View Full Version : We are no longer the biggest underachievers
bigbrian
28 Sep 2008, 01:07
Thankyou Geelong. Absolute garbage
We never were (my personal vote goes to Freo at the moment, but that could change in time). If you are refering to 99-01 then it is true we probably should have won 99, or at least come very close in a GF with that team, but to say we are the biggest underachievers because of that is ludicrous. 2001 is a completely different story as the Lions were legitimate class and we limped into the GF looking nothing like we had previously.
And Geelong didn't really underachieve, their forward line was average and the Hawks ran and contested the ball all day (despite Geelong having more possessions) and are a quality side. It's true that they squandered chances but it's hard to call it underachieving when you get beaten fair and square (well, MORE than that, as the Hawks had to compete with the umpires in the first half as well) by a better team, that's just losing plain and simple.
You need some luck to win consecutive premierships or in Brisbane's case 3 consecutive premierships.
Brisbane was lucky in 2002/2003 when the most probable challenger Power stuffed up the final.
This was shown in 2004 when Power defeated the premiership in 2004.
AndyLesPaul
28 Sep 2008, 08:06
You need some luck to win consecutive premierships or in Brisbane's case 3 consecutive premierships.
Brisbane was lucky in 2002/2003 when the most probable challenger Power stuffed up the final.
This was shown in 2004 when Power defeated the premiership in 2004.
power defeated the premiership?
ah well
lol at geelong
they played exquisitely
but selfishness and eagerness to be the "hero" made them miss at least 4 sitters
The Donners
28 Sep 2008, 08:39
I sure am glad Knights says we're modeling the Hawks' plan to success....
stugots
28 Sep 2008, 09:54
You need some luck to win consecutive premierships or in Brisbane's case 3 consecutive premierships.
Brisbane was lucky in 2002/2003 when the most probable challenger Power stuffed up the final.
This was shown in 2004 when Power defeated the premiership in 2004.
just shows what can be achieved with a keyboard after 20 beers:thumbsu:
I sure am glad Knights says we're modeling the Hawks' plan to success....
And what if they do a geelong next year?
The Donners
28 Sep 2008, 14:05
And what if they do a geelong next year?
And make it to 2 successive GFs and won at least 1? I'll take it.
Who says Geelong are finished anyway ? I would be reasonably confident that they can make another GF next year and win it.
As good as the Hawks where Geelong killed themselves by missing a crap load of shots at goal in the second quarter and trying to play too "cute" which you can not do in a high pressure GF.
Hawthorn where great, their pressure and skills where sensational and their work rate and comitment to their game plan was outstanding but i dont think their is a huge margin between the sides.
I think yesterday will really burn away at some of the Geelong players and it won't surprise me at all to see them win another GF next year. Its not like they will have a lot of list changes so the core group will still be there.
power defeated the premiership?
ah well
lol at geelong
they played exquisitely
but selfishness and eagerness to be the "hero" made them miss at least 4 sitters
I dont agree at all. I thought that at times they tried to be too team orientated in the forward line. There where a few times when someone just had to take a shot rather than looking for the extra handball or cute short pass. It was like a contest to see who could end up with the most goal assist's.
EVERLAST
28 Sep 2008, 15:20
I dont agree at all. I thought that at times they tried to be too team orientated in the forward line. There where a few times when someone just had to take a shot rather than looking for the extra handball or cute short pass. It was like a contest to see who could end up with the most goal assist's.
I don't agree with that - so often - they missed a teammate in a much better position and well open to receive a short pass for a set shot.
Mackie - Stoke and Varcoe were 3 culprits that could've easily been majors on the scoreboard - Mooney's disgraceful shot from close range.
To offset this - Taylor's fumble resulted in a goal in the second half - the gap should've been much closer.
aintplayin03
28 Sep 2008, 15:26
I don't agree with that - so often - they missed a teammate in a much better position and well open to receive a short pass for a set shot.
Mackie - Stoke and Varcoe were 3 culprits that could've easily been majors on the scoreboard - Mooney's disgraceful shot from close range.
