Geelong - Too old, too slow?

[PJays]

What are you on about, what was St Kildas home ground in 1973? Oh yeah Moorabbin, then decades later it was Waverley... And the rest of the VFL teams at the time and their respective home suburban grounds?

Pretty sure the unique shape of KP hasn't changed much since then.

Nor has the fact Geelong do most of their training there (even since Deakin)

It's only 6 metres wider than the legislated minimum (116 vs 110), so even in the days when everyone had their own ground, the unique shape compared to other grounds would've helped

But of course that difference is magnified since the 90's and 00's when all other suburban grounds disappeared for MCG and Waverley, then Marvel, with training at KP too and the relative rarity of opponents playing there

 

[ThatsjustDappa]

Pretty sure the unique shape of KP hasn't changed much since then.

Nor has the fact Geelong do most of their training there (even since Deakin)

It's only 6 metres wider than the legislated minimum (116 vs 110), so even in the days when everyone had their own ground, the unique shape compared to other grounds would've helped

But of course that difference is magnified since the 90's and 00's when all other suburban grounds disappeared for MCG and Waverley, then Marvel, with training at KP too and the relative rarity of opponents playing there

Pretty sure Moorabbin was St Kildas training and home ground, just like Junction before it and most other VFL sides respective home grounds. Kardinia Park is unique these days but hardly unique in history as you say circa 1973, go look up the suburban ground dimensions for a start....

 

[Partridge]

Personally, the dimensions argument is classic tall poppy syndrome. People want to see Geelong fail. I get it. But good teams will find a way to win whatever ground they play on as evidenced by Freo did this year, Melb in R 23 last year (coming back from 8 goals down) and even GWS two games before that.

I don't know about what kind of poppy, but broadly agree. It's the same reason having finals at the MCG wasn't an issue at all for us from 2007-2011. When you're good enough, you can win anywhere.

 

[azyboy]

I don't know about what kind of poppy, but broadly agree. It's the same reason having finals at the MCG wasn't an issue at all for us from 2007-2011. When you're good enough, you can win anywhere.

Yep. The whinging and moaning the Club did in recent years doesn’t do us any favours.

 

[Partridge]

Yep. The whinging and moaning the Club did in recent years doesn’t do us any favours.

Completely agree. It's rarely mentioned that the same gross unfairness that hindered us in the first week of finals in 2017 (playing a side lower at "their" home ground) actually occurred the year before as well against Hawthorn. We won. Mysteriously it wasn't an issue then.

 

[killtaker1993]

Geelong are just like my wife. Too old, too slow, and not putting the work in at home

 

[PenfoldsFan]

Its a chicken or the egg argument, are Geelong in Geelong good because of the ground or because they have/had a midfield and game plan to suit it.
I believe its a bit of both, the ground is what it is, having a talent stacked midfield wins clearance from the centre, narrow wings means its easier to defend once its in there and get repeat entries. Its why back lines trying to pick holes out kick out of bounds. Its a pressure cooker.
But, it requires a good midfield to take advantage of it and so whilst they had and recruited effective mids it worked, those mids are not what they we're and it'll become more obvious.

Good news is they can fix it by continuing to top up if their non effective mids make cap space but Scotty still clings to the hope he can legitimise his gifted flag, so he clings to whats got him so close hoping that it'll pay off.
Makes for a waste of spot come finals time as they struggle away with the ageing list and expanses of other grounds.

The AFL support it as it keeps visitors away from the G with a legitimate excuse.

 

[PetterdHoisted]

Completely agree. It's rarely mentioned that the same gross unfairness that hindered us in the first week of finals in 2017 (playing a side lower at "their" home ground) actually occurred the year before as well against Hawthorn. We won. Mysteriously it wasn't an issue then.

that's how I remember it, which puzzled me too, was it due to the notion that RFC had a setup in 2017 that was considered extremely effective at the 'G?

Whereas Hawthorn had tended to be generally good on any ground and not glaringly better at the 'G?

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

I don't know about what kind of poppy, but broadly agree. It's the same reason having finals at the MCG wasn't an issue at all for us from 2007-2011. When you're good enough, you can win anywhere.

No it means you were good enough to overcome the disadvantage, it doesnt mean the disadvantage ceases to exist you were just good enough on the day to get over it.

 

[PhatBoy]

The Geelong administration seem to be content to just make up the numbers in the eight.

Probably good for the coffers, but not a realistic approach to winning another flag imo

Yeah because if I was just happy making finals every year, what I would do is routinely pick up free agents and veteran players to try and make us a fraction better.

