Banter Geelong V Richmond - GO!

[Wosh]

In the interests of keeping your back and forth shite fights out of match threads so normal people can talk.

Keep it clean and above the shorts
Off topic rubbish clogging up match threads will be moved here, knock yourselves out.

 

[PhatBoy]

Your loving it.
I read some of your posts from time to time.
Like some angst ridden pimply kid it’s funny.
What I like is where it comes from.
The deep hurt or playing us in 12 finals but only winning two.
That your win loss at home since 2009 at 81% far and away better than any other club though your away games are on par with all other teams. But still a poor finals record.
If you do win another flag sometime in the next 30 years you’ll finally be able to say you’ve had more success without Dank and “The Weapon” at your club.
What was it..?
60 years?

You know, when Tassie come in you’ll be playing less games at home.
Let’s keep an eye on whether it’s still as easy to make finals when you can’t rely on 9 wins a season.

You might want to check your maths.

I think you will find our away record in that period is better than anyone else’s.

 

[Delisted]

Lolllll.


So hang on.

You’ve said a number of times you don’t have an issue with the ground.

Now you do?

What’s changed?

Why are you constantly miss quoting me? I said I never had a problem with ground dimensions. This is like the 3rd time.

 

[PhatBoy]

Why are you constantly miss quoting me? I said I never had a problem with ground dimensions. This is like the 3rd time.

I know that and I even addressed it in the comment you’re responding to: how is it cheating? You’ve made some points previously about perceived advantages which I thought if nothing else made for reasonable discussion.

On what grounds can you call THAT angle, the one you have mentioned previously - ‘cheating’? Gaining an unfair advantage through breaking the rules of the sport?

 

[Delisted]

I know that and I even addressed it in the comment you’re responding to: how is it cheating? You’ve made some points previously about perceived advantages which I thought if nothing else made for reasonable discussion.

On what grounds can you call THAT angle, the one you have mentioned previously - ‘cheating’? Gaining an unfair advantage through breaking the rules of the sport?

I will not engage with posters who miss quote me to suit their narrative. You said home grounds don't affect the result anyway so I don't know why you keep asking me. Good day.

 

[PhatBoy]

I will not engage with posters who miss quote me to suit their narrative. You said home grounds don't affect the result anyway so I don't know why you keep asking me. Good day.

‘Cheating.’

Cheat ground. That’s not misquoting you. You said it. How is it cheating.

 

[PhatBoy]

Incidentally, I’m curious as to what the people shitting their beds about how home ground have to say about this:


Even if you remove the MCG and Docklands and JUST factor in interstate results.

Over the past 18 seasons Geelong’s winning percentage works out to 13 wins per season. This would be enough, both in 22 and 23 game formats, to qualify them for the finals in all but 1 of those seasons, possibly 2 pending tonight’s result between Fremantle and Port.

Extrapolated across that period if we never played a game in Victoria we would still be competitive and make finals every year on average. Even if you removed KP from the equation.

That does not factor in a 43-14-1 record at Marvel, or 76-41 at the MCG.

Overall, away from KP during this period, we are:

183-97-1.

A rate of just under 66 per cent. Away from our cheat home ground that seems to rile people so much.

If I didn’t know better I’d almost think we’d played some consistently good football during that period.

 

[Cdog71]

You might want to check your maths.

I think you will find our away record in that period is better than anyone else’s.

Yeah ok, it is better than the average.

June 2009-Aug 2024

Sydney and Collingwood have a better win/loss percentage away.
But it is s convoluted with your away games at the G and Etihad.
(Same for others also)
The Ave home ground win percentage is below 60%

AFL Home Advantage Measurements​

Team	Home Win %	Away Win %	Difference %
Geelong	81.05% (154/190)	54.44% (98/180)	26.61%

 

[PhatBoy]

Yeah ok, it is better than the average.

June 2009-Aug 2024

Sydney and Collingwood have a better win/loss percentage away.
But it is s convoluted with your away games at the G and Etihad.
(Same for others also)
The Ave home ground win percentage is below 60%

AFL Home Advantage Measurements​

Team	Home Win %	Away Win %	Difference %
Geelong	81.05% (154/190)	54.44% (98/180)	26.61%

This measure isn’t properly accurate anyway. Would I be correct in assuming that coming from a tipping or betting data site, that it collates results from when teams were the ‘nominal’ away team. In half these away games Collingwood, where they’ve amassed a better record, were probably playing at the MCG. Sydney’s would be more legitimate. Equally it ignores many wins Geelong have had at Marvel and the MCG when we have been the nominal home team.

