Geelong: why are they just not good enough?

[Mootsy]

Why was Ratugolea not playing??
Surely he would have added something to the game.

 

[PhatBoy]

Geelong is suffering from an unbalanced list that shows it's cracks when it comes to finals.
Too many older players vs young players.
Only 1 genuine KPF. Ratugolea could of been better choice over Stanley because he can play more of a forward role when not rucking. Rotating Blicavs and Stanley in the ruck hurt them in the forward line.
No big body midfielder other than Dangerfield. Simpson may be that player but they don't play him midfield and wasn't in the team.
No half back flanker with great pace and no winger with pace. Menegola & Duncan are exactly the same type of winger and it causes problems when both play that position. Blicavs needs to play wing to give them a different dynamic but he's playing ruck.
No Full time ruck. Stanley is the best they have but he's only average in the role. The rest are poor.

They also seem to have butchered some of their players by playing them out of position like blicavs who is better as a defender or winger or Dahlhaus who has played the last 2 seasons mainly in the forward line when he's played best as a 50/50 mid/fwd. Simpson being playing in the foward line when clearly he's much better in their midfield.

Stanley kicked 2 goals and won the hit-outs, and also missed a set shot from a mark in the middle of our 50.

 

[PhatBoy]

Why was Ratugolea not playing??
Surely he would have added something to the game.

Have you watched him this year?

 

[Hojuman]

Why was Ratugolea not playing??
Surely he would have added something to the game.

Injured or dropped ?

 

[Mootsy]

Injured or dropped ?

I'm not too sure. Surely he adds an ingredient to finals games for the cats. Can play in the middle and forward.

 

[Hojuman]

I'm not too sure. Surely he adds an ingredient to finals games for the cats. Can play in the middle and forward.

Was surprised he wasn't out there. Can take a grab. Split a pack. Ruck.

 

[willydave]

Their biggest problem in finals is generally their bottom 4-5 players who typically are just not up to it. Heat goes up, and they can't rise to the level. I went hard on Guthrie in the lead up saying he's pissweak in finals, and he showed it again.

Players like Miers, Dalhaus, Guthrie (new worst AA ever), Atkins - and then you can add Ablett who has gone on one year too many, but has also been found out in finals over the past few years. Even Menegola shat the bed.

Those guys really battled last night, and you could see in round 18 when the whips were cracking in Port vs. Collingwood the Power play with an amazing intensity. Cats struggle with that.

 

[The Goon]

There’s only one finals record that will never get matched for the rest of eternity

View attachment 975665

Having won two premierships since then I can now see appreciate the funny side of this.

 

[Port 2004]

For a start, the Hawthorn home game if it were played away from your home ground where you received 14 frees to 0 in the second half in a close game.
The tigers game where you also enjoyed a massive home crowd umpiring boost. Both those games played at the G with a crowd screaming for home town frees against you instead of for you could have easily had a different result. Dogs game was also close, and could have got a different result at Marvel. That would bring your outright home games down to 3, the same as Geelong, and increase your outright away games to 5, the same as Geelong. Those results go the other way, and it is enough to put Geelong a game plus percentage in front of you. That is ignoring any extra wins Geelong would get from transferring your 3 extra home games to them to provide the switched fixture situation. If those 3 extra home games gave Geelong 3 extra wins, that puts them 4 games and percentage clear of Port. Obviously this is all highly hypothetical, but not outside the bounds of possibility if you swapped each clubs outright home and away games numbers.

Basically your draw compared to teams like Geelong set up your season, and has now got you a home prelim. Vic teams have enjoyed the MCG GF advantage for years, so the finals situation this year is somewhat a swings and roundabouts issue, but there has never been a H&A fixture as lopsided as this one, and Port has been a major beneficiary. I'm not even sure why you are bothering to argue that. Actually that's not true. I am sure. You're laying the groundwork to try to claim any premiership won under such a lopsided draw is completely legitimate and equivalent to a premiership won under a normal fixture situation where all clubs are playing on a much more even playing field. The only hope of that happening is for one of the have-nots of the fixture fallout to get up for a win. If Tigers win tonight it could easily be them, and while their draw was easier than Geelong's it was certainly harder than Port and Brisbane's, so I'd consider that a legitimate flag under the circumstances.

Blow it out your arse you winy whinger.

 

[hk89]

What a joke. So Vic teams can have a rigged system for decades where they get home ground grand final advantage and 5 more home games than interstate clubs and that's no dramas, the boot is on the foot for ONE YEAR and you have a dull about it.

