Richmond 2017-20 v Hawthorn 2012-15

[Jhye Clark 13]

Yeah they were clearly the best team in a poor comp. No shame in that.

Lol.

 

[Gethelred]

It depends at least a little on how the game 'looks'. Both sides didn't really care all that much about the stoppage, setting up to pressure you once you won it; if neither side wants the ball in tight, it becomes a competition of who wants it least, which I think goes to Richmond. So, Hawthorn win the stoppages but then have to break clear, which is where they'd win the game; Hawthorn in that patch specialized in ball retention. Richmond's game is built on creating turnovers, Hawthorn's on negating them. Hawthorn could score on the fast break, but their kicking ability meant they could kick/mark their way upfield all the way to a scoring shot. If we're talking Rance Richmond, Clarkson would've played through his man and forced him to play accountably, and given how strong their kicking was you're not going to see many 2 on ones in Hawthorn's front six.

If Richmond do win the stoppages, it's actually a little more interesting; Hawthorn played the Richmond way (minus the holistic all ground focus) around the ball before they did. Richmond also built their attack on swarming the balldrop in order to minimize the effects of turnovers, so while one would expect Hawthorn to build their intercept game behind the ball, Richmond's system should bring the ball to ground pretty well and when the ball hits ground in forward 50, Richmond's smalls would go to work. The Hawks specialized in shutting down individual small forwards - Stratton had a sensational record on a number of the best small forwards comp wide - but it would've been very interesting watching Clarkson have to adapt his structure to try and counter every position other than FF and CHF being - essentially - a defensive position.

I keep coming back, though, to Hawthorn's kicking. I don't see how Richmond can affect that game team wide. They've a better individual player - Martin - than Hawthorn do, but Hawthorn's advantage across the board is two faceted; they can score when you make a mistake, but they can take the ball from defensive 50 all the way into a scoring shot without missing a kick. Richmond would turn the ball over and feed Hawthorn's turnover game, but they would get far, far less turnovers than they would against any other opposition; they'd arguably have an easier time playing Geelong 07 than that Hawthorn side.

From a head to head, I'd see Hawthorn as winning it, and they won three in a row. 3 in 4 years is a massive achievement, but it isn't a hattrick.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

I didn’t really rate the 22 year as strong. In fact I reckon it’s probably the weakest we have had in a while.

A team that got smashed by 15 goals in the GF.
A prelim side that finished 17th the year before.
And a reigning premier that was absolutely running on fumes by the time finals hit.

Reminds me of the 2019 season.
Geelong were the best last year by a fair margin. In a comp that was pretty much non existent.

Basically your summarizing in a nutshell from 2017-2020.

I agree thought, the super teams of 2007-2015 are long gone with the two expansion clubs chewing up another 44 best 22. Each week

 

[geelong_crazy26]

So you are comparing the Saints and Collingwoods poor outputs post their GF runs with Adelaide and GWS after they played their GFs. I dig that.

I am saying you played s**t opponents in finals those years. Especially your grand finals

 

[My Tilly]

Thank god Lethal won’t ever hear your opinion. He’d probably have a heart attack . I hope you are just trolling cause it’s getting pretty sad now.

 

[STPer18]

Hawks fans are loving the butt sniffing from the cats supporters here

Congratulations Hawks cats have finally admitted your dominance over their regional club.

No, we're still better than the Hawfs. They're just also a lot better than your mob.

 

[Falcon3518]

It depends at least a little on how the game 'looks'. Both sides didn't really care all that much about the stoppage, setting up to pressure you once you won it; if neither side wants the ball in tight, it becomes a competition of who wants it least, which I think goes to Richmond. So, Hawthorn win the stoppages but then have to break clear, which is where they'd win the game; Hawthorn in that patch specialized in ball retention. Richmond's game is built on creating turnovers, Hawthorn's on negating them. Hawthorn could score on the fast break, but their kicking ability meant they could kick/mark their way upfield all the way to a scoring shot. If we're talking Rance Richmond, Clarkson would've played through his man and forced him to play accountably, and given how strong their kicking was you're not going to see many 2 on ones in Hawthorn's front six.

