AFLW Autopsy Swans v Carlton, R9 1.05 PM Sunday 12 October @ HENSON

[SwansProudly]

 

[Kiama Chris]

Source?

No, just observation.

 

[liz]

No, just observation.

How can you tell by observation?

 

[Voula]

Chloe out this week.
And Sofia appears as TBC which probably means she's out too.

Chloe looked really sore after that player fell in her back. When she came off she was stretching her back on the boundary.

 

[Kiama Chris]

How can you tell by observation?

Most coach's votes I try to figure out how they were allocated as I'm particularly interested in how our coaches vote. I have formed an impression that where total votes are equal but the individual votes are uneven that the person with the higher uneven vote is listed first. It definitely isn't done alphabetically. Of course, I don't do it every time so it's an impression born of occasional observation. That's why I used the phrase "most likely". Of course it's only an impression. This seems to have offended you Liz. It's just a bit of whimsy.
BTW of course you are correct and the unequal votes could be Ally's.

 

[liz]

Most coach's votes I try to figure out how they were allocated as I'm particularly interested in how our coaches vote. I have formed an impression that where total votes are equal but the individual votes are uneven that the person with the higher uneven vote is listed first. It definitely isn't done alphabetically. Of course, I don't do it every time so it's an impression born of occasional observation. That's why I used the phrase "most likely". Of course it's only an impression. This seems to have offended you Liz. It's just a bit of whimsy.
BTW of course you are correct and the unequal votes could be Ally's.

Not offended.

I just have a similar curiosity and would like to be able to derive more information on votes splits. So if you knew your supposition were true (or there was information that an alternative theory were true), that would be of interest to me. I’m just not sure that this can be determined either way empirically.

 

[Kiama Chris]

Not offended.

I just have a similar curiosity and would like to be able to derive more information on votes splits. So if you knew your supposition were true (or there was information that an alternative theory were true), that would be of interest to me. I’m just not sure that this can be determined either way empirically.

I'm pleased that I've not offended you as I rate you very highly as a poster
Not without breaking down every set of votes. Not worth it.
It's either that or random because it isn't alphabetical order. At least not regularly.
My specific interest in this set was what appeared (to me) to be a pretty big divergence in the valuation of a very good game by Tanya. I felt that Montana's game was maybe easier to judge and the 5 was pretty accurate but that Tanya had had a greater impact over the whole game. Very subjective but I was trying to figure out how the coaches looked at it. Thinking out loud. From previous remarks I think we can be sure that Gowans has a high regard for Tanya's contribution, as he does with others. One of the things I like about him is the credit he gives and avoiding individual criticism.
At the end of the day it's not really important.

 

[Callipygian]

If you're someone who pays attention to coaches votes (I am) then it is very interesting to try and figure out as much about them as possible. So, if it's true that there's a kind of countback way of listing the players who earn equal votes then that is a very interesting insight (which I had never previously considered). I for one would definitely be interested to know if this is actually the case as it sheds a tiny bit more illumination on the way the coaches are thinking (and that, in turn, helps shape my understanding of the game and of our game plan and what we, as a club, value etc).

So I didn't take liz's interrogation as being critical of you Kiama Chris , just curious (as she said) and rigorous, as, in my observation, liz typically is.