Nasher

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.

You're *this* close to making me watch the whole game again purely to account for every one of his possessions. Please don't make me do it.

Yes, but that's a totally unrealistic number. I guarantee the number that went to the opposition was absolutely nowhere near 21. More like 3 or 4.

Top 5? On course to win it I think.

I love it how every week, someone says this as if it's a new thing. He's now played more games back this year than he has forward. 8 weeks ago called, it wants its comment back.

I don't think that lessens my point any.

I don't reckon this is a factor in selection - otherwise why would Matt Jones ever get a game? Harmes works his backside off, he's tough as nails, and he's an above average contested mark. I think so long as he is bringing those aspects (which he did), he'll be in. As much as Harmes really does make me want to cry with his ball use, generally I think Roos accepts a few skill errors when the player is otherwise clearly doing most things right. I'm yet to see a player dropped this year when they've turned it over a few times when they were otherwise good. Don't reckon it will start this week.

Now that I've calmed down a bit I'm quite happy to just take the win and move on. I felt totally sapped after the game. It almost felt like a loss. However, I'd prefer to be crap and win than the reverse of totally outplaying them and losing, like last week. The footy gods smiled on us this week with GC being the opposition we brought this against. Talk about dodging a bullet.

The Dawes bias is just getting silly now.