Certified Legendary Thread Race for the flag, in squiggly lines

[tribey]

That GF never should have been more than a 2-3 goal Grand Final

You have some Grand Final's where there is a sense of inevitability about the outcome and that wasn't one of them.

It's still staggering to think we won the 'all-important' [sic] clearances that day 34-30. Geelong's ability to slice us open on the intercept was otherworldly.

 

[Stromageddon]

1897 yields interesting results. SM very defensive.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Roby vs the Squiggle Grand final decider!

We are stuffed then.

 

[Crankyhawk]

With that last quarter for sure. I just checked the scores - 8 straight to the crows to win by 6. Both gfs they trailed at half time from wasteful teams and dominated the 2nd halves in both games. Just think that had north taken their chances as well as st Kilda, north would have been the team of the 90s and saints would have 1 premiership in the last 20 years.

just think how imbalanced the west horsham threads would be.

 

[Final Siren]

1897 yields interesting results. SM very defensive.

Yes, that's what happens when you hold a team to 3 points! Fitzroy get out even further in 1899 after holding Melbourne to 2.

 

[Final Siren]

No. Because the Squiggle predicted that the Swans would only win by 26 points.

Now if Hawthorn had won by 6 goals (as what was on the cards when Lobbe went down with 8 minutes left) then the squiggle would be very interesting given that using OFFDEF-75 Port Adelaide were ahead of Sydney and Hawthorn in the lead up to Preliminary Final weekend

Port definitely have a knack for making their opponents look like they've forgotten how to play football for a bit.

But yes, take 5 goals out of their last quarter and the Hawks would be the tip (just!).

 

[Gydafud]

Yes, that's what happens when you hold a team to 3 points! Fitzroy get out even further in 1899 after holding Melbourne to 2.

How come Geelong holding St Kilda to 1 point didn't have that much of an effect?

 

[Final Siren]

How come Geelong holding St Kilda to 1 point didn't have that much of an effect?

Well spotted! It's because of that thing where I count Geelong as an interstate team. So the Cats won 162-1 but the squiggle thinks that's 156-7 before home ground advantage. Holding a team to 7 points is 3.5 times less impressive than holding them to 2 points.

Whether it should work like that is highly arguable - probably not, since everyone had their suburban fortresses in those days. But I don't really expect the 1800s squiggles to be very accurate, since they're using a model that is calibrated for modern football.

 

[Stromageddon]

Yes, that's what happens when you hold a team to 3 points! Fitzroy get out even further in 1899 after holding Melbourne to 2.

What did they get out to? Looks like 420

EDIT: Also wow at Geelong beating St Kilda 162 to 1 in "Sectional Round 3"

 

[hk89]

We beat Adelaide convincingly away, then Collingwood convincingly at home. Hawthorn beat the Pies convincingly, but just scraped over the line against Adelaide. I think our form was better for larger parts of the season, but the Hawks did come home with a wet sail, beating up on every team outside of the top 8. They had a dream run where they played 5 of the bottom 6 in a row or something, winning by huge margins.

West coast actually spent more time on top of the ladder than any other team in 2012. After a poor start, Hawthorn spent a lot of petrol tickets trying to catch up to Sydney/WC/Pies. Sydney were two games claim of Hawthorn in round 19, but losing 3 of their last 4 Sydney lost their grip on top stop. That run of losses, and what was perceived as a fairly easy draw for the season, was partly why Hawthorn had gone in as such large favourites in the GF despite signs they didn't have much left in the tank. Sydney had top 4 locked up well before Hawthorn, and their late season losses were probably clever list management in hindsight.

With so many interstate sides in the mix for the top 4, Hawthorn probably decided they need to be sure of home finals to have a good shot at the flag. 4 of their last 7 games were against other top 6 teams, and they would have seen almost all of them as must wins (only lost to Geelong I think). Sydney had a tough run home too, and lost against most of the top 4 during that period, but an easier run up to that point meant they had the points in the bag already, and despite dropping to 3rd, their away win in the first week in the finals against Adelaide showed they were well and truly primed for finals despite what might have looked like a late season form slump. Betting odds should have been much closer to even in the GF, probably still a missed opportunity for Hawthorn given the stats on the day, but a well orchestrated finals campaign by Sydney.

