Brisbane Game Day Thread

[goswannie14]

And while I'm at it, "would of" when you mean "would've".
Resident Vocabulary Nazi.

I agree, I think infractions should be handed out for that. I've given up correcting people, but it still gets up my nose.

[Lohengrin]

LRT looked ordinary because

he was - had no idea.

J Bolton had one his best games for ages

Are you kidding? 38% disposal effectiveness - no point in getting the ball if you can't hit a target.

Jolly had another top game.

Didn't really do much until the game was over half way through the last quarter (2 kicks until then).

Jessie White is wasted by the coaches. Is a genuine talent and should be used more as a forward option. Doesn't get enough game time for the fit young man he is.

He looks exciting.

Clearly Hall was injured and maybe should not have been out there. Then again why lead to the pocket all the time.

Didn't do a bad job considering.

Bird and Meredith showed their obvious talent but also their inexperience.

They still look good prospects though.

[Nolie]

W.......
I couldn't understand why we didn't follow Brisbanes game and kick long bombs into the forward line............

Because Hall is useless. Cannot take a contested mark. There was one incident in the last quarter where he was so intent on pushing his opponent (Merritt) rather than going for the ball it allowed Merrit to extend his arm and punch the ball away. If Hall had gone hard at the ball he would have barrelled Merrit aside and taken an easy chest mark. Its just typical of the way he plays. Predictable.He should have retired.

[kangle4]

Because Hall is useless. Cannot take a contested mark. There was one incident in the last quarter where he was so intent on pushing his opponent (Merritt) rather than going for the ball it allowed Merrit to extend his arm and punch the ball away. If Hall had gone hard at the ball he would have barrelled Merrit aside and taken an easy chest mark. Its just typical of the way he plays. Predictable.He should have retired.

i though hall was just about our best player last night which doesnt say much for how they played, i was hoping they kicked it to him more cos he did well with the limited opportunities he had.

[cruiser]

I agree, I think infractions should be handed out for that. I've given up correcting people, but it still gets up my nose.

What about infractions for derailing threads with off topic discussion?

[goswannie14]

What about infractions for derailing threads with off topic discussion?

Too hard, everyone would be banned!!!

[RED RAG]

Would you all stop saying "disinterested" when you mean "uninterested"?
Thank you.
And while I'm at it, "would of" when you mean "would've".
Resident Vocabulary Nazi.

Or "would have"

[dimelb]

Or "would have"

Quite so.

[liz]

You are trying to be rational about spectating a sport when you support one team that is playing. There is nothing rational about being a sporting supporter/spectator. So people are entitled to their opinions, whether you think they are baseless or not.

One meaning of "opinion" is "that which is probably true" (according to my Chambers dictionary). "Probably true" implies substantial evidence to support it. Without that, a statement is a hypothesis, not an opinion.

I don't dispute people's right to an opinion. But why would any one bother posting an opinion on here that they don't want discussed and debated? Isn't that the point of a discussion board? All I have been doing is discussing whether the evidence available (to us, mere spectators) is sufficient to support the idea that O'Keefe is uninterested in playing for the Swans.

[liz]

Your'e kidding right?

Management theory is fundamentally about motivation.

Heard of McGregor's theory x / theory y? It's a classic!

I agree that management theory has a lot to say about the effect of motivation on behaviour. What does it have to say about the validity of attributing motivation to a person based purely on observation of behaviour?

[Donners]

However, statistically ROK is still getting as much of the ball as he normally does

No he isn't. He got almost 20 touches a game last season, and has only had 43 across three games so far. It's only a small sample, but that's a flat start.

[Legs Akimbo]

I agree that management theory has a lot to say about the effect of motivation on behaviour. What does it have to say about the validity of attributing motivation to a person based purely on observation of behaviour?

As always, context provides many clues about motivation given observed behaviour. i.e. chicken eats food - judgment 'chicken is motivated by hunger'. That's a pretty valid attribution of motivation based on behaviour, albeit not of a human.