To offset this - Taylor's fumble resulted in a goal in the second half - the gap should've been much closer.
I wouldn't say they OFTEN did that at all- at times, yes, as seen with Ottens- but most of their missed opportunities were due to a game plan they couldn't execute on the day, as they fell down coming into the forward 50 on most occasions by trying to be too unselfish and would pass it around too much when they just needed to kick the bloody thing.
I don't agree with that - so often - they missed a teammate in a much better position and well open to receive a short pass for a set shot.
So often is a big call. I only remember them clearly missing a bloke who was well in the clear three times and i was at the game watching it live so i could see their whole forward set up. They had a crap load of inside 50's but they stuffed around with the ball so much they ended up turning it over or going to options wide on the falnks or the pockets.
Mackie - Stoke and Varcoe were 3 culprits that could've easily been majors on the scoreboard - Mooney's disgraceful shot from close range.
Yes but this has nothing to do with them dicking around with the ball. It was just poor goal kicking.
To offset this - Taylor's fumble resulted in a goal in the second half - the gap should've been much closer.
There where more than just this one. Two Bartell chip passes to a one on two contests in the center square that resulted in Hawthorn goals from the turn over.
Piss poor (for Geelong) defensive efforts that allowed Hawthorn to continually switch play and run the ball the length of the field down the opposite wing.
The fact that Varcoe and Stokes have no physical influence in hard tough games.
I agree with ANT555 summation of the game.
Geelong dominated the second quarter ( they made Hawthorn look second rate ) except for the scoreboard. They were too cute with the ball and players wouldn't take responsibility and shoot for goal.
Ablett showed the way in the third quarter when he took the ball outside 50, put his head down and kicked a goal.
Sometimes players need to take responsibility and shoot for goal.
I actually thought before the game that geelong would win by 3 goals, but Hawthorn would win the 2009 GF.
I am not sure that Hwathorn will win in 2009.
JimmyHird
29 Sep 2008, 00:40
The miss of Ottens when he had Lonergan or Johnson free in the goal square was absolutely disgusting. You cannot do that in a grand final.
I don't agree with that - so often - they missed a teammate in a much better position and well open to receive a short pass for a set shot.
Mackie - Stoke and Varcoe were 3 culprits that could've easily been majors on the scoreboard - Mooney's disgraceful shot from close range.
To offset this - Taylor's fumble resulted in a goal in the second half - the gap should've been much closer.
That all ignores the raw deal Hawthorn got from the umpires. Several freebie goals to the cats, plus some very perplexing frees against Roughead/Franklin even a lot of those things up.
I agree with ANT555 summation of the game.
Geelong dominated the second quarter ( they made Hawthorn look second rate ) except for the scoreboard. They were too cute with the ball and players wouldn't take responsibility and shoot for goal.
Ablett showed the way in the third quarter when he took the ball outside 50, put his head down and kicked a goal.
Sometimes players need to take responsibility and shoot for goal.
I actually thought before the game that geelong would win by 3 goals, but Hawthorn would win the 2009 GF.
I am not sure that Hwathorn will win in 2009.
That all said, maybe Ottens should have passed rather than taking that shot on the run!
AndyLesPaul
29 Sep 2008, 07:11
I dont agree at all. I thought that at times they tried to be too team orientated in the forward line. There where a few times when someone just had to take a shot rather than looking for the extra handball or cute short pass. It was like a contest to see who could end up with the most goal assist's.
Hmm, yeah i noticed that when mooney got one of his goals, he was like looking to pass to someone, wasted about 10 seconds until he finally took the shot.
The miss of Ottens when he had Lonergan or Johnson free in the goal square was absolutely disgusting. You cannot do that in a grand final.
But it was an easy goal. He would have kicked it 9 times out of 10.
It was not like he tried to kick a miracle goal when he had players free.
He was 25 out without much angle and no pressure.
Poor goal kicking yes but i would expect players to take a shot from there every time given the same circumstances.
Ben the Gooner
30 Sep 2008, 12:23
This was shown in 2004 when Power defeated the premiership in 2004.
Port Adelaide 15 10 (100) d Premiership 14 9 (93)