2009 - Did Cats win it only because Saints blew it?

[Pollywaffle]

I think the saints stiff in 09 (as we were probably in 08)
but I hated their boring Ross Lyon inspired 'lockdown' style, so no sympathy boys
The prettiest team got the chokkies

 

[dazbroncos]

24.35% (28/115) of premierships have been won by the previous runner-up.
23.48% (27/115) of premierships have been won by the previous premier.
52.17% (60/115) of premierships have been won by a team that was neither the previous runner-up nor previous premier.

Since the introduction of a final 8 in 1994:
16.67% (3/18) of premierships have been won by the previous runner-up.
16.67% (3/18) of premierships have been won by the previous premier.
66.67% (12/18) of premierships have been won by a team that was neither the previous runner-up nor previous premier.

Mental state/edge is difficult to quantify. The above figures suggest that staying on top is difficult. The fact that twice as many premierships have been won in the two periods above by teams other than the previous years premiers and runners-up demonstrates this.

I'd too be skeptical that a playing group capable of winning the highest percentage of matches over five consecutive seasons in the competition's history as well as breaking records for the highest percentage of matches won from 50, 75 and 100 consecutive matches (the last two having stood for over 75 years) "needed" to lose one grand final in order to win the next.

Of factors that won the 2009 grand final, having lost the 2008 grand final would not I think be high on the list despite some of the playing squad expressing that opinion. Had 2008 been won, I can't really imagine a team of Geelong's calibre and physical preparation going into the last quarter of 2009, 7 points behind, with the mental attitude, "we don't have to apply ourselves because we won last year." Geelong won in 2009 because they had paced their season better than St Kilda and had the stamina in the last quarter to exploit their skill advantage. (Similar to 2011.)

But myths of all kinds will always exist and as Mark Twain once remarked,
"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes”.

Really interesting stuff RR....

I guess the point I was trying to make was not so much that they needed to lose 08 to win 09, but more that as they are such a competitive and physical group that had achieved so much that the thought of not winning just was not an option.

Psychological factors, unlike stats, are difficult to quantify as they can't really be measured - hence the good debate about their influence - but even from the local guy in the gym trying to lift that little bit extra to the weekend warrior running that extra lap of the oval - the mind and what comes with it can play an effect on performance.

My assertion was simply that this champion team full of champion players did not want to feel that loss again - and used that motivation to add to what they were doing to succeed....

with the help of a little toe poke.....

And I do agree that if 08 had been won, they would not have "shut down" in 09 as two was enough.... I just feel that little extra angry and adrenalin from losing can assist in times of being challenged....

Go Catters....

 

[Monniehawk]

Not sure I can see the reason for the thread, actually. Maybe some justification for any Saints fans who have been having a sook?
I just checked the AFL records.....
We REALLY won it in '09 and REALLY didn't win in '08.

 

[Partridge]

There's no ifs and buts in Grand Finals there is just a big ****ing shiny cup.

And if you lead at 3/4 time and cant kick goals in the last quarter of a Grand Final you don;t get one.

Pretty much sums it up. The most fundamental part of football is taking your chances. We did, they didn't. Same thing happened in 2008.

The part about the last quarter is even more appropriate. You have zero excuses if you lead at the last change and don't score a goal.

 

[Partridge]

I'd too be skeptical that a playing group capable of winning the highest percentage of matches over five consecutive seasons in the competition's history as well as breaking records for the highest percentage of matches won from 50, 75 and 100 consecutive matches (the last two having stood for over 75 years) "needed" to lose one grand final in order to win the next.

Of factors that won the 2009 grand final, having lost the 2008 grand final would not I think be high on the list despite some of the playing squad expressing that opinion. Had 2008 been won, I can't really imagine a team of Geelong's calibre and physical preparation going into the last quarter of 2009, 7 points behind, with the mental attitude, "we don't have to apply ourselves because we won last year." Geelong won in 2009 because they had paced their season better than St Kilda and had the stamina in the last quarter to exploit their skill advantage. (Similar to 2011.)

But myths of all kinds will always exist and as Mark Twain once remarked,
"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes”.

Awesome, awesome post. I'm tired of the myth that they only won in 2009 because of the pain of 2008. It had little to do with it, there was still a pretty formidable St.Kilda side to overcome. The press are acting now like Hawthorn's pain from losing the Prelim is enough to make them premiership certainties; on Planet Earth I'd be far more concerned about a combined 0-5 record against Geelong and Collingwood last year. Pain from losing won't overcome that.

