Bumped Potential best 25 in 2015

Remove this Banner Ad

Rainfall said:
Pensioners

smh...
Click to expand...

Long way from that mate but thanks for the respect of the elders.

get back to me when you've actually achieved something.

till then, please continue to contribute to this place but do it in a positive manner.

Go Catters
 

Log in to remove this ad.

dazbroncos said:
Long way from that mate but thanks for the respect of the elders.

get back to me when you've actually achieved something.

till then, please continue to contribute to this place but do it in a positive manner.

Go Catters
Click to expand...
I'm actually Nakia Cockatoo sitting behind a computer screen.
 
Biggy_Boy said:
In 6 years time, our side will be very young and we will be re-building.

Selwood, Taylor, Hawkins, Varcoe and Blake will likely still be playing and I would think it's fair to assume that the likes of Ablett, Bartel or Kelly could still be lingering around in their final years.

However, with the GC and GWS teams starting up soon, it isn't hard to believe that some of the aforementioned might leave us in time and if there comes a time when we begin to struggle as the likes of Richmond are now, we may begin clearing our older players out to rebuild fresh, hopefully in order to draft our next premiership side as we did with this team.

Better to focus on the here and now though. At the moment, our team is still at a prime age to win a premiership in 2010 and hopefully those younger players can continue to improve.
Click to expand...
I can't help but take note of this very well reasoned and quality reply..


What the hell has happened to you in the last few years biggy! :p

It must also be said that we seem to be going better than you predicted here.... yet you are a long way from happy with things at present. I'm not disputing anything you have said in this post.... just maybe it's worth remembering when you try blame Chris Scott for everything
 
Last edited:
Bobby_ said:
he might not be handling the subtle yet sudden decline of our reign since 2011, and having our worst enemy bath in the sunshine just to add salt to the wounds.

Have to admit, I really believed I would take the decline a lot better than what I am in recent times. I knew it was coming to an end and would do so at some time but man! It's a bloody slow process watching the team evaporate in the manor in which they have.
Fortunately though, I say fortunate as it does give me belief, injuries have been a major factor to that decline so if we get that department corrected and we see Simpson, Cowan, Menzel, Vardy, McCarthy, Kersten, Motlop, Smedts play a good season of footy next year, hopefully we can play some decent footy in September for the first time in years which gives us all some decent hope again.
Click to expand...
At least we are being eased into it... I'd prefer to still enjoy mostly watching us as compared to the Saints who just fell off the side of the cliff
 
Bobby_ said:
very true but on the flip side, they can accept their fate and not have to worry about the what if's. But your right, to still be in with a shot all the while re-building and sharing this transition together, it is a better scenario than what St Kilda supporters went through.

One suspects the Fremantle Dockers are going to be in for a similar decline and just like St Kilda fans, they too have had a rotten history without much success to live with.
Click to expand...

Wonder what the common denominator is there?
 
Willo_ said:
I can't help but take note of this very well reasoned and quality reply..


What the hell has happened to you in the last few years biggy! :p

It must also be said that we seem to be going better than you predicted here.... yet you are a long way from happy with things at present. I'm not disputing anything you have said in this post.... just maybe it's worth remembering when you try blame Chris Scott for everything
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't know how reasonable it was to predict that we'd be as bad as Richmond were. I don't think we'll slump as badly as they did, and sincerely hope we don't. Like a lot of people in the footy world, I did think we'd have fallen down the ladder by now, and I also thought we'd have more young kids and fewer players in the twilight of their careers by now. Like with any prediction thread like this, though, there was a plethora of variables that I didn't consider. For instance, beyond Taylor, I didn't know who our tall backs would be at this point. Rather than the likes of Gillies and Drum, who amounted to nothing, we had veterans in Lonergan (who I didn't think would be on the list much longer after Hawkins, and later Pods, moved into the side) and then Rivers (a result of free agency that no one could have predicted) fill the holes left by Harley and Scarlett. Lonergan exceeding expectations and becoming the great lock-down defender he is, thus cementing a spot in the side for a prolonged period of time, and the introduction of Rivers and HMac (though the latter has struggled) contributed to the fact that we wound up with more vets than I expected, and may have also extended our stay at the top.

