Fixture Finals 2022 - Cats go in as Minor Premiers.

[Mr Meow]

I thought this from main board was interesting.

Undoubtedly the big shockers for Scott's Cats came between 2012 and 2016 - losing 4 games as clear favourites across 2012 (EF), 2013 (QF), 2014 (SF) and 2016 (PF).

Results wise, 2017 through 2021 have actually been right on "par" relative to expectations. Losing to Richmond and Collingwood in QFs as favourites; beating Sydney in a SF and Brisbane in a PF as underdogs. Every other result has gone the way the bookies anticipated.

Geelong haven't lost as sub $1.40 favourites (this week's odds) since the 2013 QF. Losing this game would undoubtedly be a bigger "miss" than anything that has happened since, including the Sydney prelim.

However I think it shows that during the second half of Scott's reign, rather than Geelong being finals "chokers" they have generally played to expectation.

 

[God Mode]

I thought this from main board was interesting.

Undoubtedly the big shockers for Scott's Cats came between 2012 and 2016 - losing 4 games as clear favourites across 2012 (EF), 2013 (QF), 2014 (SF) and 2016 (PF).

Results wise, 2017 through 2021 have actually been right on "par" relative to expectations. Losing to Richmond and Collingwood in QFs as favourites; beating Sydney in a SF and Brisbane in a PF as underdogs. Every other result has gone the way the bookies anticipated.

Geelong haven't lost as sub $1.40 favourites (this week's odds) since the 2013 QF. Losing this game would undoubtedly be a bigger "miss" than anything that has happened since, including the Sydney prelim.

However I think it shows that during the second half of Scott's reign, rather than Geelong being finals "chokers" they have generally played to expectation.

The 2012 EF is probably the worst of all the finals losses in the last 10 years. The performance was simply inexplicable.

Our form line was fantastic entering that finals series. We'd beaten Hawthorn twice like we always did and beat Sydney comfortably in the last round.

We lost a game against West Coast by a close margin late in the season when Hawkins was a late withdrawal and we only missed top 4 by that game.

To then come out in the EF and play as poorly as I can remember seeing in the first half, I still have no answer for.

 

[Mr Meow]

The 2012 EF is probably the worst of all the finals losses in the last 10 years. The performance was simply inexplicable.

Our form line was fantastic entering that finals series. We'd beaten Hawthorn twice like we always did and beat Sydney comfortably in the last round.

We lost a game against West Coast by a close margin late in the season when Hawkins was a late withdrawal and we only missed top 4 by that game.

To then come out in the EF and play as poorly as I can remember seeing in the first half, I still have no answer for.

Both the Freo ones were the standouts.

The 2013 season Geelong and Hawthorn were a clear step ahead of everybody and we finally got a "home" final, then failed to capitalise and were sent to the Hawthorn prelim side of the draw. We may well have met them in the GF and lost too, but as far as missing a chance to advance to the GF that Freo game was big.

2014 we were a poor side masked by lots of close wins. Yes, better than NM but I strongly doubt there was a chance at making the GF after that. Straight sets embarrassment aside, it didn't mean a whole lot.

2016 really stung as we did get close to a "home" prelim by playing an interstate side. Also it was a weak field without a dominant team unlike the Hawthorn or Richmond eras. However all year we said we were a 2 man side (Dangerwood) and so it proved. More even teams made it to the last dance.

I rate this team higher than any since 2013, with Melbourne potentially playing the role of Hawthorn in that season. Thus my expectations are set as such. Losing this game would be equivalent to the Freo QF slip up in 2013 and would send us to Sydney or vs Melbourne in a prelim. I know that's a negative way to frame it (I actually think we'll win) but it's the reality. This group have a huge chance.

 

[JohnZ]

Both the Freo ones were the standouts.

The 2013 season Geelong and Hawthorn were a clear step ahead of everybody and we finally got a "home" final, then failed to capitalise and were sent to the Hawthorn prelim side of the draw. We may well have met them in the GF and lost too, but as far as missing a chance to advance to the GF that Freo game was big.

2014 we were a poor side masked by lots of close wins. Yes, better than NM but I strongly doubt there was a chance at making the GF after that. Straight sets embarrassment aside, it didn't mean a whole lot.

2016 really stung as we did get close to a "home" prelim by playing an interstate side. Also it was a weak field without a dominant team unlike the Hawthorn or Richmond eras. However all year we said we were a 2 man side (Dangerwood) and so it proved. More even teams made it to the last dance.

I rate this team higher than any since 2013, with Melbourne potentially playing the role of Hawthorn in that season. Thus my expectations are set as such. Losing this game would be equivalent to the Freo QF slip up in 2013 and would send us to Sydney or vs Melbourne in a prelim. I know that's a negative way to frame it (I actually think we'll win) but it's the reality. This group have a huge chance.

Great analysis.

