Nasher

Vince and Rivers are/were handy.

Because there's serious doubts over the 'insiderness' of it. Probably time we moved on though.

As opposed to a rebadge of the old account. The account is a few months old.

*shrug* dunno then. The software definitely can't transfer blocks, that I do know, so unless you inadvertently blocked him some time in the past, thinking he was the original 'luded'? You can always just unblock him - I'm very confident it's not the same person anyhow.

It's a brand new account, the software has no way of 'transferring' a block from one to another. Are you sure you didn't just load the old dee-luded's profile?

What do you mean "shows the same"?

Kent, in game 50, will be our 'median' most experienced player. Half the side under 50 games and 9 players under 30 games. This is seriously a side of babies we are fielding here. I don't give us much chance, but if we do win it will be absolutely bloody huge. I know there's a chance we're going to be annihilated, but I don't care. So excited.

Yes, the surname definitely fits.

Doesn't feel like he's been around long enough, does it? Really enjoyed his journey so far. Damaging when in form; backs his pace, kicks goals and generally uses it well. Hopefully the next 50 sees an increase in consistency; this has already improved notably throughout the year this year. Onya Dean!

Or Pedersen's (despite being emergency). Ballsy call I reckon to pick Weideman over both. We already knew they were both warming the spot for the Weid or Hulett, but this suggests it could happen sooner than we all thought. Really happy with the changes. I'm oddly excited for a game we have zero chance of winning.

I think Oliver's disposal by foot is fine, good in fact. Just doesn't get to use it enough because he can't/doesn't know when to get in to space.

How about a rubbish performance from all three?

Nonetheless, Roos doesn't drop players for poor ball use. Just saying, prepare to lose it.

Single eyebrow raised here. Good luck to him.

Roos doesn't drop players for poor ball use. Full stop, capital letter.

Toughen up mate - there's always a few who have a bit of a sook. The rest of us enjoy reading stuff like this and (usually silently) making our own judgement about whether the information is good or not. I enjoyed your post - don't take things so seriously.

It sorta is your fault - you go on the attack every time. I'm in your camp and I reckon LH has nailed it; GNF just plays the odds, but I think we should just drop it. If people want to back him and pin their hopes on him, let them. It's all just in good fun I reckon.

I'm an atheist too, and I am unsure how that precludes me from being confident Hogan will sign. There's nothing wrong with a bit of crystal ball gazing mo, it's fun. Give it a go sometime.

I believe it because I already believed it anyway.

Came for the Richmond lolz, stayed for the pseudo-medicine...

Exactly. The reason I do like to fall back on stats, and the coaches do too, is because at times my eyes miss things, and other times my eyes blatantly lie. So do everyone else's. You only need to look at the Tom McDonald thread at how utterly polarized we all get, having watched exactly the same game(s). It's just a fact of life that you can't possibly take it all in, and we *all* watch footy with some predisposition, so confirmation bias results. If we already hold the view that Tom McDonald or James Harmes is going turn it over with that next kick, then they do, that poor kick holds far more weight than the 5 handballs in 5 chains of play that all hit targets, then suddenly we're claiming that 21 of Harmes' 23 disposals went straight to the opposition. Or that Disposal Efficiency is a stupid stat - after all, it never reflects what our eyes saw. Stats offer information that is independent and not subject to bias, so they are used to support - or refute - what our own slow, biased eyes missed. People who flippantly dismiss them miss an opportunity to critically reflect and re-evaluate their own opinion. Their own loss. Edit: Sorry if this post is probably just rambling gibberish. My brain struggled to find the words numerous times throughout - usually a sign I badly need sleep. Time to go find it I think!

Why do you believe it is meaningless? Tell me what's wrong with it - what doesn't it capture that you think it should? What is it about the way it is measured that brings you to the conclusion that it is misleading? I find flippant dismissal of data at hand to be a frustrating way of debating a topic, because usually those doing it do so purely because it doesn't support whatever over the top point they're trying to support is. You guys use your eyes - great, so do the guys counting the stats for a living. I do understand that statistics aren't everything, that they can be manipulated, and used to support pretty much any point, and so on. But just once, I'd love to see a good poster like Steve go "wow, the quantitative data doesn't support my point at all, perhaps I should re-evaluate?" but nah, it's always "stats are for stupid people, try opening your eyes". Booooor-ing.

It's this kind of flippancy that makes arguing with you an exercise in tedium, steve. I enjoy reading your posts, but you dismiss any kind of quantitative response with "whatever, I use my eyes". Not looking for an argument over it, just a casual observation.

I think the fact that he is under less pressure is actually a feature of his game - he is able to get in to space when others can't. Really pleased with his progress this year.

Wow.