If Richmond do win the stoppages, it's actually a little more interesting; Hawthorn played the Richmond way (minus the holistic all ground focus) around the ball before they did. Richmond also built their attack on swarming the balldrop in order to minimize the effects of turnovers, so while one would expect Hawthorn to build their intercept game behind the ball, Richmond's system should bring the ball to ground pretty well and when the ball hits ground in forward 50, Richmond's smalls would go to work. The Hawks specialized in shutting down individual small forwards - Stratton had a sensational record on a number of the best small forwards comp wide - but it would've been very interesting watching Clarkson have to adapt his structure to try and counter every position other than FF and CHF being - essentially - a defensive position.

I keep coming back, though, to Hawthorn's kicking. I don't see how Richmond can affect that game team wide. They've a better individual player - Martin - than Hawthorn do, but Hawthorn's advantage across the board is two faceted; they can score when you make a mistake, but they can take the ball from defensive 50 all the way into a scoring shot without missing a kick. Richmond would turn the ball over and feed Hawthorn's turnover game, but they would get far, far less turnovers than they would against any other opposition; they'd arguably have an easier time playing Geelong 07 than that Hawthorn side.

From a head to head, I'd see Hawthorn as winning it, and they won three in a row. 3 in 4 years is a massive achievement, but it isn't a hattrick.

But we did stop their elite kicking already 3 out of 4 times from 12-15 with an inferior team. I’m not sure why you think we couldn’t do it from 17-20 with a dynasty team (they didn’t play any of our stars back then in their prime bar Riewoldt and Cotchin. Prime Dusty, Rance, Grimes, Houli, Vlastuin would have a field day against them really since they already beat them before, not to mention we added great players like Nank, Lynch, Bolton, Prestia for more mid and attack dominance)

Nobody on this thread seems to be able to answer why we’d lose with a better team. I’m starting to think most people are not remembering the Hawks properly or just underrate us. In this case the 3peat is better than 3 in 4 doesn’t matter when our head to head is superior. A match doesn’t care how many flags you won consecutively. We seem to be Hawks bogey team which is why we’d win again. Simple really.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Falcon3518]

No, we're still better than the Hawfs. They're just also a lot better than your mob.

Hahah no, the same argument we are using for why we’d beat the Hawks can be used to say why Hawks would smash you. You couldn’t beat their baby side in 08 with your best team, you’d have no chance against their 13-15 sides. 10 goal smashing minimum.

You guys are H&A specialists compared to the rest of the dynasty sides hence why you don’t have a b2b. It really should’ve been 2 in 5 anyway since that fluke Scarlett toe poke won you the game, saints were actually a better side that year including in the GF. I’m afraid you are just going to have to deal with that.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Gethelred]

But we did stop their elite kicking already 3 out of 4 times from 12-15 with an inferior team. I’m not sure why you think we couldn’t do it from 17-20 with a dynasty team (they didn’t play any of our stars back then in their prime bar Riewoldt and Cotchin. Prime Dusty, Rance, Grimes, Houli, Vlastuin would have a field day against them really since they already beat them before, not to mention we added great players like Nank, Lynch, Bolton, Prestia for more mid and attack dominance)

The problem you've got is you didn't use the 17-20 gameplan in 12-15. Your method changed; how you used the players you had changed; your list changed. It's not as simple as saying 'we beat them then'; you beat them with a different style, during home and away. They went up a gear in finals and so did you, but the difference between them against you in those years H&A and them in finals is a good deal more stark.

Nobody on this thread seems to be able to answer why we’d lose with a better team.

I mean, did you read the post you quoted, at all?

I’m starting to think most people are not remembering the Hawks properly or just underrate us. In this case the 3peat is better than 3 in 4 doesn’t matter when our head to head is superior.

Except there isn't a head to head. Their peak was at a different period than yours. Any head to head is hypothetical, and as a hypothetical I've told you what I think. Disagreement =/= not answering your question.

A match doesn’t care how many flags you won consecutively. We seem to be Hawks bogey team which is why we’d win again. Simple really.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

I too can declare victory and ignore what the other person said.

You're wrong. I'm right.

See how easy that was?

 

[Falcon3518]

The problem you've got is you didn't use the 17-20 gameplan in 12-15. Your method changed; how you used the players you had changed; your list changed. It's not as simple as saying 'we beat them then'; you beat them with a different style, during home and away. They went up a gear in finals and so did you, but the difference between them against you in those years H&A and them in finals is a good deal more stark.

I mean, did you read the post you quoted, at all?

Except there isn't a head to head. Their peak was at a different period than yours. Any head to head is hypothetical, and as a hypothetical I've told you what I think. Disagreement =/= not answering your question.

I too can declare victory and ignore what the other person said.

You're wrong. I'm right.

