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

[Live in hope]

Having quite a few friends who are suffering Saints fans i have had to tread very diplomatically around the topic of 2009, however when the topic has arisen, the prevailling view (sometimes said with great bitterness) is that the Saints would have won but blew it.

Now whilst I will admit that they missed about 5 to 6 gettable shots , the basic premise is that they played over Geelong at various stages and didn't put them away. The other premise (admittedly not spoken) is that Geelong took all its chances and likewise DIDN'T blow their chances..

Starting with the second premise first - agree the Saints did miss about 5-6 shots from about 25- 40 metres out. Probably were going to miss a number on a very, very wet and wild day under a fair bit of pressure. My biggest "beef"with this argument is that Geelong also "blew"about 3 goals - think Selwood missed a shot from approx 30 metres/no angle and two given away by poor discipline/free kicks by Scarlett and Milburn. In essence, pretty close to"evening up the "blowing it"ledger. (please note for any Saints fans reading this who may point quickly to the Hawkin's Goal that wasn't one - this is not relavent to this argument, as the claim is that ""the Saints blew it", not "the umpïring cost us.

the first premise - that Saints played all over Geelong (particularily in the Second quarter) - whilst the game definitely ebbed and flowed, I don't think that there was any 15-20 minutes where Saints so dominated the play that they were peppering the goal square. In essence my view is that this was a wonderfully contested game which did swing in ascendancy until the last 10 minutes where Geelong was a little better in the clinches and the Saints (probably) were more exhausted than Geelong due to the draining game against the Bulldogs the week before.

Views ?????

 

[Jef Costello]

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.

 

[barmy44]

Views ?????

definitely not.

one thing that can be said about this cats team is that they are very, very tough to put away. st kilda had the run of play, sure, but you need more than the run of play to beat this current geelong team.

geelong blow teams away because they attack and defend equally, and do both brilliantly. it seems to me that st kilda relied (when playing worthy teams, they obviously did dish out some thumpings in '09) on getting a few goals up and then maintaining that. unfortunately, thats not how you win GFs, generally.

if that was the only flag geelong had won recently, i might be inclined to this view, but it just doesnt hold up on the facts.

geelong won the '09 premiership because they were a better team, and better balanced.

 

[you pick one]

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.

First thing that came to my mind too,Port,Saints and Pies only one last quarter goal between them and that was in junk time by Port.Grand finals are normally the survival of the fittest.

 

[Poetic Justice]

By the same logic we would have won the 2008 premiership.

At the end of the day, we have the cup and they do not.

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

First thing that came to my mind too,Port,Saints and Pies only one last quarter goal between them and that was in junk time by Port.Grand finals are normally the survival of the fittest.

That's the damning statistic right there.

 

[footscore]

Rooke, Chapman, Corey...those guys wouldn't allow St Kilda to get away in that 4th quarter.

They were like Bartel & Selwood in this year's grand final, just brutal, obsessive and totally committed beyond the cause while the opposition couldn't match them in that area.

God!..I love Selwood

 

[Turkey Tom]

To be honest I always thought we were a bit lucky in 2009 to win.

But we still had to be good enough to win it when St.Kilda left the door ajar (like Hawthorn did in 2008 )

 

[tryonthis]

I watched the 2008 AFL GF the other day and Geelong blew a whole host of chances (ie, Mooney feeling the pressure). I personally believed it was Geelong's game to be won that day. You win some, you lose some...

 

[footscore]

tryonthis, I agree. But Hawthorn did seize that situation in a game when it was there for the taking but you wonder if that situation may have even come about had we converted and been a goal or so up by that time in the game.

No doubt those memories of that day is what got them over the line in 2009/2011 when similar moments like 2008 came about all over again.

 

[vinum coupe]

There was certainly a stage there where the saints had the chance to apply the blow torch and they didnt get it done.

And they didnt blow it in the last quarter. Geelong won that quarter. They took the game off the saints through immense effort.

 

[Turbocat]

Saints had their chances no doubt but to lose it when ahead at 3/4 time.... its not the early misses that was the determining factor. Any team that fails to kick a goal in the last Q when the game was on the line , it indicates a break down in the ability to score. Then to fail to win the next year , sort of indicates a chink in the armor to my mind.

They lost it , we won it , a Rose by any other name... or as the say in the classics winners are grinners , loser can please themselves.

