Chook

Brent Guerra should be ashamed of himself for the unsportsman-like way he tackles. Look at Jordie McKenzie. He's a guy who tackles really well - just as effectively, but he doesn't kill people doing it.

I've heard various commentators over the years and until tonight, when Healy said "the rest of the game," the only number I've ever heard them say was 20 minutes (which makes sense since that's as long as a quarter goes for), so I'm betting it's that. Healy probably just said "the rest of the game" because it happened with about ten minutes to go (ie 20 minutes is the rest of the game in this instance.)

Because the best jokes must seem like they could be true.

Watts for? It's often the only thing Watts Watts thread titles use to give away Watts the thread's point is. And if you don't know Watts the thread's about, then Watts going to make you click on it so you can say Watts you think?

No problems. Anything for one of the best posters on this site. I'll be taking notes.

I reckon there would have been a lot of casual fans turned off by the poor performance in round one, and maybe even by some bad experiences with Collingwood supporters in the past. But hopefully Saturday's performance will have them returning for more.

I'm pretty sure "rivers" is a word. And Morton as in "more tonne" is two words. But I can't wait until "cat" and "fridge" are both lining up for us on a consistent basis. Then we'll be doing great.

But the difference is that none of those guys, with the possible exception of LeCras, are their team's main focal point when going forward. Petterd is for us. I remember a few years ago Mark Williams nearly kicked a hundred goals for Hawthorn when they were crap, simply because they went to him so much. I'm not saying that Petterd will do that, but I do think that 50 is certainly possible.

Ugh! Don't mention that man. I hate him with every fibre of my being.

I'm not so sure about that. I think it was just an easy excuse for not playing him.

Really? I'm sure I've seen one on the AFL website prior to round 1. If not, then I guess I'm wrong. Man I hate that silly devil face though. But in any case, even if there were a ladder prior to round one, it would be irrelevant, and my post above would merely be technically correct, which (contrary to the beliefs of some) is the worst kind of correct.

I think the ladder is ordered by name before the start of round one, so I guess that if West Coast has ever had the best percentage of the losing teams after round one, it would have jumped from "16th" to 9th. Also, a draw is not a win, so if anyone has ever drawn in round one, they could have jumped to eighth.

It is hard on a player to bring him in and then drop him again straight afterwards. Especially when your team has just nearly pulled off the greatest upset in a while. But I'd bring in Sylvia as a forward who rotates through the middle. He's not as tall as Newton, but he's a good mark and has good disposal. However, he can't contest the ruck, which Newts did quite respectably when he had to yesterday. So unless we also bring in Martin or Spencer, dropping Netwon would also be forcing Jamar to pretty much ruck 100% of the game - which would be Herculean after his effort on Saturday. So that would indicate Newton shouldn't get get dropped. It'll be interesting. I would consider dropping Bartram if he hadn't done some good things in the last quarter against Collingwood. Those few disposals he had then lead to a couple of our team goals in that quarter. And again, it would be hard on Bartram to get dropped after one game.

I obviously was way too harsh on Frawley after the game and should have reserved my judgment until I watched the replay on Fox. Sorry and thank you to all those people who called me out on it. I was certainly wrong about him. But he still had a couple of crucial turnovers that resulted in goals, despite his otherwise fab defensive game. I want to set the record straight and say I think Frawley is an awesome player, and if it weren't for these crucial mistakes today, I would have put him in our best. Such is the nature of being a defender that errors just become so much more costly due simple to where you're playing. I know this from experience. But having watched the replay, Jones was significantly worse than I remembered and I'd consider dropping him along with Michael Newton and/or Strauss for Sylvia, Rivers and/or Garland.

I really rated Bail's performance on the W/E and will be keeping an eagle eye out for him next week against the loops.

In terms of possession leading directly to goals, Jamar had one but also cost us one, but his influence in the ruck and his ability to get the midfielders into the game cannot be understated. Bate also two possessions leading to goals, but cost us one. I'd say Jamar was better simply because of the awesome job he did in the ruck. But I guess you're saying that if someone else had played instead of Bate, those errors you mentioned wouldn't have been made and we would have scored. I can't say whether that would have happened or not. All I can say is that Matthew Bate had a lot of inside 50s and rarely caused the ball to enter our d50. In those occasions you mentioned, we quickly won the ball back, so his errors weren't costly. And because of that, he had a net positive impact on the game, regardless of whether he looked awkward or not. But back on topic, Dunn was great because he had a hand in four of our goals and while he did make some errors inside our fifty arc that led to the ball zooming back out, I don't think any of these errors resulted in opposition forward 50 entries and they certainly didn't result in goals.

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.