See how easy that was?

Ok so you think our gameplan would be worse even though it won us 3 flags when the other one couldn’t win us a final, Vickery, Conca, Griffiths, Lennon etc are better than Lynch, Prestia, Nank, Bolton etc. On top of that our stars got worse in 17-20 than they were in 13-15.

Have I got this right? Is this your argument?


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Rich01]

Basically your summarizing in a nutshell from 2017-2020.

I agree thought, the super teams of 2007-2015 are long gone with the two expansion clubs chewing up another 44 best 22. Each week

Yeah it’s pretty bad how they diluted the comp.
When GC and GWS came in from 2011-2013 the comp basically was 16 teams with 2 of them playing the bye each week. Pumped up the decent clubs percentages, but the reality was it was a really bad look for the comp at the time.

 

[Gethelred]

Ok so you think our gameplan would be worse even though it won us 3 flags when the other one couldn’t win us a final, Vickery, Conca, Griffiths, Lennon etc are better than Lynch, Prestia, Nank, Bolton etc. On top of that our stars got worse in 17-20 than they were in 13-15.

Have I got this right? Is this your argument?


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Here's an idea for you: how about you stop misrepresenting my argument, and I won't start misrepresenting yours, hmm?

What I said was this:

The problem you've got is you didn't use the 17-20 gameplan in 12-15.

I said your gameplan wasn't better/worse; I said it was different. If you've ever watched or played a game of football - which is something that is occasionally suspect on this site at times - you will know that your gameplan affects how well/poorly you match up against different opponents.

Your plan from 12-15 matched up pretty well against them then. I don't think your premiership gameplan would've matched up quite so well, especially in a final.

 

[STPer18]

It really should’ve been 2 in 5 anyway since that fluke Scarlett toe poke won you the game, saints were actually a better side that year including in the GF. I’m afraid you are just going to have to deal with that.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

I'm going to have to deal with the fact that we should've lost and therefore our premiership doesn't count anymore?

Come back to reality!

 

[Falcon3518]

Here's an idea for you: how about you stop misrepresenting my argument, and I won't start misrepresenting yours, hmm?

What I said was this:

I said your gameplan wasn't better/worse; I said it was different. If you've ever watched or played a game of football - which is something that is occasionally suspect on this site at times - you will know that your gameplan affects how well/poorly you match up against different opponents.

Your plan from 12-15 matched up pretty well against them then. I don't think your premiership gameplan would've matched up quite so well, especially in a final.

Yes I’m aware of what you said. You are saying it’s different and that’s why we would lose against them. And you are saying our personnel wouldn’t be able to handle it either even though we got better players.

Btw I’m not having a go, I can tell you know your footy based on your detailed analysis and I agreed with pretty much everything you said apart from us not being able to stop their precise kicking. On top of the previous factors I mentioned we were also the best turnover team in the league from 17-20. Not sure what we were in 12-15 but I’m assuming it was shithouse, most likely bottom half of the comp. Does this not matter at all either? It’s starting to look like you are drawing a pretty long bow here.

Also in regards to our 12-15 team, if a thread with a poll was made to say who would win if they played against the 12-15 Hawks, I’m assuming you’d vote us right? The poll should be 100% to Tigers since we actually proved it, not sure the ‘expert’ BF people on here would vote that way though cause the are analysing matchups based on emotions not fact as per this thread.

EDIT: Our 17-20 team also played better in finals as our gameplan was built for that. So when you said ‘especially in finals’ it’s actually the complete opposite. It would suit us not the hawks as the pressure is dialled up which makes precise kicking harder to pull off, hence more turnovers are created and more scoring for us. That’s why commentators call it a ‘Richmond style game’


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Falcon3518]

I'm going to have to deal with the fact that we should've lost and therefore our premiership doesn't count anymore?

Come back to reality!

No you won fair and square, but don’t think you could win against dynasty teams mate when you weren’t even as good as St Kilda in finals bar the fluke.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Gethelred]

Yes I’m aware of what you said. You are saying it’s different and that’s why we would lose against them. And you are saying our personnel wouldn’t be able to handle it either even though we got better players.

Not what I said at all.

Btw I’m not having a go, I can tell you know your footy based on your detailed analysis and I agreed with pretty much everything you said apart from us not being able to stop their precise kicking.

My question is why do you think your pressure have an impact on their kick/mark game?

They're going to find targets, and they're going to go at 90% by foot at 45 degree angle kicks. Your game is at least nominally designed to force teams to run the ball, but they can simply refuse to play the game your way.

