2nds VFL Grand Final - Geelong v Box Hill, Etihad Stadium, 2:10PM Sunday 22 September

[Zouz Kitty]

While the stats indicate as such, I think this is a crock of shit.

We should have won on Friday night, plain and simple.

I tend to agree MD. We used to be the team that won because our fitness conditioning meant we could run four quarters well and power home strongly, because the opposition was exhausted by Q4.

Based on the fact that it takes a player three years of playing at AFL level, to reach peak AFL fitness, we should start to see the Kittens achieving greater stamina next season.

I'm interested to know why you think we lost on Friday and Sunday, MD, forgive me if you've already answered, I CBF reading the whole thread, but if you'd give me a post number, I'd appreciate it.

 

[thegerman]

Hilarious that the cats wrapup of the game on their app has Smedts in the best players. When the game was on the line in the first half, he couldn't buy a possession.

 

[Partridge]

Nope. But why do the older guys have to be "as good as ever" (in other words, as good as they were at their peak) to still be an asset to the team? Like I said, I don't even necessarily disagree with you that Corey should probably retire, I just disagree with a lot of your general premises about older players.

Corey doesn't fall over or fumble every time he gets the ball. That's just strategically ignoring all the good things he does and focusing only on the negative.

People do want change. However, there is more than one type of change that can make a difference. Whenever a team goes out in finals the suggested change is almost invariably the same thing you are advocating right now: sweeping personnel changes. So long as Chris Scott continues to gradually phase out vets and gradually face in new faces, I am of the opinion that changes to our game plan and structures are our most important priorities over the summer.

It's not sweeping; but they are two (to me) non-negotiables. Corey has to retire and Horlin-Smith get given a prolonged opportunity in the seniors (i.e. not one game as the sub then dropped - like this year in Round 1), and Josh Hunt has to retire too. Varcoe has to actually earn his place like everyone else. Pods and Kelly and Lonergan have to be told they might be spending time in the VFL. Because if you don't, you won't get any games into Kersten, or Smedts, or Brown, and then in another year we'll have a vacuum with no players between 24-27.

 

[romeoh]

So going by that rationale, how do you explain 2008?

There will never be a satisfactory explanation for 2008. We were the best team all year. They hit the finals in their best form. We hit our best form about 6 weeks before the finals and had gone a bit past it by the GF. We played a number of injured or underdone players. We made selection mistakes. The coaching panel was too slow to realise what was happening. Harley getting knocked out didn't help. The inaccurate kicking was a disaster. We got ahead of ourselves and underestimated the opposition. The rushed behinds and the shepherding off the ball ( two rules that were changed after that game) helped them stop us. There are a number of reasons, all of which conspired to defeat us. And we beat ourselves, mentally. I can remember sitting at the G and the difference wasn't even that much-we could have made it up- but there was no sense that we would come back. But there is no excuse -they were the better team on the day and deserved the win. I will always view that as one that got away as I have no doubt. despite all the reasons, that we should have won that GF easily. But we coughed it up. The only good thing is that it spurred us onto win the next one, and then by 2011 I was at peace with it. (as long as I don't think about it!). But if I had a choice of winning 2008 or 2009-I would pick 2008. Not because they were Hawthorn or any rubbish like that.Who the oppostion is was not relevant to me-just that in 2008 we were the best and should have beaten anyone easily that day. And in 2009, the opposition were as good as us, if not better, so a loss there, whilst as unpalatable as any loss is, would have been a little easier to cop.

 

[Zouz Kitty]

And right on cue I get a text from my brother - another dawk front runner whom I haven't heard a peep out of in 5 years football wise rubbing my face in it. Geelong I am very angry at you right now...

For your brother and all the Dawks!

 

[Baudolino]

It's not sweeping; but they are two (to me) non-negotiables. Corey has to retire and Horlin-Smith get given a prolonged opportunity in the seniors (i.e. not one game as the sub then dropped - like this year in Round 1), and Josh Hunt has to retire too. Varcoe has to actually earn his place like everyone else. Pods and Kelly and Lonergan have to be told they might be spending time in the VFL. Because if you don't, you won't get any games into Kersten, or Smedts, or Brown, and then in another year we'll have a vacuum with no players between 24-27.