I thought you might clutch at that desparate straw:
a) Playing home games at the MCG when your opponent has it as their home ground is no advantage at all. It is a reduced advantage if the other team isn't a MCG tenant, but is a Vic side with a large Melbourne supporter base. Sure we don't have to travel as much, but our home ground advantages are massively diluted in exchange for that gift.

b) I'm sure Geelong would have liked to have kicked back with 5 of their last 8 games of the year at their home ground, while they primed players for finals. One of the 3 times you left AO in the last 8 rounds was for a 10 goal hiding from Geelong at the Gabba. Probably would have been 16 goals if that game was at the Cattery.

c) In previous years, you play 1 game during finals at the MCG that isn't dictated by where you finished and how you go in other games during finals, and you have a huge ****ing fit for the last 30 years (by you I mean non-vic sides). The home/away game differential this year was way more than one advantage game in finals (and I agree the AFL should look at rotating the GF to avoid that historical leg up for vic teams). After the years of whinging from non-vic teams over the GF situation, I can only imagine how much interstate heads would have exploded if the situation was reversed on the vic/non-vic draw situation this year. Can we assume you'll stop your complaining about the MCG situation after this year if you manage to win, given the massive leg up you will have received during the season to even make the 8? Really, you should stop your whinging either way, as if one of the Vic teams wins this year, it shows even the biggest lopsided draw ever can be overcome.

Btw it shouldn't be underestimated that port, Freo, WC and Adelaide were the first teams shoehorned into a hub,

Yeah, and how did teams like WC cope with that? They looked like they may be struggling to make top 8 before heading back to Perth with 6 home games in a row, which got their season back on track.

Not sure how you balance port's 7 out of 17 home games as the same as Brisbane who basically haven't left home and will get a home GF if they make it..

I don't think it is the same , a Brisbane flag will be even less legitimate than a Port flag. To be honest I'm not sure who to barrack for. I hate Richmond and Geelong, but see them as potential legitimate winners. I like teams like Brisbane and Eagles, but don't really think they deserve it, and along with Port, would see them as compromised flags. All flags have some angle you can use to lessen the achievement, and usually its petty point scoring, but this year has been a massively lopsided situation. Didn't have to be this way either. More sensible fixturing could have reduced the problem and stayed within COVID rules. Lions and GC could have swapped grounds a lot more often than they did for example, other non-vic teams could have spent longer in hubs outside their home states when it was possible to do so. AFL went with the easiest options, and as a result we got a draw with massive fairness compromises.

 

[sobrave]

I thought you might clutch at that desparate straw:
a) Playing home games at the MCG when your opponent has it as their home ground is no advantage at all. It is a reduced advantage if the other team isn't a MCG tenant, but is a Vic side with a large Melbourne supporter base. Sure we don't have to travel as much, but our home ground advantages are massively diluted in exchange for that gift.

b) I'm sure Geelong would have liked to have kicked back with 5 of their last 8 games of the year at their home ground, while they primed players for finals. One of the 3 times you left AO in the last 8 rounds was for a 10 goal hiding from Geelong at the Gabba. Probably would have been 16 goals if that game was at the Cattery.

c) In previous years, you play 1 game during finals at the MCG that isn't dictated by where you finished and how you go in other games during finals, and you have a huge ******* fit for the last 20 years (by you I mean non-vic sides). The home/away game differential this year was way more than one advantage game in finals (and I agree the AFL should look at rotating the GF to avoid that historical leg up for vic teams). After the years of whinging from non-vic teams over the GF situation, I can only imagine how much interstate heads would have exploded if the situation was reversed on the vic/non-vic draw situation this year. Can we assume you'll stop your complaining about the MCG situation after this year if you manage to win, given the massive leg up you will have received during the season to even make the 8? Really, you should stop your whinging either way, as if one of the Vic teams wins this year, it shows even the biggest lopsided draw ever can be overcome.




Yeah, and how did teams like WC cope with that? They looked like they may be struggling to make top 8 before heading back to Perth with 6 home games in a row, which got their season back on track.



I don't think it is the same , a Brisbane flag will be even less legitimate than a Port flag. To be honest I'm not sure who to barrack for. I hate Richmond and Geelong, but see them as potential legitimate winners. I like teams like Brisbane and Eagles, but don't really think they deserve it, and along with Port, would see them as compromised flags. All flags have some angle you can use to lessen the achievement, and usually its petty point scoring, but this year has been a massively lopsided situation. Didn't have to be this way either. More sensible fixturing could have reduced the problem and stayed within COVID rules. Lions and GC could have swapped grounds a lot more often than they did for example, other non-vic teams could have spent longer in hubs outside their home states when it was possible to do so. AFL went with the easiest options, and as a result we got a draw with massive fairness compromises.

Now I know you're just making up garbage. Richmond are not legit premiers because they had 10 games in a row at their home ground. That's your logic.

 

[hk89]

Now I know you're just making up garbage. Richmond are not legit premiers because they had 10 games in a row at their home ground. That's your logic.

What didn't you understand about home games in Melbourne often not being legit home ground advantages? It is like saying playing Adelaide at AO is a massive home ground advantage for Port.