 

[Pessimistic]

We beat Adelaide convincingly away, then Collingwood convincingly at home. Hawthorn beat the Pies convincingly, but just scraped over the line against Adelaide. I think our form was better for larger parts of the season, but the Hawks did come home with a wet sail, beating up on every team outside of the top 8. They had a dream run where they played 5 of the bottom 6 in a row or something, winning by huge margins.

Fantasy

 

[The Swans Blog]

West coast actually spent more time on top of the ladder than any other team in 2012. After a poor start, Hawthorn spent a lot of petrol tickets trying to catch up to Sydney/WC/Pies. Sydney were two games claim of Hawthorn in round 19, but losing 3 of their last 4 Sydney lost their grip on top stop. That run of losses, and what was perceived as a fairly easy draw for the season, was partly why Hawthorn had gone in as such large favourites in the GF despite signs they didn't have much left in the tank. Sydney had top 4 locked up well before Hawthorn, and their late season losses were probably clever list management in hindsight.

With so many interstate sides in the mix for the top 4, Hawthorn probably decided they need to be sure of home finals to have a good shot at the flag. 4 of their last 7 games were against other top 6 teams, and they would have seen almost all of them as must wins (only lost to Geelong I think). Sydney had a tough run home too, and lost against most of the top 4 during that period, but an easier run up to that point meant they had the points in the bag already, and despite dropping to 3rd, their away win in the first week in the finals against Adelaide showed they were well and truly primed for finals despite what might have looked like a late season form slump. Betting odds should have been much closer to even in the GF, probably still a missed opportunity for Hawthorn given the stats on the day, but a well orchestrated finals campaign by Sydney.

A lot of people on Bigfooty, in the media and larger football fraternity have commented that Sydney shouldn't have won. The misconception is that Hawthorn dominated the game statistically, however they don't acknowledge that for larger periods of the game Sydney were in control. Hawthorn did dominate the first quarter, but if it wasn't for 2 goals in the last minute (the last 3 in fact), it would have been 1 goal going in at the break. The Swans then clearly dominated the 2nd, as well as the first half of the 3rd quarter. Then the hawks dominated for 20-25 minutes and got out to a 2 goal lead about 5-6 minutes into the last. From then on, the Swans took the game and dragged it back. It was to-and-fro in that period, but Sydney kicked 4 goals to Hawthorns 4 or 6 points.

In all, the Swans played better on the day, made the most of their chances, and had Kennedy drilled that goal in the 3rd quarter could have put the game to bed before the last quarter.

The game was even, both teams dominate large passes of play. The Swans were able to perform in key moments of the match whereas Hawthorn was not able to.

It was very reminiscent of the Sydney vs West Coast grand finals that were just as even across the day.

And if you want to look at statistical anomalies, look no further than the 2008 grand final, which Hawthorn had no right to win, stats wise.

 

[spannerSM]

The misconception is that Hawthorn dominated the game statistically...

Hawthorn winning the contested possession is the badly misread statistic. What was significant was not that they won more contested ball than Sydney, but that so much of their possession was contested. Over the season Hawthorn averaged about 40% contested possession, 60% uncontested. On the day it was 50%/50%. Usually winning the contested ball points to midfield domination, here it pointed to pressure limiting the Hawks' hard running, precise-passing outside game style.

 

[Hawkk]

Posted this in the upsets thread but there is a certain symmetry between 2012 and 2014...

The Hawks and Swans go into the Grand Final with 19 wins, 5 losses and similar percentages across the 24 games (145.19% for the Swans, 139.36% for the Hawks).

Back in 2012 the Hawks and Swans met in the Grand Final, both again going in with 19 wins, 5 losses and percentages that were in reverse to 2014 across the 24 games (Hawks with 151.61% and Swans 141%)

What's more, on the Tuesday before the 2012 Grand Final Hawthorn sat 1.65 to 2.30 favourites against the Swans with 2-out-of-3 pundits picking the Hawks. Obviously those in the know weren't aware of the magic that is Final Siren's squiggle!