If Corey and Hunt retire and the match committee continue their policy of resting one or - if it's an easy game - two senior players every week, that will give Smedts, Kersten, and co more than enough chances. Our youth development over the last two years has been least successful on the occasions when the kids have been played en masse (I know you're not suggesting we play all of them at once, but I'm extrapolating from what you have said about Lonergan and Kelly that you would prefer more U-23s in the team than the seven to nine we have customarily played this season). Last year's game against Collingwood springs to mind; in addition to Christensen, Duncan and co, we had Walker, Sheringham, Smedts, Guthrie, THunt and Motlop all our there at once, and with a combined experience of 81 games, they all looked out of their depth (from memory, that was one of Guthrie's worst games for the club). We can't expose too many at once; the balance we have at the moment is great, it's just picking and choosing who among the kids deserves to play that's the problem.

 

[Badtemperedbadger]

There is no way you can use lack of pace as a reason to keep Horlin-Smith out of the team. It hasn't stopped Corey, Kelly and Bartel getting 10+ years. None of them are any quicker. Absolutely you can't have a team full of tortoises; but if Corey is out (and he should be), Horlin-Smith comes in and we've lost nothing. But gained a player 11 years younger.

Yes I can and do.
GHS is way slower than any you mention, I am not trying to knock him.
Love the way he goes about it but he is super slow.

Corey re 2007 prelim smother, chase down this year of Gazza etc. GHS way slower buddy no hiding it.
The old brigade certainly aren't getting quicker but neither is George?

When they started George and Guts were mentioned in the one breath.
Guts is now a regular and George not so, because his lack of speed is a genuine concern full stop whether you want to admit it or not.

His only hope is to come in as a tagged, and hopefully that will eventuate.

 

[catswhiskers]

Just a few observations from watching the VFL GF game live.

It's hard to judge the defence too harshly. The ball came in fast and the delivery was very good. Hamling even under these adverse conditions looked the best. He was quite vocal too - which suggests he has the brain as well as the physicals (speed and very good hands).

When the forwards got decent delivery they were OK. Walker in first half very good as a power forward. When the ball was bombed in or just kicked to the Hawks they were ineffective. Walker was forced to go too far from goal. Kirsten disappointed. Could not get near it at any stage.

The midfield got flogged all day. Too many fumbles, absolutely no overlap, poor disposal, failure to break tackles etc etc.
That's where the game was lost and it is a worry. Schroder, Stringer, GHS, all ineffective . West OK, But Howe was undersized and his time on the ball was costly and magnified the deficiencies of the mids.

OH well. It is just one game but comments from Scott and Cook before the game suggest changes are coming.

After this game they may be steeled to go even further.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

If Corey and Hunt retire and the match committee continue their policy of resting one or - if it's an easy game - two senior players every week, that will give Smedts, Kersten, and co more than enough chances. Our youth development over the last two years has been least successful on the occasions when the kids have been played en masse.

The thing is though, I reckon that policy has stagnated somewhat over the past two years, despite the amount of young players who have been given some exposure (in a few cases, arguably not enough) to AFL football. In 2011 (even with two byes), we didn't have a single player play every game and only four missed less than two (so three weeks all up), two of whom were under 25. Everyone else had four weeks or more off (byes + 'injuries') during the season.

In 2012, Mackie played every game, another six played 22 out of 23 and a further five played 21 out of 23. With only one bye in 2012, that translated to an increase from four players to 12 that had three weeks or less out of senior football in 2012. Which could sort of be explained by us battling for finals position until the final game and needing to win every game we could.

In 2013, Selwood, Duncan, Mackie and Lonergan played every game, another four players missed one and Podsiadly missed two, making nine players who had three weeks or less off. Did that wear them out? It's hard to say. But I'm not sure that playing all those games and not having a week off in finals did them any good. And they certainly weren't keen to give too many older players the green vest during the season, unless they were returning from an LTI.

In 2014, we go back to two bye weeks, which will be great for our older players, whichever ones are left. But we can't be scared to give them a rest in order to keep them fresh for the finals. We have four options for tall defenders, to take up two spots (possibly three) on the ground. There's no sane reason for Lonergan and Taylor to miss one game combined. Same with Mackie. Next year, we will have Brown, Thurlow, Bews and perhaps Eardley able to give him a rest (something he has not had since Round 21 of 2011). We can't continue to flog Selwood into the ground if we want him to still be this good in five years. And so on.

 

[Beth]

For your brother and all the Dawks!
View attachment 30933

Thanks Kitty, Id send it to him but I have now destroyed the last semblance of our tenuous relationship in a flurry of expletives and premature gloating about what Ross Lyon will do to them....

 

[Baudolino]

The thing is though, I reckon that policy has stagnated somewhat over the past two years, despite the amount of young players who have been given some exposure (in a few cases, arguably not enough) to AFL football. In 2011 (even with two byes), we didn't have a single player play every game and only four missed less than two (so three weeks all up), two of whom were under 25. Everyone else had four weeks or more off (byes + 'injuries') during the season.