Richmond's 10 games in a row at their home ground? Are you talking their 7 games in a row at their home ground last year at the back end of the season before beating Lions at the Gabba? If so , 3 of those 7 games were against MCG co-tenants. So that 10 games in a row has now become 4 games with a real home advantage and those four were broken up into 2 sets of 2 in a row. So 2 actual home ground advantages in a row. Twice. They also earnt their MCG finals, after their win over Brisbane up north. Geelong lost first week, and GWS finished below them. Even if the GF starts to rotate grounds baesd on finishing position and results (which I think it should), Tigers would have played just as many finals at the MCG under any sensible replacement system. I hate Richmond, and I hope they never win another flag, but their flag last year was fully legit, and even more so if they (or Geelong) win it this year. Who knows, maybe dogs or saints might surprise too - both legit flag winners this year. Port , Lions - not so much. This is from someone that generally barracks for the non-vic sides, when my own team can't get it done (with Sydney perhaps the only exception).

 

[sobrave]

I stopped reading your posts a while ago bub

 

[afl genius]

Lol. Who was out of position last night. Who were the superstars he left out

9 mostly tall defenders in a team none of who provide any run and carry is good team balance? Blicavs played his best footy of his career in the back line and has been proven he's not great as a Ruckmen. Where did he play last night? Miers basically the only specialist small forward on our list constantly running up to the half back line and wing. Biggest centre bounce of game and Atkins, daulhouse and Duncan in it... Port easy clearance for a goal and game over. Danger/Sel and Gaz? this is just very basic stuff that everyone other than Scott can see.

 

[Holden Hillbilly]

 

[WillHayward]

Henderson was Geelong's best player by a mile tonight.

Thats the problem

 

[PhatBoy]

9 mostly tall defenders in a team none of who provide any run and carry is good team balance? Blicavs played his best footy of his career in the back line and has been proven he's not great as a Ruckmen. Where did he play last night? Miers basically the only specialist small forward on our list constantly running up to the half back line and wing. Biggest centre bounce of game and Atkins, daulhouse and Duncan in it... Port easy clearance for a goal and game over. Danger/Sel and Gaz? this is just very basic stuff that everyone other than Scott can see.

Probably why you’re coaching an AFL side

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

 

[BF Tiger]

If I say it often enough...

 

[PhatBoy]

9 mostly tall defenders in a team none of who provide any run and carry is good team balance? Blicavs played his best footy of his career in the back line and has been proven he's not great as a Ruckmen. Where did he play last night? Miers basically the only specialist small forward on our list constantly running up to the half back line and wing. Biggest centre bounce of game and Atkins, daulhouse and Duncan in it... Port easy clearance for a goal and game over. Danger/Sel and Gaz? this is just very basic stuff that everyone other than Scott can see.

Sorry but we squared every territorial, possessional, attacking and defensive metric, aside from putting it through the middle.

That doesn’t suggest to me like we picked the wrong side. It suggests we didn’t convert any of our dominance into points, and port Adelaide did

 

[PhatBoy]

If I say it often enough...
View attachment 976107

Yeah sorry for discussing on a football forum a topic about my football team on a platform designed for people airing their views on topics about football. What am I thinking.

Say what, by the way? The topic is ‘why aren’t Geelong good enough.’

I’ve acknowledged we aren’t good enough and I’ve given my reasons why - as per the question posed in the thread title - and stated the reasons for my conviction.

Am I doing it wrong? Should I be saying why we ARE good enough? Should I be saying reasons that have nothing to do with why we ARENT good enough? Help me out here

 

[portly]

Yeah sorry for discussing on a football forum a topic about my football team on a platform designed for people airing their views on topics about football. What am I thinking.

Say what, by the way? The topic is ‘why aren’t Geelong good enough.’

I’ve acknowledged we aren’t good enough and I’ve given my reasons why - as per the question posed in the thread title - and stated the reasons for my conviction.

Am I doing it wrong? Should I be saying why we ARE good enough? Should I be saying reasons that have nothing to do with why we ARENT good enough? Help me out here

Maybe he is saying that you might be working for the club.

 

[PhatBoy]

Maybe he is saying that you might be working for the club.

I wouldn’t be sitting in a Telstra office swearing at myself 25 hours a day if that was the case

 

[BF Tiger]

Yeah sorry for discussing on a football forum a topic about my football team on a platform designed for people airing their views on topics about football. What am I thinking.

Say what, by the way? The topic is ‘why aren’t Geelong good enough.’

I’ve acknowledged we aren’t good enough and I’ve given my reasons why - as per the question posed in the thread title - and stated the reasons for my conviction.

Am I doing it wrong? Should I be saying why we ARE good enough? Should I be saying reasons that have nothing to do with why we ARENT good enough? Help me out here

You’re being precious again.

 

[MadMundy]

Hopefully out of the 8 next year.