The REAL reasons we don't get finals at GMHBA Stadium

[Goggin Our Best]

If anything, Hawthorn, Essendon, Collingwood and Richmond are scared to play us at GMHBA because they know that they can't beat us there.

Really ?

The official stats say otherwise

In the last 12 games between Geel and Haw at Kardinia Park - Hawthorn won 9 of them !!!

Then they moved the games to the MCG and Geelong won 11 in a row

Very interesting that

 

[Captain chaos]

I just wish our coach would shut up about it... i cant see how it helps?

 

[Captain chaos]

I've never played AFL so have no idea what it feels like to be in an AFL playing group.
Therefore I do listen to people who have.
Stop stressing about it all anyway.
Have some faith in our coach that he can get the job done on the G against a team 3 possies below us and injuries.

Unfortunately his finals record isnt great.

 

[Landgraft]

I just wish our coach would shut up about it... i cant see how it helps?

Then you have undervalued the role of dialogue in driving change.

 

[Isaac Norm Smith]

Then you have undervalued the role of dialogue in driving change.

That's all well and good, but there is a time and a place isn't there? He has said his piece (on several occasions), but now is the time to accept it and prepare for what is a massive finals campaign for this club. We all agree with Scott, but he can continue to drive change after our finals campaign has ended, not now.

We need to focus on playing our best footy, preparing for Collingwood and devising a plan that will give us the best chance of succeeding at the MCG. That's his job. Lets focus on the task at hand and continue this argument at a more appropriate time. We don't need this distraction right now.

 

[DAlembert]

Really ?

The official stats say otherwise

In the last 12 games between Geel and Haw at Kardinia Park - Hawthorn won 9 of them !!!

Then they moved the games to the MCG and Geelong won 11 in a row

Very interesting that

Funny how the old urban myths take over and hide the truth. When did we last play Hawthorn at KP?

 

[Landgraft]

That's all well and good, but there is a time and a place isn't there? He has said his piece (on several occasions), but now is the time to accept it and prepare for what is a massive finals campaign for this club. We all agree with Scott, but he can continue to drive change after our finals campaign has ended, not now.

We need to focus on playing our best footy, preparing for Collingwood and devising a plan that will give us the best chance of succeeding at the MCG. That's his job. Lets focus on the task at hand and continue this argument at a more appropriate time. We don't need this distraction right now.

He still has to engage with the media during finals. Saying one thing over another there has no opportunity cost in relation to football preparations and so there's no reason not to serve the strategic direction of the club where he can.

 

[GeneticCat]

He still has to engage with the media during finals. Saying one thing over another there has no opportunity cost in relation to football preparations and so there's no reason not to serve the strategic direction of the club where he can.

Absolutely, we can walk and chew gum at the same time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[cynical]

I question whether you are actually a Geelong supporter.

cos im not a biased idiot?

 

[Biggy_Boy]

1) Except that you were prominent over a thread called "Ken Hinkley Envy" where you and your fellow traitors posing as Geelong supporters said how you thought Ken Hinkley was a better coach.

Well, he did out-coach Scott as recently as this year...

2) If you "desire" success, then you should back CS in.

My response was regarding you assuming I desire Chris Scott to fail and am running some sort of arbitrary vendetta against him. I don't want Scott or any Geelong coach to not succeed, but I think, based on what we've seen, that's all we're likely to see post-2011.

3) Bomber deserves credit for the 2011 flag (a team it took him EIGHT years to build),

Is the eight years some sort of critique? I'd rather the club spend 8 years developing a side that is then capable of making 4 GFs and winning 3 flags rather than spending the exact same amount of time meandering around the top of the ladder but never getting close to making a GF let alone winning a flag. Under Bomber, we invested in the draft and in-house development as a primary mechanism for list development; under Scott, we've attempted to bring in ready-made talent and top-up with recycles roleplayers as a means to sustain success. We can see which list build strategy has worked better.

but he pi**ed off and betrayed us, like you do on our message boards. Maybe if Bomber was still there, we might have won the flag again, but I think we would have fallen off the cliff eventually, since Bomber played all the premiership heroes, and didn't bring youth through. Mitch Duncan wouldn't have got a look-in in 2011 under Bomber, because he would bring back Milburn or Mooney instead.
Maybe I will move on from hypocrite Bomber waxing lyrical about loyalty, only to leave us high and dry, if you get over the club not appointing Ken Hinkley as coach, and choosing Chris Scott instead. Deal?
We have youth coming through, players like Miers, Constable, O'Connor, Atkins, Clark etc, because CS plays youngsters, and doesn't just drop them after one bad game, but backs them in. Duncan wouldn't have played as many games as he has if Bomber were there.

