Analysis Geelong vs top 4 rivals from 2009-2010 seasons

[King Cold]

There's probably been plenty of other threads on this board which have praised our club for its ability to remain as a premiership contender for 8 years straight, but lets see how we have gone in comparison to our top 4 rivals from a few years ago.

Since the final 8 system was introduced in 1994, there was a team that came from outside the top 8 one year to making top 4 the following year, and this happened every year from 1994 up until 2008.

2009 was the year that broke this trend, and in 2010 the top 4 remained unchanged from the previous year.

The top 4 teams from 2009-2010 were Geelong, Collingwood, St Kilda and Western Bulldogs.

Lets compare finishing positions over the last four seasons for each club.

Geelong finishes:
2011 - 2nd
2012 - 7th
2013 - 2nd
2014 - 3rd

Collingwood finishes:
2011 - 1st
2012 - 4th
2013 - 6th
2014 - 11th

St Kilda finishes:
2011 - 6th
2012 - 9th
2013 - 16th
2014 - 18th

Western Bulldogs finishes:
2011 - 10th
2012 - 15th
2013 - 15th
2014 - 14th

St Kilda and Western Bulldogs have gone back to the bottom after long runs at the top of the ladder, while Collingwood are following the same path. This is normal as the AFL system is designed for teams to go through these cycles.

Geelong by all rights should be down the bottom as well, and I can't speak highly enough of those in charge at the club on how they have managed to rebuild our list while staying in premiership contention.

I look forward to the club challenging for the premiership in 2015 while getting more games into the youngsters, while the Pies, Saints and Dogs spend another season languishing near the bottom.

It will be interesting to do another analysis a few years down the track and compare how we have performed in comparison to Hawthorn, Sydney and Fremantle, who were our top 4 rivals from 2013-2014.

 

[Catdog]

Great stats, great post, freaking great team/club

 

[David the Cat]

Collingwood are crap and the Dogs have been coming for 61 years.

Our young's have just as much ability as theirs…and are getting final's experience on the way through, playing and learning from premiership players. and we haven't missed a finals since 2006….

We're doing ok tyvm.

 

[Goggin Our Best]

Collingwood are crap and the Dogs have been coming for 61 years.

Our young's have just as much ability as theirs…and are getting final's experience on the way through, playing and learning from premiership players. and we haven't missed a finals since 2006….

We're doing ok tyvm.

I think thats a ridiculous assessment of Collingwood

They looked like finishing 4th there last year ( up to about round 15-16 last year )- and then were totally decimated by injuries - and the thing is - alot of their early draft picks ( who they have got high hopes for) couldnt get on the park at all - so you have to give them a couple of years

Look at Pt Adelaide - alot thought they had no future - but injuries also cruelled their young talent - look at Hamish Hartlett ( a real gun) - his 1st couple of years - he was out injured nearly all the time - and it was the same for a couple of their other youngsters- once they all became available Port rushed up the ladder

Buckley has taken the youth option ( hes got rid of all the trouble makers - bar one ) - i think they can rebound pretty quickly

Im not as positive about the Bulldogs ( alot of blueskye - anyone saying their the next big thing)

As for your crack about - them coming for 61 years - well the Cats were coming for 44 years - and we finally came

 

[David the Cat]

Yes, the Pies had terrible injuries last year and suffered. ..they are rebuilding and relying on youth to develop…a fine strategy that will take time to come to fruition…as you say yourself…."you have to give them a couple of years.."

…..the "crap" comment was a little over the top, but they will struggle to make the finals in 2015 IMO….and it seems you agree.

As for your last sentence, I'm not sure what the point is….The dogs are perennially coming….and haven't managed it yet. IF you want to hold your breath for their next premiership, then I wish you well.

 

[Teriyakicat]

Collingwood are crap and the Dogs have been coming for 61 years.

Our young's have just as much ability as theirs…and are getting final's experience on the way through, playing and learning from premiership players. and we haven't missed a finals since 2006….

We're doing ok tyvm.

I lolled....
... a lot!

 

[Strangled Cat]

I lolled....
... a lot!