In 2012, Mackie played every game, another six played 22 out of 23 and a further five played 21 out of 23. With only one bye in 2012, that translated to an increase from four players to 12 that had three weeks or less out of senior football in 2012. Which could sort of be explained by us battling for finals position until the final game and needing to win every game we could.

In 2013, Selwood, Duncan, Mackie and Lonergan played every game, another four players missed one and Podsiadly missed two, making nine players who had three weeks or less off. Did that wear them out? It's hard to say. But I'm not sure that playing all those games and not having a week off in finals did them any good. And they certainly weren't keen to give too many older players the green vest during the season, unless they were returning from an LTI.

In 2014, we go back to two bye weeks, which will be great for our older players, whichever ones are left. But we can't be scared to give them a rest in order to keep them fresh for the finals. We have four options for tall defenders, to take up two spots (possibly three) on the ground. There's no sane reason for Lonergan and Taylor to miss one game combined. Same with Mackie. Next year, we will have Brown, Thurlow, Bews and perhaps Eardley able to give him a rest (something he has not had since Round 21 of 2011). We can't continue to flog Selwood into the ground if we want him to still be this good in five years. And so on.

Good post.

The policy has definitely not been pursued with the same conviction as once it was. We do still do it more than almost every other team in the competition, but you're right, next year we will need to see a return to 2011-level resting and rotation if we want this transition to work.

 

[romeoh]

The thing is though, I reckon that policy has stagnated somewhat over the past two years, despite the amount of young players who have been given some exposure (in a few cases, arguably not enough) to AFL football. In 2011 (even with two byes), we didn't have a single player play every game and only four missed less than two (so three weeks all up), two of whom were under 25. Everyone else had four weeks or more off (byes + 'injuries') during the season.

In 2012, Mackie played every game, another six played 22 out of 23 and a further five played 21 out of 23. With only one bye in 2012, that translated to an increase from four players to 12 that had three weeks or less out of senior football in 2012. Which could sort of be explained by us battling for finals position until the final game and needing to win every game we could.

In 2013, Selwood, Duncan, Mackie and Lonergan played every game, another four players missed one and Podsiadly missed two, making nine players who had three weeks or less off. Did that wear them out? It's hard to say. But I'm not sure that playing all those games and not having a week off in finals did them any good. And they certainly weren't keen to give too many older players the green vest during the season, unless they were returning from an LTI.

In 2014, we go back to two bye weeks, which will be great for our older players, whichever ones are left. But we can't be scared to give them a rest in order to keep them fresh for the finals. We have four options for tall defenders, to take up two spots (possibly three) on the ground. There's no sane reason for Lonergan and Taylor to miss one game combined. Same with Mackie. Next year, we will have Brown, Thurlow, Bews and perhaps Eardley able to give him a rest (something he has not had since Round 21 of 2011). We can't continue to flog Selwood into the ground if we want him to still be this good in five years. And so on.

Yep and the fact is we need new blood in the midfield in a permanent way, whether they are ready or not, they have to play and learn on the job.

 

[Skerret]

McIntosh, Rivers and Caddy coming to the club might have given us the impetus to pinch a flag before time. Sadly McIntosh never appeared, Rivers missed a chunk of football and only Caddy performed as or better than expected. On top of that, Menzel never made it back, Chapman missed a big piece of the year as did Varcoe and our other big ruck Simpson went down at rather the wrong time. So had it all gone right, we might be awaiting a Cats v Someone else GF next week.

As had been mentioned numerous times, Scott declared 2011 and 2015 as viable flag-tilt years. I think several players came on better than expected in 2012 which sowed the seed, then the three recruits were snared, plus we started the year far better than he anticipated and Scott saw an opportunity to pinch one. He had less to work with than he did in 2011 which might explain the lower rotations and dependence on a select few to be the mainstays.

That 2011 rotation policy is likely to return next year I think. If most are fit and well, he'll have the players to do it (McIntosh out for Simpson for example, or Vardy out for Blicavs, or Mackie out for Thurlow, Podsiadly out for Walker) and will be more focused on 2015. I think we'll finish somewhere between 2 and 6 but who knows what will happen if we have a better run with injuries.

VFL GF didn't colour my view of any of the younger players, they just had a shocker and everyone looks slow, unskilled and hesitant on days like that.

 

[romeoh]

I do wonder if HS was carrying something the end of the year... he looked slower than I'd ever seen yesterday and might also explain why he couldn't get back into the seniors..

He may just have had an off day but wouldn't surprise me if he wasn't 100%

Thought he looked ordinary the previous week too, so maybe you are right-he looked slower than I recall and couldn't hold the ball in his hands cleanly-which I think is a strength of his?