F***en hell when is the collective IQ of the people with this view going to break through the double-figure ceiling?

Criticise the quality of our play all you want and it’s fine to have a view on our approach in trying to stay up and ‘beat the system.’


But I will say it unequivicolly:

If you are stupid, utterly stupid enough, to think we are ‘just happy making finals’ you’re brain dead beyond comprehension

 

[Xtreme]

This old chestnut thread keeps bobbing up after a loss. Let’s end it here! Yes we are too old and slow! And not good enough anymore and won’t be finishing top 4 or winning any cup in the next 7+ 20+ years. Satisfied?

I adjusted the timeline slightly and now very satisfied

Geelong have avoided mediocrity for so long but reality is about to smack them in the face.

 

[PJays]

Pretty sure Moorabbin was St Kildas training and home ground, just like Junction before it and most other VFL sides respective home grounds. Kardinia Park is unique these days but hardly unique in history as you say circa 1973, go look up the suburban ground dimensions for a start....

Here's a sample of grounds used currently and in suburban days. Some suburban data unavailable but most was easy to find...

Adelaide	167​	124​
Arden	159​	130​
Carrara	161​	134​
Gabba	171​	150​
Footy Park	165​	135​
Kardinia	170​	115​
Princes	157​	127​
Marvel	160​	129​
Moorabbin	164​	130​
MCG	173.6​	148.3​
SCG	155​	136​
Subiaco	175​	122​
Vic Park	159​	131​
Waverley	182​	142​
Whitten	159​	121​
Windy	164.5​	139.8​
	165.1​	132.1​

KP easily the thinnest ground, and 17 metres thinner than average

I note the MCG dimensions above (which I got from Australianfootball.com) differ from another media source which lists it as 161 * 138 but really makes minimal difference to overall point

Now I haven't played a lot of footy personally, but I would think these huge discrepancies in ground shape would make a difference.

Teams train for things like...

• How they spread out from contest
• How they move the ball up the ground
• Where the forward leads to when the mid has the ball
• How the forward line works together and uses the available space
• Overall strategy for moving the ball- handball vs kicking, in which scenarios do you break vs hold
• Taking time off the clock late in a game- moving the ball safely with minimal risk of turnover

The effectiveness of these strategies and how they're used would differ according to the ground you're on.

Kardinia is an outlier on the above list, being longer than most grounds and the thinnest ground, and clearly very different to the MCG where Geelong hosts finals. That's an interesting dynamic.

 

[PhatBoy]

Do I really need to bring up the ‘best away win percentage in the league’ numbers from the last decade up again?

Is that where we are STILL?

****en hell the ground shape didn’t seem to bother us for the first two quarters last night and a good chunk of the last. What, did our players suddenly gain spatial awareness at the start of the third and shit the bed? I thought St Kilda played an incredible quarter of football. Nope. Turns out it was just some patches of grass that did us in.


****ing seriously has anyone beaten us away from KP in the last 15 years? Reading the halfwits in threads like this Id swear blind Ground Shape is the only opponent that’s been able to get the better of us

 

[PhatBoy]

We are the only team in the comp who seems to not be allowed to simply not be good enough.

From week to week, year to year:

- get them away from KP and they’re hopeless. [facts suggest completely otherwise but that doesn’t seem to matter]

- they’re too old. [funny we seem young enough the weeks we win]

- they should be trying to rebuild. [yes, if I was going to criticise a club, I’d certainly target ‘trying to win the comp each year’ as a real source of embarrassment]

- They need to change coaches. [like all the other countless sides throughout history who fire their coach for beating 75-80 per cent of the competition each year and make a success of it]

- They don’t beat any real contenders [potentially true, but what should we do against the other sides we should beat: lose to them too?]

- They never play any young guys or give them a chance [as opposed to other sides who finish in the top 4 a few years in a row and then stack their side with #20-60 selections from the previous 2-3 draft]


- They are just happy making finals. [Yeah that’s what teams do when they are just happy making the finals. They go out and hit the trade table harder than any other club each year. Because they want things to stay the same. That’s why they do it. To keep making finals but not winning.]


Every other club seems to be allowed to:

• Be shit
• Be good but not quite good enough and keep trying to get that little bit better
• Keep their coach who turns over an entire list and stays competitive
• have a home ground that they excel at
• lose to decent sides and occasionally mediocre ones when they travel
• trade players in and out each season according to need and window position
• push old players out when they are ineffective or retain them while they are still good

Not the Cats though.

 

[ThatsjustDappa]

Here's a sample of grounds used currently and in suburban days. Some suburban data unavailable but most was easy to find...