We knew the expansion sides were coming and that they would consume most of the top talent in two drafts, but I didn't really think about the effect this would have on the competition. I think this is partly why the competition has stagnated in recent years, with the same few top teams remaining at the top and many of the middle or lower tier sides struggling to really crack it big; however, we may have seen glimpses of some of them starting to come good this year. Talent that would have gone to the poor or mediocre sides to hasten their development in the early 2010s instead went to the GWs and GC, which has impeded their growth. Meanwhile, free agency and an emerging culture of more free-flowing player movement has allowed sides like Hawthorn to benefit from being able to fill holes, bolster their side, and remain strong for longer.

As did many, I thought the Geelong era had been brought to a disappointing culmination when the Pies dismantled the side in the 2010 prelim. The side looked to be all the things the media had said it was: old, slow, and bereft of vigor, unable to stand up to the challenge of a younger, fitter outfit that had been drilled to expose and exploit all of our weaknesses. As a final kick in the guts, we lost the best player we, as well as the game, had and our coach.

Going back to the Chris Scott thing, however: whilst I didn't anticipate in 2009 that the Cats would still be entrenched in the top 4 in 2013/2014, the fact is that we were. There is a conflation of reasons as to why we have been able to remain competitive long after many expected the drop-off to occur - the aforementioned stagnation of the competition, the introduction of talent from other clubs (Rivers, Caddy), the improvement of older players that we maybe thought didn't have it in them (Lonergan, Stokes), the coming along of certain young players, and fewer retirements and more consistent quality output from those older players than expected. One of my gripes with Scott is that I don't think he made the best moves when that slim window of opportunity was present in 2013 and 2014. We weren't expected to be there at that time, and given the age profile of our list, it wasn't really "our time", but there was a chance for us there all the same, and I think we failed to capitalize on it as well as we should have. The mistakes made in the 2013 finals campaign have been discussed numerous times, so I won't detail them again, but I believe selection and tactical decisions made by the coaching staff cost us dearly in both the qualifying and preliminary finals, both of which were decided by slender margins.

After tragically losing the prelim final by 5 points, the reaction of the club, from a list management perspective, was to trade out Paul Chapman, who had dragged the team to their only finals victory of the last 6 the club has played, and Podsiadly. The latter would purportedly be replaced by injury-ravaged talent, Nathan Vardy, which sounded like a good idea in theory, but would lead to a fairly precarious predicament if Hawkins couldn't recover from his back-related woes and Vardy sustained yet another injury. Whilst the former fortunately didn't happen and Hawkins' back issues were resolved, allowing him to return to his best, the latter predictably occurred. Podsiadly wasn't great in 2013, but he was better than nothing, which is what Hawkins had as a partner for most of 2014.

I'm not against the idea of moving older players on to make way for the new, especially for a club in transition. I believe that will need to happen in a number of positions in 2015. However, I had to question moving on one of our, if not the, best finals clutch player, and someone who was very important to the structure of the side, when we had come within 5 points of a grand final. Given our ruck troubles, the West trade also needs to be questioned. If this was a concession by Scott that the team really wasn't good enough to win a premiership within the next few years, then I could have accepted that, but the decisions made throughout the 2014 didn't reflect the mindset that we were trying to speed up the development/transition process by bring younger players into the side. Instead, the coaching staff essentially stuck to their guns for the entirety of the season, and what eventuated was a side weaker than the 2013 iteration making the top 4 and going out in straight sets. Whilst I know some would say that it was an achievement to make top 4 in the first place, and that it is something that should be lauded, I kind of wonder: would we have been better off introducing more young talent throughout the year, possibly losing a few more games but giving more exposure to those players, and then finishing in the bottom half of the 8? I never want the club to not be competitive or submit to the cyclical nature of the AFL as a St. Kilda consistently does, which dictates that a good side must bottom out after a period situated atop the ladder, but perhaps giving more exposure to younger players, experimenting with some different styles of play that a side like Fremantle won't telegraph every time, and falling a few spots as a result wouldn't have been such a bad idea, given that we finished in the bottom half of the eight at the conclusion of the finals anyway.
 