2013, 2016, 2019, 2020 are all years we had the flag within grasp and failed to capitalise. Can't let another one slip with no clear standout.

 

[cats_09]

The 2012 EF is probably the worst of all the finals losses in the last 10 years. The performance was simply inexplicable.

Our form line was fantastic entering that finals series. We'd beaten Hawthorn twice like we always did and beat Sydney comfortably in the last round.

We lost a game against West Coast by a close margin late in the season when Hawkins was a late withdrawal and we only missed top 4 by that game.

To then come out in the EF and play as poorly as I can remember seeing in the first half, I still have no answer for.

Hawkins played that game but was injured early - went up for a mark, was tunneled/grabbed which put him in a position of being unbalanced & he hit his head upon landing; knocked out cold & had to be stretchered off

 

[allrighty]

Anyone notice Googles Cox kicking shins in the ruck ..

 

[God Mode]

Hawkins played that game but was injured early - went up for a mark, was tunneled/grabbed which put him in a position of being unbalanced & he hit his head upon landing; knocked out cold & had to be stretchered off

That's right! It cost us the game either way. I think we only lost by 8pts from memory?

 

[BlakeyNoFlakey]

Well, at this point, if all goes as I think it will, I'm tipping a Geelong V Melbourne GF this year.

 

[rocker_oz33]

So you seen it too.

 

[allrighty]

So you seen it too.

Yeah should have been reported IMO

 

[barmy44]

I thought this from main board was interesting.

Undoubtedly the big shockers for Scott's Cats came between 2012 and 2016 - losing 4 games as clear favourites across 2012 (EF), 2013 (QF), 2014 (SF) and 2016 (PF).

Results wise, 2017 through 2021 have actually been right on "par" relative to expectations. Losing to Richmond and Collingwood in QFs as favourites; beating Sydney in a SF and Brisbane in a PF as underdogs. Every other result has gone the way the bookies anticipated.

Geelong haven't lost as sub $1.40 favourites (this week's odds) since the 2013 QF. Losing this game would undoubtedly be a bigger "miss" than anything that has happened since, including the Sydney prelim.

However I think it shows that during the second half of Scott's reign, rather than Geelong being finals "chokers" they have generally played to expectation.

Both the Freo ones were the standouts.

The 2013 season Geelong and Hawthorn were a clear step ahead of everybody and we finally got a "home" final, then failed to capitalise and were sent to the Hawthorn prelim side of the draw. We may well have met them in the GF and lost too, but as far as missing a chance to advance to the GF that Freo game was big.

2014 we were a poor side masked by lots of close wins. Yes, better than NM but I strongly doubt there was a chance at making the GF after that. Straight sets embarrassment aside, it didn't mean a whole lot.

2016 really stung as we did get close to a "home" prelim by playing an interstate side. Also it was a weak field without a dominant team unlike the Hawthorn or Richmond eras. However all year we said we were a 2 man side (Dangerwood) and so it proved. More even teams made it to the last dance.

I rate this team higher than any since 2013, with Melbourne potentially playing the role of Hawthorn in that season. Thus my expectations are set as such. Losing this game would be equivalent to the Freo QF slip up in 2013 and would send us to Sydney or vs Melbourne in a prelim. I know that's a negative way to frame it (I actually think we'll win) but it's the reality. This group have a huge chance.

Yeah, this is an interesting read and perspective which I largely agree with.

To pick up a thought of mine from a different thread, humans are literally hard wired to see patterns in noise. That isn't to say the pattern isn't there, but it's easy to recognise one and assign a broad reason. We have evolved to do this.

See grass rustling, it is that lion again. Better to falsely recognise a pattern and run from nothing than ignore it and die by lion.

That is not to say that our notorious first quarter mis-fires in final aren't related - they definitely seem like a solid pattern. And they might be.

But then you've got to be very wary of the cause you assign to that pattern (if it is in fact one, and not just a string of coincidental results).

The obvious reaction, as a supporter, is the emotional one - Scott failed to "get them up", Geelong have a game plan that can't win finals, etc.

But that is a pure results focus, ignoring:

1. A coach can "do everything right" and prepare their team perfectly and play an opposition that prepared better and lose.
2. A coach can "do everything wrong" and prepare their team poorly and still win.
3. Upsets happen - the favourites will generally lose 20-40% of the games they play.
4. Finals are tiny sample sizes - one bad day, and you are done.
5. Equiavlent performances in the H&A aren't focused on, because there is always next week. The finality of a bad outcome in the finals makes the cause seem so much more important.

In our case, it is probably a conflation of a number of events and causes. You always play other good teams in finals. Anything can happen on the day. Game style that doesn't suit pressure (and pressure definitely seems to go up a number of notches in finals).

But game style may be dictated to the coach by personnel available... or it may be dictated by the coach simply choosing the wrong game style. Or a bit of both. Impossible to say.

