Autopsy Lions prevail by 10

[noclashjumpers]

What was Bruhn's injury?

 

[Jimmy Yamazaki]

I know Holmes would have been out but the other 4 you mentioned probably would have played.

I’d personally rather be there. You never know.

Agree. Would rather have been there then not.

 

[Footy Smarts]

What was Bruhn's injury?

Unsure. Was hobbling badly in the rooms at half time then off for most of the 3rd quarter along with Holmes.

 

[cats_09]

Why is this stickied at the top of every page?

It wasn't meant to be

There was another post that has been stickied at the top, but frustratingly it would seem that someone has deleted a post from earlier in the thread changing which post is stickied

 

[cats_09]

What was Bruhn's injury?

Suggested to be a hip/groin issue

 

[Goggin Our Best]

Geelong from basically the early 1960s the number of chances theve had , honestly they could have 20 Premirship Cups in the trophy cabinet .

The number of opportunities that Geelong have let slip through the net and you can add last Saturdays game to that sorrowful list .

 

[catswhiskers]

You talk like winning premierships is a run on the park and the opposition never turns up.

 

[My Tilly]

Suggested to be a hip/groin issue

One poster will adamantly refute such an injury.

 

[Pollywaffle]

Geelong from basically the early 1960s the number of chances theve had , honestly they could have 20 Premirship Cups in the trophy cabinet .

The number of opportunities that Geelong have let slip through the net and you can add last Saturdays game to that sorrowful list .

Could look at it another way. For example, recent times, razor thin prelim wins for us over Collingwood in 2007, 2022 premiership years just as a small sample. Roll of the dice works both ways I guess.

 

[Pollywaffle]

Another point about the Brisbane game is how badly we deal with slippery conditions . FFS !
We need a specialist coach just for that I reckon. And a big sponsorship deal with grippo

 

[joe444]

Another point about the Brisbane game is how badly we deal with slippery conditions . FFS !
We need a specialist coach just for that I reckon. And a big sponsorship deal with grippo

NRL have been counting 'handling errors' since the 80s.

I always found the least useful stat to be "clangers". Get specific.

 

[Biggy_Boy]

Geelong from basically the early 1960s the number of chances theve had , honestly they could have 20 Premirship Cups in the trophy cabinet .

The number of opportunities that Geelong have let slip through the net and you can add last Saturdays game to that sorrowful list .

At a certain point you have to accept your identity as a footy club. Geelong's identity is to be the bridesmaid, the challenger but rarely the champion. Perhaps a better way to label it is "the Gatekeper" - we're the sides other sides have to get to in order to get a shot at success, like a second-to-final boss in a video game. It's long been part of our history now. A strong, competitive club that does not accept mediocrity but at the same time struggles to consistently get over the line when the opportunity presents. All those missed chances in the 90s. We get three flags with an incredibly talented side (though could have had more), and then in the 2010s revert to the same as decades prior. Constantly close to the prize but rarely grasping it, in this case struggling to even get to the final day as we had in the 90s.

It's not a bad identity. It's certainly better than many others in the league hold. It sort of complements Hawthorn's, which is to take silverware from the slimmest of chances. They seem to find the most opportune times to strike and do it.

I think we really need to resign ourselves to it. We're a strong club. We do a lot very well. There is a lot for us to enjoy. But while we may be strong, we're rarely premiership-caliber strong, or even grand final strong.

We're a B+ player, the Triple H of footy, and that's not a bad spot to be in. We're close to the top but really there to make the true top look good.

 

[iameviljez]

It's not a bad identity. It's certainly better than many others in the league hold. It sort of complements Hawthorn's, which is to take silverware from the slimmest of chances.

Not everyone is lucky enough to come up against three interstate sides in Grand Finals, three years running.

Even if you are the best team in the league, it takes a lot of luck to win a flag, with the need to win two knockout games in a row at the end. History is absolutely littered with years where a standout best side in it did not win the flag. I mean, we were one unpaid free kick in the 2007 PF away from that dominant 2007-08 team not winning a premiership.

 

[kickazz]

At a certain point you have to accept your identity as a footy club. Geelong's identity is to be the bridesmaid, the challenger but rarely the champion. Perhaps a better way to label it is "the Gatekeper" - we're the sides other sides have to get to in order to get a shot at success, like a second-to-final boss in a video game. It's long been part of our history now. A strong, competitive club that does not accept mediocrity but at the same time struggles to consistently get over the line when the opportunity presents. All those missed chances in the 90s. We get three flags with an incredibly talented side (though could have had more), and then in the 2010s revert to the same as decades prior. Constantly close to the prize but rarely grasping it, in this case struggling to even get to the final day as we had in the 90s.

