night. Fatigue does that to you, and for someone still getting back into match fitness, a 5 day break would be so hard. 

Ben Brown and Petty's poor goal kicking IMO was also fatigue related. Both with minimal pre seasons, coming back from serious injuries, and both struggling off a 5 day break.

I thought Petts was somewhat technique related.

Like a backman he was always kicking very close to the man on the mark.

1 hour ago, Axis of Bob said:

This is called randomness or noise. There are hundreds of decisions to be made every game and there is an element of randomness in those decisions due to the 'grey areas', as you say. But over the course of a game, a season or an era, it doesn't affect it as it's just noise. This randomness only makes the most miniscule of differences to a result, if any.

Think about it like somebody walking in the park with a dog on a lead. The dog will wander all over the place, but by the end of its walk it ends up near the owner holding the lead. The owner is the trend, as they just walk in a straight line towards the end of the park, whilst the dog is the noise. In the end it doesn't matter what the dog does because the owner determines where they end up.

In football, the team performance is the owner and the umpire's performance is the dog. Worrying about what the dog's doing is a fool's errand.

I took my dog down the park just now and let him off the lead to test out this theory.  My dog was all over the place, pushing other dogs in the back, blocking other dogs, nipping at their heals, overall having a ball and chasing other dogs balls too. 
 

Not one umpire called him out for his unduly rough play, head high contacts, pushing in the back, tripping offensives etc. I had a word with my pooch for playing the boundary line and not walking in one line.

 

Im not sure who I’m more frustrated with. The umpires for not listening, or the dog for not walking in a  straight line toward the goal, as he was coached! 

 

I have more respect for Goody now 

1 hour ago, DeeMee said:

I think Axis was laying out a bit of sardonic humour, not being literal.

I thought so too, DeeMee. I was padded up ready to go in to bat for Axis, thinking it was tongue in cheek, but it’s not, so the others were right in terms of how they’ve responded.

FWIW: I do think umpiring is hella important, which was the point of Axis’ original comment. 

1 hour ago, Axis of Bob said:

This is called randomness or noise. There are hundreds of decisions to be made every game and there is an element of randomness in those decisions due to the 'grey areas', as you say. But over the course of a game, a season or an era, it doesn't affect it as it's just noise. This randomness only makes the most miniscule of differences to a result, if any.

Think about it like somebody walking in the park with a dog on a lead. The dog will wander all over the place, but by the end of its walk it ends up near the owner holding the lead. The owner is the trend, as they just walk in a straight line towards the end of the park, whilst the dog is the noise. In the end it doesn't matter what the dog does because the owner determines where they end up.

In football, the team performance is the owner and the umpire's performance is the dog. Worrying about what the dog's doing is a fool's errand.

You never met my last golden retriever, Bella.  What I wanted to do was the last thing on her mind.

1 hour ago, Sir Why You Little said:

I think the whole team ran out of Gas last night. 
it was a fantastic effort to defensively hold Adelaide to a loss

I think you are right.

We beat injuries, May, Viney and Clarry.

We beat the 5 day break.

We beat the fixture, both Adelaide teams in 5 days.

We beat the crowds.

We beat the umpires.

We beat the AFL hope of an Adelaide win.

It was a great win.

1 hour ago, sue said:

Some bad decisions have bigger effects than others.

 

 

Conversely some good ones also have bigger effects than others.

I can think of three in my case.

I chose my wife, my career and my football club and have loved all of them ever since.

BTW the football club was chosen many years before the other two.

Did anyone go and see trac at the Adelaide market cooking his spaghetti and meatballs?

1 hour ago, sue said:

Of course passionate supporters exaggerate the effect of bad decisions and whinge and carry on (part of the fun).  That obviously annoys some who see that as irrational.  But we shouldn't go to the other extreme and suggest that bad decisions can't effect things.

(I suggest you stay clear of dodgey (or doggy) metaphors.  Never a good way to make an argument because it leads down all sorts of rabbit holes as I have learnt to my cost over many years.)