Biggy_Boy said:
Yeah, I don't know how reasonable it was to predict that we'd be as bad as Richmond were. I don't think we'll slump as badly as they did, and sincerely hope we don't. Like a lot of people in the footy world, I did think we'd have fallen down the ladder by now, and I also thought we'd have more young kids and fewer players in the twilight of their careers by now. Like with any prediction thread like this, though, there was a plethora of variables that I didn't consider. For instance, beyond Taylor, I didn't know who our tall backs would be at this point. Rather than the likes of Gillies and Drum, who amounted to nothing, we had veterans in Lonergan (who I didn't think would be on the list much longer after Hawkins, and later Pods, moved into the side) and then Rivers (a result of free agency that no one could have predicted) fill the holes left by Harley and Scarlett. Lonergan exceeding expectations and becoming the great lock-down defender he is, thus cementing a spot in the side for a prolonged period of time, and the introduction of Rivers and HMac (though the latter has struggled) contributed to the fact that we wound up with more vets than I expected, and may have also extended our stay at the top.

We knew the expansion sides were coming and that they would consume most of the top talent in two drafts, but I didn't really think about the effect this would have on the competition. I think this is partly why the competition has stagnated in recent years, with the same few top teams remaining at the top and many of the middle or lower tier sides struggling to really crack it big; however, we may have seen glimpses of some of them starting to come good this year. Talent that would have gone to the poor or mediocre sides to hasten their development in the early 2010s instead went to the GWs and GC, which has impeded their growth. Meanwhile, free agency and an emerging culture of more free-flowing player movement has allowed sides like Hawthorn to benefit from being able to fill holes, bolster their side, and remain strong for longer.

As did many, I thought the Geelong era had been brought to a disappointing culmination when the Pies dismantled the side in the 2010 prelim. The side looked to be all the things the media had said it was: old, slow, and bereft of vigor, unable to stand up to the challenge of a younger, fitter outfit that had been drilled to expose and exploit all of our weaknesses. As a final kick in the guts, we lost the best player we, as well as the game, had and our coach.

Going back to the Chris Scott thing, however: whilst I didn't anticipate in 2009 that the Cats would still be entrenched in the top 4 in 2013/2014, the fact is that we were. There is a conflation of reasons as to why we have been able to remain competitive long after many expected the drop-off to occur - the aforementioned stagnation of the competition, the introduction of talent from other clubs (Rivers, Caddy), the improvement of older players that we maybe thought didn't have it in them (Lonergan, Stokes), the coming along of certain young players, and fewer retirements and more consistent quality output from those older players than expected. One of my gripes with Scott is that I don't think he made the best moves when that slim window of opportunity was present in 2013 and 2014. We weren't expected to be there at that time, and given the age profile of our list, it wasn't really "our time", but there was a chance for us there all the same, and I think we failed to capitalize on it as well as we should have. The mistakes made in the 2013 finals campaign have been discussed numerous times, so I won't detail them again, but I believe selection and tactical decisions made by the coaching staff cost us dearly in both the qualifying and preliminary finals, both of which were decided by slender margins.