Besides, if winning 2009 was the atonement for the year before, how did they win last year? Surely they were satisfied.

The true answer of course is elite competitors are never satisfied and want as much success as possible. What happens the previous year (or years) is irrelevant and really just more myths an incompetent media perpetrate.

 

[couchy555]

Ha, this old chestnut. Not the first time ive seen a thread like this on this site.

Watched the game not long ago and yeah absolutely Saints fan can mount a fair "what if" argument, but at the same time they'd realise that good kicking is good footy, and the opposite is also true.

Makes being a Cat supporter at this stage even more rewarding.

 

[Turkey Tom]

I'm tired of the myth that they only won in 2009 because of the pain of 2008.

Not sure it really is a myth....it has been reported that Bomber in his three quarter time speech alluded to the 2008 result....something like "don't come off the ground having lost this game" In other words, "remember how it felt last year" (2008).

 

[RogersResults]

Not sure it really is a myth....it has been reported that Bomber in his three quarter time speech alluded to the 2008 result....something like "don't come off the ground having lost this game" In other words, "remember how it felt last year" (2008).

They have to say something.

I can't believe that such a statement had any effect on that playing group. Unless maybe some felt insulted enough to think, "I'll show you how unnecessary that was."

Most likely it was just as ineffectual as the waffle we heard from Malthouse in "2 Hours" in having much if any effect on the result.

 

[OldStyle2007]

I thought Saints did hold sway for a couple of times in the match, as did the Cats

But they also kicked goals against the run of play. The Montagna snap from the boundary was pretty streaky and the ones that Milburn claims he touched were also pretty scrappy goals

We got the Hawkins goal, but they got a Milburn gift

I think much like the match earlier in the season the teams were pretty evenly matched. I think it's unfair to say the game for the Saints was like a Geelong '08 or a North Melbourne '98 where they dominated a half of football but kicked themselves out of it. The game was in the balance right up until the last minute of play.

Can we list the misses they are talking about??

The Stevie Milne miss was from 50 on a wet windy day on a wide angle and under some pressure. No way they can blame him for that

The only nightmare I would have is if I was a Saints fan was the Schneider shot in the last quarter. He had Harley well beaten. Harley made him beat him onto his right hand side, and then when Scheider straightened back up onto his left boot he missed it. I would love to know what Harley was saying to him after that shot

 

[hamG]

The game was there to be won right down to the last minute. We got it done, and it was AWESOME.

 

[donbooger]

I thought Saints did hold sway for a couple of times in the match, as did the Cats

But they also kicked goals against the run of play. The Montagna snap from the boundary was pretty streaky and the ones that Milburn claims he touched were also pretty scrappy goals

We got the Hawkins goal, but they got a Milburn gift

I think much like the match earlier in the season the teams were pretty evenly matched. I think it's unfair to say the game for the Saints was like a Geelong '08 or a North Melbourne '98 where they dominated a half of football but kicked themselves out of it. The game was in the balance right up until the last minute of play.

Can we list the misses they are talking about??

The Stevie Milne miss was from 50 on a wet windy day on a wide angle and under some pressure. No way they can blame him for that

The only nightmare I would have is if I was a Saints fan was the Schneider shot in the last quarter. He had Harley well beaten. Harley made him beat him onto his right hand side, and then when Scheider straightened back up onto his left boot he missed it. I would love to know what Harley was saying to him after that shot

From memory.

Schneider missed a 15 metre snap directly in front.
Montagna 40 out in front missed his boot.
Schneider 35 out in front after baulking harley
Milne dribbled it from 50 never giving it a chance
Dempster 40 out in front snap nearly out on full.
Gram 45 out in front, just missed

I cant remember the Mcqualter one but he scored a point and I remember his name being brought up as a missed chance as well.

Only Schneiders was the gimmie while the rest were 50 50s at worse (bar Milnes grubber), in comparison we kicked beautifully the only ones from memory I would like do overs would be Selwoods set shot from 45 slight angle and Chapmans kick off ground 10 meters out.

We could have easily lost but we didn't, we created less chances but did a far far better job of making them count.

 

[Gaz_Brownlow]

Best game of footy I have had the pleasure of watching.

That second half was the toughest, hardest most physical example of contested football I have witnessed. In the end it came down to football in its purest form and the Cats were superior when it counted.

