Review Geelong beat tiggers by 3 points

[standupand]

I'm not. He wasn't that good. Needs to do more than tackle and hack the ball forward

Ok, that's harsh, but I guess the coaches agreed with you. We were without Dangerfield and without Parfitt. Our team cried out for a player willing enough to win the hard ball as well as offer something defensively in the midfield. Atkins deserves a lot of credit for the win in my view. I also thought Selwood was excellent, especially in the first half. Tbh I didn't really see it in Blitz's, Tuohy's or Cameron's game. One of those matches where the coaches see things that us mere mortals can't.

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

I think that was the point. Scott = Blitz 5, Stewart 0.

My mistake I read it wrong. I didn't have my glasses on.

 

[feelinfeline]

I'm not. He wasn't that good. Needs to do more than tackle and hack the ball forward

But we wouldn't have won without him.

 

[PhatBoy]

Take off the blue and white glasses when assessing Robbo’s take that Richmond’s best might be the second best in the comp.

He’s right.

When they get everything spot on, they are the biggest danger to a Melbourne side close to its best.

Even when Melbourne gave them a bit of a touch up, Richmond absorbed Melbourne’s best for quite a while before they broke. Melbourne aren’t invincible but when they are ‘on’ they are too good, and Richmond actually handled the ‘on’ Melbourne better than I’ve seen other teams handle them.

What robbo said doesn’t change the result, it doesn’t change the fact that for close to an hour we weren’t just better we were clearly better, but for the other other we were outplayed and Richmond, were nearly flawless.

Richmond’s best being the second best in the comp, and us being a better side this year than them in general terms, are not mutually exclusive ideas

 

[PhatBoy]

I'm not. He wasn't that good. Needs to do more than tackle and hack the ball forward

Yes he should raise his contested possession percentage above the 66 per cent it was at on Saturday with his 72 per cent disposal efficiency and 8 clearances including the one that won us the game if he wants to be taken seriously

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

Take off the blue and white glasses when assessing Robbo’s take that Richmond’s best might be the second best in the comp.

He’s right.

When they get everything spot on, they are the biggest danger to a Melbourne side close to its best.

Even when Melbourne gave them a bit of a touch up, Richmond absorbed Melbourne’s best for quite a while before they broke. Melbourne aren’t invincible but when they are ‘on’ they are too good, and Richmond actually handled the ‘on’ Melbourne better than I’ve seen other teams handle them.

What robbo said doesn’t change the result, it doesn’t change the fact that for close to an hour we weren’t just better we were clearly better, but for the other other we were outplayed and Richmond, were nearly flawless.

Richmond’s best being the second best in the comp, and us being a better side this year than them in general terms, are not mutually exclusive ideas

I disagree. There's a reason why Richmond are 9th and missed the finals last year finishing in 12th spot.

 

[PhatBoy]

I disagree. There's a reason why Richmond are 9th and missed the finals last year finishing in 12th spot.

Because they didn’t play at their best often enough.

It doesn’t make their peak any less good. It just means they aren’t as good at producing it.

Same as the dogs. If they clicked and played at the level we know they can, they’re a better side than most as well. The fact that they aren’t producing it doesn’t mean it’s not there.

 

[Stocks_go_Up]

"our best is good enough" my favourite quote in the AFL.. only because it kept getting used by us for the past 10 years but never ended up equalling a premiership.

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

Because they didn’t play at their best often enough.

It doesn’t make their peak any less good. It just means they aren’t as good at producing it.

Same as the dogs. If they clicked and played at the level we know they can, they’re a better side than most as well. The fact that they aren’t producing it doesn’t mean it’s not there.

Maybe you're simply overeating them. Given the last two years I'd say their best isn't good enough.

They're just not that good anymore.

 

[PzBlinky]

Maybe you're simply overeating them. Given the last two years I'd say their best isn't good enough.

They're just not that good anymore.

Their third quarter blitz would've wiped any team in the comp. Too bad they used all that energy catching up.

Their best is hard to match, but they're no longer able to replicate it for long enough. The other factor is they mix some blistering periods with disorganised rubbish, which is why we were able to smash them in the first quarter and a half.

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

Their third quarter blitz would've wiped any team in the comp. Too bad they used all that energy catching up.

Their best is hard to match, but they're no longer able to replicate it for long enough. The other factor is they mix some blistering periods with disorganised rubbish, which is why we were able to smash them in the first quarter and a half.

I disagree. Our pressure was down when they got there run on ... Same as when the Bulldogs got there run on at Marvel.

A few of our players seem to relax when we have a decent lead.

The Tigers are overrated imo. And I'm confident we'd beat them again with Dangerfield and Parfitt back in the side.

 

[The_Koulouriotis_Fan]

Take off the blue and white glasses when assessing Robbo’s take that Richmond’s best might be the second best in the comp.

He’s right.

When they get everything spot on, they are the biggest danger to a Melbourne side close to its best.

Even when Melbourne gave them a bit of a touch up, Richmond absorbed Melbourne’s best for quite a while before they broke. Melbourne aren’t invincible but when they are ‘on’ they are too good, and Richmond actually handled the ‘on’ Melbourne better than I’ve seen other teams handle them.

What robbo said doesn’t change the result, it doesn’t change the fact that for close to an hour we weren’t just better we were clearly better, but for the other other we were outplayed and Richmond, were nearly flawless.

Richmond’s best being the second best in the comp, and us being a better side this year than them in general terms, are not mutually exclusive ideas

Here’s the thing, it’s just opinion isn’t it. It’s all debate and means nothing in the end. You could argue either way who’s best is better, I’m just surprised that Geelong are dismissible. But then again we all know the reason. Easier to back a 3 time premiership winning team than the perennial finalists that fall at the last hurdle.
For my money he’s wrong, this Cats teams best is better than the Tigers and I still think Melbourne is easily the best team in it.

