Who will the conditions favour?

[Big Nasty]

I'm a little worried about tommorow's forecast as our team will find it tough in these conditions. How would Freo go in the wet?

[someday-somehow]

I'm a little worried about tommorow's forecast as our team will find it tough in these conditions. How would Freo go in the wet?

If it's wet and windy geelong should win. Bartel will own skilled stadium.

[hotdog_hotdog]

I'm a little worried about tommorow's forecast as our team will find it tough in these conditions. How would Freo go in the wet?

I wouldn't worry about it :)

Jimmy will have the ball on a string tomorrow, and have about 20 Clearances!

[hotdog_hotdog]

If it's wet and windy geelong should win. Bartel will own skilled stadium.

Great minds think alike!

[DanA]

Jimee! dominates regardless of the conditions. Wet conditions favour them IMO.

- They have the most dominate tap ruckmen in the league at the moment and some good (Albeit slow midfeilders).
- Without looking at the stats I would think we are easily the best contested marking team in the league.
- Our record in the wet has not been great this year (lost to North & Hawthorn and should have lost to Port Adelaide preseason).

[Alchera]

Wet conditions favour them IMO.

Nope - favors us. they enjoy pristine conditions with lovely mild weather most of the year round. They are not used to a ground that actually "muddies" up and holds the water. Subiaco.......and the MCG (telstra is a moot point for this explanation) drain very very well, so whilst wet, they do not get very heavy underfoot. Thank the lord above for the Cats being the last suburban footy club left!!!!

Our record in the wet has not been great this year (lost to North & Hawthorn and should have lost to Port Adelaide preseason).

-Hawks game wasn't wet it was windy.
The wind seems to be the problem for the Cats - lack of skills is magnified in these conditions. Hawks, Freo and their rolling scrum year and so on and so forth. Give us dry calm weather, or wet muddy grounds and we play very well.
-North game was not wet either (threatening to only)
-Port game was a flip of the coin and can't be compared either

Take a walk back in time with me..........back a couple of years to when Freo played at Skilled in conditions that suited only Penguins and Polar Bears. Cats won big, Jimmy got a couple of weeks for charging and we were marching into the finals.

Will be the same sort of game with a similar performance by the Cats.

[cat in sydney]

I'm with DanA on this one.
The Cats used to be great in the wet, with Jimmeh dominating.
Now (while Jimmeh will still dominate as he does in the dry) the rest of the team seems to go missing.
We saw it against both Kangas and Hawks, that when it requires us to get in lower and harder, we can't do it.
I think our game plan and talents rely on a dry, sunny kind of day (no, not saying we're 'flat track bullies'), or under a roof.

Look at the difference:
Rd5: Skilled Stadium - Kangaroos - Wet, Windy = LOSS
Rd7: Skilled Stadium - West Coast - Dry, Sunny = WIN

Only two rounds apart, but we looked like a totally different side, because our forwards were able to take marks, our onballers were able to run at high speed and pick the ball up easily.
However, in the wet, we were outplayed by a side that is harder and lower.
We need to relearn/rediscover how to play that kind of footy if we want to keep winning at Skilled and keep it a fortress.

[DanA]

Nope - favors us. they enjoy pristine conditions with lovely mild weather most of the year round. They are not used to a ground that actually "muddies" up and holds the water. Subiaco.......and the MCG (telstra is a moot point for this explanation) drain very very well, so whilst wet, they do not get very heavy underfoot. Thank the lord above for the Cats being the last suburban footy club left!!!!



-Hawks game wasn't wet it was windy.
The wind seems to be the problem for the Cats - lack of skills is magnified in these conditions. Hawks, Freo and their rolling scrum year and so on and so forth. Give us dry calm weather, or wet muddy grounds and we play very well.
-North game was not wet either (threatening to only)
-Port game was a flip of the coin and can't be compared either

Take a walk back in time with me..........back a couple of years to when Freo played at Skilled in conditions that suited only Penguins and Polar Bears. Cats won big, Jimmy got a couple of weeks for charging and we were marching into the finals.

Will be the same sort of game with a similar performance by the Cats.

I'll give you the Hawks game but windy has the same sort of effect as wet.

The North game was wet slippery conditions. It may not have rained during the game but it was still wet particularly in the 1st 3/4 when were were struggling. Like you say the ground holds the water.

Why can't the Port game be compared?

Any game where Sandilands is not the ruckmen is an irrelevant comparison. I am saying any team with that ruckmen gets an advantage in wet conditions.

[re cat]

I'll give you the Hawks game but windy has the same sort of effect as wet.

The North game was wet slippery conditions. It may not have rained during the game but it was still wet particularly in the 1st 3/4 when were were struggling. Like you say the ground holds the water.

Why can't the Port game be compared?

