Preview Rd 3 Geelong V Brisbane Sat Mar 29 2025 735 pm @ Gabba

[cats_09]

What’s going on with Jack Bowes? He’s attending centre bounces and playing off a wing, but still only had 9 touches in round 1 and 10 in round 2?

Bowes had zero CBAs in round 1, and collected majority of his disposals in the attacking half of the ground; 23% defensive half & 77% offensive half

He then played a totally different role in round 2 - the following is what I posted earlier this week in regards to his match against St Kilda

He had the 9 CBAs against St Kilda - all were in the first half

You can also see a difference in where he collected his possessions across the game:

• 22% offensive & 78% defensive for the game, BUT
• 50% split in the first quarter, then
• 100% of his possessions were in the defensive half after quarter time

He's something of our current 'Mr Fix-It' where it looks like the first choice role for him is as part of the midfield rotation, but when we lose a rotation from our defensive unit, he gets moved behind the ball

IF Stewart doesn't get up to play this week, I expect we'll see him play primarily behind the ball against Brisbane - it's the role we saw him play against Brisbane last year when Stewart went off with concussion

As fans we've got our expectations for what we want to see from him, but I'm thinking the coaches are looking at his role slightly differently and it not necessarily being all about the numbers

 

[Jumping Jack]

"We expect both to play"

That's Geelong speak for neither are really a chance to play but they'll make the trip and help fill the gatorade bottles.

 

[cats_09]

That just about confirms it's season over for both yeah?

 

[Jumping Jack]

Mullin will like those conditions. Can't see him being dropped for this one.

Irish lads generally handle the footy well in the wet. I recall O'Connor was pretty good in that last Brisbane slog.

 

[cats_09]

No Mannagh this week, and sounds like we shouldn't expect to see Martin in the seniors until the second half of the season

“Personally, and I’m speaking just for myself, a couple of weeks out I was thinking this would be the week,” Scott said.

“(We have) just decided to give him an extra bit of time in the VFL.

“So here’s one who’s, like, he thinks he’s ready. I think he’s ready, but we’re going to wait.

“So again, likely he would play next week.”

High hopes for star duo

“We expect them to play”. With that comment, Geelong coach Chris Scott has given rise to hopes that star duo Tom Stewart and Bailey Smith will feature in Saturday night’s clash with preliminary final…

www.krock.com.au

 

[goyoucatters]

Except an issue with your calf could be any one of a thousand things. Common sense says that could be (a) 'calf awareness', (b) a bit of tightness that they're taking seriously because of his long time out of the game, (c) severe muscle soreness from playing his first game at this level that they want to make sure he completely recovers from before loading again, and (d) on and on. I'll bet a medical professional could offer many more options. All of which would make perfect sense to take a week out for. None of which provide any reasonable reason for rumours like this.

The rumours about what Bailey has been up to off the field clearly emerged quite distinctly from the question of whether he has a calf issue or not. Maybe he really does. I was simply making the point that if you were making up something to satisfy the footy public about his unavailability, a calf injury would have been very low on my list of plausible explanations for a one week absence.

The great majority of calf concerns across the comp in recent weeks generally approximate to 2-3 weeks. So my point was as simple as this...either the club was none too clever in fabricating their injury excuse or Bailey really has been having issues with his calf.

I don't know which explanation is accurate. And I probably never will. So I guess we can all simply agree that we'd like to see him back out there for this game and go from there.

 

[Cataholic]

What will that prove?

It wasn't about 'proving' anything.

There's a rumour, and that may be all it is.

Then again, a return from a calf issue after just one week might be a snippet of circumstantial evidence that supports the idea he was held back.

Yes, players can return from calf awareness and the like after just a week, but the norm is usually a number of weeks.

But it's not a hill to die on for me. Just some idle speculation and discussion is all.

 

[Munich]

Leave Baz alone!

Let's pick on McKay who is out due to a breakup.

 

[Tony Barber]

It wasn't about 'proving' anything.

There's a rumour, and that may be all it is.

Then again, a return from a calf issue after just one week might be a snippet of circumstantial evidence that supports the idea he was held back.

Yes, players can return from calf awareness and the like after just a week, but the norm is usually a number of weeks.

But it's not a hill to die on for me. Just some idle speculation and discussion is all.

To be honest, I'd prefer it was a discipline thing over an actual calf issue. 23 year olds dont get calf issues too often.

 

[Romeoh1]

"We expect both to play"

That's Geelong speak for neither are really a chance to play but they'll make the trip and help fill the gatorade bottles.

If they both play we will win this game.

 

[Mattttty]

It wasn't about 'proving' anything.