I can't think of many Grand Finals in recent years where the two combatants go into the Grand Final with an equal number of wins / losses and an equivalent percentage:

2014 - Sydney 19/5 (145.19%) vs. Hawthorn 19/5 (139.36%)
2013 - Hawthorn 21/3 (136%) vs. Fremantle 18/1/5 (133%)
2012 - Hawthorn 19/5 (151.61%) vs. Sydney 19/5 (141%)
2011 - Collingwood 22/2 (163.8%) vs. Geelong 21/3 (157%)
2010 - Collingwood 19/1/4 (144%) vs. St Kilda 18/1/5 (121.4%)
2009 - St Kilda 22/2 (154.15%) vs. Geelong 20/4 (130.41%)
2008 - Geelong 23/1 (162.74%) vs. Hawthorn 19/5 (134.89%)
2007 - Geelong 20/4 (154.91%) vs. Port Adelaide 17/7 (117.07%)
2006 - West Coast 19/6 (122.47%) vs. Sydney 16/8 (127.90%)
2005 - West Coast 19/5 (128.15%) vs. Sydney 17/8 (116.35%)

As a bit of a statistical anomaly, its ridiculous that Hawthorn and Sydney have ended up with the identical number of wins with a for/against almost in reverse (as a percentage).

Something else to consider could be the net-margin across games played between the combatants over the season against the margin in the Grand Final. Where more than one game has game has been played for the season the total net-result is divided by the number of games played.

For example:

2014 - Sydney 19/5 (145.19%) vs. Hawthorn 19/5 (139.36%)
2 games (Syd HOME, Haw HOME) +4.5 to Sydney (GF Result - TBC)
2013 - Hawthorn 21/3 (136%) vs. Fremantle 18/1/5 (133%)
1 game (Haw HOME) +42 to Hawthorn (GF Result +15 to Hawthorn)
2012 - Hawthorn 19/5 (151.61%) vs. Sydney 19/5 (141%)
2 games (Haw HOME, Syd HOME) +30 Sydney (GF Result +10 Sydney)
2011 - Collingwood 22/2 (163.8%) vs. Geelong 21/3 (157%)
2 games (Geel HOME, Coll HOME) +49.5 Geelong (GF Result +38 Geelong)
2010 - Collingwood 19/1/4 (144%) vs. St Kilda 18/1/5 (121.4%)
2 games (STK HOME, Coll HOME) +20 Collingwood (GF Result +56 Collingwood)
2009 - St Kilda 22/2 (154.15%) vs. Geelong 20/4 (130.41%)
1 game (STK Home) +1 St Kilda (GF Result +12 Geelong)
2008 - Geelong 23/1 (162.74%) vs. Hawthorn 19/5 (134.89%)
1 game (HAW Home) +13 Geelong (GF Result +26 Hawthorn)
2007 - Geelong 20/4 (154.91%) vs. Port Adelaide 17/7 (117.07%)
2 games (PA HOME, Geel HOME) +25.5 Geelong (GF Result +119 Geelong)
2006 - West Coast 19/6 (122.47%) vs. Sydney 16/8 (127.90%)
3 games (WCE HOME, WCE HOME) +1 West Coast (GF Result +1 West Coast)
2005 - West Coast 19/5 (128.15%) vs. Sydney 17/8 (116.35%)
3 games (WCE HOME, Syd HOME, WCE HOME) +8.5 West Coast (GF Result +4 Sydney)

Probability of the net home / away team winning the flag is 66%

In face if you run the 12 point squiggle ratting over the games the probability changes:

2014 - Sydney 19/5 (145.19%) vs. Hawthorn 19/5 (139.36%)
2 games (Syd HOME, Haw HOME) +4.5 to Sydney (GF Result - TBC)
2013 - Hawthorn 21/3 (136%) vs. Fremantle 18/1/5 (133%)
1 game (Haw HOME) +30 to Hawthorn (GF Result +15 to Hawthorn)
2012 - Hawthorn 19/5 (151.61%) vs. Sydney 19/5 (141%)
2 games (Haw HOME, Syd HOME) +30 Sydney (GF Result +10 Sydney)
2011 - Collingwood 22/2 (163.8%) vs. Geelong 21/3 (157%)
2 games (Geel HOME, Coll HOME) +49.5 Geelong (GF Result +38 Geelong)
2010 - Collingwood 19/1/4 (144%) vs. St Kilda 18/1/5 (121.4%)
2 games (STK HOME, Coll HOME) +20 Collingwood (GF Result +56 Collingwood)
2009 - St Kilda 22/2 (154.15%) vs. Geelong 20/4 (130.41%)
1 game (STK Home) +11 Geelong (GF Result +12 Geelong)
2008 - Geelong 23/1 (162.74%) vs. Hawthorn 19/5 (134.89%)
1 game (HAW Home) +26 Geelong (GF Result +26 Hawthorn)
2007 - Geelong 20/4 (154.91%) vs. Port Adelaide 17/7 (117.07%)
2 games (PA HOME, Geel HOME) +25.5 Geelong (GF Result +119 Geelong)
2006 - West Coast 19/6 (122.47%) vs. Sydney 16/8 (127.90%)
3 games (WCE HOME, WCE HOME) +23 Sydney (GF Result +1 West Coast)
2005 - West Coast 19/5 (128.15%) vs. Sydney 17/8 (116.35%)
3 games (WCE HOME, Syd HOME, WCE HOME) +4.5 Sydney (GF Result +4 Sydney)