 

[CCurnow3votes]

Geelong for longevity - by the way, how is Collingwood the oldest list in the comp?

Geelong reinvent themselves and are always there about a without winning spoons.

 

[Cdog71]

This measure isn’t properly accurate anyway. Would I be correct in assuming that coming from a tipping or betting data site, that it collates results from when teams were the ‘nominal’ away team. In half these away games Collingwood, where they’ve amassed a better record, were probably playing at the MCG. Sydney’s would be more legitimate. Equally it ignores many wins Geelong have had at Marvel and the MCG when we have been the nominal home team.

I’m not certain but I’d expect the home ground data, which would include your home games at the G and elsewhere to be accurate.

 

[Cleansweep17]

I'm not twisting anything. I don't care if people think the great Brisbane, Hawthorn and Richmond teams were better than the great Geelong team(s). I'm simply saying that people suggesting that premiership eras like Brisbane and Richmond had were dynasties while Geelong's isn't because they didn't go B2B have the definition of "dynasty" completely arse-about.

How long has it been since each AFL team has missed top four in two consecutive years?

Adelaide: 0 years
Brisbane: 7 years (2017/18)
Carlton: 0 years
Collingwood: 4 years (2020/21)
Essendon: 0 years
Fremantle: 0 years
Geelong: 19 years (2005/06)
Gold Coast: 0 years
GWS: 1 year (2022/23)
Hawthorn: 0 years
Melbourne: 5 years (2019/20)
North Melbourne: 0 years
Port Adelaide: 6 years (2018/19)
Richmond: 0 years
St Kilda: 0 years
Sydney: 4 years (2020/21)
West Coast: 0 years
Western Bulldogs: 0 years

One of those is not like the others. It's why 51 men can call themselves Geelong premiership players of the modern era. It's why Geelong players from the modern era fill out three of the top five spots in the all time list of finals matches played, including Harry Taylor, who didn't even come that close to playing 300 games in his AFL career.

Because we've fronted up, again and again, year after year and made a mark in September for two decades, without as much as two consecutive years where we've finished lower than fourth on the ladder.

You’ve got the dynasty definition a lil bit backwards. Dynasties are based on how quick you win flags not how far apart they are. That’s the challenge it’s harder to do in a shorter period of time.

If you want to classify a group of anything they have to have similar attributes. So in regards to dynasties all of them in the past had at least 3 flags with a b2b in it. You are the odd ones out and you know it deep down.

And your actual team varied quite a bit from 07-11. You didn’t even have the same Captain, coach or best player for all 3 flags.

If there were dynasties in the past that had 3 in 5’s then you could say you are a dynasty. But that’s not the case. Might sound harsh but it’s an exclusive club sorry.

 

[PhatBoy]

I’m not certain but I’d expect the home ground data, which would include your home games at the G and elsewhere to be accurate.

The data I provided a few posts back is taken straight from the full source - bearing in mind it does also include neutral games. But it shows very very definitively that away from our actual home ground across a sample size of nearly 300 games we win almost two thirds of our matches against whoever we play. Given that our ground is the perceived ‘major outlier’ that is so much different from the other grounds and we are the team that gets to train on our ground even the neutral games would, if people’s theory about our advantage is correct, put us at a greater disadvantage than our opposition: (ie. if we were to meet a team based on a ‘normal’ shaped ground at a neutral ‘normal’ shaped ground, it would theoretically stand to reason that if we are so favoured by KP, we should be disadvantaged in this neutral scenario)

 

[PhatBoy]

You’ve got the dynasty definition a lil bit backwards. Dynasties are based on how quick you win flags not how far apart they are.

If you want to classify a group of anything they have to have similar attributes. So in regards to dynasties all of them had at least 3 flags with a b2b in it. You are the odd ones out.

If there were dynasties in the past that had 3 in 5’s then you could say you are a dynasty. But that’s not the case. Might sound harsh but it’s an exclusive club sorry.

Does he?

Maybe we should just call ours an empire then.