Any game where Sandilands is not the ruckmen is an irrelevant comparison. I am saying any team with that ruckmen gets an advantage in wet conditions.
Any wind will favour us. We have gone smaller by giving Tomahawk a rest.
The colder the better:thumbsu:

[Alchera]

Why can't the Port game be compared?

Pre-season, not the usual team, wet but still muggy warm, bascially warm up game only, not points involved.

And I will half give you the North one - rained early and the day before a fair bit but it was not that slippery (apart for some who decided to wear moulded soles instead of screw ins.)

Any game where Sandilands is not the ruckmen is an irrelevant comparison. I am saying any team with that ruckmen gets an advantage in wet conditions.

Don't agree.

Now I certainly agree on Sandilands being an awesome ruckman (not just for heights sake). But his impact will be limited if it is wet and muddy due to the ball being heavier and thus dropping earlier. Yes he may get first hand to it most of the time - but it is what happens next that is important.

It will be those small midfield types that play close to the rucks - such as Bartel and Corey who will dominate hitouts made by anyone. Wet weather is not a day for lurkers which Freo has plenty of and thus Sandilands perceived impact becomes diminished.

Tomorrow will be about who is first in for the ball and who can get it forward anyway possible. I just don't see that with Freo.............but a caveat on that is definately the conditions (wet and muddy = ideal, wet and windy = not so much, wet = ok, dry and windy = we are stuffed :D)

[DanA]

Now I certainly agree on Sandilands being an awesome ruckman (not just for heights sake). But his impact will be limited if it is wet and muddy due to the ball being heavier and thus dropping earlier. Yes he may get first hand to it most of the time - but it is what happens next that is important.

It will be those small midfield types that play close to the rucks - such as Bartel and Corey who will dominate hitouts made by anyone. Wet weather is not a day for lurkers which Freo has plenty of and thus Sandilands perceived impact becomes diminished.

First Sandilands rarely takes a contested marks so the ball dropping is not really relevant.

Secondly Bartel & Corey are not small midfeilders, they are two of the tallest in the game. We take a lot of contested marks as a side which will effect our output. Haselby, Josh Carr and Peter Bell are small midfeilders. I'd bet none are over 180cm.

Thirdly WTF are lurkers? Outside midfeilders? The only one they have is Heath Black that I can think of.

[Alchera]

First Sandilands rarely takes a contested marks so the ball dropping is not really relevant.

?? I'm talking about tap work not them actually taking marks.

Secondly Bartel & Corey are not small midfeilders, they are two of the tallest in the game. We take a lot of contested marks as a side which will effect our output. Haselby, Josh Carr and Peter Bell are small midfeilders. I'd bet none are over 180cm.

Apart from Bell the other two are not "in and under" types. Both Corey and Bartel are. Small may be a misrepresentation - 'first in and hard at it" a truer definition?

Thirdly WTF are lurkers? Outside midfeilders? The only one they have is Heath Black that I can think of.

You have never heard of a lurker before??? Have you played footy???? If not then understandable.

Yes you are correct - almost a derogatory term for an outside midfielder.......well any type of player that will not go in to a contested ball situation and wait for it to pop out - more used for teams where most of their players were the "outside" types - very adept at being able to steal a pass from a pack and streak forward. Well used term in my hey day (early to mid 90's) and before.

Anyhoo Haselby lurks, Carr would be 50/50 - he is more second in the contest and does well at extracting from there.

Actually McManus is an in and under type to some extent, but for some reason I don't rate him much.

[darren forssman]

james bartel........(silence).......3 votes

[conanthelibrarian]

I think our game plan and talents rely on a dry, sunny kind of day (no, not saying we're 'flat track bullies'), or under a roof.

Look at the difference:
Rd5: Skilled Stadium - Kangaroos - Wet, Windy = LOSS
Rd7: Skilled Stadium - West Coast - Dry, Sunny = WIN

Only two rounds apart, but we looked like a totally different side, because our forwards were able to take marks, our onballers were able to run at high speed and pick the ball up easily.
However, in the wet, we were outplayed by a side that is harder and lower.
We need to relearn/rediscover how to play that kind of footy if we want to keep winning at Skilled and keep it a fortress.

To be fair, we dropped a tall for a small this week, so it's like Bomber has already addressed the problem of having too many talls. Rooke, Bartel and Stokes in particular will love it wet, as they will bash in all day long for the contested ball. Read in the Age this morning we've had something like 30 more clearances than our opponents the last few weeks, and have flogged the opposition in contested possessions during this time as well, whereas Freo have had 22 more tackles than their opponents, which IMO means they're 2nd to the ball more often.

If Jimmy, Rooke and co. get in and get the hard ball and move it on quickly and efficiently, which I have no doubt they will, we'll thrash them tomorrow.