On top of the previous factors I mentioned we were also the best turnover team in the league from 17-20. Not sure what we were in 12-15 but I’m assuming it was shithouse, most likely bottom half of the comp. Does this not matter at all either? It’s starting to look like you are drawing a pretty long bow here.

Hawks were the best in their premiership years, as well as having the lowest turnover rate; while you were the best at generating turnovers, you were also among the highest at causing turnovers. Your entire ball movement strategy was built around making those turnovers not matter; they will be able to score from your turnovers, and you'd force their turnovers at a decreased rate because they have no incentive to try and run the ball.

Also in regards to our 12-15 team, if a thread with a poll was made to say who would win if they played against the 12-15 Hawks, I’m assuming you’d vote us right? The poll should be 100% to Tigers since we actually proved it, not sure the ‘expert’ BF people on here would vote that way though cause the are analysing matchups based on emotions not fact as per this thread.

Why would you assume any of that?

I'm pretty unemotional about this kind of thing. I don't go for either side. And I'd love you to try and tell me you're not biased at all.

EDIT: Our 17-20 team also played better in finals as our gameplan was built for that.

So did theirs.

So when you said ‘especially in finals’ it’s actually the complete opposite. It would suit us not the hawks as the pressure is dialled up which makes precise kicking harder to pull off, hence more turnovers are created and more scoring for us. That’s why commentators call it a ‘Richmond style game’


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Dude, I'm convinced now you're not reading my posts. I'm not sure how many times I can say the phrase 'kick/mark their way up the field so your pressure won't apply' before I get sick of repeating it.

You cannot pressure a player who has taken a mark. You can't harass them; you can't even cut off the corridor these days.

They'd cut you to pieces when they have the ball, and they'd slow the game down when they needed to. You would respond because great teams do, but they're just as capable of giving more as you are.

Trying to pretend the only player to ever get better in finals is Dustin Martin is one of the more regrettable of Richmond fans' conceits.

 

[Falcon3518]

Not what I said at all.

My question is why do you think your pressure have an impact on their kick/mark game?

They're going to find targets, and they're going to go at 90% by foot at 45 degree angle kicks. Your game is at least nominally designed to force teams to run the ball, but they can simply refuse to play the game your way.

Hawks were the best in their premiership years, as well as having the lowest turnover rate; while you were the best at generating turnovers, you were also among the highest at causing turnovers. Your entire ball movement strategy was built around making those turnovers not matter; they will be able to score from your turnovers, and you'd force their turnovers at a decreased rate because they have no incentive to try and run the ball.

Why would you assume any of that?

I'm pretty unemotional about this kind of thing. I don't go for either side. And I'd love you to try and tell me you're not biased at all.

So did theirs.

Dude, I'm convinced now you're not reading my posts. I'm not sure how many times I can say the phrase 'kick/mark their way up the field so your pressure won't apply' before I get sick of repeating it.

You cannot pressure a player who has taken a mark. You can't harass them; you can't even cut off the corridor these days.

They'd cut you to pieces when they have the ball, and they'd slow the game down when they needed to. You would respond because great teams do, but they're just as capable of giving more as you are.

Trying to pretend the only player to ever get better in finals is Dustin Martin is one of the more regrettable of Richmond fans' conceits.

Yeah I know what you are saying, but you’ve got it the other way around. Pressure stops the kick marking. In theory you are correct but players make mistakes. A good example is Djokovic in tennis, his whole game is being able to return everything until the other person makes a mistake (turnover equivalent in tennis). That’s why he dominates, it’s impossible to play perfect tennis the exact same way it’s impossible to play perfect footy.

Whilst everybody was trying to copy the hawks kick mark style we developed a gameplan to counter it. That’s why we got 3 flags, that’s also why we play better in finals, more pressure = more mistakes = more scoring for us. You saw what we did to Geelong 3 times in finals whilst they beat us in H&A. Perfect footy doesn’t work well in finals.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Gethelred]

Yeah I know what you are saying, but you’ve got it the other way around. Pressure stops the kick marking. In theory you are correct but players make mistakes.

That is the point: that incarnation of Hawthorn made less mistakes, and took more risks with their disposal cognisant that they were good enough to pull it off.

The game turns on whether or not you can force them out of chipping to trying to run the ball. I don't think you could.