Adelaide	167​	124​
Arden	159​	130​
Carrara	161​	134​
Gabba	171​	150​
Footy Park	165​	135​
Kardinia	170​	115​
Princes	157​	127​
Marvel	160​	129​
Moorabbin	164​	130​
MCG	173.6​	148.3​
SCG	155​	136​
Subiaco	175​	122​
Vic Park	159​	131​
Waverley	182​	142​
Whitten	159​	121​
Windy	164.5​	139.8​
	165.1​	132.1​

KP easily the thinnest ground, and 17 metres thinner than average

I note the MCG dimensions above (which I got from Australianfootball.com) differ from another media source which lists it as 161 * 138 but really makes minimal difference to overall point

Now I haven't played a lot of footy personally, but I would think these huge discrepancies in ground shape would make a difference.

Teams train for things like...

• How they spread out from contest
• How they move the ball up the ground
• Where the forward leads to when the mid has the ball
• How the forward line works together and uses the available space
• Overall strategy for moving the ball- handball vs kicking, in which scenarios do you break vs hold
• Taking time off the clock late in a game- moving the ball safely with minimal risk of turnover

The effectiveness of these strategies and how they're used would differ according to the ground you're on.

Kardinia is an outlier on the above list, being longer than most grounds and the thinnest ground, and clearly very different to the MCG where Geelong hosts finals. That's an interesting dynamic.

Only demonstrates that there's plenty of grounds with unique sizes, some shorter, some wider. Whitten and Windy Hill are good examples of being both short and narrow. Each VFL team circa 1973 trained and played on their respective home grounds and in a statement of the obvious were more familiar with it and played to it's dimensions. Cant see how this somehow meant Geelong in 1973 had some advantage that other teams didn't.....

 

[PJays]

Cant see how this somehow meant Geelong in 1973 had some advantage that other teams didn't.....

Look for the forest instead of a tree here

Part of the reason Geelong has kept off the bottom is their Home and Away advantage at Kardinia Park. It's not necessarily a major reason but it's definitely part of it

Why do you think Marvel and MCG tenants make up a disproportionate percentage of the bottom ladder places in the AFL? Is it because they're poorer clubs, and badly run? That is part of it but do you think it explains all of it?

 

[PhatBoy]

Look for the forest instead of a tree here

Part of the reason Geelong has kept off the bottom is their Home and Away advantage at Kardinia Park. It's not necessarily a major reason but it's definitely part of it

Why do you think Marvel and MCG tenants make up a disproportionate percentage of the bottom ladder places in the AFL? Is it because they're poorer clubs, and badly run? That is part of it but do you think it explains all of it?

Yes.

In Melbourne’s case they were awfully run and deliberately lost games.

Carlton got themselves into cap trouble and never really recovered.

Essendon had to virtually start from scratch after a period of mediocrity which fell to total disgrace.

Prior to their current situation, North were a poor man’s Geelong - always competitive, well run, and well coached.
Collingwood have had the odd down season but predominantly have never been far from being competitive.

Richmond were mired mostly around the middle of the table for more than a decade.

Melbourne sides, some in particular, leave the state f***-all times a year.

Other sides have to leave their state every second week.

Some of them get the benefit of hosting Geelong at Geelong’s home games.


For every argument you can make about how hard done by any side is, there’s a counter argument that points to some sort of advantage that they have.

As long as Geelong is playing home games at other teams’ home grounds, and as long as they keep winning their away games at the rate they have seemingly for all of recent history, any argument about their alleged advantage is moot

 

[PJays]

Yes.

In Melbourne’s case they were awfully run and deliberately lost games.

Carlton got themselves into cap trouble and never really recovered.

Essendon had to virtually start from scratch after a period of mediocrity which fell to total disgrace.

Prior to their current situation, North were a poor man’s Geelong - always competitive, well run, and well coached.
Collingwood have had the odd down season but predominantly have never been far from being competitive.

Richmond were mired mostly around the middle of the table for more than a decade.

Melbourne sides, some in particular, leave the state f***-all times a year.

Other sides have to leave their state every second week.

Some of them get the benefit of hosting Geelong at Geelong’s home games.


For every argument you can make about how hard done by any side is, there’s a counter argument that points to some sort of advantage that they have.

As long as Geelong is playing home games at other teams’ home grounds, and as long as they keep winning their away games at the rate they have seemingly for all of recent history, any argument about their alleged advantage is moot

None of that negates my point

I said That is part of it but do you think it explains all of it?

