Their only competition comes from Fremantle
Geelong - Too old, too slow?
- Thread starter SimToo
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Their only competition comes from Fremantle
- Feb 12, 2017
- 19,159
- 50,732
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- have been WARPED by Geelong
What about the Hawkers?
2022 isn't our year, but you never know we might sneak 7th-8th and spoil Geelong's party in some way
Yeah...dunno about that.
I think we are the furthest away from winning a flag in the current top 8.
I’m glad at least someone believes in us.
Falcon3518
Norm Smith Medallist
- Mar 13, 2022
- 5,350
- 3,237
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Banned
- #2,205
All 9 of your 11 home games are the KP, what? Where are the other ones and why aren’t they there?
- Feb 12, 2017
- 19,159
- 50,732
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- have been WARPED by Geelong
Melbourne. Because the AFL won't allow us to play all our home games at our home ground. For example in a few weeks time we host the Tiggies at the Mighty MCG.
Yes, yes we are. Too old and too slow - no youth coming through that have real talent - it's a bummer but we still should finish top 8
- Sep 26, 2012
- 9,689
- 1,676
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Cattle say low…
Art Vandelay_
TheBrownDog
- Oct 28, 2012
- 108,149
- 150,171
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Bushrangers - Tottenham
Falcon3518
Norm Smith Medallist
- Mar 13, 2022
- 5,350
- 3,237
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Banned
- #2,210
That “facts” you’ve given don’t actually prove the point. Do you not think a 92% win rate is abnormally high? Premiership teams don’t have that win rate on their home grounds yet you do without being a top 4 quality team in finals. Doesn’t this seem strange to you given you also have the most unique ground in the AFL? Idk why you can’t put 2 and 2 together. Stating facts about being a good away team means nothing to this argument.
Also what’s really ironic is that you claim to be the “stats” guy yet when we compare players you don’t like using them and you give me shit when I cite them and say they mean nothing.
Falcon3518
Norm Smith Medallist
- Mar 13, 2022
- 5,350
- 3,237
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Banned
- #2,211
No what you are doing is shooting down any suggestions that the cats have an advantage in anyway during the H&A season because it looks bad, so far I’ve heard:
- no we are not too slow or old
- our home ground doesn’t give us an edge
- game plan is not the issue
- our finals record is not bad.
- it’s not Chris Scott’s coaching that is the issue
- “We’ve lost finals just cause we played better teams” wow man great insight, the question is WHY you lost them. You’ve contributed absolutely nothing to this thread and are the most one eyed supporter I’ve ever come across you cannot criticise anything about your club, it’s so sad. Can you actually answer the topic of this thread ffs?
Last edited:
Falcon3518
Norm Smith Medallist
- Mar 13, 2022
- 5,350
- 3,237
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Banned
- #2,212
I was 10 bro, I don’t even remember it.
- May 5, 2016
- 47,581
- 53,368
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Yes they do prove a point.
They prove
A) that you were wrong when you claimed we were burgling top 4 spots from other teams because of our home ground and that other sides should have been there.
I stated facts that showed in every year we finished top 4, we had at very worst the third best ‘away’ record in the top 4. As such we burgled nothing. Losing two finals doesn’t mean you weren’t top 4 quality. Every season at least 2 top four sides lose two finals. Your claim proves absolutely nothing. Your claim also doesn’t allow for the fact that teams do not get to decide the outcomes of games based on previous matches. If they did, finals wouldn’t be played. Using your logic, because we lost to Hawthorn in 2008, the previous 24 matches were misleading and the Hawks were actually the better team.
Everyone who watched that season knows that they weren’t, but that on the day that mattered, they were.
You need to be a pillock to not see that.
If our home ground dimensions was the advantage and point of difference you claim it is, this would be reflected in our results whenever we travel. It isn’t.
It’s not like before a final Chris Scott goes ‘now, remember this is a final so in THIS game, you have to play like you’ve never seen a round football ground before. Yes yes I know you always forget that you’re on a round field during away H&A games but guys this is a final. You have to lose because of the ground dimensions.’
We lose finals because we play like shit. Your inability to acknowledge that means your forum posting is at the same level as our finals performances
You were wrong, show some balls and own it.
B) Stats mean plenty.
Hence you could have a situation where a player theoretically plays two grand finals, kicks 7 goals in both, but in each of those finals a different player manages 40 touches and 3 goals, the guy who’s kicked 7 goals twice could be the second best player on the field in both grand finals, misses out on a NS medal while two other players get one each. Using your logic, the player with 0 medals has been an inferior player to both of the others. Logic and statistics suggest he hasn’t been
- May 5, 2016
- 47,581
- 53,368
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Who said our finals record is not bad? I didn’t, no one else did.