It's a pretty long orgasm, hey? Oh, wait...

I wonder when their next shot at a flag will be?

 

[dazbroncos]

there is a difference between ability and literally applying it on the football field.
Liberatore is better than anything we currently have and that includes Motlop. Bontempelli would probably just push out Horlin-Smith in only his 1st year of footy.
I'd quite happily take Boyd over anything we have other than Hawkins, of course.
Dahlhaus would also be the equal of Duncan, and is a year behind in development. They then have the likes of Macrae and Jake Stringer who are as good as Caddy and Murdoch.

As for having not missed finals since 2006, of course not, why would we with the team we had?
We still have Johnson, Enright, Lonergan, Taylor, Bartel all performing at a very good level. Put those five in the Bulldogs line-up and they would have played in a multiple finals since 2006 also.

The worry for me is that our youngsters have now done pretty much nothing in each and every single final they have played in. The only one is Caddy who has looked somewhat composed and not out of his depth. I felt that would change last year as Duncan, Murdoch, Guthrie and Motlop were entering September in pretty much top form but as soon as they entered the finals, they fired blanks and the team exited with it's tail between their legs.

Dont dispute the quality that the Doggies have coming thru, but you are listing a FS, Bont ( top 5), Boyd ( #1) Stringer ( top 10) and Macrae (top 20?) with Dalhaus ( Wasn't he a rookie?)

Anyway, that is some drafting pedigree against our, well best available in the 30's. I get what you are saying but it's not really apples to apples. Each to their own of course.

And as for their performance in finals, Mots was cooked. Mitch I thought was serviceable. Murda struggled badly and Guthrie learnt finals footy the hard way.
I'd say whilst not being hurt he was cooked too.

No excuses but they were not up to it. They weren't alone either but I don't think, even as painful as it was and still is, id call the experience a loss.
September playing time is experience you can't just get. You have to get there and be at your best to move on. The 01 - 06 breed learnt it. Id say this lot are doing the same.

GO Catters

 

[Topper Harley]

Dahlhaus would also be the equal of Duncan, and is a year behind in development.

No he wouldn't, not in the same league as Duncan ATM. Keep in mind Duncan just came top 3 in the b & f in a top 8 side, Dahlhaus couldn't crack the top 3 in a side that finished 14th.

 

[Topper Harley]

he finished 4th mate!
In 2013 he finished 6th, 2012 he was 4th again.

He's one year younger and already influenced just as many games as what Duncan has for us.

and his side finished 14th.

I've watched alot of Dahlhaus in the past few years, doesn't consistently impact games the way Duncan does, he's honestly not close.

 

[Topper Harley]

he finished behind Griffin, Macrae and Liberatore. If Mitch played for the Bulldogs, would he have polled ahead of any one of those guys based on last years performance?
Keep in mind Jackson Macrae gathered 27 disposals (8 contested), 5½ marks, 4 tackles, 2 clearances, 0.5 goals & 0.5 assists per game while also pulling in 10 Brownlow medal votes by seasons end.

Probably sneaks past Macrae but not the others.

Not Libba, but he had a better year than Griffen.

 

[Topper Harley]

and he also had no tag to contend with every game.
Are you really suggesting Duncan had more influence on games than what Griffin did last season?

Yes.

Griffen was very hampered and inconsistent, and wasn't running both ways the way he was in 2013.
I'm not suggesting Duncan is a better player, just that he had a better year.

 

[catempire]

Yes.

Griffen was very hampered and inconsistent, and wasn't running both ways the way he was in 2013.
I'm not suggesting Duncan is a better player, just that he had a better year.

I didn't see a lot of the Dogs this year but just on stats you appear to have a fair case:

 

[David the Cat]

Griffen is a Colbert….

Wouldn't want him at my club…Give me Mitch Duncan any day.

 

[Topper Harley]

I didn't see a lot of the Dogs this year but just on stats you appear to have a fair case:

View attachment 104108

I watched all bar about 3 dogs games this year (not sure why), and Griffen simply had a down year due to his back problems. Libba on the other hand was ******* sensational.