Geelong has a 1 or 1.5 game advantage plus percentage every year by virtue of hosting 8 or 9 games at KP instead of MCG/Marvel

Now obviously that's not the difference between finishing top 4 and finishing 12th

But could it be the difference between finishing 15th and 17th? 8th and 10th? 4th and 6th?

Absolutely

 

[PhatBoy]

None of that negates my point

I said That is part of it but do you think it explains all of it?

Geelong has a 1 or 1.5 game advantage plus percentage every year by virtue of hosting 8 or 9 games at KP instead of MCG/Marvel

Now obviously that's not the difference between finishing top 4 and finishing 12th

But could it be the difference between finishing 15th and 17th? 8th and 10th? 4th and 6th?

Absolutely

I don’t agree. You can’t quantify it because the team we vie with for those positions may play a disproportionate amount of games on their home ground a year or have less interstate trips etc etc.

 

[PJays]

I don’t agree. You can’t quantify it because the team we vie with for those positions may play a disproportionate amount of games on their home ground a year or have less interstate trips etc etc.

I'll make a testable prediction

Over the next 20 years, Marvel and MCG tenants will continue to over represent in the very lower echelons of the ladder, just like they have for the past 20+ years

Geelong and interstate teams will continue to under represent at the very bottom

Catch you on BigFooty in 2042 and we'll see if I'm right

 

[WillHayward]

I'll make a testable prediction

Over the next 20 years, Marvel and MCG tenants will continue to over represent in the very lower echelons of the ladder, just like they have for the past 20+ years

Geelong and interstate teams will continue to under represent at the very bottom

Catch you on BigFooty in 2042 and we'll see if I'm right

4 of the bottom 7 are interstate clubs at the moment.

MCG based clubs have won 4 of the last 5 flags.

Despite the facts, Vic club fans still want to pretend the comp is rigged against then.

 

[PhatBoy]

I'll make a testable prediction

Over the next 20 years, Marvel and MCG tenants will continue to over represent in the very lower echelons of the ladder, just like they have for the past 20+ years

Geelong and interstate teams will continue to under represent at the very bottom

Catch you on BigFooty in 2042 and we'll see if I'm right

Even if you are there’s no means of proving that it’s because they share a patch of turf with another organisation.

 

[PhatBoy]

When people moan about how ‘playing a co tenant gives you no advantage’ do they also understand that it doesn’t give you a DISADVANTAGE?

We play 3-4 home games year where we don’t only not have an advantage, we have a DISADVANTAGE. Collingwood aren’t inconvenienced by hosting Richmond. It’s a neutral contest yes. But it’s not like it becomes an unfair obstacle for the Pies.

When WE host Richmond or Collingwood we aren’t just on a neutral footing, we are at a DISadvantage.

When you consider that in any given year half our home games are against interstate sides anyway who we would have an advantage over anywhere in Victoria, it leaves us with 3-4 games a season where we host a Melbourne team and have a distinct advantage….. which is negated by the 3-4 games we ‘host’ a Melbourne team at a DISadvantage.


We host teams at their home ground. Which isn’t our home ground.

Whilever that remains the case any such argument is null and void.

 

[My Cotchin Rules]

4 of the bottom 7 are interstate clubs at the moment.

MCG based clubs have won 4 of the last 5 flags.

Despite the facts, Vic club fans still want to pretend the comp is rigged against then.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the last 2 of those in question practically won away from Victoria.... in fact wasn't those last two entire seasons almost played away from Victoria?
I think the 'old' VicBias advantage was put to bed during the pandemic.
Wasn't Geelong or Richmond's fault that the Lions & Port shat the beds in 2020 after a huge leg up. Nor was it Melbourne or the Dogs fault in 21.

 

[PJays]

We host teams at their home ground. Which isn’t our home ground.

Whilever that remains the case any such argument is null and void.

Fair point.

However, the advantage Geelong gets by hosting 8 games a year at KP outweighs the disadvantage by hosting 3 a year at MCG or Marvel.

And by the way, that's not always 3 games at "their home ground". In the past Geelong has hosted St Kilda at the G, Essendon at the G, and Melbourne at Marvel. Those were neutral games.

Ultimately there are multiple factors influencing the advantage or disadvantage- firstly crowd, then ground shape. Then travel hours I'd put third.

AFL is a unique sport where ground shape differs. And the unique shape goes both ways, too. It must help them in Geelong but disadvantage them everywhere else. To exactly what extent I'm not sure.

It's difficult to prove any of these arguments with certainty.

Except I will say with certainty, as a Saints fan, I envy Geelong's home ground advantage during the Home & Away season.

And you might reply "the grass is always greener"