Opinion Changes vs Port

[BigLefty]

Do you see what's concerning with your post?

We need to curb 3 of their dangerous small forwards, they have to worry about 1. We lose the midfield and we are ******.

and that's ok, if there's other areas we can take advantage.

I guess my problem is, we brought in Radar, it should have been Laird.

Horses for courses. especially when making changes.

 

[BACCS]

End of last season. Yep. Geelong would have. Simple fact is he won't be around when we're challenging. We should be pumping games into his replacement

Yeah, delisting Chappy was a great decision by Geelong, he's so over the hill at the Bombers

 

[Cap]

I'm not to concerned about the small forwards, they are only going to hurt us if their mid is dominating, and if that is the case we are stuffed any how.

Our strengths in the midfield need to be utilised not to mention we have a very dangerous foward line ourselves.

 

[Southerntakeover]

Golly, come on southerntakeover.

I'd rather you didn't.

A sample size of a few years is a decent sample size, and relevant, unlike his form in the 2003 elimination final. If any player's sample size is dubious, it is Lyon's. Because it barely registers as one. Reilly has a stretch of football to look back on, as well as a mature body and dramatically improved fitness base this year - which they've watched unfold, and you haven't. What you're asking is precisely what you've bizarrely claimed cmndstab to be arguing in the inverse - that the club ignore all evidence, including the most recent, and just make a judgment call on Lyons ahead of Reilly. That judgment call of yours could well be wrong too.

I don't have a problem with weighting the evidence based upon relevance (which is what Stabby went with in his later post). I do have a problem with cherry picking. His early 2012 form can not be continually relied upon in isolation. I do think this though: any reasonable sample size, or any reasonable weighting should still result in the same conclusion: early 2012 performance is a significant outlier. One that wasn't maintained for the season, and which wasn't replicated last year.

With respect to Lyon re: lack of evidence, I don't think that's a reasonable point to advance. If your selection criteria required a substantial playing history, no one could debut.

I do think how you judge players at the selection table should change after you have the evidence of their performance in games though. If your predictions of a players likely performance is frequently at odds with the evidence of their performance, questions should be raised regarding your ability to predict.

Here's the thing, I'm not basing this upon my own prediction of Lyons's future. I know my own flaws when it comes to talent assessment (shit, I still thought Luke Jericho could have made it). I'm basing it upon what I believe would be a logical selection policy. With a player such as Lyons, the argument for selecting him is based upon an assessment that he is going to be a useful member of our future side, and contribute to wins (and indeed that he's capable of contributing to some level now that doesn't substantially impair our ability to compete). I would assert that the club must have made this assessment, the evidence to support this is that: we identified and drafted him, and we have maintained him on our list, including selection for AFL games as recently as last week. None of this should have happened if we don't believe he can be a useful member of our team who can contribute to wins. Now, if I'm entirely wrong on that point so be it, but I would like to have a discussion regarding our drafting, selection, and list retention policy.

If the above premise re: the club's view of Lyons rings true, then I would only support the selection of Reilly above him if he substantially raises our chances of winning. I just don't think there's anything in the evidence of Reilly when properly viewed that would give that credence. I also think, if, as you assert, the club is making a prediction of Reilly, someone needs to be accountable if they're wrong. Unfortunately, too often we seem to see bad selections repeated, and out of form players maintained. And before you beat that drum, I'm aware that van Berlo's form from last year can be raised as an example of this.

And best and fairest awards are crude measures. Like the brownlow, they don't necessarily go to the best player, though that's not to say they never do. Didn't you say Thompson was robbed in 2010?

Best and fairests are far better measures than IMO. They reveal more about how the coaches view the performance of players, and thus incorporate more about 'role'.

I doubt I was on that particular wagon in 2010, but my recollection isn't always right. I am on the 'Douglas deserved the best and fairest last year' wagon though. Either way he's distinguishable- he has a wider sample of good performance, and his good performance is more recent.

cmndstab's argument is whatever his argument is. Not the argument you made up and deep throated him with. Come on mate.