Whilst everybody was trying to copy the hawks kick mark style we developed a gameplan to counter it. That’s why we got 3 flags, that’s also why we play better in finals, more pressure = more mistakes = more scoring for us. You saw what we did to Geelong 3 times in finals whilst they beat us in H&A. Perfect footy doesn’t work well in finals.

Sigh.

Hawthorn won three flags for more reasons than just their kick/mark. They used Richmond's structure around the stoppage before Richmond did. They used Beverage's low darts into forward 50 and the defensive pivot position well before either of you. They gave Luke Hodge, Shaun Burgoyne and Jordan Lewis breaks early in quarters to allow them to go harder when their opponents were tired. The only innovation Richmond used which Hawthorn didn't is their drafting for sprinters and endurance athletes and their use of kicking to grass and sacrifice of Jack Riewoldt to halve long high kicks.

They too went up a gear or three in finals. They too have a player who won 3 Norm Smiths. They too won games in the last 5 minutes.

For *'s sake. At what point do the rest of us come up with an 'Ok Boomer' equivalent to tell a Richmond supporter that no, their team wasn't the best ever and no, they'd have struggled against other opposition?

I think Richmond would probably have beaten Geelong 07-11, because their game doesn't match up as well. But that Hawthorn side did everything you did as well as being able to play a way that robs you of your strengths.

 

[Falcon3518]

That is the point: that incarnation of Hawthorn made less mistakes, and took more risks with their disposal cognisant that they were good enough to pull it off.

The game turns on whether or not you can force them out of chipping to trying to run the ball. I don't think you could.

Sigh.

Hawthorn won three flags for more reasons than just their kick/mark. They used Richmond's structure around the stoppage before Richmond did. They used Beverage's low darts into forward 50 and the defensive pivot position well before either of you. They gave Luke Hodge, Shaun Burgoyne and Jordan Lewis breaks early in quarters to allow them to go harder when their opponents were tired. The only innovation Richmond used which Hawthorn didn't is their drafting for sprinters and endurance athletes and their use of kicking to grass and sacrifice of Jack Riewoldt to halve long high kicks.

They too went up a gear or three in finals. They too have a player who won 3 Norm Smiths. They too won games in the last 5 minutes.

For *'s sake. At what point do the rest of us come up with an 'Ok Boomer' equivalent to tell a Richmond supporter that no, their team wasn't the best ever and no, they'd have struggled against other opposition?

I think Richmond would probably have beaten Geelong 07-11, because their game doesn't match up as well. But that Hawthorn side did everything you did as well as being able to play a way that robs you of your strengths.

Yeah Hawks invented flooding, we then improved it, that’s what the nature of the sport does. Each premier counters/improves from the last. We suffocated the game so badly that it made the game look really ugly, it got so out of hand that the AFL had to make 666 and various other rules to open it up.

Yes I believe we would’ve done the same to the Hawks it’s proven we did it to everybody else who used that style not sure why you would think otherwise considering Hawks 12-15 never played against a system like ours before either. They’d legit get bamboozled on gameday. Took the comp 4 years and for us to get old to figure it out. Clarkson is great and everything but he can’t figure us out mid game plus Dusty doing is mid/fwd swap on the fly. Which he didn’t do back in 12-15.

On top of that good luck trying to stop an arguable GOAT finals player in a final. I can only see Hawks beating us in an H&A game at best, no way in a final. We have to many advantages. Each to their own I guess.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Strange Cat]

That is the point: that incarnation of Hawthorn made less mistakes, and took more risks with their disposal cognisant that they were good enough to pull it off.

The game turns on whether or not you can force them out of chipping to trying to run the ball. I don't think you could.

Sigh.

Hawthorn won three flags for more reasons than just their kick/mark. They used Richmond's structure around the stoppage before Richmond did. They used Beverage's low darts into forward 50 and the defensive pivot position well before either of you. They gave Luke Hodge, Shaun Burgoyne and Jordan Lewis breaks early in quarters to allow them to go harder when their opponents were tired. The only innovation Richmond used which Hawthorn didn't is their drafting for sprinters and endurance athletes and their use of kicking to grass and sacrifice of Jack Riewoldt to halve long high kicks.

They too went up a gear or three in finals. They too have a player who won 3 Norm Smiths. They too won games in the last 5 minutes.

For *'s sake. At what point do the rest of us come up with an 'Ok Boomer' equivalent to tell a Richmond supporter that no, their team wasn't the best ever and no, they'd have struggled against other opposition?