We were found out in 2010, no doubt about that. I don't know why Bomber really left. He says he thought he was done as a senior coach, he also says that, had he had another off/pre-season he could have addressed the problems with the game plan similar to what Scott did. He was also a lot more loyal to his senior players and saved some of them from being delisted/retired at the end of 2010. We don't know how Bomber would have fared in 2011; all we know is that the team did very well in 2011, and for that I'm thankful. I do think he was spent at the end of 2010, so whatever his own motivations were, I have no lingering issue with his exit. He was not a player in his prime deserting us for an AFL franchise for millions of dollars; he was a coach who had been with us for 11 years, built us a phenomenal list capable of winning 3 flags, and was likely suffering from personal issues.

We don't know how many games he would have given younger players. We know he gave some a taste in 2010, but that's not indicative of him not intending to provide more consistency after another pre-season and season into the older players. While he was more loyal to his premiership legends than Scott was, which perhaps would have been to the detriment to the side, I would say we're seeing similar loyalty (this time somewhat more unfounded) coming from Scott to the detriment of the side. A guy like Guthrie continues to retain his spot despite constantly under-performing while Constable remains trapped in the VFL.

I wouldn't say Scott's youth policy has been all that much better than Bomber's during the premiership years. Scott has relied heavily on recycled players from other clubs and mature-agers from state leagues. Very few kids have come into the system and been developed into AFL-quality players under Scott. There are a few, now, but these are mostly recent additions. After so many years, Duncan remains the only player who has really flourished under Scott after beginning with him as a relatively fresh prospect.

5) You haven't said that this side is as good as Geelong 2007-11, but yet you expect the same run of premiership success with a lesser group, rather than being realistic and seeing that that was a once-in-a-generation side not seen since our "Invincibles" team in 1951-52, and it will probably be another 50 years before we have a dynasty again.

Point out where I said that. I expect that if you make 5 top 4/4 top 2 finishes, then it's reasonable to expect at least a GF, right? Is that really unreasonable? Expect a little more fight than zero goals in first quarters and multiple 30+ point deficits at qtr time of finals. Yeah, no, I want the team to be invincible because I don't think they should keel over in nearly ever final in an 8-year period. Expecting too much after five top 4 finishes in that period, clearly.

6) If you were really supportive of Geelong, you would see the unfairness of the decision. Sure, we have to move on, but it doesn't change the fact that we have "earned" a home final. Put aside your Scott hate for one minute and acknowledge that, and then we move on.

I wasn't crying about it in 2007-2011 and am not now.

 

[JohnZ]

Well, he did out-coach Scott as recently as this year...

One coach's team finished 1st, and the other's 10th.
Last year it was 8 and 10 respectively. I'll take my 22 game sample over your 1 game sample.

 

[Mr Meow]

He still has to engage with the media during finals. Saying one thing over another there has no opportunity cost in relation to football preparations and so there's no reason not to serve the strategic direction of the club where he can.

I wish we could gag coaches just to remove the expert analysis telling us how what they said will determine their capacity to prepare the team for the next match.

If only Scott said "good teams will win anywhere - we don't care where we play I would give us an 85% chance of winning next week compared to 23%.

 

[Captain chaos]

Lets face it.. we finished top in large part because of our somewhat unique home ground advantage... ie we train there and play there unlike mcg tenants. We dont share the ground like the perh and adelaide teams.

Do you really think say melb playing rich at “ home” is any advantage for them?

All our games are against clubs who only come once per year unlike the mcg tenants who dont play real home games.

He should shut up

 

[GeneticCat]

Lets face it.. we finished top in large part because of our somewhat unique home ground advantage... ie we train there and play there unlike mcg tenants. We dont share the ground like the perh and adelaide teams.

Do you really think say melb playing rich at “ home” is any advantage for them?

All our games are against clubs who only come once per year unlike the mcg tenants who dont play real home games.

He should shut up

Do you think Collingwood/Richmond/et al would be silent in the same position? FFS I heard complaints about the cost of flights to Brisbane this week! Those teams get the familiarity of playing where they play 13 & 14 times respectively during the season (we play 9) and you don’t think it’s an advantage?
As much as Scott is putting forward what we think is fair it’s also drawing a line at the advantage given against us. We should never just “take it” and if you think we should you don’t have our best interests at heart!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Landgraft]

I wish we could gag coaches just to remove the expert analysis telling us how what they said will determine their capacity to prepare the team for the next match.

If only Scott said "good teams will win anywhere - we don't care where we play I would give us an 85% chance of winning next week compared to 23%.

I honestly can't tell how serious you're being here or if its just sarcasm.

Lets face it.. we finished top in large part because of our somewhat unique home ground advantage... ie we train there and play there unlike mcg tenants. We dont share the ground like the perh and adelaide teams.

Do you really think say melb playing rich at “ home” is any advantage for them?

All our games are against clubs who only come once per year unlike the mcg tenants who dont play real home games.

He should shut up

Yeah, no.

Melbourne may not be advantaged when hosting Richmond in the same way that West Coast would be, but then which team is more disadvantaged when the boot is on the other foot?