But the reaction is to see a terrible first quarter in a 2012 EF and a terrible first quarter in a 2017 PF and assume Scott has no idea in knock out games. A sample size of two games, five years apart confirms your emotional response to a pattern you evolved to notice.

Professional sport is a constant push and pull between inherent randomness and coaching and training. The goal is to reduce the impact of uncontrollables, and increase the impact of the controllables.

So there are probably tons of reasons for baffling under-performance and I agree with your broad assessments of most years - particularly 2014 (17 wins is exceptional but was inflated by going 7-0 in the close ones, but 110% indicates we were pretty average).

2017 is another interesting year. We had 5 crazy results (epic comeback against a terrible North, Dixon lost track of his 30 seconds on a shot that could have won it for Port, Hawthorn and Freo both missed shots after the siren that would have won it for them, Hawkins almost put a shot to win after the siren out on the full against GWS). Four went our way, and Hawkins scraped in point got us a draw against GWS.

Reverse all those - and they could easily have been reversed - and we were 12th that year. Reverse just the after the siren wins (determined by the opposition missing, events totally out of our control) and we were 7th.

Instead, we finished 2nd and got battered by two better teams come finals. But the circumstances of the PF were similar to the 2012 EF first quarter mis-fire, so we conflate them as likely having the same cause. And what is the constant? The coach, so it's likely his fault.

But in reality, a thousand different events all conspire to cause an outcome. They can be from the very obvious (Scott played someone at FF who wasn't cut out to perform) to the bizarre (Hawkins got a few red lights, and ended up having to rush and didn't prepare how he normally would and his impact was off 5%).

And you always have an opponent doing everything they can to beat you. So as said before, you can do everything "right" and prepare perfectly and still lose. And if you do lose, we supporters who have no idea what happens in the lead up see the unsatisfying result (finals elimination) and assume they simply cooked it.

So we as emotional fans see the outcome we are stuck with and think "bad first quarter here, bad first quarter there - Scott can't coach finals".

And yet, having said all that - maybe Scott just does have a finals weakness or we have just been consistently bashing a terrible game plan at the problem for over a decade now?

We always tend to think there has to be that single explanation for a finals flop.

Personally, I think we have "under-performed" in the finals for a combination of reasons both within our control and out of them. I don't think the same reasons were responsible for each finals exit (especially those far removed in time), no matter how similarly they occurred.

It's kind of weird that we have been right at the pointy end every year bar one since 2011. And West Coast have oscillated between terrible and decent in that period, without ever being that good.

If it wasn't for Richmond having their own unexplainable flop in a PF, WC don't have their flag. Seems odd to say it, but even at the time I thought WC were being a tad overrated because they won the flag. That sort of makes no sense, but it also makes some sense. I recall them being talked up a lot at the time (as all premiers are). And they haven't been top 4 since, and here they are now battling to avoid spoons.

Yet they have a flag in that period, and we don't.

 

[Pods]

Yeah, this is an interesting read and perspective which I largely agree with.

To pick up a thought of mine from a different thread, humans are literally hard wired to see patterns in noise. That isn't to say the pattern isn't there, but it's easy to recognise one and assign a broad reason. We have evolved to do this.

See grass rustling, it is that lion again. Better to falsely recognise a pattern and run from nothing than ignore it and die by lion.

That is not to say that our notorious first quarter mis-fires in final aren't related - they definitely seem like a solid pattern. And they might be.

But then you've got to be very wary of the cause you assign to that pattern (if it is in fact one, and not a string of coincidental results).

The obvious reaction, as a supporter, is the emotional one - Scott failed to "get them up", Geelong have a game plan that can't win finals, etc.

But that is a pure results focus, ignoring:

1. A coach can "do everything right" and prepare their team perfectly and play an opposition that prepared better and lose.
2. A coach can "do everything wrong" and prepare their team poorly and still win.
3. Upsets happen - the favourites will generally lose 20-40% of the games they play.
4. Finals are tiny sample sizes - one bad day, and you are done.
5. Equiavlent performances in the H&A aren't focused on, because there is always next week. The finality of a bad outcome in the finals makes the cause seem so much more important.

In our case, it is probably a conflation of a number of events and causes. You always play other good teams in finals. Anything can happen on the day. Game style that doesn't suit pressure (and pressure definitely seems to go up a number of notches in finals).

But game style may be dictated to the coach by personnel available... or it may be dictated by the coach simply choosing the wrong game style. Or a bit of both. Impossible to say.

But the reaction is to see a terrible first quarter in a 2012 EF and a terrible first quarter in a 2017 PF and assume Scott has no idea in knock out games. A sample size of 2 five years apart confirms your emotional response to a pattern you evolved to notice.

Professional sport is a constant push and pull between inherent randomness and coaching and training. The goal is to reduce the impact of uncontrollables, and increase the impact of the controllables.