However our finals record is a fraction below 33 per cent.
Every year a top four side will have 2 defeats and either 1 win, or 0 wins. In theory a team could finish 3/4 every season, and results could go according to ranking, and they would have a 33 per cent win record. Pointing out that this is our record and as such we don’t fall into the category of ‘undeserved top four finishers’ is not claiming we have a good finals record. It is stating the mathematical fact that having a low finals win percentage has no bearing on whether we deserved to make it or not.
And no I’m
Not the most one eyed supporter you’ve ever come across.
If I was, I wouldn’t say things like ‘we have been shit in finals.’
Just because i can shut down your stupid arguments doesn’t make me one eyed. It makes me capable of using logic and reason to make a deduction.
Bunnings
Club Legend
- Mar 19, 2022
- 1,214
- 1,167
- AFL Club
- Geelong
I thought this thread was about how old and slow Geelong was? Everyone’s talking about other stuff!
Here I’ll get it on track!
Hey, how old are those Geelong players that team has now! So old! And slow!
I reckon I could out run some of them!
On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
Here I’ll get it on track!
Hey, how old are those Geelong players that team has now! So old! And slow!
I reckon I could out run some of them!
On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
- Feb 12, 2017
- 19,159
- 50,732
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- have been WARPED by Geelong
That's when we lose. We've won three on the trot so now the mental giants have to find something else Geelong-related to sook about for the time being. Bless their hearts.
- Oct 3, 2008
- 7,545
- 8,095
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Probably win it this year.
Wojcinski
Brownlow Medallist
imagine the scenes
Pure_Ownage
TheBrownDog
If melbourne do implode its wide open i wouldnt say we are box seat merely an even chance along with freo brisbane (although i dont fear brisbane) sydney and st kilda.
Pure_Ownage
TheBrownDog
Its interesting tactically. We have basically the best forward line in the comp. So long as stewart stays fit we are in the top 3 or 4 defences. Our issue is our ruck division and midfield are weak. Then again stanley has been in and out through injury (and we had to ruck blicavs as both ceglar and sav were injured) danger and menegola are 2 of our 4 most important mids and have barely played all year so im not sure you can judge the midfield until round 20 when all the prime movers are match fit. But IF we can break evenin midfield in finals our forward line can do some real damage.
I'd add Carlton in there (notwithstanding their current injury issues). Great recruiting last year has improved their midfield out of sight. I've been nervous playing them for the last 10 years. Even when they weren't that good, they'd seem to lift against us. Good match-ups for them I guess.
But back to the actual topic, yes - we are old. So far this year we've fielded either the oldest or second oldest team each week (Richmond has had older teams on 3 occasions I think). We are trending younger as the year goes on although getting Danger back will bump us up again. Looking forward to seeing the average age decrease when we see more of Neale, Knevitt (I think huge potential), Dempsey, and of course getting Holmes back from injury. Really pleased Stephens is getting a good run at it. Building slowly but steadily.
Slower? A bit of a myth I think, perhaps borne out of our previous chip/mark game style. This year, there have been times we've moved the ball as fast as any team going around. Picking the time to go and the time to hold is crucial. But, slower? I don't buy it.
- May 5, 2016
- 47,581
- 53,368
- AFL Club
- Geelong
The speed thing has largely been a myth across most parts of the field.
Relative to other teams, pre-Rohan and Dahlhaus we had a very slow forward line but steadily as Miers, Cameron, Close, Stengle, have joined the mix one season or block of matches at a time it’s made us a forward line that has some pace about it.
Elsewhere we might not have a big batch of noted speed merchants but as far as key talls go you can’t get much better pace wise than Blicavs and Stanley, Smith has great foot speed even at his age, Danger while yes he’s not been fit, is still very quick, Holmes has come in and seems to have some toe, Selwood and Duncan and Guthrie aren’t ‘quick’ but they all run well enough.
Raw speed is a great asset to have but I don’t think the ‘lack of it’ has made much of a contribution to why we’ve fallen short as regularly as we have
Season by season- Geelong on MCG in finals, relative to H&A season
2007- Achieved par. Easily best H&A, dominated GF. But scraped through vs MCG tenant in prelim.
2008- Underachieved. Best team all year. Lost GF to MCG tenant who finished 4 wins behind them.