 

[Goggin Our Best]

That was a great great win -unbelievable win -and there was alot of pressure on Geelong that day-alot of commentators were saying if Geelong lost -then they would only have 1 premiership to show for 3 great years etc etc . As to the game -i thought on several occasions we were gone for all money -the inside 50s to 3 qtr time were miles StKilda way -which is a pretty fair indication as to is controlling the play

That 09 Grand Final was strikingly similar with a reverse result to the 81 Preliminary Final which we lost to Collingwood -we totally dominated the game to 3qtr time and it should have been all over -but wasnt -then Collingwood played a good last qtr and won narrowly -i have never been so pissed off ,after a game of football

If i was a StKilda supporter -that 09 GF would haunt me to the grave -especially if they dont win won in the meantime

 

[Cursed Cat]

The 2nd quarter of both the 2011 & 2009 Grand Finals played out in similar fashion; the opposition was on top and looking to assert their authority, but in both games Geelong showed tremendous temperament under pressure to avoid cracking.

In the 2nd quarter of '09 our defense was under immense pressure for long periods of time, with St. Kilda's press proving very difficult to navigate.
But the back 6 that day really kept their heads and although the Saints can say they were on top at that point of the match, Geelong gave themselves every chance of turning it around by hanging tough.

I wouldn't say we were 'lucky' in '09 by any stretch, but unlike '07 we really had to earn it - St. Kilda were very worthy opposition that day, but being held goalless in the last quarter of *any* match will see you lose more games than you win.

 

[randyzany]

Shocked that the OP wasn't VEEDUBS.

An alias perhaps?

 

[witsend]

For those who think Saints "dominated" but lost, I would remind them that the Saints kicked 3 of there goals inside a minute leading into half-time, including the infamous Milburn double goal.
Watch the game and it is clear that both teams dominated sections of the game. We did more than they did, which is why we won.

 

[AM]

Anyone who can't see the Saints had the better of us for 3 quarters and stuffed easy shots for goal is either completely one-eyed or wasn't at the game in my view.

Great credit to us for our competitiveness but it was one we stole. Just as the Hawks stole one from us. Some form of Karma at work I guess.

 

[CatAttack84]

Great credit to us for our competitiveness but it was one we stole. Just as the Hawks stole one from us. Some form of Karma at work I guess.

Don't completely agree. We DID allow the Hawks to take 2008, but the Saints simply left open a door, they didn't hand it over like we did in 2008. The Saints could have still won that game. Geelong simple took advantage of what was made available, where as Hawthorn just smashed us.

 

[AM]

Don't completely agree. We DID allow the Hawks to take 2008, but the Saints simply left open a door, they didn't hand it over like we did in 2008. The Saints could have still won that game. Geelong simple took advantage of what was made available, where as Hawthorn just smashed us.

Oh really? They smashed us? Not much "smashing" in my view. Outcoached us? Yep!. Took advantage of our poor disposal? Yep! Smashed us? Nope!

The Saints won three quarters against us. They missed many easy shots under no pressure. Even players who are reliable kicks like Schneider sprayed 'em. It's one we got away with.

 

[witsend]

Anyone who can't see the Saints had the better of us for 3 quarters and stuffed easy shots for goal is either completely one-eyed or wasn't at the game in my view.

Great credit to us for our competitiveness but it was one we stole. Just as the Hawks stole one from us. Some form of Karma at work I guess.

I was at the game and am not completely one-eyed.
Just because St Kilda played an ultra-defensive lock-down game which made quality F50 entries very difficult, does not mean they dominated us exclusively for 3 quarters.
Let's put aside the 4th quarter in which we destroyed them by any measure.
1st quarter. We dominated the opening. St Kilda worked their way back in on the back of a superb effort by Lenny Hayes. Took the Saints 12 minutes to score a goal.I call 50-50.
2nd quarter was the only time I felt they had us on the ropes, and this in particular was where they blew most of their opportunities, but with under a minute to go pre half-time we were 2 goals up. They then scrambled 2 goals in a minute and were gifted one due to Milburn's mouth. Hardly a "domination" of a quarter.
I call 60-40 Saints way. This was the quarter where the Saint's domination myth developed because of their 4 easy misses. But you must remember that a conversion from any one of these shots means the game changes and one can't guarantee the ball going back in either F50 the same way.
3rd quarter is a cracker, but by the end our attacking game and Taylor's domination of Riewoldt is wearing the Saint's down. Let's be generous and go 60-40 Saints.
4th quarter...3.4 to 0.3! We destroyed them. Yes it was hard...yes it was contested but the scores don't lie. They did not score a goal in a final quarter of the GF!!! We scored 3 goals.
I call at least 70-30 Cats way.