I represented his argument accurately. You just wanted to say deep throat, didn't you?

 

[FR0GGY]

Win the midfield and put pressure on their forward supply and it goes along way to helping our defenders

I would go Smith on Wingard, Brown on the diver and Radar on Gray

It also works the other way, if we win the midfield it will put extra pressure on Ports young defense and I'm not sure they have a good match up for Betts

Gray for the showdown medal then. He will run rings around radar.

 

[Southerntakeover]

So was Brad Symes

Is the retort that we didn't make an error in selection, we simply draft and maintain substandard players on our list?

That's not really heaps better.

 

[The Sloane Ranger]

Do you see what's concerning with your post?

We need to curb 3 of their dangerous small forwards, they have to worry about 1. We lose the midfield and we are ******.

All teams that lose the midfield are ****ed, that modern footy

My point with Betts it's that they will likely go with Impey which is a big win for us and if we win the midfield it will build addition pressure on their young defenders such as Jonas and Hombsch not to mention Trengrove who I have never rated

Also I don't believe port have a good match up for Danger if he pushes forward

Very simple we win the midfield and I have no doubt that we have enough fire power to expose Jonas, Hombsch, Trengrove, Carlie and Impey down back

 

[The Sloane Ranger]

I'm not to concerned about the small forwards, they are only going to hurt us if their mid is dominating, and if that is the case we are stuffed any how.

Our strengths in the midfield need to be utilised not to mention we have a very dangerous foward line ourselves.

Exactly the point that I was trying to make earlier

 

[Cap]

No one has a good match up for Danger, even well held against the cats he kicks 2 and has 21 touches. He is now at the level where he either hurts you or kills you.

Pods and Betts are two x factors. Both proven big game players.

Any way Mitch Grigg for the medal and a RSN.

 

[mattymac]

Yeah, delisting Chappy was a great decision by Geelong, he's so over the hill at the Bombers

Bit premature to be making that call. Smashed it in 2 games but lets see how his body holds up. Its not a sprint, you always have to be looking at the long term outcomes.

 

[DangerSloane]

So you're admitting Porps had a stinker in your argument to justify Lyons being dropped. Its obvious the plan all along was to play Lyons have him as sub and then drop him as soon as Douglas comes back. Its disgraceful.

My argument is we have two players coming back into the team that will offer more than probably lyons and possibly porps

 

[dinger]

I think where put their hard earned dollars is a better judge than where random people with no vested interest and 12 year olds put in their weekly tips.

Pretty much this. Anyone who knows anything about showdowns knows this is a 50/50 game. Its what makes them so exciting really.

 

[The Sloane Ranger]

Gray for the showdown medal then. He will run rings around radar.

could also say Betts for the medal if they run with Rookie Impey on him

 

[amer]

I'd rather you didn't.



I don't have a problem with weighting the evidence based upon relevance (which is what Stabby went with in his later post). I do have a problem with cherry picking. His early 2012 form can not be continually relied upon in isolation. I do think this though: any reasonable sample size, or any reasonable weighting should still result in the same conclusion: early 2012 performance is a significant outlier. One that wasn't maintained for the season, and which wasn't replicated last year.

With respect to Lyon re: lack of evidence, I don't think that's a reasonable point to advance. If your selection criteria required a substantial playing history, no one could debut.

I do think how you judge players at the selection table should change after you have the evidence of their performance in games though. If your predictions of a players likely performance is frequently at odds with the evidence of their performance, questions should be raised regarding your ability to predict.

Here's the thing, I'm not basing this upon my own prediction of Lyons's future. I know my own flaws when it comes to talent assessment (shit, I still thought Luke Jericho could have made it). I'm basing it upon what I believe would be a logical selection policy. With a player such as Lyons, the argument for selecting him is based upon an assessment that he is going to be a useful member of our future side, and contribute to wins (and indeed that he's capable of contributing to some level now that doesn't substantially impair our ability to compete). I would assert that the club must have made this assessment, the evidence to support this is that: we identified and drafted him, and we have maintained him on our list, including selection for AFL games as recently as last week. None of this should have happened if we don't believe he can be a useful member of our team who can contribute to wins. Now, if I'm entirely wrong on that point so be it, but I would like to have a discussion regarding our drafting, selection, and list retention policy.