 

[Strange Cat]

Here’s the thing, it’s just opinion isn’t it. It’s all debate and means nothing in the end. You could argue either way who’s best is better, I’m just surprised that Geelong are dismissible. But then again we all know the reason. Easier to back a 3 time premiership winning team than the perennial finalists that fall at the last hurdle.
For my money he’s wrong, this Cats teams best is better than the Tigers and I still think Melbourne is easily the best team in it.

True but there’s been plenty of times that the best team doesn’t win the flag …nothing is absolute

 

[Stocks_go_Up]

True but there’s been plenty of times that the beat team doesn’t win the flag …noting is absolute

 

[Strange Cat]

There was a 2008 year?…sorry I can’t find that in my memory bank

 

[PzBlinky]

I disagree. Our pressure was down when they got there run on ... Same as when the Bulldogs got there run on at Marvel.

A few of our players seem to relax when we have a decent lead.

The Tigers are overrated imo. And I'm confident we'd beat them again with Dangerfield and Parfitt back in the side.

That's fair enough, we won't always agree on everything.

No idea where to find them, but I did see the pressure levels and ours was lowest in the 3rd while theirs was highest, which goes some way to explaining what happened.

On the relaxing point - are we doing that thinking "game's in hand" or is it a deliberate strategy to play a bit of tempo footy and conserve energy for if it's needed?

I remember beating the Hawks in 2008 with a couple of good players and missing and was confident we'd have their number in a final, so that's an assumption I'v never been willing to make again!

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

That's fair enough, we won't always agree on everything.

No idea where to find them, but I did see the pressure levels and ours was lowest in the 3rd while theirs was highest, which goes some way to explaining what happened.

On the relaxing point - are we doing that thinking "game's in hand" or is it a deliberate strategy to play a bit of tempo footy and conserve energy for if it's needed?

I remember beating the Hawks in 2008 with a couple of good players and missing and was confident we'd have their number in a final, so that's an assumption I'v never been willing to make again!

I just don't think we have the depth of midfield and teams get momentum when we're either running others through there or we tire somewhat. That isn't based on data or anything just a gut feel. And remembering we had Danger and Parfitt out of the rotations.

 

[feelinfeline]

I disagree. Our pressure was down when they got there run on ... Same as when the Bulldogs got there run on at Marvel.

A few of our players seem to relax when we have a decent lead.

This is all just opinion, but I was at the game and I disagree. Richmond got three of the last four goals in the second quarter. If the Geelong players had relaxed during the second quarter, surely they wouldn't still be relaxed at the start of the third quarter. Doesn't make sense. We only led by 20 points at half time. That isn't a decent lead.

But Richmond then kicked five goals to one in the third. They were all over us.

We failed to capitalise on our dominance in the first quarter and a half and gave them an opening, which they took. And it isn't the first time it's happened.

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

This is all just opinion, but I was at the game and I disagree. Richmond got three of the last four goals in the second quarter. If the Geelong players had relaxed during the second quarter, surely they wouldn't still be relaxed at the start of the third quarter. Doesn't make sense. We only led by 20 points at half time. That isn't a decent lead.

But Richmond then kicked five goals to one in the third. They were all over us.

We failed to capitalise on our dominance in the first quarter and a half and gave them an opening, which they took. And it isn't the first time it's happened.

Fair enough. I just don't think they're that good.

 

[PzBlinky]

I just don't think we have the depth of midfield and teams get momentum when we're either running others through there or we tire somewhat. That isn't based on data or anything just a gut feel. And remembering we had Danger and Parfitt out of the rotations.

Actually, that's a good point. We're not quite scraping the bottom of the barrel for midfielders but we're not far off with Parfitt and Danger out.

Thinking about it, we're doing pretty well in the middle all things considered - the midfield is the weakest part of our team.

 

[Finknottle]

This Kolo appreciation society is the darndest thing.

Actually, that's a good point. We're not quite scraping the bottom of the barrel for midfielders but we're not far off with Parfitt and Danger out.

Thinking about it, we're doing pretty well in the middle all things considered - the midfield is the weakest part of our team.

I'm not sure having Parfitt and Dangerfield back makes a big difference. Atkins is doing Parfitt's role better than Parfitt. Dangerfield turns the ball over. It's a pitty Cooper Whyte (groin), Flynn Kroeger(wrist) and James Willis (knee) all remain sidelined. So apart from Cooper Stephens there not a lot of options pressure ccoming for midfield spots.

 

[FredLeDeux]

After 10 years, the way wackhead opinions spread on this board still astounds me.

But the latest, repeated several times over the last few days - that we don't need Dangerfield - is on another level of stupid.

 

[allrighty]

No it wasn't a 'dog act' at all. If you're going to come on an opposition board and use feral jargon it won't end well.

Dog acts are those acts that deliberately try and injure a player ... Eg being Barry Hall.

Stewart's was a error of judgement with no intent whatsoever to injure Prestia.

Don't let your emotions get the better of what was otherwise a good post.

Thankyou. My immediate thought too.

And sad again to see someone just falling in with the media narrative so readily.

The game is quickly becoming a bit of a joke, driven by overly woke posturing, inconsistent and generally poor umpiring and over compensation by the media and tribunal when the chooks come home to roost as a result of the two above.

 

[allrighty]

What was Lynch trying to do here?

Gifting Atkins a possession

 

[catempire]

Because they didn’t play at their best often enough.

It doesn’t make their peak any less good. It just means they aren’t as good at producing it.

Same as the dogs. If they clicked and played at the level we know they can, they’re a better side than most as well. The fact that they aren’t producing it doesn’t mean it’s not there.

Isn’t part of being “good” producing your best often enough to compete with the big boys?