AFL Grand Final 2009

Another quarter by quarter update of my tv experience if this years AFL Grand Final. I want Geelong to win, this is their era and champions deserve to win. It will be an absolute cracker, just like Round 14. Two minutes till the first bounce!

First Quarter St Kilda 3.2.20 Geelong 3.0.18
Wow well Rooke kicked the first goal by tackling down Raph Clarke and getting him holding the ball. Steve Johnson hasn’t had a touch yet. Ablett has had a few but hasn’t been that effective. Hayes has had a blinding first quarter. Geelong had the momentum early while the Saints spent all their nervous energy. It is shaping up to be a nailbiter.

Second Quarter St Kilda 7.7.49 Geelong 7.1.43
Seesawing second quarter. With three minutes to go, Geelong – courtesy of a Hawkins post-burner and a Chapman snap from 45 out – were two goals up when scores were deadlocked at 31 apiece. But Jones smuggled one through from a mass-repeated-stoppage, then Milburn’s argument with the goal umpire resulted in him giving up a free kick, somehow. I think another one was scrimmaged off the ground and that gave the Saints the lead… or in reverse order or something. St Kilda have been incredibly wasteful in front of goal, McQualter, Schneider, Milne all missing absolute sitters. The nervous energy of the Saints has petered out, but still remains in some players. Johnson is still having a shocker, Ablett’s aura won him a goal through Fisher’s panic, and sneaky tactics from Gardiner trying to sink his knee into Ottens. Still a very tight contest but not as intense as it was last time.

Third Quarter St Kilda 9.11.65 Geelong 9.4.58
Low scoring second quarter with rain falling throughout the match. The quality of football hasn’t been that good, but there have been flashes of brilliance. Goddard smacked himself in the nose, playing with tape around his face. Steve Johnson starting to get into the game, at last. Well, game still up for grabs.

Fourth Quarter Final Score: Geelong 12.8.80 St Kilda 9.14.68
Had my sympathetic drive going for this whole half hour. Was shivering and tachycardic. Finally, the game picked up its intensity, despite the game being so close, the best footy was only played in this last quarter. It was St Kilda by a point as Hawkins marked and goalled. A point from somewhere else and scores were level for at least five minutes, no idea how long because it was intense. A turnover from Clinton Jones on the wing proved the crucial gamble, his kick to half forward was marked, and within two kicks and a fortuitous turn of play Ablett, now free from Jones, pumped the ball long to the goal square, where a pack spilled the ball to Chapman, who landed the final blow. A point from Rooke off the ground saw the Cats by seven points. Another long kick into the Saints forward 50 saw Scarlett rush a long, 30m behind. The next Milburn kick-in went 55m, and was plucked out of the air by Harry Taylor, and that was pretty much game over. The ball was shuffled down the wing, and landed in the hands of Rooke. Moments later Rooke rolled the ball through for a goal, but the celebrations had already begun.

Chapman was later announced the winner of the Norm Smith medal, with 3 goals and 26 disposals, but a whole lot of champion about everything he did.

This grand final lacked a distinct sting of intensity, despite the scoreline.

Absolutely Gutted

Western Bulldogs 7.11.53 def. by St Kilda Saints 9.6.60

It deserved to be a final in its own right. Such a close match, I should have gone. Unfortunately inaccuracy and lack of a major marking forward cost the dogs in a contest where the dogs dominated all over the ground, except for the third quarter.

On tenterhooks throughout the match I had to listen to the radio standing, emotional energy surging through my veins (sympathetic response) while trying to fight back visions of a grand final and a major upset win.

Absolutely gutted. I hate St Kilda anyhow, as do I Collingwood. So now it’s Geelong 50 points in the grand final.

Unruly Synapses

Incredibly challenging past twenty-six or so hours on the brain. I haven’t had one of these days in a long time so it is almost like my whole body has been hit by a drug with a very long half life.

One thing I would like to discuss with myself is this idea of double trust, and believe it or not, hypocrisy.

I think I have dealt with hypocrisy (which I can barely spell; hypocracy) before on this blog. If I remember correctly, I don’t believe anyone should call anyone else a hypocrite as calling them one is hypocritical in itself, as there have always been moments where we have had to go against our of belief to fit some sort of social acceptance. Thus it is absolutely ridiculous that this even comes to my mind. But it angers me to no end that after a social negative I can think to myself that someone would turn around and have thoughts pertaining to this. As usual I have no evidence of this at all occurring, but the imagination of it is enough to stir me.

I seem to have lived a lot of my life on this ‘double trust’ phenomenon and I don’t quite know how to represent it in my mind. Clearly my thoughts of psychology have been influenced by my studies of the brain and its … its craziness. I think dealing with ‘trust’ is necessary first. It’s a strange thing, some people are most trust-able than others and it’s probably no secret that it depends on a few simple things, such as being down to Earth, appearing interested and willing to talk. It is also probably no secret that the easiest way to gain trust is to give some too. So if you would like someone to make themselves vulnerable to you, then it is easiest to reciprocate and make yourself vulnerable to them. The hardest thing is to be able to regulate how much of yourself you surrender at the expense of gaining the other’s trust. (Now this may be sounding completely ridiculous, so I suggest you stop reading now if you think so.) There may come a point where you are tired of undermanipulating one another, so you simply put it as a mutual trust, where neither is calculative and contributions flow unhindered.