I think Richmond would probably have beaten Geelong 07-11, because their game doesn't match up as well. But that Hawthorn side did everything you did as well as being able to play a way that robs you of your strengths.

No point engaging with the clueless troll

It’s a lost battle

 

[Gethelred]

Yeah Hawks invented flooding, we then improved it,

Lol.

You definitely improved flooding, but it was under Terry Wallace.

We suffocated the game so badly that it made the game look really ugly, it got so out of hand that the AFL had to make 666 and various other rules to open it up.

Sigh.

You won three flags, mate. You don't need to have a victim complex anymore.

Yes I believe we would’ve done the same to the Hawks it’s proven we did it to everybody else who used that style not sure why you would think otherwise considering Hawks 12-15 never played against a system like ours before either.

This the only interesting thing you've said.

No, the Hawks never faced a system like yours, in that the closest system to yours in the comp was theirs. They can hardly play themselves, but Clarko was an excellent in game innovator.

They’d legit get bamboozled on gameday.

Don't agree, sorry.

Took the comp 4 years and for us to get old to figure it out.

???

Strategic innovations are rare in any field.

What really beat you was Covid shortened quarters. Your method to tire out opposition midfields worked under the old status quo, but under the new shortened quarters teams began to hold you out early in the year so you adapted and got on a roll. You stopped setting up so defensively because you didn't get to kick 2-3 goals in the closing 5 minutes of terms; you actually had to win the clearances sometimes to turn games.

Then you won the flag, patted yourselves on the back, and collectively forgot what you used to do and why you did it.

Setting up to harass the clearance requires different structures than to try and win it. Your pressure was only sustainable for 4 quarters because of your positioning, and when you abandoned it to try and win them your mids had to work twice as hard to compensate. All of a sudden, it's you lot who are out of legs at the now lengthened quarters and an interchange cap.

The AFL didn't beat you. You got arrogant, and you beat yourselves.

Clarkson is great and everything but he can’t figure us out mid game plus Dusty doing is mid/fwd swap on the fly. Which he didn’t do back in 12-15.

On top of that good luck trying to stop an arguable GOAT finals player in a final. I can only see Hawks beating us in an H&A game at best, no way in a final. We have to many advantages. Each to their own I guess.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

We can agree to disagree.

 

[Rioli2Rioli]

No, we're still better than the Hawfs. They're just also a lot better than your mob.

LOL maybe you didnt get the post as it was more about the but sniffing and complimenting the hawks , But its great reading from Cats fans

 

[Smedts_2]

I'm going to have to deal with the fact that we should've lost and therefore our premiership doesn't count anymore?

Come back to reality!

It’s fine though because then you can claim the moral 08 premiership in return. So we actually went back to back and still got 3 in 5…

 

[Falcon3518]

Lol.

You definitely improved flooding, but it was under Terry Wallace.

Sigh.

You won three flags, mate. You don't need to have a victim complex anymore.

This the only interesting thing you've said.

No, the Hawks never faced a system like yours, in that the closest system to yours in the comp was theirs. They can hardly play themselves, but Clarko was an excellent in game innovator.

Don't agree, sorry.

???

Strategic innovations are rare in any field.

What really beat you was Covid shortened quarters. Your method to tire out opposition midfields worked under the old status quo, but under the new shortened quarters teams began to hold you out early in the year so you adapted and got on a roll. You stopped setting up so defensively because you didn't get to kick 2-3 goals in the closing 5 minutes of terms; you actually had to win the clearances sometimes to turn games.

Then you won the flag, patted yourselves on the back, and collectively forgot what you used to do and why you did it.

Setting up to harass the clearance requires different structures than to try and win it. Your pressure was only sustainable for 4 quarters because of your positioning, and when you abandoned it to try and win them your mids had to work twice as hard to compensate. All of a sudden, it's you lot who are out of legs at the now lengthened quarters and an interchange cap.

The AFL didn't beat you. You got arrogant, and you beat yourselves.

We can agree to disagree.

Cool. But I don’t get what you meant with Terry Wallace, Hardwick started coaching us in 2010.

Also age and injuries was a factor in 21 and 22. We also didn’t adjust to the stand rule properly. It’s not a victim complex it just is what it is.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Falcon3518]

It’s fine though because then you can claim the moral 08 premiership in return. So we actually went back to back and still got 3 in 5…

Oh geez cats fans want to make this another thread about Geelong. Shoo, this is a thread about dynasty teams. You don’t belong here.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com