[DanA]

?? I'm talking about tap work not them actually taking marks.



Apart from Bell the other two are not "in and under" types. Both Corey and Bartel are. Small may be a misrepresentation - 'first in and hard at it" a truer definition?



You have never heard of a lurker before??? Have you played footy???? If not then understandable.

Yes you are correct - almost a derogatory term for an outside midfielder.......well any type of player that will not go in to a contested ball situation and wait for it to pop out - more used for teams where most of their players were the "outside" types - very adept at being able to steal a pass from a pack and streak forward. Well used term in my hey day (early to mid 90's) and before.

Anyhoo Haselby lurks, Carr would be 50/50 - he is more second in the contest and does well at extracting from there.

Actually McManus is an in and under type to some extent, but for some reason I don't rate him much.

Thanks for those pearls of wisdom though:

I am nearing on 17 years of playing football and currently play Div 1 of a Melbourne based league. So have played my fair share.

For a "Lurker" Haselby's figure are a bit surprising. His average of 4.22 clerances for his career (unmatched by any Geelong player) is in the elite category for the AFL. Funnily enough his contested possion rate last year was about the same as Corey's despite it reaching a career low for Haselby of 32% (possibly because he was carrying a groin injury).

Josh Carr won more contested ball and clerances (3.7) than Corey in 06 while Bell was the worst perfromer averaging the same % of contested posessions and below Corey (3.3) clerances (to Bells 2.4). Although it must be pointed pout that Bell has averaged 3.4 clearances for the 4 years prior.

Bunch of lurkers down at Freo!

Corey was our leading clerance player and only behind Kelly and Ablett in contested possesions.

Wet weather causes more stoppages which increases the value of tap work as it is quite common to see the ball tapped down to a player who slams it on his boot.

You seem to have no idea.

[theGav56]

Thanks DanA for responding to the comments about Hasleby and Carr. You are spot on.

You guys may not play as well in the wet as the dry (can't comment but i t is an opinion others have put here), but I can barely remember seeing a day where we have played in the wet over here. Of course we have, but it rare, and seldon water-logged. It would make the challenge of winning a huge task.

[sarah.13]

The conditions will favour the players that make the ball their sole objective,put their bodies in and keep to the basics. IMO that will be Geelong.

[CatmanForever]

I'm with DanA on this one.
The Cats used to be great in the wet, with Jimmeh dominating.
Now (while Jimmeh will still dominate as he does in the dry) the rest of the team seems to go missing.
We saw it against both Kangas and Hawks, that when it requires us to get in lower and harder, we can't do it.
I think our game plan and talents rely on a dry, sunny kind of day (no, not saying we're 'flat track bullies'), or under a roof.

Look at the difference:
Rd5: Skilled Stadium - Kangaroos - Wet, Windy = LOSS
Rd7: Skilled Stadium - West Coast - Dry, Sunny = WIN

Only two rounds apart, but we looked like a totally different side, because our forwards were able to take marks, our onballers were able to run at high speed and pick the ball up easily.
However, in the wet, we were outplayed by a side that is harder and lower.
We need to relearn/rediscover how to play that kind of footy if we want to keep winning at Skilled and keep it a fortress.

well we did beat Port in the NAB Cup in the wettest/windiest game I ever seen:rolleyes:

[AngelEyes]

Geelongs forward line is tough and usually small. Things that favour wet weather footy.

Fremantle rely on Tarrant and Pavlich who both won't function in wet messy conditions.

Fremantle also use their foot pace alot which ain't work in the wet while Geelong usually manage to get into space, and short kock. which makes it look like they move fast. In reality, Geelong are slow and kick short which means they won't be effected as much.

I don't see how this could be a negative for Geelong.

[Catman]

Freo are still a big query in games that turn into a slog. We are one of the best contested footy teams on our day and if it comes down to an arm-wrestle I'd back us more often than not against them.

I still can't erase that pounding we gave them back in the wet and cold in 2004. I know it's 3 years on but we killed them off through our desire for the ball and it got to the stage where they basically shut up shop and were praying for the final siren.

It will all depend on whether they bring that same attitude and whether we turn up to play.

[Tonycam*]

I honestly dont think the conditions are going to make that big a factor tomorrow , wet or dry it doesnt matter. we could win (or lose) either way depending on weather the team is switched on or not. If we have turned the corner we will win no matter what the weather has to offer

[dockertor]

Cold wet weather will be a big disadvantage to Freo. Every time we have played in those conditions we seem to fall apart. I dont hold much hope for this game. If it is wet a low scoring affair will favour the brave throwing themselves in. As stated earlier in the thread a few lurkers in our side.

There are good odds available for freo, You guys must be confident

[theGav56]

Geelongs forward line is tough and usually small. Things that favour wet weather footy.