In a human context, this is the distinction between ideographic and nomothetic methods. A nomothetic interpretation would use applied motivational theory to impute motivation from behaviour. He ceased going to work (context he was not being paid). Conclusion, the expectation of reward for effort ceased to apply with a consequent losss of motivation.

More broadly, Ernest Dicher, a founder of motivational research showed oin the 50s how motivational theory can be used to understand behaviour (and in turn, manipulate it). Ultimately, Dichter and others of his ilk would say behaviour is the expression of motivation and therefore it is valid to seek to understand motivation by observing behaviour in the context of the environment and forces at play.

In a management context, it is quite accepted practice to interpret motivation (or lack thereof) based on observed behaviour and an understanding of the work environment. Heck, HR companies like Towers Perrin et al. do this all the time (often poorly) based on their proprietary models of employee behaviour and motivation. For example, simplistically, if someone is clearly not performing in their job, two things to immediately consider would be motivation and job/role fit.

Having said all that, I agree it is a stretch to conclude that ROK is playing @@@@ because he doesn't really want to be in Sydney. However, to press the point, if he started smoking during quarter time and calling his girlfriend on his iphone from a forward pocket, one would query his motivation and specifically might conclude he would rather be somewhere else given what happened last year. That conclusion would have high degree of face validity.

[goswannie14]

I don't dispute people's right to an opinion. But why would any one bother posting an opinion on here that they don't want discussed and debated? Isn't that the point of a discussion board? All I have been doing is discussing whether the evidence available (to us, mere spectators) is sufficient to support the idea that O'Keefe is uninterested in playing for the Swans.

I agree with you on that Liz, I often find it amusing (maybe my warped sense of humour) that some people post their opinion and feel quite affronted that someone would disagree with it.

On the opinion/hypothesis that O'Keefe is uninterested, I can only base it on the one game I have seen live, round 1, and although he got the ball often, seemed to butcher the disposals. I always feel that if a footballer is so keen to leave a club, they rarely play their best football after that.

[liz]

In a management context, it is quite accepted practice to interpret motivation (or lack thereof) based on observed behaviour and an understanding of the work environment. Heck, HR companies like Towers Perrin et al. do this all the time (often poorly) based on their proprietary models of employee behaviour and motivation. For example, simplistically, if someone is clearly not performing in their job, two things to immediately consider would be motivation and job/role fit.

Accepted practice in that many do it? Or that it is a reliable practice?

Fundamental attribution error is a pretty well accepted phenonemon - ie the tendancy to over-estimate the impact of internal factors and underestimate the impact of external, enviromental factors in making judgements about others.

Sure, if someone isn't performing their role you might think about motivation and job/role fit. You might also quite validly consider whether they have had their role properly explained, whether they have adequate resources, support and training, whether their boss is part of the problem etc etc etc

Having said all that, I agree it is a stretch to conclude that ROK is playing @@@@ because he doesn't really want to be in Sydney. However, to press the point, if he started smoking during quarter time and calling his girlfriend on his iphone from a forward pocket, one would query his motivation and specifically might conclude he would rather be somewhere else given what happened last year. That conclusion would have high degree of face validity.

It would be plausible. One might also consider whether he has some medical afflication for which the doctor has prescribed dope as a pain killer. And he might be on the phone to his girlfriend to make sure she has remembered to tape the footy. (Not sure what his wife would have to say about that, mind.)

[Nico]

he was - had no idea.

Are you kidding? 38% disposal effectiveness - no point in getting the ball if you can't hit a target.
Didn't really do much until the game was over half way through the last quarter (2 kicks until then).
He looks exciting.

Didn't do a bad job considering.
They still look good prospects though.

I am one of the great critics of J Bolton on this site and have been lambasted many a time for my thoughts on him, and even by the great Jim Main and Jude's uncle in Inside Footy. My point about Bolton last night was he worked extremely hard all game and at least got some clearances for a change. If others put in as much effort the game may have been closer.