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

McIntosh, Rivers and Caddy coming to the club might have given us the impetus to pinch a flag before time. Sadly McIntosh never appeared, Rivers missed a chunk of football and only Caddy performed as or better than expected. On top of that, Menzel never made it back, Chapman missed a big piece of the year as did Varcoe and our other big ruck Simpson went down at rather the wrong time. So had it all gone right, we might be awaiting a Cats v Someone else GF next week.

As had been mentioned numerous times, Scott declared 2011 and 2015 as viable flag-tilt years. I think several players came on better than expected in 2012 which sowed the seed, then the three recruits were snared, plus we started the year far better than he anticipated and Scott saw an opportunity to pinch one. He had less to work with than he did in 2011 which might explain the lower rotations and dependence on a select few to be the mainstays.

That 2011 rotation policy is likely to return next year I think. If most are fit and well, he'll have the players to do it (McIntosh out for Simpson for example, or Vardy out for Blicavs, or Mackie out for Thurlow, Podsiadly out for Walker) and will be more focused on 2015. I think we'll finish somewhere between 2 and 6 but who knows what will happen if we have a better run with injuries.

VFL GF didn't colour my view of any of the younger players, they just had a shocker and everyone looks slow, unskilled and hesitant on days like that.

I agree with that. I think one of the bold things that Chris Scott has done, that should reap rewards in 2014, is putting players in a variety of positions. So if you do a depth chart of the general positions that players play these days (tall defender, inside midfielder, medium forward and so on), it's not unusual to see a player feature in 3-4 different groups. In a lot of cases, that's a good thing, though a lot of players, particularly the younger ones, should be given as much time as possible to grow with a clearly defined role most weeks.

Another interesting change next season will be the interchange cap and how teams respond to it (though it will be more pronounced as the cap gets smaller in subsequent years). Will Chris Scott select a bench with one defender, one midfielder, one forward and the sub, to allow the rotations/interchanges to be more effectively monitored (particularly with the forwards and defenders)?

 

[Willo_]

Thought he looked ordinary the previous week too, so maybe you are right-he looked slower than I recall and couldn't hold the ball in his hands cleanly-which I think is a strength of his?

I do recall seeing him wearing the pink 'no contact' cap at training as well recently... so there might have been a little something not quite right

 

[kanyewest]

I do recall seeing him wearing the pink 'no contact' cap at training as well recently... so there might have been a little something not quite right

Before the game he was getting a lot of work done on his lower back by the medicos. Looked to be in a fair bit of pain. My guess he was struggling.

 

[Seeds]

It doesn't seem to be getting through...

Mongrel =/= courage



Who said anything about Mackie? Though I do seem to remember a lot of people (myself included) questioning Lonergan's future as an AFL footballer, after he was 'rag dolled' in games in late 2009 by the likes of Brown and Fevola. He was 25 at the time, going on 26 for the next season. For all this 'rag dolling', Brown's man sure didn't seem to take too many marks or hurt us on the scoreboard.

Since when has brown ever played on anyone. Lonergan was dominated by John brown and fevola. If Mitch brown was put on them they would kick 20 goals. Mitch brown will never ever be an afl footballer. He is a waste of space. Sorry if I confused equals signs with equals and not does not equals. Use shorthand that people actually understand.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Since when has brown ever played on anyone. Lonergan was dominated by John brown and fevola. If Mitch brown was put on them they would kick 20 goals. Mitch brown will never ever be an afl footballer. He is a waste of space. Sorry if I confused equals signs with equals and not does not equals. Use shorthand that people actually understand.

They were basically marking the ball every time it came into them. Mitch Brown couldn't have done any worse because it wasn't possible to do worse. Mark Thompson thought so much of Lonergan by the closing stages of 2009 that he went with Andrew Mackie as the match-up on Buddy Franklin in Round 19, after Scarlett and Taylor were both injured during the game. And Milburn went to Roughead.

Brown's man on Sunday was Bryce Retzlaff, who did bugger all.

 

[AM]

I'm a Brown believer. But what Sunday's game confirmed to me was that (whilst he was ok) he's not a natural defender. If he is to make it with us he needs to be played forward where he's made his name. Willing to bet that if he goes elsewhere they will play him in the forward half.

 

[Zouz Kitty]

Thanks Kitty, Id send it to him but I have now destroyed the last semblance of our tenuous relationship in a flurry of expletives and premature gloating about what Ross Lyon will do to them....

Bahahahahahahahaha !!! I love that you did that to the Dawk!!!! ROFLMFAO