Preview AFL Round 3 - Collingwood v Geelong, MCG, 7:50PM Saturday 5 April

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Were we going for a flag in 2013?
Are we going for a flag in 2014?
CS has consistently stated our next flag opportunity, which he is working towards, is 2015.
Does that mean we won't try for a flag this season?

My point is, we should go for it every year.

Did he ever actually say that though? I think it's a common misconception. I think what he initially said was something like we don't want to just be challenging now, we want to still be up there in 2015. Nowhere has he states that "our next flag opportunity is in 2015". That would be redunculous.
 
Oh OK. That may be so + I've misinterpreted him. But I thought he did say that with rebuilding the team it was naïve to think of winning a flag + he was working towards 2015, being a realistic opportunity :)
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Fred, the hitout stats (% hitouts to advantage, I would think) are available in The West Australian- rucks usually run at about 30-odd %, from memory. When I get home, I'll dig up some from other ruckmen from the last round and post them here for comparison. I think they're Champion Data stats.

Thanks, Tyc, we get the ho to advantage stats in the paper here too, so no need to bother extracting them.
The actual average for all players/games is about 25.3% of all hitouts = hitouts to advantage, ie they go to his team. However, about 14.2% are hitouts to disadvantage, ie they are sharked by the opposition, and this figure isn't published in the game stats, as far as I can tell.
And, as I'm sure you have by now worked out, 60% of all hitouts don't go nowhere.
Which is why the hitout stat, on its own, is virtually meaningless.
 
Simple logic.

Collingwood have 1 recognised ruckman, a 2nd year rookie I might add.

McIntosh has performed the better of the two thus far during the first 2 rounds.

McIntosh gets the nod to prevent us from going in too top heavy.

Blicavs is also an extra runner than can pinch hit when White (who is ordinary in this department) takes the mantle for Collingwood, thus giving HMac a rest.

Simpson will likely be recalled next week when opposition structures warrant such a callup. Cox, Sinclair, Naitanui.

Now can we all move along and talk about how were going to get the better of the Pies in other areas of the ground.
 
Far out.... have to agree with VC, So much of this thread is garbage

If people INSIST on making the same argument again and again and again *cough Partridge cough* any chance you could just multi quote everyone you disagree with so we can see the 1st point then just skim over where it's repeated 37 times

Just sayin :D
 
I never said they don't make mistakes. In fact, pay attention and you'll see I'm critical from time to time.


Ah, speaking of tired old fallback positions! :D The merits of selection decisions for the finals in 2013 - and any match for that matter - are matters of opinion, not objective fact, despite the zealotry one sees around here pretty regularly. The counterfactual is unknown and unprovable. Nobody can state with any certainty what would have happened under different selection scenarios.

The upshot of it all though is as I stated - you are effectively asking us not to merely believe that the MC are fallible - no one would contend they are not - you are asking us to believe that the MC habitually makes the same error over and over again. I for one find that much harder to believe than the more plausible explanation that they are more grounded in the reality than keyboard warriors (myself included) on BigFooty.

Reading this was like feeling a cool breeze on a hot summer's day
 
Far out.... have to agree with VC, So much of this thread is garbage

If people INSIST on making the same argument again and again and again *cough Partridge cough* any chance you could just multi quote everyone you disagree with so we can see the 1st point then just skim over where it's repeated 37 times

Just sayin :D
......*scroll, scroll*.... *scroll, scroll*....
.....14 pages later....
 
Exactly. As long as the match committee is made up by human beings, they're liable to the same biases and preconceptions as all of us. Giving them a big pay cheque every fortnight doesn't change that.

The bottom line is they like some players and don't like others. Those they like will have to run over Scott's dog to get dropped from the team, those they don't like have to work much harder and put many more runs on the board to earn, let alone keep, a spot in the team. Just the way it is.

To think that decisions are made in this way is laughable
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

not if you understand how the brain works. Most humans are ruled by unconscious biases and these biases can significantly influence our decisions without us even being aware of them.
But we are talking about a group that sit together an discuss their options. It's not an unconscious process.

In addition, humans are also ruled by self-interest, and as such are biased towards picking people who will win games and keep them in a job!
 
not if you understand how the brain works. Most humans are ruled by unconscious biases and these biases can significantly influence our decisions without us even being aware of them.
What a complete load of BS

What level of pshyc are you?
I'd say zero 30.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top