It's not a bad identity. It's certainly better than many others in the league hold. It sort of complements Hawthorn's, which is to take silverware from the slimmest of chances. They seem to find the most opportune times to strike and do it.

I think we really need to resign ourselves to it. We're a strong club. We do a lot very well. There is a lot for us to enjoy. But while we may be strong, we're rarely premiership-caliber strong, or even grand final strong.

We're a B+ player, the Triple H of footy, and that's not a bad spot to be in. We're close to the top but really there to make the true top look good.

Our identity in the 21st century is quite simply that as being the best team.

 

[dudusmaximus]

At a certain point you have to accept your identity as a footy club. Geelong's identity is to be the bridesmaid, the challenger but rarely the champion. Perhaps a better way to label it is "the Gatekeper" - we're the sides other sides have to get to in order to get a shot at success, like a second-to-final boss in a video game. It's long been part of our history now. A strong, competitive club that does not accept mediocrity but at the same time struggles to consistently get over the line when the opportunity presents. All those missed chances in the 90s. We get three flags with an incredibly talented side (though could have had more), and then in the 2010s revert to the same as decades prior. Constantly close to the prize but rarely grasping it, in this case struggling to even get to the final day as we had in the 90s.

It's not a bad identity. It's certainly better than many others in the league hold. It sort of complements Hawthorn's, which is to take silverware from the slimmest of chances. They seem to find the most opportune times to strike and do it.

I think we really need to resign ourselves to it. We're a strong club. We do a lot very well. There is a lot for us to enjoy. But while we may be strong, we're rarely premiership-caliber strong, or even grand final strong.

We're a B+ player, the Triple H of footy, and that's not a bad spot to be in. We're close to the top but really there to make the true top look good.

I disagree.

1) The Cats usually didn’t get handouts (e.g. priority picks, zoning etc) from the VFL/AFL. Granted, government infrastructure investment on the second largest city in the state (coincidentally a single-team city) does help.
2) The Cats don’t bottom out (either organically or deliberately).
3) The Cats are purists (play the game as it should be played). They don't cry foul and tout excuses. They would rather lose than cheat (like the legendary West Indies teams of yore).
4) Statistically, the Cats strive every year to give themselves the best chance to succeed (Prelims; 1 in 4 chance)
5) Being in a fishbowl has its own pressures. Heck, fans keep excusing 2-team-town Port Adelaide.
6) The Cats don’t burn through their Talent (i.e. no short-term measures; witnessed by the overly lengthly rehabs of injuries)
7) Many of the other teams’ early VFL premierships benefitted from unique, individual “structural advantages”. But History conspired to not count the VFA premierships to the total.

It’s been less than a week for the doubting thomases to appear..

 

[Warhorse]

At a certain point you have to accept your identity as a footy club. Geelong's identity is to be the bridesmaid, the challenger but rarely the champion. Perhaps a better way to label it is "the Gatekeper" - we're the sides other sides have to get to in order to get a shot at success, like a second-to-final boss in a video game. It's long been part of our history now. A strong, competitive club that does not accept mediocrity but at the same time struggles to consistently get over the line when the opportunity presents. All those missed chances in the 90s. We get three flags with an incredibly talented side (though could have had more), and then in the 2010s revert to the same as decades prior. Constantly close to the prize but rarely grasping it, in this case struggling to even get to the final day as we had in the 90s.

It's not a bad identity. It's certainly better than many others in the league hold. It sort of complements Hawthorn's, which is to take silverware from the slimmest of chances. They seem to find the most opportune times to strike and do it.

I think we really need to resign ourselves to it. We're a strong club. We do a lot very well. There is a lot for us to enjoy. But while we may be strong, we're rarely premiership-caliber strong, or even grand final strong.

We're a B+ player, the Triple H of footy, and that's not a bad spot to be in. We're close to the top but really there to make the true top look good.

I agree. We fumbled the bag badly in the prelim. Inexcusable really. Hawthorn would have gone on with it and won the flag

 

[iameviljez]

Hawthorn would have gone on with it and won the flag

Hawthorn didn't even beat Port Adelaide, and were lucky to get as close as they did.

 

[Pollywaffle]

At a certain point you have to accept your identity as a footy club. Geelong's identity is to be the bridesmaid, the challenger but rarely the champion. Perhaps a better way to label it is "the Gatekeper" - we're the sides other sides have to get to in order to get a shot at success, like a second-to-final boss in a video game. It's long been part of our history now. A strong, competitive club that does not accept mediocrity but at the same time struggles to consistently get over the line when the opportunity presents. All those missed chances in the 90s. We get three flags with an incredibly talented side (though could have had more), and then in the 2010s revert to the same as decades prior. Constantly close to the prize but rarely grasping it, in this case struggling to even get to the final day as we had in the 90s.