Fremantle rely on Tarrant and Pavlich who both won't function in wet messy conditions.

Fremantle also use their foot pace alot which ain't work in the wet while Geelong usually manage to get into space, and short kock. which makes it look like they move fast. In reality, Geelong are slow and kick short which means they won't be effected as much.

I don't see how this could be a negative for Geelong.

NAblett and Mooney are as tall as Pavlich and Tarrant, plus Ottens will be up there too for some time. That's as tall a forward line as most. Campbell may play; we'll see on the day. And as for Freo using it's foot pace, your opinions on our pace are about 2 years out of date. Geelong's midfield would have the edge there.

[thejester]

I honestly dont think the conditions are going to make that big a factor tomorrow , wet or dry it doesnt matter. we could win (or lose) either way depending on weather the team is switched on or not. If we have turned the corner we will win no matter what the weather has to offer

Haha geddit?

[Alchera]

[quote]I am nearing on 17 years of playing football and currently play Div 1 of a Melbourne based league. So have played my fair share.

Good for you. VFA, Hampden League, YVMDFL, and a litttle VAFA (lower divs) over roughly the same period of time in senior footy. So yeah I have been around too. Was beginning to miss it too until this weeks weather set in :)

For a "Lurker" Haselby's figure are a bit surprising. His average of 4.22 clerances for his career (unmatched by any Geelong player) is in the elite category for the AFL. Funnily enough his contested possion rate last year was about the same as Corey's despite it reaching a career low for Haselby of 32% (possibly because he was carrying a groin injury).

Doesn't mean squat in relation to 'in and under" - it means he gets the ball to advantage more often, which is not hard to do with Sandilands hitting down to you on the wide open and dry expanses of Subi.

Josh Carr won more contested ball and clerances (3.7) than Corey in 06 while Bell was the worst perfromer averaging the same % of contested posessions and below Corey (3.3) clerances (to Bells 2.4). Although it must be pointed pout that Bell has averaged 3.4 clearances for the 4 years prior.

I am surprised by Bells figures. Josh Carr I said was 50/50, so yeah I'll happily take that on board.

Bunch of lurkers down at Freo!

Nothing has changed - still think that - just take out Mr Carr. Though it maybe a perception only - anytime I have seen them play they, for the most, play in that style.

Wet weather causes more stoppages which increases the value of tap work as it is quite common to see the ball tapped down to a player who slams it on his boot.

Which is basically what I said until you took it sideways and discussed Sandilands contested marks?? Ahh but you are talking about the Freo side of the coin I guess. And again I fully agree that Sandilands + Haselby and Co and good weather is very potent. I do not agree, however, when adding in heavier conditions. First in.......with slightly bigger bodies would be Carr, Bartel and Corey (centre wise).

Now do Carrs stats by himself match up to Bartel's and Coreys combined? Or conversley how does Geelong's midfield group stack up against Freo's?? I had a quick look but could not find much on this over a period of time - especially against each other.

You seem to have no idea.

Probably right there. Always gone with what I see rather than stats. So anything I have said has been observational only. But it really depends on what part of the discussion you are alluding too.

[DanA]

[quote=DanA;7564059]


Good for you. VFA, Hampden League, YVMDFL, and a litttle VAFA (lower divs) over roughly the same period of time in senior footy. So yeah I have been around too. Was beginning to miss it too until this weeks weather set in :)

Doesn't mean squat in relation to 'in and under" - it means he gets the ball to advantage more often, which is not hard to do with Sandilands hitting down to you on the wide open and dry expanses of Subi.

I am surprised by Bells figures. Josh Carr I said was 50/50, so yeah I'll happily take that on board.

Nothing has changed - still think that - just take out Mr Carr. Though it maybe a perception only - anytime I have seen them play they, for the most, play in that style.

Which is basically what I said until you took it sideways and discussed Sandilands contested marks?? Ahh but you are talking about the Freo side of the coin I guess. And again I fully agree that Sandilands + Haselby and Co and good weather is very potent. I do not agree, however, when adding in heavier conditions. First in.......with slightly bigger bodies would be Carr, Bartel and Corey (centre wise).

Now do Carrs stats by himself match up to Bartel's and Coreys combined? Or conversley how does Geelong's midfield group stack up against Freo's?? I had a quick look but could not find much on this over a period of time - especially against each other.

Probably right there. Always gone with what I see rather than stats. So anything I have said has been observational only. But it really depends on what part of the discussion you are alluding too.



Haselby is a lurker and Freo being lurkers. That was the part I was refering to. Go on the Freo board and ask them if Haselby is an inside or outside midfeilder.

I thought when you said the ball drops in wet weather you were saying his marking would be less influencial. My mistake. I was trying to say tap work is more important in the wet.