Probability of the net home / away team winning the flag (allowing for squiggle) is 77%

Check out the cluster of results and the margins, all (save 2008 and 2010 - which was a draw the first time around) are within 24 points of the net margin across home / away games

So what does this mean for Saturday?

I have absolutely no idea who will win, but if precedence is any indication I can say with almost certainty that the result won't be by more than 10 points. Anyone who suggests otherwise (namely pundits in the media) are deadset flogs.

If my analysis is correct this will be the closet Grand Final of the last 10 years, have a look at the stats yourself the teams records effectively mirror each other across the season.

 

[Iron]

With that last quarter for sure. I just checked the scores - 8 straight to the crows to win by 6. Both gfs they trailed at half time from wasteful teams and dominated the 2nd halves in both games. Just think that had north taken their chances as well as st Kilda, north would have been the team of the 90s and saints would have 1 premiership in the last 20 years.

A team that dominates the first half is automatically guaranteed to win so long as they're accurate? Strange premise. For all of North's shots on goal in the first half, the game ended up being 30 shots apiece. Taking your chances doesn't mean you don't deserve a win.

I can stomach that the Saints and North still rue those missed chances, but I won't stomach hearing about what was "deserved". Grand finals aren't decided on the feel-good should-have vibe. They're decided by the team willing to play the game better for longer.

 

[Final Siren]

What's more, on the Tuesday before the 2012 Grand Final Hawthorn sat 1.65 to 2.30 favourites against the Swans with 2-out-of-3 pundits picking the Hawks. Obviously those in the know weren't aware of the magic that is Final Siren's squiggle!

Or maybe I would have gone with a different algorithm as the Grand Final tipper! In the 10 years to 2012, OFFDEF-75 had an 8-2 record (19-6 over 25 years), but so did plenty of other algorithms. The bulk of them tipped Hawthorn in 2012, though, which left OFFDEF-75 looking more like a champ by comparison.

In 2012, I probably would have liked OFFDEF-88:5 as the Grand Final tipper: at the time it had a 8-2 record over 10 years and 21-4 over 25 years. It tipped Hawks by 6 pts. (This weekend it's tipping Swans by 11.)

 

[The Swans Blog]

A team that dominates the first half is automatically guaranteed to win so long as they're accurate? Strange premise. For all of North's shots on goal in the first half, the game ended up being 30 shots apiece. Taking your chances doesn't mean you don't deserve a win.

I can stomach that the Saints and North still rue those missed chances, but I won't stomach hearing about what was "deserved". Grand finals aren't decided on the feel-good should-have vibe. They're decided by the team willing to play the game better for longer.

That's fair enough, Adelaide won both games with impressive 2nd half efforts and dominated the last quarter in both games. They ripped North apart in the last, much like Geelong against the Pies in 2011 and Brisbane against the Pies in earlier grand finals.

The games were a long time ago, that's for sure, but I do think that had North gone in 5 or 6 goals up at half time, they may have been able to see the game out, instead, Adelaide overtook them in the end. There's no telling that Adelaide could have run over the top of them in the end and won by a few points with an 8 goal last quarter.

 

[hk89]

In all, the Swans played better on the day, made the most of their chances, and had Kennedy drilled that goal in the 3rd quarter could have put the game to bed before the last quarter.

The game was even, both teams dominate large passes of play. The Swans were able to perform in key moments of the match whereas Hawthorn was not able to.