After tragically losing the prelim final by 5 points, the reaction of the club, from a list management perspective, was to trade out Paul Chapman, who had dragged the team to their only finals victory of the last 6 the club has played, and Podsiadly. The latter would purportedly be replaced by injury-ravaged talent, Nathan Vardy, which sounded like a good idea in theory, but would lead to a fairly precarious predicament if Hawkins couldn't recover from his back-related woes and Vardy sustained yet another injury. Whilst the former fortunately didn't happen and Hawkins' back issues were resolved, allowing him to return to his best, the latter predictably occurred. Podsiadly wasn't great in 2013, but he was better than nothing, which is what Hawkins had as a partner for most of 2014.

I'm not against the idea of moving older players on to make way for the new, especially for a club in transition. I believe that will need to happen in a number of positions in 2015. However, I had to question moving on one of our, if not the, best finals clutch player, and someone who was very important to the structure of the side, when we had come within 5 points of a grand final. Given our ruck troubles, the West trade also needs to be questioned. If this was a concession by Scott that the team really wasn't good enough to win a premiership within the next few years, then I could have accepted that, but the decisions made throughout the 2014 didn't reflect the mindset that we were trying to speed up the development/transition process by bring younger players into the side. Instead, the coaching staff essentially stuck to their guns for the entirety of the season, and what eventuated was a side weaker than the 2013 iteration making the top 4 and going out in straight sets. Whilst I know some would say that it was an achievement to make top 4 in the first place, and that it is something that should be lauded, I kind of wonder: would we have been better off introducing more young talent throughout the year, possibly losing a few more games but giving more exposure to those players, and then finishing in the bottom half of the 8? I never want the club to not be competitive or submit to the cyclical nature of the AFL as a St. Kilda consistently does, which dictates that a good side must bottom out after a period situated atop the ladder, but perhaps giving more exposure to younger players, experimenting with some different styles of play that a side like Fremantle won't telegraph every time, and falling a few spots as a result wouldn't have been such a bad idea, given that we finished in the bottom half of the eight at the conclusion of the finals anyway.
Click to expand...
Fantastic post

My quote of yours was very much being a smartarse but I don't think i'm alone in suggesting that posting like this only adds to the board compared to 1 line swipes every 2nd post about the same 2 things over and over
 
Biggy_Boy said:
Yeah, I don't know how reasonable it was to predict that we'd be as bad as Richmond were. I don't think we'll slump as badly as they did, and sincerely hope we don't. Like a lot of people in the footy world, I did think we'd have fallen down the ladder by now, and I also thought we'd have more young kids and fewer players in the twilight of their careers by now. Like with any prediction thread like this, though, there was a plethora of variables that I didn't consider. For instance, beyond Taylor, I didn't know who our tall backs would be at this point. Rather than the likes of Gillies and Drum, who amounted to nothing, we had veterans in Lonergan (who I didn't think would be on the list much longer after Hawkins, and later Pods, moved into the side) and then Rivers (a result of free agency that no one could have predicted) fill the holes left by Harley and Scarlett. Lonergan exceeding expectations and becoming the great lock-down defender he is, thus cementing a spot in the side for a prolonged period of time, and the introduction of Rivers and HMac (though the latter has struggled) contributed to the fact that we wound up with more vets than I expected, and may have also extended our stay at the top.

We knew the expansion sides were coming and that they would consume most of the top talent in two drafts, but I didn't really think about the effect this would have on the competition. I think this is partly why the competition has stagnated in recent years, with the same few top teams remaining at the top and many of the middle or lower tier sides struggling to really crack it big; however, we may have seen glimpses of some of them starting to come good this year. Talent that would have gone to the poor or mediocre sides to hasten their development in the early 2010s instead went to the GWs and GC, which has impeded their growth. Meanwhile, free agency and an emerging culture of more free-flowing player movement has allowed sides like Hawthorn to benefit from being able to fill holes, bolster their side, and remain strong for longer.

As did many, I thought the Geelong era had been brought to a disappointing culmination when the Pies dismantled the side in the 2010 prelim. The side looked to be all the things the media had said it was: old, slow, and bereft of vigor, unable to stand up to the challenge of a younger, fitter outfit that had been drilled to expose and exploit all of our weaknesses. As a final kick in the guts, we lost the best player we, as well as the game, had and our coach.