 

[Murraj1966]

I've said to my mates countless times, Geelong won because they lost in 2008. They had a lot more to prove that day than they would if they were going for a threepeat

 

[barmy44]

I've said to my mates countless times, Geelong won because they lost in 2008. They had a lot more to prove that day than they would if they were going for a threepeat

ive stated similar...

many of the cats players have said the same.

but, its one of those unanswerable questions.

there is also a big part of me that thinks, and thought at the time, if riewoldt kicked that goal after the siren v essendon, your team would have gone undefeated. coming back from that far back, massive confidence boost, the thought 'these guys actually cant be beaten' would have spread throughout the comp.

good luck this year, mate.

 

[The rabbi]

I've said to my mates countless times, Geelong won because they lost in 2008. They had a lot more to prove that day than they would if they were going for a threepeat

I think that they won in '09 because they were the best side when it counted in '09. Who was better in the finals?

 

[barmy44]

I think that they won in '09 because they were the best side when it counted in '09.

but then again, i also believe this...

who really knows how things would have panned out had geelong won '08.

back to my point in my first post in the thread, i do believe geelong were a better team, and far more balanced.

there has been a lot said about the pain from '08 driving the group, and im sure it played its part.

but even taking that pain into account, i stand by my opinion that geelong won it, st kilda didnt lose it.

 

[PoidaCat]

Why do people worry about such pointless crap?

We won 2009. We are the premiers of 07,09 and 11 and no one cant take that away.

fuuuark.

DEAL WITH IT.

 

[Biggy_Boy]

Do they have the cup?

No. Then they don't deserve it.

 

[_Me_]

In 2008 we blew it and the hawks took their chances
In 09 the saints should have had the game won, they didnt all over

We square the ledger, saints are behind

Much like if neon leon performed in a final he woul be rated
He hasnt he is not rated

 

[RogersResults]

The biggest leads in the match before full-time were 12 points by Geelong 8 mins into the first quarter and 12 points by Geelong 25 mins into the 2nd quarter. St Kilda's biggest lead all day was 10 points for 2mins 13 secs in the 2nd quarter. St Kilda was always in a position of being a few minutes away from losing it. Then they couldn't score in the vital last 15 minutes of the game - Scarlett gave them one point.

Every ball that is kicked behind the goalposts is a "gettable" goal. But speculation about balls that went behind instead of through the goals in some alternate reality is impossible because instead of being kicked out they get bounced in the centre. A whole new universe come into being. Nobody can predict with any certainty what happens next. Goals missed from set shots after the final siren can be speculated about. Speculation about missed goals at any other stage of the game is pointless.

Four of St Kilda's behinds were rushed. None of Geelong's. You can not turn rushed behinds into goals with more accurate kicking. Actual scoring shots - Geelong 20 - St Kilda 19.

You could argue that every loser "blew it" because they just weren't as good as the opposition. "Blowing it" is no let out. No "better" team loses. Better teams don't get themselves into positions where last minute or isolated events decide the game.

 

[barmy44]

love your info... thanks!

 

[witsend]

Saints scored 3 of their goals in the last 50 seconds of the 2nd quarter. 1 being a gift.
We outplayed them for more than half the game. We deserved and got the win.
Next...

 

[dazbroncos]

Geelong won the 4th Quarter of 09 because of the knife twisting blood boiling ache of losing 08.

In a physical close game that 09 was, the mental edge to dig deeper and push harder during exhaustion got us home.....

with the help of a little toe poke...

Go Catters...

 

[RogersResults]

Geelong won the 4th Quarter of 09 because of the knife twisting blood boiling ache of losing 08.

In a physical close game that 09 was, the mental edge to dig deeper and push harder during exhaustion got us home.....

with the help of a little toe poke...

Go Catters...

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”.

 

[donbooger]

St Kilda created the better chances, some of the easiest shots on goal all day were shots St Kilda missed while at the same time both sides were scoring the difficult ones.

I dont think they blew it as that implies they were clearly the better side, however I do believe there structures worked better. In the last quarter fatigue breaks structures down and we overwhelmed them with pure player power and ability just like 2011 Collingwood.

I think Saints 2009 has been the strongest opponent we have had even including losses to Hawks 08 and Pies 10. Saints supporters have a right to be a little disappointed at what could of been as we needed our best day to match them when they likely could have gotten a little more from there efforts.