The "It's not fair that we have to play Geelong in Geelong" thread.

[Mr Meow]

I agree with you on that first paragraph completely, up until thr final sentence. I think comparing cotch vs selwood sendoffs is way more complicated than just which team was better (Geelong was).

I also don't think it was fair. Richmond was a basket case and Cotchin was the captain when it turned around. We can only assume he was a big part of that. In my opinion he wasn't as good a player as Selwood, but dragging that side out of the dirt was a bigger effort, especially since he had less to work with. From my perspective anyhow.

But his whole point is that Geelong fans must remain devastated and triggered by the finals losses. With the fairytale ending, not so much. A bit different to how Cotch etc bowed out so I can understand the resentment and pot shots. That was my point.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

I guarantee that you get more upset at neutrals rating the '07-'11 Geelong side and it's equivalent players leagues above '17-'20 Richmond, than any Cats fan did sitting through those finals sandwiched between 4 flags. Look at Selwood's send off compared to Cotch and Riewoldt's.

Selwood, post dynasty, kept bang average sides contending until they could finally break through and crown another decent era. Martin with the same role in his sides transition has lead Richmond to...a hilarious EF arc where he was invisible, and then he caught fire late to lead them to...13th in 2023.

Yep, like "neutral" AA selectors picking Geelong players 31 times during their dynasty, and Richmond players 10 times during their dynasty. Yet both won 3 flags, with Richmond recording a Grand Final percentage of over 220%, way above Geelong.

Something is not right here and Grand Finals don't lie. So that leaves neutral supporters over-rating Cats dynasty team by miles and Cats supporters fuming when it is explained in such an easy to understand format.

 

[rye]

Yep, like "neutral" AA selectors picking Geelong players 31 times during their dynasty, and Richmond players 10 times during their dynasty. Yet both won 3 flags, with Richmond recording a Grand Final percentage of over 220%, way above Geelong.

Something is not right here and Grand Finals don't lie. So that leaves neutral supporters over-rating Cats dynasty team by miles and Cats supporters fuming when it is explained in such an easy to understand format.

well the grand final has no bearing on all-australian selections

 

[Meteoric Rise]

But his whole point is that Geelong fans must remain devastated and triggered by the finals losses. With the fairytale ending, not so much. A bit different to how Cotch etc bowed out so I can understand the resentment and pot shots. That was my point.

Never explain, never complain meow. The whingeing suits you but leave the deeper explanations to the experts, like me.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

well the grand final has no bearing on all-australian selections

Yes but if the AA selectors are picking 3 times as many players from the triple Premier with the weaker GF record, then they are over-rating their players. Or under-rating the players from the stronger Grand Finalist. Or both. Grand Finals do not lie.

 

[Caligo]

But his whole point is that Geelong fans must remain devastated and triggered by the finals losses. With the fairytale ending, not so much. A bit different to how Cotch etc bowed out so I can understand the resentment and pot shots. That was my point.

Fair enough. I think I missed a fair chunk of the argument. I just think the selwood/cotchin debate is so difficult because sure, we know what they did on the field, but they were probably both more important off the field (I assume) and unless you have special internal information (I don’t) then it is really hard to say beyond basic stuff.

 

[Mr Meow]

Never explain, never complain meow. The whingeing suits you but leave the deeper explanations to the experts, like me.

This is a self parody and I love it.

 

[Mr Meow]

Yep, like "neutral" AA selectors picking Geelong players 31 times during their dynasty, and Richmond players 10 times during their dynasty. Yet both won 3 flags, with Richmond recording a Grand Final percentage of over 220%, way above Geelong.

Something is not right here and Grand Finals don't lie. So that leaves neutral supporters over-rating Cats dynasty team by miles and Cats supporters fuming when it is explained in such an easy to understand format.

You protest too much. Don't go to your grave ruing that unfair conspiracy selecting Geelong '07-'11 players over Richmond '17-'20. It's just not worth it.

 

[Caligo]

Yes but if the AA selectors are picking 3 times as many players from the triple Premier with the weaker GF record, then they are over-rating their players. Or under-rating the players from the stronger Grand Finalist. Or both. Grand Finals do not lie.

AA doesn't take into account the capacity for players to rise (or fall) in big finals.

A team of champions will generate more AA than a champion team. The champion team probably wins more flags though. Richmond was a champion team. Of all four great dynasty teams of the 21st century, i think they did the best with the talent they had. Those other three truly were teams of champions.

 

[Mr Meow]

AA doesn't take into account the capacity for players to rise (or fall) in big finals.

A team of champions will generate more AA than a champion team. The champion team probably wins more flags though. Richmond was a champion team. Of all four great dynasty teams of the 21st century, i think they did the best with the talent they had. Those other three truly were teams of champions.