Going back to the Chris Scott thing, however: whilst I didn't anticipate in 2009 that the Cats would still be entrenched in the top 4 in 2013/2014, the fact is that we were. There is a conflation of reasons as to why we have been able to remain competitive long after many expected the drop-off to occur - the aforementioned stagnation of the competition, the introduction of talent from other clubs (Rivers, Caddy), the improvement of older players that we maybe thought didn't have it in them (Lonergan, Stokes), the coming along of certain young players, and fewer retirements and more consistent quality output from those older players than expected. One of my gripes with Scott is that I don't think he made the best moves when that slim window of opportunity was present in 2013 and 2014. We weren't expected to be there at that time, and given the age profile of our list, it wasn't really "our time", but there was a chance for us there all the same, and I think we failed to capitalize on it as well as we should have. The mistakes made in the 2013 finals campaign have been discussed numerous times, so I won't detail them again, but I believe selection and tactical decisions made by the coaching staff cost us dearly in both the qualifying and preliminary finals, both of which were decided by slender margins.

After tragically losing the prelim final by 5 points, the reaction of the club, from a list management perspective, was to trade out Paul Chapman, who had dragged the team to their only finals victory of the last 6 the club has played, and Podsiadly. The latter would purportedly be replaced by injury-ravaged talent, Nathan Vardy, which sounded like a good idea in theory, but would lead to a fairly precarious predicament if Hawkins couldn't recover from his back-related woes and Vardy sustained yet another injury. Whilst the former fortunately didn't happen and Hawkins' back issues were resolved, allowing him to return to his best, the latter predictably occurred. Podsiadly wasn't great in 2013, but he was better than nothing, which is what Hawkins had as a partner for most of 2014.

I'm not against the idea of moving older players on to make way for the new, especially for a club in transition. I believe that will need to happen in a number of positions in 2015. However, I had to question moving on one of our, if not the, best finals clutch player, and someone who was very important to the structure of the side, when we had come within 5 points of a grand final. Given our ruck troubles, the West trade also needs to be questioned. If this was a concession by Scott that the team really wasn't good enough to win a premiership within the next few years, then I could have accepted that, but the decisions made throughout the 2014 didn't reflect the mindset that we were trying to speed up the development/transition process by bring younger players into the side. Instead, the coaching staff essentially stuck to their guns for the entirety of the season, and what eventuated was a side weaker than the 2013 iteration making the top 4 and going out in straight sets. Whilst I know some would say that it was an achievement to make top 4 in the first place, and that it is something that should be lauded, I kind of wonder: would we have been better off introducing more young talent throughout the year, possibly losing a few more games but giving more exposure to those players, and then finishing in the bottom half of the 8? I never want the club to not be competitive or submit to the cyclical nature of the AFL as a St. Kilda consistently does, which dictates that a good side must bottom out after a period situated atop the ladder, but perhaps giving more exposure to younger players, experimenting with some different styles of play that a side like Fremantle won't telegraph every time, and falling a few spots as a result wouldn't have been such a bad idea, given that we finished in the bottom half of the eight at the conclusion of the finals anyway.
Click to expand...
My attention span doesn't allow me to read this manuscript.:(
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Biggy_Boy , not saying I agree with all in it but excellent post all the same. Some prefer 20/20 the wham bam of a quick fix , I'm one who prefers the depth and subtlety of Test Cricket ... and so for mine a good long post like your is worth the effort

The thread proves that predicting too far ahead is almost impossible. Go back 12 months we all would have had Christensen in a side for 2018 , and no one would have had Cockatoo or a Clark
 