 

[catempire]

Ninja post delete, eh Bobby_ ?

 

[David the Cat]

Like I said…if I had to make a decision right now…...give me Mitch Duncan any day.

A lot more upside, and longevity…..and on 2014 form, not much between them…..yup…….Mitch for me.

 

[David the Cat]

Ninja post delete, eh Bobby_ ?

He was quick….but not quick enough CE……

 

[catempire]

best not to get into a shitfight and instead discuss the topic at hand in a civilized manor.
I do find it strange how you said you didn't watch any Bulldogs games but used such a small sample of seasonal statistics to make a case for debate.

They aren't even comparable players due to the position they play and again, Griffin gets tagged on a regular basis but still puts up decent numbers.

It would be interested to see how both players fared against the eventual top 8 sides, and in Mitch's case, the other top 7 sides because simply using numbers to make a case is never going to work versus watching the games right throughout.

I was upfront about not watching the Bulldogs games. But for going back and watching a season of replays, a quick peek at the stats gives me some degree of insight. I don't claim it is an adequate replacement for seeing a whole season of games. It is a quick reckoner, nothing more.

If you've got something compelling to show me that Griffin was better, go right ahead.

 

[Topper Harley]

It would be interested to see how both players fared against the eventual top 8 sides, and in Mitch's case, the other top 7 sides because simply using numbers to make a case is never going to work versus watching the games right throughout.

Griffen averaged 20.8 touches and kicked 3 goals in 10 games.
Duncan averaged 23.667 touches and kicked 12 goals in 12 games.

Not an enormous difference on simple stats, but a win to Duncan.

 

[you pick one]

what I have got is even better, and it's going back to the original debate on Dahlhaus being the equal of Duncan, using your system of rating players, Dahlhaus has averaged precisely .01 more votes via SuperCoach than what Mitch has so far throughout their respective careers. My point about them being equal must be on the money.

Am I doing it right?

No your pushing s**t up hill trying to convince anyone here that other sides have good players too.Run while you still can.

 

[Jimmy Yamazaki]

I don't believe this has fair comparisons in this thread and a true reflection of where each club is at. You have to compare how many players are still playing from those 2009 to 2010 periods in their respective clubs.

Off the top of my head, I think we still have the most, so once our oldies go, we could be just as bad bottom 4. And their are positions that we've failed to fill since 2011 such as tagger and number 1 ruck are still shithouse. So I wouldn't be proclaiming "mission accomplished" yet. (see what I did there?)

We still have dual/triple premiership players running around ffs so of course we're going to be competitive.

 

[catempire]

what I have got is even better, and it's going back to the original debate on Dahlhaus being the equal of Duncan, using your system of rating players, Dahlhaus has averaged precisely .01 more votes via SuperCoach than what Mitch has so far throughout their respective careers. My point about them being equal must be on the money.

Am I doing it right?

Wouldn't have a clue what a "vote via SuperCoach" is. I'm sure it's really compelling though.

 

[catempire]

I don't believe this has fair comparisons in this thread and a true reflection of where each club is at. You have to compare how many players are still playing from those 2009 to 2010 periods in their respective clubs.

Off the top of my head, I think we still have the most, so once our oldies go, we could be just as bad bottom 4. And their are positions that we've failed to fill since 2011 such as tagger and number 1 ruck are still shithouse. So I wouldn't be proclaiming "mission accomplished" yet. (see what I did there?)

We still have dual/triple premiership players running around ffs so of course we're going to be competitive.

If the other clubs from that era have turned over more players why is that? Were they not that good? Did salary cap squeeze? Did they tank?

In any event, isn't the point that Geelong is bucking the trend and doing quite well (so far) at avoiding the fate suffered by those teams?

Certainly, I think if you ask fans from those teams if they could take the path we have taken or theirs they would happily take ours. And, according to bookmakers, we are still better placed than any of them.

 

[catempire]

just using the same analogy you used in order to justify your opinion is all.

I didn't use any analogy.

Still waiting Bobby. Don't overwhelm me with the compelling stuff now.