So there are probably tons of reasons for baffling under-performance and I agree with your broad assessments of most years - particularly 2014 (17 wins is exceptional but was inflated by going 7-0 in the close ones, but 110% indicates we were pretty average).

2017 is another interesting year. We had 5 crazy results all fall our way (epic comeback against a terrible North, Dixon lost track of his 30 seconds on a shot that could have won it, Hawthorn and Freo both missed shots after the siren that would have won it for them, Hawkins almost put a shot to win after the siren out on the full). Reverse all those - and they could easily have been reversed, and we were 12th. Reverse just the after the siren games (as in events totally out of our control) and we were 7th.

Instead, we finished 2nd and got battered by two better teams. But the circumstances of the PF were similar to the 2012 EF first quarter mis-fire, so we conflate them as likely the same cause. And what is the constant? He coach, so it's likely his fault.

But in reality, a thousand different events all conspire to cause an outcome. They can be from the very obvious (Scott played someone at FF who wasn't cut out to perform) to the bizarre (Hawkins got a few red lights, and ended up having to rush and didn't prepare how he normally would and his impact was off 5%).

And you always have an opponent doing everything they can to beat you. So as said before, you can do everything "right" and prepare perfectly and still lose. And if you do lose, we supporters who have no idea what happens in the lead up see the unsatisfying result (finals elimination) and assume they simply cooked it.

So we as emotional fans see the outcome we are stuck with and think "bad first quarter here, bad first quarter there - Scott can't coach finals".

And yet, having said all that - maybe Scott just does have a finals weakness or we have just been consistently bashing a terrible game plan at the problem for over a decade now?

We always tend to think there has to be that single explanation for a finals flop.

Personally, I think we have "under-performed" in the finals for a combination of reasons both within our control and out of them. I don't think the same reasons were responsible for each finals exit (especially those far removed), no matter how similarly they occurred.

It's kind of weird that we have been right at the pointy end every year bar one since 2011. And West Coast have oscillated between terrible and decent in that period, without ever being that good.

If it wasn't for Richmond having their own explainable flop in a PF, WC don't have one. Seems odd to say it, but even at the time I thought WC were being a tad overrated because they won the flag. That sort of makes no sense, but it also makes some sense. I recall them being talked up a lot at the time (as all premiers are). And they haven't been top 4 since, and here they are now battling to avoid spoons.

Yet they have a flag in that period, and we don't.

Yet they have a flag in that period, and we dont.

Fantastic post

 

[cats_09]

 

[thecatattack]

Will be great to see Bucks put the Norm Smith on Selwood, the last player who was playing in his final game. (Besides Pendles but he won't be in the Granny )

 

[Nickoo]

There kind of is. West Coast had a very easy run through in 2018, so did we in 2007.

2011 Haw in the end easy and then west coast


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[iameviljez]

2011 Haw in the end easy and then west coast


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Yeah but Collingwood was tough.

 

[cats_09]

 

[goyoucatters]

View attachment 1494712

Some ridiculous numbers here. We're more than double all but three other clubs in the comp. And yet the Tiges have the same amount of flags as us from less than 30% of our total top four finish numbers during this period.

#themartineffect

 

[JohnZ]

Some ridiculous numbers here. We're more than double all but three other clubs in the comp. And yet the Tiges have the same amount of flags as us from less than 30% of our total top four finish numbers during this period.

#themartineffect

A stack of those top four finishes are during three flag eras (hawks and tigers) and ultimately we were just making up the numbers.

Would still rather that, keep and winning culture, and be a chance than be a norf. If we’re rebuilding we don’t get Cameron, smith, stengle/betts.

 

[goyoucatters]

A stack of those top four finishes are during three flag eras (hawks and tigers) and ultimately we were just making up the numbers.

Would still rather that, keep and winning culture, and be a chance than be a norf. If we’re rebuilding we don’t get Cameron, smith, stengle/betts.

I'm not complaining about the numbers at all. Just noting how some teams have been able to massively leverage their 'moments' at the pinnacle.

Like you, I'd far prefer to stay relevant and in contention as often as possible, for a number of reasons. One of which is the player acquisition aesthetic, which has served us so well in recent times.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Some ridiculous numbers here. We're more than double all but three other clubs in the comp. And yet the Tiges have the same amount of flags as us from less than 30% of our total top four finish numbers during this period.

#themartineffect

We've missed the top 4 the and number of tonnes that 5th place has made it. Just wild

 

[standupand]

We've missed the top 4 the and number of tonnes that 5th place has made it. Just wild

Cryptic, but I know what you're saying. We're heavyweights.

 

[cats_09]

 

[Mad_Hatter]

View attachment 1496226

Of course Derm would.

 

[Spearman]

View attachment 1496226

Mooney and Riewodt, looking beyond the hype