Biggy_Boy said:
Yeah, I don't know how reasonable it was to predict that we'd be as bad as Richmond were. I don't think we'll slump as badly as they did, and sincerely hope we don't. Like a lot of people in the footy world, I did think we'd have fallen down the ladder by now, and I also thought we'd have more young kids and fewer players in the twilight of their careers by now. Like with any prediction thread like this, though, there was a plethora of variables that I didn't consider. For instance, beyond Taylor, I didn't know who our tall backs would be at this point. Rather than the likes of Gillies and Drum, who amounted to nothing, we had veterans in Lonergan (who I didn't think would be on the list much longer after Hawkins, and later Pods, moved into the side) and then Rivers (a result of free agency that no one could have predicted) fill the holes left by Harley and Scarlett. Lonergan exceeding expectations and becoming the great lock-down defender he is, thus cementing a spot in the side for a prolonged period of time, and the introduction of Rivers and HMac (though the latter has struggled) contributed to the fact that we wound up with more vets than I expected, and may have also extended our stay at the top.

We knew the expansion sides were coming and that they would consume most of the top talent in two drafts, but I didn't really think about the effect this would have on the competition. I think this is partly why the competition has stagnated in recent years, with the same few top teams remaining at the top and many of the middle or lower tier sides struggling to really crack it big; however, we may have seen glimpses of some of them starting to come good this year. Talent that would have gone to the poor or mediocre sides to hasten their development in the early 2010s instead went to the GWs and GC, which has impeded their growth. Meanwhile, free agency and an emerging culture of more free-flowing player movement has allowed sides like Hawthorn to benefit from being able to fill holes, bolster their side, and remain strong for longer.

As did many, I thought the Geelong era had been brought to a disappointing culmination when the Pies dismantled the side in the 2010 prelim. The side looked to be all the things the media had said it was: old, slow, and bereft of vigor, unable to stand up to the challenge of a younger, fitter outfit that had been drilled to expose and exploit all of our weaknesses. As a final kick in the guts, we lost the best player we, as well as the game, had and our coach.

Going back to the Chris Scott thing, however: whilst I didn't anticipate in 2009 that the Cats would still be entrenched in the top 4 in 2013/2014, the fact is that we were. There is a conflation of reasons as to why we have been able to remain competitive long after many expected the drop-off to occur - the aforementioned stagnation of the competition, the introduction of talent from other clubs (Rivers, Caddy), the improvement of older players that we maybe thought didn't have it in them (Lonergan, Stokes), the coming along of certain young players, and fewer retirements and more consistent quality output from those older players than expected. One of my gripes with Scott is that I don't think he made the best moves when that slim window of opportunity was present in 2013 and 2014. We weren't expected to be there at that time, and given the age profile of our list, it wasn't really "our time", but there was a chance for us there all the same, and I think we failed to capitalize on it as well as we should have. The mistakes made in the 2013 finals campaign have been discussed numerous times, so I won't detail them again, but I believe selection and tactical decisions made by the coaching staff cost us dearly in both the qualifying and preliminary finals, both of which were decided by slender margins.

After tragically losing the prelim final by 5 points, the reaction of the club, from a list management perspective, was to trade out Paul Chapman, who had dragged the team to their only finals victory of the last 6 the club has played, and Podsiadly. The latter would purportedly be replaced by injury-ravaged talent, Nathan Vardy, which sounded like a good idea in theory, but would lead to a fairly precarious predicament if Hawkins couldn't recover from his back-related woes and Vardy sustained yet another injury. Whilst the former fortunately didn't happen and Hawkins' back issues were resolved, allowing him to return to his best, the latter predictably occurred. Podsiadly wasn't great in 2013, but he was better than nothing, which is what Hawkins had as a partner for most of 2014.

