bing181

From what I can see: - if we lose against GWS we get the looser of Swans/Hawks. - if we win against GWS, probably get Geelong.

Posted this on the Post-Match thread, but does anyone have any idea who we might be playing first up in the finals (depending on win/loose against GWS)?

Does anyone have any predictions as to who we might face in the finals if we win/loose?

Yes. Another one that could have really made a difference against the Swans. Was missed. Let's hope we can get Viney (at least) back in for the finals.

So many times Goodwin goes on about learning, and taking opportunities to grow, etc. etc. Not just hot air, and we saw today what it means. More than anything, what impressed me today was that for the first time we started to show what we've so often sorely missed: maturity.

Would be cruel to lose this, we've done enough. But there are two teams out there, so ...

Yes, because selectors just queue up to select players who aren't up to it.

This. Harmes especially, even his handballs are hit and miss. These boys will take time.

Great quarter, but disposal and composure under pressure (and even not under pressure) still our Achilles heel. Can't question the intent, but we're still pretty rough around the edges.

You only have to look at this thread for confirmation that he was right. Self-indulgent wallowing.

More like mistaking emotions for judgement (reason). In reality, emotions are a necessary component of decision-making. People who for whatever reason (brain damage/accidents) don't have access to their emotions are almost incapable of making even the simplest decision (what will I have for breakfast). It has to be said though, that all this irrationality is there for a reason. We made it to the top of the evolutionary tree not because we make better decisions, but because we got very good at making decisions efficiently (time/energy). But efficiency doesn't always equal accuracy and the corner-cutting that our brains are programmed to do comes at a price. Go Dees.

Q.E.D.

Not quite idiots, but it would take a page or so on behavioural economics, cognitive biases and heuristics to explore further, with a few quotes from Daniel Kahneman thrown in for good measure. We like to think of ourselves as thinking machines who feel, but in reality we're feeling machines who think. So we spend our lives making up stories to explain what we feel, where the easier those stories are to make up, the more we're convinced that they correspond with what happened. In short, w'ere not idiots, but we are predictably irrational.

It's also about games played, and just as importantly, games played *together*. Re the former, worth remembering that Max Gawn has played less than 100 games. Apart from Grundy, most other decent rucks in the competition are all around/over 200 games. (McEvoy, Goldstein, Ryder are the ones leading the ratings)

Return key stuck?

3 due to injury or coming back from injury. Hibberd replaces Hunt, but Melksham isn't the replacement for Hogan, Weideman is.

No it shows that we have players going out injured who we need to cover, as well as players coming back from injury who we need to find a place for. The other 2 changes - which constitute just under 1/10 of the team - are form/performance related, though even there, they're largely part of juggling players as a consequence of others who are out injured - JKH wouldn't have been in the team in the first place without injuries to Viney and Stretch (and perhaps Maynard). But heh, the sky is falling.

Sure, they don't define the year in themselves, but they're an important element to be taken into consideration when looking at outcomes. (Though you also missed Tom McD, absent for the first 5 games.)

Actually, the team we're putting on the park is quite a bit younger than Hawthorn's. But heh, facts.

No, but it does dictate consistency - and that's where we're falling down, both across games and within games. For the moment.

Physiologically speaking, these players are measured, analysed and spreadsheeted to within an inch of their lives. If there's any underlying fatigue, above and beyond what could be expected at this stage of the year, it would be known. Presumably he's right to go. And yes, while Spargo has had a long season as a first year player, his load is already being managed within games, where he has one of the lowest game times (only 69% against the Swans).

Happy to see Spargo backed in, and not surprised to see it. He made some poor decisions last week - but won't make them again. It's called development.

This, a thousand times this. THIS is why we lose matches we "should" win, and why teams like Richmond don't. FWIW, the full image:

Yes, but Oscar, Lever, Hogan are only a year or two ahead of that group. And Gawn is still very "young" for a ruck. Equally though, I think it says something about the time it takes for KP's to develop.

Ah, some perspective, with a reasoned argument to back it up. Rare around these parts at the moment. Thank you.