I didn’t say it can’t affect things, I said it is not important. This was especially so in a Melbourne context where it had no discernible effect on us last year. That was the whole point of the trend/noise discussion - umpiring variability can affect things in the very short term but, overall, it has such little impact that it’s barely worth thinking about. Certainly not the obsession that seems to be in this thread.

As for the metaphor, it is to help people understand what is being spoken about. The point had originally been made with noise and trend but this way was more inclusive for those who may not have understood the concept. As a recovering teacher, I usually prefer to help people access new concepts. If you already understood it then you didn’t need the help.

It’s also more fun.

1 hour ago, stinga said:

It was a good win, but I don't know why, when we get 5 or 6 goals in front we play defensively and try to save the game  That was a great opportunity for a 10 goal win that we missed.

Be glad when Bowey comes back and can take Billings spot.

Remember they kicked 18 Behinds- straight kicking, game over...

14 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

I didn’t say it can’t affect things, I said it is not important. This was especially so in a Melbourne context where it had no discernible effect on us last year. That was the whole point of the trend/noise discussion - umpiring variability can affect things in the very short term but, overall, it has such little impact that it’s barely worth thinking about. Certainly not the obsession that seems to be in this thread.

As for the metaphor, it is to help people understand what is being spoken about. The point had originally been made with noise and trend but this way was more inclusive for those who may not have understood the concept. As a recovering teacher, I usually prefer to help people access new concepts. If you already understood it then you didn’t need the help.

It’s also more fun.

Umpires certainly F$&@ Adelaide’s 2023 Season. 
personally i think you underestimate their influence 

22 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

I didn’t say it can’t affect things, I said it is not important. This was especially so in a Melbourne context where it had no discernible effect on us last year. That was the whole point of the trend/noise discussion - umpiring variability can affect things in the very short term but, overall, it has such little impact that it’s barely worth thinking about. Certainly not the obsession that seems to be in this thread.

As for the metaphor, it is to help people understand what is being spoken about. The point had originally been made with noise and trend but this way was more inclusive for those who may not have understood the concept. As a recovering teacher, I usually prefer to help people access new concepts. If you already understood it then you didn’t need the help.

It’s also more fun.

Yes you argued that overall it didn’t affect things. I pointed out that it can even if the stats you presented appeared to say things even out. 

As I said using metaphors and analogies is a dangerous way to argue but I can’t help thinking of all the things that could be used to destroy your doggie analogy. 

4 minutes ago, sue said:

Yes you argued that overall it didn’t affect things. I pointed out that it can even if the stats you presented appeared to say things even out. 

I would be delighted to see a quote showing me where I said this. 

In return I will show you the quotes where I said that umpiring isn’t particularly important and has very little impact overall, which is not the same thing. Basically I think we’re arguing different points.

I also accept that you don’t like metaphors/analogies as a way of further supplementing an argument. It would be like a dog that doesn’t like eating its dinner anymore because it knows someone has hidden a heartworm tablet inside. 🙂

Watching the replay of a win is usually a great sense of enjoyment for me.

I know I was fairly insistent about how poor the umpires were during the game day thread.

Bit it was so bad I'm struggling to watch the replay.

How could this happen. It was a full house but umpires can't be swayed that much.

The amount of incorrect disposal not paid from our tackles actually looked like the umpires were blatantly cheating .

It was so dodgy.

I see that someone used the collective noun 'a murder of crows' in the pre-game thread. Well done that man (or woman). I am a great one for a good collective noun and was a little inspired by this.

When history is written it is always by the victors. the Demon written history will show that during Easter of '24 a  devastation of Dees descended upon  the sleepy village of Adelaide, the city that time forget, and, in the space of 6 days plundered the two local tribes and looted a very valuable 8 points. They left in their wake a puddle of Power and a muddle of Crows.

The devastation of Port was very satisfying but the devastation of the Crows I found sweeter. All the more so because of the odds stacked against us. Consecutive games away from home in Adelaide against home city teams with just a 5 day break between the games. Add to that shaded umpiring that and the hometown hoards that were baying for blood at every opportunity. it all adds up to very, very sweet 8 points.