Indeed. Although, just as Kennedy having drilled that goal it would have put things out of reach, conversely if Roughead, Franklin, Sewell, Hale, Gunston etc had kicked what were gettable goals, Sydney wouldn't have been close despite their pressure. Yes, the Sydney pressure impacted some of those goals, but several were gettable set shots, and it seemed it was the occasion more than Sydney that impacted some of those misses (although the windy was pretty swirly on the day too). Hawthorn kicks straight and the game would have reflected the stats. Sydney's run did bother Hawthorn, and Sydney's superior accuracy did reflect better forward 50 entrances, but Hawthorn's accuracy was disappointing none the less, and there is a reason they have prioritised it massively after the 2012 loss, implementing a bunch of specific strategies to focus on goal kicking, especially under pressure situations. Seems to have worked too, will be interesting to see if it will be enough. If Buddy kicks a bunch of points against his old team again, it will be hard for Sydney to win.

And if you want to look at statistical anomalies, look no further than the 2008 grand final, which Hawthorn had no right to win, stats wise.

Yes, inside 50s were similarly unbalanced that day, and Geelong missed some big opportunities to put scoreboard pressure on early, which ended up fatal. In the end, we defended the inside 50s pretty well though, and ended up with more scoring shots than them (only the rushed behinds makes them look super inaccurate). The Sydney game was slightly different, in that Sydney defended the inside 50s well, but still conceded 4 more scoring shots than Hawthorn. Fortunately for Sydney many of those scoring shots were points. In any case, I agree with you, Sydney played well, and made the most of their chances.

 

[hk89]

Hawthorn winning the contested possession is the badly misread statistic. What was significant was not that they won more contested ball than Sydney, but that so much of their possession was contested. Over the season Hawthorn averaged about 40% contested possession, 60% uncontested. On the day it was 50%/50%.

Yup, it wasn't a good sign for us, and reflected Sydney's insane tackle count (one of the few stats they won other than the most important one - scoreboard).

Usually winning the contested ball points to midfield domination, here it pointed to pressure limiting the Hawks' hard running, precise-passing outside game style.

I'd argue we dominated the midfield contest too, 58 clearances to 35 speaks to that, which is also why we dominated inside 50s. Where you beat us was run out of the backline. Your tall forwards were pretty ineffective, despite people seeing our ability to defend talls as a relative weakness for us coming into the came. However your mids dominated your goal kickers, and we seemed to have no answer for it. Will be a bit different this time I'd guess, with a lot of ball probably coming Franklin's way. Hopefully the Manchurian candidate remembers his programming Sydney are clearly a better side than 2012, Hawthorn perhaps slightly improved (we needed Lake more than we needed buddy given our strengths and weaknesses). Hopefully it will be a good game.

 

[The Swans Blog]

Yes, inside 50s were similarly unbalanced that day, and Geelong missed some big opportunities to put scoreboard pressure on early, which ended up fatal. In the end, we defended the inside 50s pretty well though, and ended up with more scoring shots than them (only the rushed behinds makes them look super inaccurate).

Geelong dominated in almost every facet. The rushed behinds really prevented their run of play and it really was the only reason that the Hawks won, because they were able to maintain possession, rather than sacrifice it. It really stopped Geelong getting any kind of momentum.

That 2nd quarter Geelong should have put the game away - 1.9 is insane. We've seen a few quarters like that since and I know that the Swans are guilty of some shocking quarters as well, including in this finals series.

Not to mention the 11 rushed behinds. Ouch! Hawthorn won it, can't take it away from them, they played the important parts of the game better and were calm when it mattered, whereas Geelong rushed a lot of their play and coughed it up when it mattered.

 

[Hawkk]

Or maybe I would have gone with a different algorithm as the Grand Final tipper! In the 10 years to 2012, OFFDEF-75 had an 8-2 record (19-6 over 25 years), but so did plenty of other algorithms. The bulk of them tipped Hawthorn in 2012, though, which left OFFDEF-75 looking more like a champ by comparison.

In 2012, I probably would have liked OFFDEF-88:5 as the Grand Final tipper: at the time it had a 8-2 record over 10 years and 21-4 over 25 years. It tipped Hawks by 6 pts. (This weekend it's tipping Swans by 11.)

So would it be fair to say that while the algorithm's together predict the Swans by 8 points, the algorithm's together predicted Hawthorn by 0-6 points in 2012?

Either way, I don't think Hawthorn or Sydney fans can complain about that. As long as the game is close we're a chance of breaking the squiggle and sitting amongst the 20% of Grand Finals that defy OFFDEF-75

 

[Procrastinator35]

So would it be fair to say that while the algorithm's together predict the Swans by 8 points, the algorithm's together predicted Hawthorn by 0-6 points in 2012?