I'm not against the idea of moving older players on to make way for the new, especially for a club in transition. I believe that will need to happen in a number of positions in 2015. However, I had to question moving on one of our, if not the, best finals clutch player, and someone who was very important to the structure of the side, when we had come within 5 points of a grand final. Given our ruck troubles, the West trade also needs to be questioned. If this was a concession by Scott that the team really wasn't good enough to win a premiership within the next few years, then I could have accepted that, but the decisions made throughout the 2014 didn't reflect the mindset that we were trying to speed up the development/transition process by bring younger players into the side. Instead, the coaching staff essentially stuck to their guns for the entirety of the season, and what eventuated was a side weaker than the 2013 iteration making the top 4 and going out in straight sets. Whilst I know some would say that it was an achievement to make top 4 in the first place, and that it is something that should be lauded, I kind of wonder: would we have been better off introducing more young talent throughout the year, possibly losing a few more games but giving more exposure to those players, and then finishing in the bottom half of the 8? I never want the club to not be competitive or submit to the cyclical nature of the AFL as a St. Kilda consistently does, which dictates that a good side must bottom out after a period situated atop the ladder, but perhaps giving more exposure to younger players, experimenting with some different styles of play that a side like Fremantle won't telegraph every time, and falling a few spots as a result wouldn't have been such a bad idea, given that we finished in the bottom half of the eight at the conclusion of the finals anyway.
Click to expand...
Great post, BB. I think you've summarised about 30 threads in a single post! Well done!
 
Biggy_Boy said:
Yeah, I don't know how reasonable it was to predict that we'd be as bad as Richmond were. I don't think we'll slump as badly as they did, and sincerely hope we don't. Like a lot of people in the footy world, I did think we'd have fallen down the ladder by now, and I also thought we'd have more young kids and fewer players in the twilight of their careers by now. Like with any prediction thread like this, though, there was a plethora of variables that I didn't consider. For instance, beyond Taylor, I didn't know who our tall backs would be at this point. Rather than the likes of Gillies and Drum, who amounted to nothing, we had veterans in Lonergan (who I didn't think would be on the list much longer after Hawkins, and later Pods, moved into the side) and then Rivers (a result of free agency that no one could have predicted) fill the holes left by Harley and Scarlett. Lonergan exceeding expectations and becoming the great lock-down defender he is, thus cementing a spot in the side for a prolonged period of time, and the introduction of Rivers and HMac (though the latter has struggled) contributed to the fact that we wound up with more vets than I expected, and may have also extended our stay at the top.

We knew the expansion sides were coming and that they would consume most of the top talent in two drafts, but I didn't really think about the effect this would have on the competition. I think this is partly why the competition has stagnated in recent years, with the same few top teams remaining at the top and many of the middle or lower tier sides struggling to really crack it big; however, we may have seen glimpses of some of them starting to come good this year. Talent that would have gone to the poor or mediocre sides to hasten their development in the early 2010s instead went to the GWs and GC, which has impeded their growth. Meanwhile, free agency and an emerging culture of more free-flowing player movement has allowed sides like Hawthorn to benefit from being able to fill holes, bolster their side, and remain strong for longer.

As did many, I thought the Geelong era had been brought to a disappointing culmination when the Pies dismantled the side in the 2010 prelim. The side looked to be all the things the media had said it was: old, slow, and bereft of vigor, unable to stand up to the challenge of a younger, fitter outfit that had been drilled to expose and exploit all of our weaknesses. As a final kick in the guts, we lost the best player we, as well as the game, had and our coach.

Going back to the Chris Scott thing, however: whilst I didn't anticipate in 2009 that the Cats would still be entrenched in the top 4 in 2013/2014, the fact is that we were. There is a conflation of reasons as to why we have been able to remain competitive long after many expected the drop-off to occur - the aforementioned stagnation of the competition, the introduction of talent from other clubs (Rivers, Caddy), the improvement of older players that we maybe thought didn't have it in them (Lonergan, Stokes), the coming along of certain young players, and fewer retirements and more consistent quality output from those older players than expected. One of my gripes with Scott is that I don't think he made the best moves when that slim window of opportunity was present in 2013 and 2014. We weren't expected to be there at that time, and given the age profile of our list, it wasn't really "our time", but there was a chance for us there all the same, and I think we failed to capitalize on it as well as we should have. The mistakes made in the 2013 finals campaign have been discussed numerous times, so I won't detail them again, but I believe selection and tactical decisions made by the coaching staff cost us dearly in both the qualifying and preliminary finals, both of which were decided by slender margins.