There's a rumour, and that may be all it is.

Then again, a return from a calf issue after just one week might be a snippet of circumstantial evidence that supports the idea he was held back.

Yes, players can return from calf awareness and the like after just a week, but the norm is usually a number of weeks.

But it's not a hill to die on for me. Just some idle speculation and discussion is all.

Fair enough. Everyone has their own standards for what they'll take seriously.

For me: A baseless rumour from a known bad source + circumstantial evidence so incomplete that you can't actually conclude anything either way.. sounds to me like 0+0=0.

 

[Romeoh1]

It wasn't about 'proving' anything.

There's a rumour, and that may be all it is.

Then again, a return from a calf issue after just one week might be a snippet of circumstantial evidence that supports the idea he was held back.

Yes, players can return from calf awareness and the like after just a week, but the norm is usually a number of weeks.

But it's not a hill to die on for me. Just some idle speculation and discussion is all.

Everything I’ve heard suggests he is still a bit of a wild lad, but I’m confident it’s all manageable and he fronts up most weeks and plays good footy.

 

[Mattttty]

The rumours about what Bailey has been up to off the field clearly emerged quite distinctly from the question of whether he has a calf issue or not. Maybe he really does. I was simply making the point that if you were making up something to satisfy the footy public about his unavailability, a calf injury would have been very low on my list of plausible explanations for a one week absence.

The great majority of calf concerns across the comp in recent weeks generally approximate to 2-3 weeks. So my point was as simple as this...either the club was none too clever in fabricating their injury excuse or Bailey really has been having issues with his calf.

I don't know which explanation is accurate. And I probably never will. So I guess we can all simply agree that we'd like to see him back out there for this game and go from there.

That's fair! I think I misunderstood your point. I agree with you.

 

[MisterMarcus]

The rumours about what Bailey has been up to off the field clearly emerged quite distinctly from the question of whether he has a calf issue or not. Maybe he really does. I was simply making the point that if you were making up something to satisfy the footy public about his unavailability, a calf injury would have been very low on my list of plausible explanations for a one week absence.

The great majority of calf concerns across the comp in recent weeks generally approximate to 2-3 weeks. So my point was as simple as this...either the club was none too clever in fabricating their injury excuse or Bailey really has been having issues with his calf.

I don't know which explanation is accurate. And I probably never will. So I guess we can all simply agree that we'd like to see him back out there for this game and go from there.

If they wanted a cover for any alleged off-field issues, just say he had knee soreness and was still being managed through that.

The fact it's NOT that suggests that it's obviously a genuine injury/niggle

 

[STPer18]

 

[Cataholic]

To be honest, I'd prefer it was a discipline thing over an actual calf issue. 23 year olds dont get calf issues too often.

Yeah, fair point.

 

[Cataholic]

Fair enough. Everyone has their own standards for what they'll take seriously.

For me: A baseless rumour from a known bad source + circumstantial evidence so incomplete that you can't actually conclude anything either way.. sounds to me like 0+0=0.

Quite likely.

But there's a bit going on around the place, so nothing would surprise atm.

 

[cats_09]

 

[#6 Thorp #7 Selwood LOL]

I'm fairly sure the bloke who started the rumour about Baz this week also had ITK news that Baz was going to Hawthorn, so...

 

[cats_09]

Good to see an injury room regular back on the training track - even if it's just handball drills

 

[Interdimensional Bigfoot]

I'm fairly sure the bloke who started the rumour about Baz this week also had ITK news that Baz was going to Hawthorn, so...

Not too late, what's the return policy on Baz?

 

[Interdimensional Bigfoot]

Good to see an injury room regular back on the training track - even if it's just handball drills

Is there 2 Dempsey's in that photo?

 

[cats_09]

Is there 2 Dempsey's in that photo?

There's also 2 Humphries and not sure if there's also multiples of other players - looks like a time lapse photo

 

[Mr Meow]

Well, calf injuries generally aren't a 1-week injury

Was listed as calf soreness though, not a tear.

If they wanted an excuse why wouldn't they have just said general soreness? That would be a better cover.

 

[Johanpetro]

Was listed as calf soreness though, not a tear.

If they wanted an excuse why wouldn't they have just said general soreness? That would be a better cover.

Didn’t he have ice on his calf on the bench at end of the Freo game? And also posted on socials last weekend with his leg wrapped up. Very elaborate plan by the club to start with his club ban before round 1 even finished.

Honestly some people need to stop believing everything they read on an internet forum. You’re like those old folks who get tricked by AI on Facebook

Edit: also had his calf wrapped up at training today. What a trickster