Either way, I don't think Hawthorn or Sydney fans can complain about that. As long as the game is close we're a chance of breaking the squiggle and sitting amongst the 20% of Grand Finals that defy OFFDEF-75

So, where does Draw inequeties get factored into the equation Hawkk????

 

[hk89]

Geelong dominated in almost every facet.

Not really.

Possession count was almost even (378 cats versus 372 for hawks). Geelong were running their famous handball happy game, and so had a massive handball advantage, but Hawthorn had a massive kick count advantage. Cats won contested possession 119 to 107, so a win, but nothing like the contested ball domination Hawthorn had over Sydney in 2012. The main place they dominated us was the ruck which translated directly to a clearance, and therefore inside 50 dominance. We countered this by running more freely than Geelong when we did get the ball, with 38 bounces to 8, while Geelong mostly tried to move the ball forward bit by bit via handball (I haven't checked, but I would be surprised if Sydney killed us in that dept in 2012). We also won one percenters, perhaps a sign of Geelong going in a bit complacent. Like Sydney in 2012, we also out-tackled our opponent (although not as impressively as Sydney managed).

That 2nd quarter Geelong should have put the game away - 1.9 is insane. We've seen a few quarters like that since and I know that the Swans are guilty of some shocking quarters as well, including in this finals series.

Yup, a bit more accuracy in that quarter and we've had been playing massive catchup. It is hard to measure the impact of scoreboard pressure (or lack of) in hindsight, but the reality is we still had more scoring shots than they did, so in the end, we won the shots at goal stat, so if both teams got to convert all their points to goals, Hawthorn still wins.

Not to mention the 11 rushed behinds. Ouch! Hawthorn won it, can't take it away from them, they played the important parts of the game better and were calm when it mattered, whereas Geelong rushed a lot of their play and coughed it up when it mattered.

Pretty much. Not a dissimilar pattern to 2012, where the underdog brought more pressure, and played the little parts of the game better than their opponent. In terms of stats not reflecting the final score though, from what I'm looking at, Sydney's win was even more of a statistical anomaly than the 2008 result (Geelong smashed inside 50s and slightly won contested possession, but still lost - Hawthorn smashed both those stats, and also had more scoring shots in 2012 unlike Geelong in 2008, but still lost). Both Hawthorn and Sydney deserved their wins in 2008 and 2012, but I'm sure cats and hawks will look back at 2008 and 2012 respectively as winnable opportunities where better execution of key elements might have led to a different result (compared to say Port in 2007 where not even Spangher himself could have saved them ).

 

[The Swans Blog]

Both Hawthorn and Sydney deserved their wins in 2008 and 2012, but I'm sure cats and hawks will look back at 2008 and 2012 respectively as winnable opportunities where better execution of key elements might have led to a different result

I remember that the Eagles were a strong attacking team in 2005 and 2006, whilst the Swans were strong defensively. Eagles were heavy favorites in '05 and even more so '06.

I think this is the first time the Swans have been outright favorites in a grand final since they moved to Sydney... (??)

 

[Pessimistic]

Geelong dominated in almost every facet. The rushed behinds really prevented their run of play and it really was the only reason that the Hawks won, because they were able to maintain possession, rather than sacrifice it. It really stopped Geelong getting any kind of momentum.

That 2nd quarter Geelong should have put the game away - 1.9 is insane. We've seen a few quarters like that since and I know that the Swans are guilty of some shocking quarters as well, including in this finals series.

Not to mention the 11 rushed behinds. Ouch! Hawthorn won it, can't take it away from them, they played the important parts of the game better and were calm when it mattered, whereas Geelong rushed a lot of their play and coughed it up when it mattered.

As is being discussed this week, they took in at least two unfit players, far too confident. The froward lien was lonergan. Mooney. Stokes. Chapman. That forward line would be rank outsiders this weekend


Was looking for a worm from that game because there was only a couple of geelong goals which werent answered by a hawthorn one. Some of those had a bit of umpire assistance too.

Whos to say if they hadnt nailed a couple of those goals, hawthorn wouldnt have answered those too.

Also they were just 17 points down at the last break, and actually went backwards in the last. They certainly dont throw in the towel at 17 points these days, perhaps it was part of the growth of geelong as a team ?