After tragically losing the prelim final by 5 points, the reaction of the club, from a list management perspective, was to trade out Paul Chapman, who had dragged the team to their only finals victory of the last 6 the club has played, and Podsiadly. The latter would purportedly be replaced by injury-ravaged talent, Nathan Vardy, which sounded like a good idea in theory, but would lead to a fairly precarious predicament if Hawkins couldn't recover from his back-related woes and Vardy sustained yet another injury. Whilst the former fortunately didn't happen and Hawkins' back issues were resolved, allowing him to return to his best, the latter predictably occurred. Podsiadly wasn't great in 2013, but he was better than nothing, which is what Hawkins had as a partner for most of 2014.

I'm not against the idea of moving older players on to make way for the new, especially for a club in transition. I believe that will need to happen in a number of positions in 2015. However, I had to question moving on one of our, if not the, best finals clutch player, and someone who was very important to the structure of the side, when we had come within 5 points of a grand final. Given our ruck troubles, the West trade also needs to be questioned. If this was a concession by Scott that the team really wasn't good enough to win a premiership within the next few years, then I could have accepted that, but the decisions made throughout the 2014 didn't reflect the mindset that we were trying to speed up the development/transition process by bring younger players into the side. Instead, the coaching staff essentially stuck to their guns for the entirety of the season, and what eventuated was a side weaker than the 2013 iteration making the top 4 and going out in straight sets. Whilst I know some would say that it was an achievement to make top 4 in the first place, and that it is something that should be lauded, I kind of wonder: would we have been better off introducing more young talent throughout the year, possibly losing a few more games but giving more exposure to those players, and then finishing in the bottom half of the 8? I never want the club to not be competitive or submit to the cyclical nature of the AFL as a St. Kilda consistently does, which dictates that a good side must bottom out after a period situated atop the ladder, but perhaps giving more exposure to younger players, experimenting with some different styles of play that a side like Fremantle won't telegraph every time, and falling a few spots as a result wouldn't have been such a bad idea, given that we finished in the bottom half of the eight at the conclusion of the finals anyway.
Click to expand...

Not that I agree with all of it, but what a great post. :thumbsu::thumbsu::thumbsu:

Finally some reasoning and explanation behind the thoughts!

A great read.

More please!

Go Catters
 
The rabbi said:
Not bad. Less than half of the side is still on the Cats list and one or two, maybe three of them, may not play AFL football again due to constant injury. The post was made some years ago but it is an example of just how difficult it is to predict who will be on the list some years into the future. It is probably also an example of how we often overrate players because they wear the jumper of the club that we happen to support.
Click to expand...
haha, pretty funny looking back on that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
AFL Round Five potential milestones:
Replies
6
Views
437
CatsDoItBetter
CatsDoItBetter
gogeelongcats
rank our top 10 players under 25 on potential value
Replies
21
Views
690
Pure_Ownage
Pure_Ownage
Phipppppa
Opinion Best and worst memory/game in your GFC supporting history
2 3 4
Replies
97
Views
4K
newcs
newcs
T
Strategy Geelong 2024 best 22/23
2 3
Replies
65
Views
2K
CatToTheFuture
CatToTheFuture
dazbroncos
Autopsy Cats lose to Dogs by 25 points.
10 11 12 13 14
Replies
328
Views
11K
Pollywaffle
Pollywaffle
winty
Toast Potential milestones - 2023 edition.
Replies
18
Views
725
Vdubs
Vdubs
winty
Toast Mark Blicavs - 250 games
2 3
Replies
56
Views
2K
dazbroncos
dazbroncos

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top