It's not a bad identity. It's certainly better than many others in the league hold. It sort of complements Hawthorn's, which is to take silverware from the slimmest of chances. They seem to find the most opportune times to strike and do it.

I think we really need to resign ourselves to it. We're a strong club. We do a lot very well. There is a lot for us to enjoy. But while we may be strong, we're rarely premiership-caliber strong, or even grand final strong.

We're a B+ player, the Triple H of footy, and that's not a bad spot to be in. We're close to the top but really there to make the true top look good.

Profound but somewhat depressing..

 

[#6 Thorp #7 Selwood LOL]

I agree. We fumbled the bag badly in the prelim. Inexcusable really. Hawthorn would have gone on with it and won the flag

Hawthorn literally lost to the side we pummelled the week before. Why prognosticate about some mythical Hawthorn side when we have the real thing to compare to?

 

[Cataholic]

Another point about the Brisbane game is how badly we deal with slippery conditions . FFS !
We need a specialist coach just for that I reckon. And a big sponsorship deal with grippo

We need a good boot sponsor too.

More than once I've rambled on about our inability to keep our feet whilst our opponents glided around like ice skaters on Pirelli's.

We even had a discussion at one point as to whether players were allowed to use their own boot / stud pattern, or whether it was dictated by the club Zouz Kitty

It just seemed that too often we were like drunkards on ice skates and yet our opponents were as sure footed as mountain goats.

 

[Zouz Kitty]

We need a good boot sponsor too.

More than once I've rambled on about our inability to keep our feet whilst our opponents glided around like ice skaters on Pirelli's.

We even had a discussion at one point as to whether players were allowed to use their own boot / stud pattern, or whether it was dictated by the club Zouz Kitty

It just seemed that too often we were like drunkards on ice skates and yet our opponents were as sure footed as mountain goats.

We were falling over a lot in PF

 

[kickazz]

We were falling over a lot in PF

Did it a bit in the 2022 QF too.

One of the reasons I think more finals should be red ball games, they are a better spectacle because of this (more marks held as well)

 

[Seeds]

At a certain point you have to accept your identity as a footy club. Geelong's identity is to be the bridesmaid, the challenger but rarely the champion. Perhaps a better way to label it is "the Gatekeper" - we're the sides other sides have to get to in order to get a shot at success, like a second-to-final boss in a video game. It's long been part of our history now. A strong, competitive club that does not accept mediocrity but at the same time struggles to consistently get over the line when the opportunity presents. All those missed chances in the 90s. We get three flags with an incredibly talented side (though could have had more), and then in the 2010s revert to the same as decades prior. Constantly close to the prize but rarely grasping it, in this case struggling to even get to the final day as we had in the 90s.

It's not a bad identity. It's certainly better than many others in the league hold. It sort of complements Hawthorn's, which is to take silverware from the slimmest of chances. They seem to find the most opportune times to strike and do it.

I think we really need to resign ourselves to it. We're a strong club. We do a lot very well. There is a lot for us to enjoy. But while we may be strong, we're rarely premiership-caliber strong, or even grand final strong.

We're a B+ player, the Triple H of footy, and that's not a bad spot to be in. We're close to the top but really there to make the true top look good.

How did hawthorn go this year?

Or the last 9 years.

They have been worse than mediocre for the last decade. ain't been taking any chances.

 

[Cataholic]

How did hawthorn go this year?

Or the last 9 years.

They have been worse than mediocre for the last decade. ain't been taking any chances.

Yep, and it's great to see.

But I reckon they'll be a force next year.

The addition of Brass and Battle, plus the return of Day and Lewis will make them good across the ground imo.

 

[Pollywaffle]

We need a good boot sponsor too.

More than once I've rambled on about our inability to keep our feet whilst our opponents glided around like ice skaters on Pirelli's.

We even had a discussion at one point as to whether players were allowed to use their own boot / stud pattern, or whether it was dictated by the club Zouz Kitty

It just seemed that too often we were like drunkards on ice skates and yet our opponents were as sure footed as mountain goats.

Don’t get me started on boots!
I am not sure if there are many ‘footy’ specific boots out there anymore. Many out there are soccer related and,as you say there may be sponsorship restraints.
I also think that players, maybe under ‘sports science’ advice, chose lower profile stud setups to circumvent foot and lower leg injuries, preferring to slip rather than twist an ankle foot etc. Perhaps our history of foot issues has brought this more to the fore at the club.