We owe the tigers a belting.

[gumby_bolts]

A lot of commentators and pundits like to use the clearances stats to show what a great contested ball side we are but the main reason we are always high in that stat over the Roos-Longmire era is that we attend the most ruck contests of any side in the league. If you rank the league on the clearances percentage rate, (clearances / ruck contests) you'll find we're just slightly better than average.

There is a similar degree of verisimilitude with the tackles stat too - we're high up there but we also average the highest tackles against (1st or 2nd) in the league too. It's just a reflection of the contested style of football we play. A more relevant stat would be tackle completion rate but I don't think the public has access to that stat.

Unfortunately I can't poke any holes in the MCG stat

Fine, I'll go back to being worried about this game.

[Matimbo]

There is a similar degree of verisimilitude with the tackles stat too

So I had to look up "verisimilitude" on dictionary.com since the most complicated words starting with V that I know are Velour (noun: a soft, smooth fabric) and Vacuum (noun: As in vacuum cleaner ... something I get nagged about not using). For those like me, it apparently means something having the appearance of the truth ... e.g. most words said by politicians, most words posted on R&WOnline, etc.

I'm in the glass-half-full camp for the Tigers game. We lost against the Crows in a game where they were able to match us in the hard midfield stuff plus beat us in the forward line conversion (we had a clear win in inside 50s). Yet we only just lost. I don't see Tigers being able to match us in the midfield and I think our backline will hold the Tigers forwards OK. Despite our lack of a true forward set up, we are averaging about 100 points per game scored and I think that will be enough to win. Tigers have only cracked 100 point once this year (against Demons). All their other games were mostly under 90 points scored. Even the win against Port they only scored 91 (13:13). Riewalt did kick 4, so negating him will be critical. But I expect we will do this by starving his supply from the midfield.

[snajik]

Pyke had kicked his first goal and that was about teh last one that we got. Kirk showed he had slowed down when he was easily run around for the Tigers to kick the sealer. It was a disappointing day.

Like a dog with a bone

[ugg]

Opening market has the Tigers 1.85 favourites, Swans 1.95.

Situation restored, we're the nobody-rates-us underdogs again.

[erica]

Opening market has the Tigers 1.85 favourites, Swans 1.95.

Situation restored, we're the nobody-rates-us underdogs again.

Strangely, that makes me feel better.

[GongSwan]

Strangely, that makes me feel better.

Yes

[Triple B]

Opening market has the Tigers 1.85 favourites, Swans 1.95.

Situation restored, we're the nobody-rates-us underdogs again.

That is SERIOUSLY good odds for Sydney. They are obviously swayed by the no Goodes factor, but still silly all the same.

Sydney are continually good value away from home and equally ridiculously short odds at home, v Adelaide being a great example with the Crows starting in excess of $4, just stupid.

[aardvark]

Said on SEN this arvo we have won 8 outta our last 10 v the tiges. $1.95 is looking very good IMO.

[sfan]

Tiggers usually deal with us easily at the MCG. Hope this week is not the case. Remember last year we got belted.

[Jewels]

We only just lost an excellent contested game against the Crows.
Hats off to the Crows, they played some great footy..... but so did we....
I predict, if we play with the same intensity and pressure as yesterday, we'll comfortably account for the Tigers.

Yep

Tiggers usually deal with us easily at the MCG. Hope this week is not the case. Remember last year we got belted.

The Tigers are certainly a better team this year, but we are a far better team then last year.
I think the Tiges will pay a huge price for our loss last week much like Saints paid the price for what we did to the Hawks last week.