Now if possible, take this and try and apply it to everyone you know. Suddenly you think you’re the most trustworthy person in the world. People will tell you anything for the sake of telling you, apparently confident in you as a confidant. Embroil that with a scenario where you are friends with two ‘enemies’. By double trust I mean that you could do a nifty double cross, and really, you should not be caught. As in, you tell an enemy a tale about the other enemy. Now that blurs the lines, or puts a third prong on the double headed arrow.

So occasionally, this double trust comes backs and bites you on the ass, and is a reminder that you are mortal. You aren’t as awesome as you think you are. The more it happens, the more you become aware of where you are in this world. For the sake of your own sanity you don’t do it any more.

But when you think you don’t do it any more, you just become loose and talk about anything. Because that’s what made you trust-able in the first place?

I think from all of this I have learned that it is really important to know who your friends are. I think it is from this that I learned to never forget where you came from. I remember everyone who I may/probably undercut in the past, and in a heartbeat I’d trust them again with almost anything, which isn’t really trust at all. But it’s all those people in the past who showed me up, and I hardly talk to any more, that make me more appreciative of who I still talk to about anything.

So, some people help shape you, while others are there for you. It’s those who are there for me, that I’d do anything for.

Regular

Working at a cafe, it is somewhat a small luxury having the same regular customers coming every day, or the same couple of days each week. Apart from the ’social’ side of it, you come to remember their orders. If they come with friends or family, you meet them too and attach them to the same memory. Remembering used to be really hard for me, because I only work roughly once a week, on the weekend, apart from holidays. Sometimes I forget in between the weeks, but I am usually okay.

An elderly man came today. He’s been coming ever since I started working. Initially his order was two latte’s, one sugar each. Then it became 2 skinny latte’s, now each with one equal, upon recommendation.

The past couple of weeks I have worked, he has been coming alone.

I asked my boss, if he still came with his wife, perhaps on weekdays.

She said she hasn’t seen her in a long time.

Words I don’t know

Just then, I dug up an exercise book I used to use. In the past few years I have hardly known of its existence because it’s been sitting in my middle drawer of my desk. I really liked using it, back in the day. So i made a fancy front cover, and even an inside cover for it. I wrote some stupid blurb, and I said that it was Copyright 2000. So being 2009, I’ve had this exercise book for the best part of nine years.

So nine years ago, I didn’t know words like:
legitimate sullen incandescent meander stark rabid manifest teeter surrogate blatant apocalypse immerse disillusion optimism brawn chastise chassis menagerie woebegone betide malice compromise condescend receptacle seer articulate ludicrous euphemism forlorn callous … to name a few.

Funnily enough, looking back, these are many of the words which are at the forefront of my vocabulary.

So retrospectively, if I had made this ‘diary’ when I first started to read, I would know so many more words.

Lesson learned..

Catch Twenty-two

There are some peculiarities in mathematics which leave the better-performing disadvantaged, and the worse-performing better off.

Monday’s 10 question test was only meant to cover material that had been exposed to us between weeks 4 and 6, inclusive. However, the final question on the paper, Question 10, was drawn from material that had been lectured to us just 2 hours previously. Those who were unable to absorb the information from that lecture, or did not turn up, had a 20% chance of guessing correctly. As it goes, they discovered they got it wrong, and complained to this man in charge. He nominally decided to remove Question 10.

Brushing my teeth last night, I divided 100 into 9 and 10. Now that the test was out of 9, each question was worth approximately 11%, up from 10%. I did that with a toothbrush in my mouth.

So now for the peculiarity.

Say for example I have 2 questions wrong on this test.
If the two questions I got wrong were within the first 9 questions, I would get 7/9 = 78% instead of 8/10 = 80%.
If the two questions I got wrong were 1 question in the first 9 questions, and Question 10, then I would get 8/9 = 89%, instead of 8/10 = 80%.

So, effectively, by not paying attention in the lecture 2 hours before, I would be benefiting myself. And by getting the question right, I would be losing percentage.

Having ensured I had this correct with a calculator, I emailed the man in charge and described this situation. I suggested that another solution could be to treat Question 10 as a ‘bonus question’, as this would at least not result in a loss of percentage to those who got this question correct. He agreed with me ‘on the most part’ with the mathematics of this; however, did say that this has happened in the past, and been dealt with in the most ‘equitable’ way.

I have heard of other situations in life that were similar in their mathematical anomaly. For example, the Australian preferential voting system, is not without its flaws. The funniest story I heard of this was that for a particular seat somewhere, a candidate who had LESS 2nd preferences than someone else progressed in the election, while someone who had MORE 2nd preferences did not. I can’t remember exactly how this works, but that was the ‘catch’. Apparently there are extreme situations in all election modalities where someone who has more/higher votes loses.

And although I am going to be getting LESS for this test, it will only result in a tiny percentage drop in terms of my final mark.

Besides, this is not even a true Catch-22.