So by my reckoning you have a 50-50 quarter, 2 x 60-40's the Saint's way (one being an arguable 50-50) and a 70-30 (at least) Cat's way in the last and most important quarter.
Where is the domination overall by the Saints? People point to stats. There is only one stat that is relevant and it is recorded by goal umpires. The nature of the Saints' game-plan and the weather means the play is often "locked" in their F50 as did Collingwood in 2010-2011.
But their stated domination in the GF is a romantic notion born out of frustration.
Did the Saints dominate 2009 season? Absolutely!
Was it their's to be won? Indubitably!
Were they beaten by the better team in the GF? Inarguably!

Muhammed Ali was statistically "beaten" by George Foreman in Zaire for almost all of the fight in the famous rope a dope epic, but would anyone dare say Foreman was robbed and should have won?
Ali planned his battle, took his punches and wore Foreman down until the knockout blows.
See the analogy?

 

[AM]

Um! Wasn't suggesting the Saints were "robbed". Nor did I suggest that the Saints "dominated" us. Just to mentioned two of many colourful misrepresentations.

There are hundreds of examples in the sporting archives where individuals and/or teams have been bettered for most of an encounter but got the points in the end. Happens every year in almost every fixtured comp. Probably more so in boxing than elsewhere. Occasionally by a lucky punch.

I repeat, anyone who can't see that the Saints had the better of us for three quarters and squandered easy chances during those quarters lacks objectivity or footy nous IMO. Credit to us for hanging in there as we usually do. But it remains one we got away with. I think even Bomber acknowledges that.

 

[vinum coupe]

You know what I love? We're all talking about premiership near wins and misses.

Not prelims.

 

[witsend]

Um! Wasn't suggesting the Saints were "robbed". Nor did I suggest that the Saints "dominated" us. Just to mentioned two of many colourful misrepresentations.

There are hundreds of examples in the sporting archives where individuals and/or teams have been bettered for most of an encounter but got the points in the end. Happens every year in almost every fixtured comp. Probably more so in boxing than elsewhere. Occasionally by a lucky punch.

I repeat, anyone who can't see that the Saints had the better of us for three quarters and squandered easy chances during those quarters lacks objectivity or footy nous IMO. Credit to us for hanging in there as we usually do. But it remains one we got away with. I think even Bomber acknowledges that.

Disagree...see post above. I was there on the day and loved the match and my heart-rate was though the roof for 120 minutes, but apart from 15 minutes in the 2nd quarter, I never felt we were "dominated". Countless viewings of the DVD have done nothing to change my view. The score supports my view. As does the quarter by quarter break-down above. Feel free to refute the points I made in it

These are opinions of course, and are subjective. I just wouldn't presume to say that anyone who disagreed with me lacked football "nous".
As for Bomber and the club's comments on St Kilda dominating us in that GF,
I'll put them in the file along with "We expect GWS to give us a really good hit-out and we will take this match very seriously, and don't just expect to turn up and get the 4 points". Diplomacy, tact and respect are valued at GFC as I'm sure you well know.

 

[witsend]

The Saints won three quarters against us. They missed many easy shots under no pressure. Even players who are reliable kicks like Schneider sprayed 'em. It's one we got away with.

St Kilda Geelong
3.2 (20) 3.0 (18)
7.7 (49) 7.1 (43)
9.11 (65) 9.4 (58)
9.14 (68) 12.8(80)

Saints outscored us by 2 points in the 1st
Saints outscored us by 4 points in the second. Bear in mind they kicked 3 goals inside the last minute of the quarter...1 being a freebie from the umpire for abuse.
Saints outscored us by 1 point in the 3rd.

I completely dispute the premise that we were outplayed for 3 of the 4 quarters. It was virtually 50-50 for 3 quarters with fluctuating periods of dominance by both sides. Take out the Milburn gift goal which did not in any sense occur in play and the scores at 3/4 time reflect the even-ness of play. Should have been a 1 point margin. 50-50.
Then in the 4th we held them GOAL-LESS in the 4th while we scored 3 goals.
It's like saying a 1500 meter runner dominated the race for 1200 meters but was outrun in the final 300, and therefore should be said to have been the better runner on the day but for the last bit!
A GF is played over 4 quarters not 3.
We were neck and neck to the last lap and pulled away at the last.

 

[RogersResults]

In case some are unaware of this resource.

The score progression by minute and second is here:

http://stats.rleague.com/afl/stats/games/2009/091520090926.html#prog

Someone might like to add up the time each was ahead and when the score was even.