Max and Petracca were the pick of our players with full game efforts with staring roles for our defence, both individually and as a complete unit. They must rate as the best defence in the league. We have fully coordinated structures that allow us to slot in players, chop and change as required and cover for both key defence positions and the smaller medium role. May, Lever, Tmac, Petty, Hore, Tomlinson and Turner, all KPP that can slot in tall and play their roles with Adams developing. McVee, Salem, Howe, Bowey and Rivers as the small/mediums with AMW being developed as well. that is excellent cover for a well drilled defence.

But I digress. May was great (full stop - no qualifications) and his mates back there did all that they had to do as the game progressed. This game was won for us in the back third. 

The Adelaide forwards did not find a way through until the last half of the last quarter when we seemed to shut up shop a bit, drop our all ground pressure and become reactive rather than proactive.

I liked the way we used our midfield with Petracca leading the charge and Viney not far behind him. Oliver was quiet and that may have been because of his hand injury or because he had someone running with him and tagging. I will have to re-watch the game to see what was happening there. I also liked the way they used Sparrow. He got a lot of minutes in the middle against the Crows where he did not get any time in there against Port. I found that an interesting move by the coaches. 

The mids contributed their share of the pressure and regularly forced turnovers. It could have been a lot more turnovers if the umps had the guts to call it like they, and every one else saw it. 

Adelaide's midfield is very one dimensional and one paced at the moment. 

The forwards again looked convincing to me. Good setup, good movement and good awareness. I am sure that they will assess Brown week to week but he adds so much to our forward structure I would only rest him if there was a compelling reason to. Kossie was good but had a brainf**t that looks to have cost him a week. I hope he sits down and has a good think about it all and curbs his aggression a bit more. We need him in the team.

Again, a good team performance where we did what we needed to do when we needed to do it. 

I will take 4-1 after these first 5 rounds with three of those games interstate and with one 5 day break. I want to see us finish off this first fifth of the season leading into a bye with a good pressure game against the Lions at the G. We cannot undo some of the good work we have accomplished this last week by not doing our best next Thursday.

Go Dees!

I am sure that the creative members of this forum can come up with some good collective nouns for the AFL teams.

A handbag of [censored] (common name for domestic cats - I had no idea it was censored)

An omnishambles of umpires

A retirement home of Eagles

A crash site of Bombers

A dribble of Dockers

An eclipse of Suns

 

 

 

 

Edited April 5, 20241 yr by CHF
censored bit

Just walked past a very jovial Trac and Salem and their partners on the walk to tonight’s game.

Clearly can’t get enough of Adelaide.

 

56 minutes ago, Monbon said:

Remember they kicked 18 Behinds- straight kicking, game over...

who is 'they', ah no, we kicked 18, straight kicking and we would have won by 10 goals, they kicked 15

I hate ambiguous comments

1 minute ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Just walked past a very jovial Trac and Salem and their partners on the walk to tonight’s game.

Clearly can’t get enough of Adelaide.

 

Christians like Adelaide

15 minutes ago, Jontee said:

Christians like Adelaide

Very good !

45 minutes ago, Jontee said:

who is 'they', ah no, we kicked 18, straight kicking and we would have won by 10 goals, they kicked 15

I hate ambiguous comments

I hate pedantic superciliousness. After Quarter time - who is 'we', white man, it's them, the Melbourne players, 'we' had nothing to do with it - they- The Melbourne Football Club, kicked 8goals and 18 behinds. The Crows kicked 6 goals 10 behinds. That is, the Crows, elles, essi, sie, were kept in the game by whatever you want to call the MFC's  missed goals. 

Keep pedanticising, Jontee.

Edited April 5, 20241 yr by Monbon

51 minutes ago, leave it to deever said:

Watching the replay of a win is usually a great sense of enjoyment for me.

I know I was fairly insistent about how poor the umpires were during the game day thread.

Bit it was so bad I'm struggling to watch the replay.

How could this happen. It was a full house but umpires can't be swayed that much.

The amount of incorrect disposal not paid from our tackles actually looked like the umpires were blatantly cheating .

It was so dodgy.

Take your dog to the park Deever. Let him off the leash, and watch him go around in circles and not ONE umpire will blow the whistle. 
 

Then you will be very angry.