2009- Very very slight overachievement. Finished 2nd. Won very tight GF against Marvel tenant (1st).
2010- Underachieved. Finished 2nd. Lost tight qualifying final against Marvel tenant (3rd). Lost prelim convincingly vs MCG tenant (1st).
2011- Over achieved. Finished 2nd. Won finals on MCG vs MCG tenants. Dominant finals.
2012- Under achieved. Lost EF to lower ranked interstate team.
2013- about par. Lost very tight prelim to higher ranked opponent. Ironically in that position after losing at KP.
2014- Underachieved. Finished 3rd. Lost comfortably to 2nd. Then lost semi final to lower ranked opponent (Marvel team)
2015 N/A
2016- Underachieved. Won QF vs 3rd. But lost prelim against interstate opponent by 37. Opponent lost GF following week. Geelong missed GF comfortably despite finishing 2nd.
2017- Underachieved. Finished 2nd, got thumped by MCG opponent (3rd). Won convincingly in SF but ended up missing GF again after finishing top 2, and another disappointing showing on the MCG
2018- Slight underachievement. Lost EF by 29 from 8th (13-9) vs 5th.(14-8 MCG tenant)
2019- Underachieved. Minor premiers. Missed GF again after losing to 3rd and 4th (both MCG tenants)
Geelong has underachieved on the G in finals.
Why is a matter for speculation. Maybe their game plan or personell simply aren't suited- or aren't capable- of raising themselves in finals intensity footy.
But I do think the idea that ground shape is completely irrelevant fails the pub test.
Consider other ball sports with moving players- soccer, nfl, rugby, rugby league, basketball. How many of those sports have pitches with vast discrepancy in size like KP vs MCG?
Consider: how the players spread and the angles they employ moving out from stoppages, leading patterns of forwards, moving the ball down the ground, retaining possession effectively at end of game. Defensive zone strategies. All these things will differ according to ground shape
I haven't heard any argument convincing me that a 20% difference in ground width (compared to where they've played most of their home games) would not have an impact on an AFL team.
2007- Achieved par. Easily best H&A, dominated GF. But scraped through vs MCG tenant in prelim.
2008- Underachieved. Best team all year. Lost GF to MCG tenant who finished 4 wins behind them.
2009- Very very slight overachievement. Finished 2nd. Won very tight GF against Marvel tenant (1st).
2010- Underachieved. Finished 2nd. Lost tight qualifying final against Marvel tenant (3rd). Lost prelim convincingly vs MCG tenant (1st).
2011- Over achieved. Finished 2nd. Won finals on MCG vs MCG tenants. Dominant finals.
2012- Under achieved. Lost EF to lower ranked interstate team.
2013- about par. Lost very tight prelim to higher ranked opponent. Ironically in that position after losing at KP.
2014- Underachieved. Finished 3rd. Lost comfortably to 2nd. Then lost semi final to lower ranked opponent (Marvel team)
2015 N/A
2016- Underachieved. Won QF vs 3rd. But lost prelim against interstate opponent by 37. Opponent lost GF following week. Geelong missed GF comfortably despite finishing 2nd.
2017- Underachieved. Finished 2nd, got thumped by MCG opponent (3rd). Won convincingly in SF but ended up missing GF again after finishing top 2, and another disappointing showing on the MCG
2018- Slight underachievement. Lost EF by 29 from 8th (13-9) vs 5th.(14-8 MCG tenant)
2019- Underachieved. Minor premiers. Missed GF again after losing to 3rd and 4th (both MCG tenants)
Geelong has underachieved on the G in finals.
Why is a matter for speculation. Maybe their game plan or personell simply aren't suited- or aren't capable- of raising themselves in finals intensity footy.
But I do think the idea that ground shape is completely irrelevant fails the pub test.
Consider other ball sports with moving players- soccer, nfl, rugby, rugby league, basketball. How many of those sports have pitches with vast discrepancy in size like KP vs MCG?
Consider: how the players spread and the angles they employ moving out from stoppages, leading patterns of forwards, moving the ball down the ground, retaining possession effectively at end of game. Defensive zone strategies. All these things will differ according to ground shape
I haven't heard any argument convincing me that a 20% difference in ground width (compared to where they've played most of their home games) would not have an impact on an AFL team.
Last edited:
- May 5, 2016
- 47,581
- 53,368
- AFL Club
- Geelong
I haven’t heard any argument that disregards all available regular season data like this one does.
Similar threads