If the above premise re: the club's view of Lyons rings true, then I would only support the selection of Reilly above him if he substantially raises our chances of winning. I just don't think there's anything in the evidence of Reilly when properly viewed that would give that credence. I also think, if, as you assert, the club is making a prediction of Reilly, someone needs to be accountable if they're wrong. Unfortunately, too often we seem to see bad selections repeated, and out of form players maintained. And before you beat that drum, I'm aware that van Berlo's form from last year can be raised as an example of this.



Best and fairests are far better measures than IMO. They reveal more about how the coaches view the performance of players, and thus incorporate more about 'role'.

I doubt I was on that particular wagon in 2010, but my recollection isn't always right. I am on the 'Douglas deserved the best and fairest last year' wagon though. Either way he's distinguishable- he has a wider sample of good performance, and his good performance is more recent.



I represented his argument accurately. You just wanted to say deep throat, didn't you?

It boils down to your fibres telling you that Lyons would be a better bet. Fair enough. Also "2012" is a substantial outlier. A lot of footy. I don't think it qualifies. Again, vagaries of definition.

And come on mate, you misrepresented the great man's argument quite a bit there. You replaced his definition of evidence with yours, which neither holds inherent weight objectively, but it's still misrepresentation.

 

[craig crowing]

Dont understand the appointment of Reilly in this game where we need to keep tight reign on their small forwards and be able to tackle quickly and strongly where Reilly struggled even before his shoulder injury.
Our main advantage to win is to get the ball out of centre square efficiently as possible where Lyons would have helped to give best opportunity for Johnstone , Pods and Eddie to lead which gives us better opportunity against their weakness in defence.
However biggest problem we have is our abundance of average players or players not in form .
Smack - Jaensch - Mackay - Reilly - Brown even add Shaw and Pods and Johnstone still to prove himself .
then again Port have beaten us with many average players in team so could be our turn.
People might be shocked to see Brown in that list but when was his last really good game .

 

[hey shorty]

Round 23 rising star ??

 

[craig crowing]

Round 23 rising star ??

Ok but missed my other slip up with out of form players in Porps not mentioned .
Like Brown but lead up this season been poor but accept round 23 was not that many games back shorty.

 

[hey shorty]

Porps needs a really big day, Radar must be at his best likewise Thommo. These guys are running out of chances and time is not on their side. Crouch, Laird, Tex and Tom Lynch are waiting.

 

[Southerntakeover]

It boils down to your fibres telling you that Lyons would be a better bet. Fair enough. Also "2012" is a substantial outlier. A lot of footy. I don't think it qualifies. Again, vagaries of definition.

No, it was more limited than the entire 2012. His form diminished throughout that season.

Still, if you want to argue that's the norm, rather than an outlier, so be it. We'll see what the results say I guess.

You're being lazy by failing to engage with the last post where I detailed my reasoning. To write it down to 'fibres' is not a reasonable response.

And come on mate, you misrepresented the great man's argument quite a bit there. You replaced his definition of evidence with yours, which neither holds inherent weight objectively, but it's still misrepresentation.

The great man? Blighty was posting?

There was no misrepresentation. The only way that the argument that he made, and indeed that you seem to be wanting to make, is to isolate the only period of 'good' form in Reilly's career.

 

[1970crow]

I take it maths isn't your strong suit? It's a one week sample size... Already forgot about 2012 when we were the best midfield in the comp?

Ha ha. How's 2012 looking. Give it up, you have no idea.

 

[1970crow]

Ha ha. How's 2012 looking. Give it up, you have no idea.

Let me guess, Reilly will return to his best after the rust is removed over the next 6 weeks. Ha, ha.

 

[Elite Crow]

Well, clearly, but we have a good number of excellent players, with a few others looking like they have the potential to be. I went into this debate recently with Carl, so I aint bothering again.

Heaps of excellent players