 

[Cdog71]

The data I provided a few posts back is taken straight from the full source - bearing in mind it does also include neutral games. But it shows very very definitively that away from our actual home ground across a sample size of nearly 300 games we win almost two thirds of our matches against whoever we play. Given that our ground is the perceived ‘major outlier’ that is so much different from the other grounds and we are the team that gets to train on our ground even the neutral games would, if people’s theory about our advantage is correct, put us at a greater disadvantage than our opposition: (ie. if we were to meet a team based on a ‘normal’ shaped ground at a neutral ‘normal’ shaped ground, it would theoretically stand to reason that if we are so favoured by KP, we should be disadvantaged in this neutral scenario)

Like Richmond you play away games at your “Other Home ground “(The G).
It’s also your data your data takes into account all your dynasty years, including the game lost to Hawthorn.
Your percentage over that period was extraordinary and win/loss also.
This isn’t a backhanded comment, but you not playing finals at KP and then assessing that win/loss data from say 2009 (2009 flag, 2011 flag) I think it would illustrate the point further about how often you win at KP compared to other venues.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

You’ve got the dynasty definition a lil bit backwards. Dynasties are based on how quick you win flags not how far apart they are. That’s the challenge it’s harder to do in a shorter period of time.

If you want to classify a group of anything they have to have similar attributes. So in regards to dynasties all of them in the past had at least 3 flags with a b2b in it. You are the odd ones out and you know it deep down.

Would have thought that - you know - providing an actual dictionary definition of the word might be sufficient. Do you have anything to support your suggestion that the definition of "dynasty" is "how quick you win flags"?

Literally, someone just made up this notion that you're now parroting. It's clearly not what the word means. Your definition is based on absolutely nothing.

 

[PhatBoy]

Would have thought that - you know - providing an actual dictionary definition of the word might be sufficient. Do you have anything to support your suggestion that the definition of "dynasty" is "how quick you win flags"?

Literally, someone just made up this notion that you're now parroting. It's clearly not what the word means. Your definition is based on absolutely nothing.

I like that he ropes his own side into the other two as well despite them not achieving the same. ‘You have to have won two in a row - but winning three in a row isn’t a pre-requisite.’

So the Crows had a dynasty.

 

[Cleansweep17]

Would have thought that - you know - providing an actual dictionary definition of the word might be sufficient. Do you have anything to support your suggestion that the definition of "dynasty" is "how quick you win flags"?

Literally, someone just made up this notion that you're now parroting. It's clearly not what the word means. Your definition is based on absolutely nothing.

Dynasty involves succession. Without a b2b there is no succession and you have not defended your throne. The end.

 

[STPer18]

Max Holmes in the AA squad. Thanks again.

 

[Cleansweep17]

Does he?

Maybe we should just call ours an empire then.

Era is ok. Still good

 

[PhatBoy]

Era is ok. Still good

Nah I’ll stick with empire. I just made it up and defined it.

 

[Cleansweep17]

Nah I’ll stick with empire. I just made it up and defined it.

You do you

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Dynasty involves succession. Without a b2b there is no succession and you have not defended your throne. The end.

Who succeeded Cotchin? Who succeeded Hardwick? Who succeeded Martin? Or preceded them, for that matter? Succession is Harley, Ling, Selwood (and you can bookend them with King and Dangerfield, also premiership players). It isn't Kane Johnson, Chris Newman, Cotchin, Grimes/Nank.

That's why Geelong has finished in the top three again (never mind the top four) for the thirteenth times in eighteen years and Richmond is now the wooden spooners, a dynasty that started a decade later than Geelong's and finished several years before.

 

[STPer18]

Succession is Harley, Ling, Selwood (and you can bookend them with King and Dangerfield, also premiership players).

 

[Cleansweep17]

Who succeeded Cotchin? Who succeeded Hardwick? Who succeeded Martin? Or preceded them, for that matter? Succession is Harley, Ling, Selwood (and you can bookend them with King and Dangerfield, also premiership players). It isn't Kane Johnson, Chris Newman, Cotchin, Grimes/Nank.

That's why Geelong has finished in the top three again (never mind the top four) for the thirteenth times in eighteen years and Richmond is now the wooden spooners, a dynasty that started a decade later than Geelong's and finished several years before.

The succession of flags with the same team bro. That’s sort of the whole point nobody cares about what came after or before.

And thank you for just proving you didn’t have the same team.

 

[Cleansweep17]

View attachment 2092899

Yep 3 great captains captaining 3 different teams. Well done