You can argue that our ground being more unique gives us an advantage but then by the same token we have to play on unfamiliar grounds more often than any other team. Especially because we don't even get 11 home games like literally every other team in the AFL does.

 

[Mr Meow]

I honestly can't tell how serious you're being here or if it was sarcasm.

That was a tricky one because the first statement was true but a silly exaggeration (it's more that I wish people didn't take media sound bites so seriously).

The next paragraph was a satirical mocking of what said audience tend to come across as.

How could you take a comment serious that had the really silly number 23% thrown in?

 

[Landgraft]

That was a tricky one because the first statement was true but a silly exaggeration (it's more that I wish people didn't take media sound bites so seriously).

The next paragraph was a satirical mocking of what said audience tend to come across as.

How could you take a comment serious that had the really silly number 23% thrown in?

I think the really rude part of that is some of my tiredness came from slowly grinding through a stats lecture only to not pick up on that.

Real reason the AFL don't want to change the fixturing: life sucks and it would sap energy that's needed elsewhere to address. Almost makes me empathise with them.

 

[Mr Meow]

I think the really rude part of that is some of my tiredness came from slowly grinding through a stats lecture only to not pick up on that.

Real reason the AFL don't want to change the fixturing: life sucks and it would sap energy that's needed elsewhere to address. Almost makes me empathise with them.

Too many stats. Get this man a beer!

They know if they address a couple of imbalances they will be implored to fix them all. And that does sound like an awful lot of work.

 

[TomsBulgingDisc]

If we want to win the big dance, we better get OK with playing at the venue in the lead up.
If we're good enough then the venue doesn't matter. If we're relying on playing preferential grounds to be any good then we'll probably get belted, you know, like the last 5 years of finals...

 

[GeneticCat]

If we want to win the big dance, we better get OK with playing at the venue in the lead up.
If we're good enough then the venue doesn't matter. If we're relying on playing preferential grounds to be any good then we'll probably get belted, you know, like the last 5 years of finals...

I’m yet to see anyone here ask for 5 goals start or that the Pies play a man down this next week. I reckon the most (if not all) have actually accepted that we will be playing at their home ground (they’ve played 14 vs our 3 there) in our first final in spite of “earning” a home final. What I think you are reading is a series of posts asking why should we not only be not advantaged having earned it but why should we be disadvantaged (the stats suggest 58.3% chance of winning if you are the home team https://thewest.com.au/sport/afl/th...ome-ground-advantage-in-the-afl-ng-b88871237z).
I would say Scott isn’t arguing about this year I think he is looking to the future and asking if this is fair and does it give us the same chance to win flags as the G tenants.
Stiff upper lips just mean you end up with broken teeth!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Captain chaos]

I honestly can't tell how serious you're being here or if its just sarcasm.



Yeah, no.

Melbourne may not be advantaged when hosting Richmond in the same way that West Coast would be, but then which team is more disadvantaged when the boot is on the other foot?

You can argue that our ground being more unique gives us an advantage but then by the same token we have to play on unfamiliar grounds more often than any other team. Especially because we don't even get 11 home games like literally every other team in the AFL does.

How do we have to play on unfamiliar grounds more than other teams? Please explain.

I would have though teams going to tassie or ballarat or canberra could claim that.

This only became an issue when we started losing finals at the G on a regular basis.

 

[Landgraft]

How do we have to play on unfamiliar grounds more than other teams? Please explain.

We have more real away games (games at a venue preferenced by the opponent and not preferenced by ourselves) than any other team because we only have 9 games at our preferred venue. It's not hard to run the numbers.

I would have though teams going to tassie or ballarat or canberra could claim that.

Travel is just a consequence. Feel for St Kilda who sold a home game to play in China, and yet they still have 10 home games at their preferred venue, plus some away games as well.

This only became an issue when we started losing finals at the G on a regular basis.

The issue has existed for a long time, whether or not you want to accept that it has. Just because something is being discussed more at present doesn't mean it wasn't an issue previously.

 

[Max Milburn]

We have more real away games (games at a venue preferenced by the opponent and not preferenced by ourselves) than any other team because we only have 9 games at our preferred venue. It's not hard to run the numbers.



Travel is just a consequence. Feel for St Kilda who sold a home game to play in China, and yet they still have 10 home games at their preferred venue, plus some away games as well.



The issue has existed for a long time, whether or not you want to accept that it has. Just because something is being discussed more at present doesn't mean it wasn't an issue previously.

It was way worse in previous years. We used to play home games at both MCG and Docklands.

 

[you pick one]

Use the corridor,a straight line is a straight line anywhere,and shortest way home.

 

[GeneticCat]

Use the corridor,a straight line is a straight line anywhere,and shortest way home.

Provided you’ve got the cattle to play that style and God help a coach who doesn’t have a great plan B C and D!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk