Chook

Totally agree. Except for that last bit. Collingwood won't be within cooee of the 2014 Grand Final, so there's no need to worry there.

Yeah, but if we speculate correctly, regardless of the actual basis of our speculation, one could argue that for all intents and purposes, our reasoning for the ins and outs is as solid as the reasoning that the selectors use. For example, I say "let's drop Newton because his breath stinks and let's bring in Sylvia because he knows how to use a mint." If Newton is actually dropped and Sylvia is brought in to replace him, then despite the fact that my assertion that "bad breath = get dropped" is totally bunk and not the reasoning that Dean Bailey would use, the fact that it resulted in the same ins and outs means that when it comes down to the results (Newton out and Sylvia in), my reasoning is as good as anyone's, if you follow me.

No, I was only tricking. I can read. Didn't you find it strange that I was able to reply to your posts?

So can baseless opinion. But the difference is that statistics can actually be looked at objectively and dissected. Yes, that's true, but CHF is still one turnover away from the ball zooming down the ground and into your opponent's forward-line. If you can avoid turning the ball over, you avoid becoming the cause of your opponents forward 50 entries. The fact is that Bate was responsible for only two turnovers that caused this. Turnovers anywhere on the ground are dangerous, but Bate was able to use the ball effectively enough that he was hardly ever the cause of these turnovers. Nor did he make mistakes that led to the ball leaving our forward 50, where it is most dangerous. Also true. Since errors here are less costly, people who make errors here don't hurt their team. Thus, because Bate didn't cause the opposition to score, he didn't hurt the team. Other players turned the ball over in the same part of the ground, leading to opposition scores and so on, but Bate's turnovers didn't cost us the opportunity to score and they didn't result in the opponent gaining more opportunities to score. And at the end of the day, if you are able to stay on the positive side of this ledger, then you helped your team win. If you are on the negative side, then you hindered your team. The fact that turnovers in some areas of the ground are more dangerous than others isn't the players fault. If there is an area of the ground in which mistakes are being made which mess up your opportunities to score or which allow your opponents those opportunities, then those are simply the areas of the ground in which more focus and man-power should be put. Grimes (as good as he was) fails to lay a tackle in the backline, resulting in a goal? Dunn misses a target in the forward-line causing the ball to turnover and leave the f50? Put more players there, so that when these mistakes are made, the ball can still be held up and these mistakes' costliness can be reduced. The fact is that Bate didn't miss targets on the week-end and was instrumental in getting the ball to where we want it to be. Can you give me some examples of this? To win a game of footy, you need to get the ball into your forward 50, which is obviously the only part of the ground you can score from, while minimising the length of time the ball spends in your defensive 50. Bate did this significantly better than three quarters of our team. I saw this with my own eyes.

That is an absolutely awesome post. I couldn't agree more with this and that's why we'll win on the week-end.

HAHAHAHAH! And the funniest thing about that (other than the fact that it's all true) is that it's the winningest formula for that type of show that currently exists.

Well obviously, but how do we do that? Certainly not by being uncompetitive.

Yeah, but so does a third of the competition. The difference is, we were "competitive" this week, while others were not. And when you're crap, "competitive" the next best thing to a win.

I posted these stats in another thread but thought I might repeat them here. Bate had a disposal efficiency of 81% yesterday and touched the ball in seven passages of play that led to the ball going inside our forward fifty, two of which resulted in a goal. He did have one turnover that lead to the ball leaving our f50, but this turnover didn't result in the ball entering our d50. In effect, nothing Bate did today hurt us in the only place that matters - the scoreboard. And a few things he did helped us get within one point of the "Premiership favourites." If every player in our team did as much as him today in this regard, we'd have had about 50 entries into our forward 50 (the only place on the ground that can actually be scored from) vs 20. I don't know if these stats matter to you, but as far as the way I judge football players' worth, Bate was actually one of our best yesterday.

She can't read either, so thanks for explaining that part of the book to me.

I'm in. I'll get it started with one every one and a half minutes. I assume he'll be on for around ten minutes of show-time, so that would put my answer at seven. I'll keep track of it.

I'm not talking about Grimes, but I'd like to point you to my Best Six from yesterday's game, in which Grimes was my third best afield. I think Grimes' defensive pressure and rebound from the back half was second only to Aaron Davey in terms of the number of scoring opportunities it created yesterday - somewhere in the vicinity of twenty possessions that led directly to the ball either leaving our back half or entering our forward fifty. Three of these possessions directly resulted in goals. But he was not without errors. He was responsible for four turnovers that resulted in either the ball leaving our f50 or entering our d50. Two of these errors directly resulted in goals being scored against us. Excellent post. That's just the kind of thing that can change a person's opinion.

You don't need to convince me. You need to convince him. I think he's good. But the question remains. Can you, who seems to think that anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about, give examples of why Garland is good. Does anything stick in your mind that you can point to? Do you have any stats? Anything other than a googly-eyed devil face would do.

Thank you for mentioning it. I would have watched it anyway, but now I'll be watching with real interest.

What did he do that was good? Did anything in particular stick in your mind? Maybe if you give some specifics, you can change his opinion. Just saying "he was bloody good" isn't going to convince anyone of anything.

I can't read. What was his approach?

Based on that cutting reply, I guess not. But it makes me wonder why you even wrote it.

Absolutely. The guy's an absolute beacon for attention though. I mean, how can you miss him? With hair like some sort of tropical fruit, tall as a giraffe, with skin as black as Andrew Dimetriou's evil, evil, heart and a spring in his step like a man on a pogo stick, it's impossible not to notice him.

I saw it last night too and heard the commentators say that Surjan was on his feet before the doctors came out. I thought it was fishy but that nothing would be done about it. Surjan should be fined for staging and the highest-ranking person responsible for giving the order for the stretcher to be taken our should be forced to quit his job. If that's Mark Williams, then so be it.

Is that actually what he said? "Filth," "the football world," "be filthy at losing" and so on? Not making any judgments, just wondering.

I suppose I was a little over the top saying that they're "very good," but certainly they'll be hard for us to beat. By the way, is it just me or has Chad Cornes become an absolute liability for Port. A poor man's Bruce, nowadays - hospital handballs, one-handed marking attempts, turnovers galore, no accountability. Bruce only has a couple of those problems, while Cornes has the lot. And at least Brucey's an alright bloke.

I think it's that "I pay your salary" crap some people have a habit of spouting every time they're mad about something.

Have you actually seen Port play this year. Don't let their poor ladder position last year fool you. They are very good. The Swans are good too, but that's mostly because of two awesome games from Goodes.

If we can stop my cousin Bock and curtail Petrenko and Dangerfield, who I regard as Adelaide's best today, we'll be right in there with a chance to not only win, but win well.

Then I think you're going to be a little disappointed. He doesn't have it in him any more, IMO. But to say he was bad yesterday would be a bit harsh. He was responsible for one turnover that cost us a goal yesterday, but made up for it by being involved in 6 entries into the forward line and another two which resulted in goals, so his net impact on the score-line was, in my opinion, positive. In short, he helped us more than he hindered us in our efforts to beat Collingwood yesterday.