The irony is that MR picked 3x as many starting 18 Richmond AA players than Geelong in the merge dynasty thread, so performed the exact type of bias he accused the AA selectors of. So he still does believe on an individual level they were stronger, not just that the team was greater than the sum of its parts.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

The irony is that MR picked 3x as many starting 18 Richmond AA players than Geelong in the merge dynasty thread, so performed the exact type of bias he accused the AA selectors of. So he still does believe on an individual level they were stronger, not just that the team was greater than the sum of its parts.

Starting 18 lol.

Provide evidence....

 

[Mr Meow]

Starting 18 lol.

Provide evidence....

Got my wires crossed on that one, it was actually 3x as many Richmond defenders (for being the stingiest defence of the 3...beating Geelong out by less than a goal a game) as Geelong on field. But then one starting Richmond forward vs none for Geelong (easily the highest scoring of the sides...a handful of goals more per game than Richmond). Because...it was too easy to score? The side scored too much?

B: Grimes Lake Rance
HB: Houli Enright Hodge
C: Smith Ablett Akermanis
HF: C Rioli Franklin Martin
F: Breust A Lynch Roughead

R: Ottens Black Mitchell

I/C: Scarlett, Chapman, Lappin, Voss

This showed that you would elevate individual Richmond defenders for a collectively strong defence/defensive game plan but downgrade Geelong forward's for scoring in a collectively prolific side with an offence-based game plan. And Grimes over Scarlett was the gag of the year.

Double standards. Overcompensating for the AA committee's "crimes" is the very obvious answer.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Got my wires crossed on that one, it was actually 3x as many Richmond defenders (for being the stingiest defence of the 3...beating Geelong out by less than a goal a game) as Geelong on field. But then one starting Richmond forward vs none for Geelong (easily the highest scoring of the sides...a handful of goals more per game than Richmond). Because...it was too easy to score? The side scored too much?

B: Grimes Lake Rance
HB: Houli Enright Hodge
C: Smith Ablett Akermanis
HF: C Rioli Franklin Martin
F: Breust A Lynch Roughead

R: Ottens Black Mitchell

I/C: Scarlett, Chapman, Lappin, Voss

This showed that you would elevate individual Richmond defenders for a collectively strong defence/defensive game plan but downgrade Geelong forward's for scoring in a collectively prolific side with an offence-based game plan. And Grimes over Scarlett was the gag of the year.

Double standards. Overcompensating for the AA committee's "crimes" is the very obvious answer.

Lol complex way of admitting you were wrong.

Not that anyone would suspect it fro your posts, but for the record, including my 23rd man sub Bartel, I chose 50% more Geelong players than Richmond players in my team 6 v 4. So Geelong players 150% of the Richmond contingent. Whilst your post claimed it was me picking Richmond players 300% of the Geelong contingent.

So you were only 450% wrong.

But I love how your grovelling apology post doubles down by finding any line where there are more Richmond players than Geelong players and focussing solely on those, omitting to mention that there are more lines with more Geelong players than Richmond players.

I like the strategy though, when you feel like a skirmish, just make up what the other person said and start arguing with that like a crazy lunatic.

 

[Mr Meow]

Lol complex way of admitting you were wrong.

Not that anyone would suspect it fro your posts, but for the record, including my 23rd man sub Bartel, I chose 50% more Geelong players than Richmond players in my team 6 v 4. So Geelong players 150% of the Richmond contingent. Whilst your post claimed it was me picking Richmond players 300% of the Geelong contingent.

So you were only 450% wrong.

But I love how your grovelling apology post doubles down by finding any line where there are more Richmond players than Geelong players and focussing solely on those, omitting to mention that there are more lines with more Geelong players than Richmond players.

I like the strategy though, when you feel like a skirmish, just make up what the other person said and start arguing with that like a crazy lunatic.

More Richmond players on the field, 3x as many defenders, a forward vs none for Geelong - it is shockingly biased. You are equating the best individuals of the Richmond defence to be as strong as the defenders of the other 3 dynasty sides combined.

All because the AA selectors angered you?

 

[Freomaniac]

Hey, the most successful AFL club this century is based down here. Gotta count for something.

Doesnt Cameron Ling own a pub in Geelong?

 

[Freomaniac]

must be nice being a big Victorian club, knowing that you only play in Geelong if your team is currently s**t or geelong team is. If there's even a remote possibility fans might turn up you get to play at your home ground!

As a saints fan, you want somebody to stump up the cash or dough to turn Moorabbin oval into a 30,000 seat stadium

 

[PhatBoy]

F**k me dead still with the All Australian thrashwank and the self flagellation over the percentage of superiority in the grand finals.

As a wise man once said ‘f**k off idiot.’

 

[FootyLad0]

As others have said, nobody with a brain is complaining about having to play in Geelong. They are complaining about how certain clubs never have to.

It is the inequality that is the issue. Kardinia is good enough that they should just play every home game there (maybe not finals just due to seating).

Unfortunately it's the one's without a brain being the loudest.

This is the point Cats fans have stood on for years and years and told to shut up about when logically, why isn't it the case?

 

[Chat Pile]

AA selections are meaningless. They're doubly meaningless in a thread about Geelongs home ground and their right to play there.