Autopsy Geelong Loses to Swans by 2 points - Rd 7, 2021

Nov 7, 2010
26,768
35,280
308 Negra Arroyo Lane Albuquerque New Mexico
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
WADA
+80 disposals
+33 contested possessions
+8 tackles
-11 turnovers
+26 I50's
+3 clearances

I don't reckon you'd find a game where a team has more disposals, more contested possessions AND more tackles and still lost, let alone more clearances, inside 50s and less turnovers. The only thing Geelong did wrong was continually shank their shots at goal. We really dominated every aspect of the game except goal kicking.
Maybe 2008 GF it had that feel to it we couldn't buy a goal despite having plenty of the ball.
 
Imagine being concerned with the possession count of a lock down small defender. This is the problem with the "super coach" generation, simply no idea other than "get ball good".

I used to be so focused on super coach & fantasy football, I had multiple teams across various leagues (the yearly teams, a keeper league for about 3/4 years etc) and I remember one afternoon I was driving to Melbourne listening to the radio when they gave the final teams for a match involving North and Scott Thompson was a late out - I remember swearing because he was in my team & starting on the field that round and I was more frustrated that his withdrawal & unavailability was going to impact my team than I was that he was unavailable and the impact it would have for North

I believe that was the last year I played the various fantasy AFL comps and I must say that the game has become much more enjoyable again because I'm watching games for enjoyment, happy to see the next gen from all teams coming through and the older guys defying the odds etc, rather than what happens on the field & the impact for my fantasy team
 
On top of which, as usual, we show zero sign of resting any older players purely to keep them fit. Should seriously be looking at giving Selwood a rest soon, for example, but no, let's wait until he picks up another leg injury.

We have a bye in 4 weeks, would be surprised if they rested or managed any players this close to the bye
 
I tend agree with you. lol, it's all we have to look forward too though. Fort is already 28 yrs of age and a journeyman at best.
All our other rucks are raw and need at least 3+ years of preseason work before they could become regular starters. By that time, the list is no longer a chance at finals.
Perhaps Ratugolea could just spark us in that department while we have one last shot at something.
Hickey is 30 and a journeyman.
 
Bews has been excellent but once Kolo and O’Connor return he may be under a little pressure. Do we really need both he and Atkins in the back half? As everyone on here repeatedly discuss, there are a lot of backs in the best 22. They have successfully moved a few of them around but still too many of them to fit into 6 or 7 spots.

Not sure that Bews & Atkins are competing for the same spots as say O'Connor & Kolodjashnij, especially if O'Connor continues to run through the midfield - it would mean that we continue to go into games with Bews & Atkins as our 2 small defenders
 
We have a bye in 4 weeks, would be surprised if they rested or managed any players this close to the bye
Hendo looked cooked at stages. Stanley can’t do it every week. Smith , touhy, Guthrie, menongola and Selwood need more than a week off. Hawkins needs a spell from time to time. Really need a squad mentality. I think narkle should play again and even Clark this week.
 
Hendo looked cooked at stages. Stanley can’t do it every week. Smith , touhy, Guthrie, menongola and Selwood need more than a week off. Hawkins needs a spell from time to time. Really need a squad mentality. I think narkle should play again and even Clark this week.

I'd omit Stanley anyway

If we manage Henderson, who is the KPD coming in for him?

Depending on how he's knee is holding up this year, Tuohy is one who may need managing through the back half of the season

As for the likes of Guthrie & Menegola, surely we're not managing 28/29 year olds unless they have a clear need to have a week's rest
 
I'd omit Stanley anyway

If we manage Henderson, who is the KPD coming in for him?

Depending on how he's knee is holding up this year, Tuohy is one who may need managing through the back half of the season

As for the likes of Guthrie & Menegola, surely we're not managing 28/29 year olds unless they have a clear need to have a week's rest
Agree Some don’t need a rest at this stage but we want them fresh towards the end of the year. 2 byes during the year will help . Maybe one or two games here or there also. Got to make finals anyway, so maybe it’s null & void at the moment.
 
Has anyone answered how we lost from 39 conceded inside 50’s?
14 goals from 39 entries... 36% . That’s horrendous.

simple really - they made the most of their chances & converted goals with 70% conversation rate is pretty damn good. As you said they had 39 inside 50s, scored from 42.6% of those entries and goals from 35.9%

Compare that to our efforts last week; we had 55 inside 50s where we scored from 52.7% of those entries and kicked a goal 38.5% of the time, but we only converted 67.7% of our chances

Or back to round 1 last year when we lost to GWS; they had 39 inside 50s and kicked 17.3 104 for the night, we had 41 inside 50s and kicked 11.7 73.
From their 39 inside 50s, they scored from 48.7% of them and kicked a goal 43.6% of the time

it's not purely about the numbers of inside 50s but also about how much advantage you take of them - if you're converting at 70% as Sydney did or 85% as GWS did last year, I would think that teams win more often than not
 
I can't believe we are talking managing player it's rd 8 not 18 ffs,only injury or sh*t form should see you mis this week.
That’s right and wouldn’t rest them this week against the best. It’s more a philosophical discussion about utilising the squad and keeping things fresh towards the back end of the year. (If we make it). Maybe it’s too pro active , but even Selwood said pre season that not many will play all games this year and that would be the expectation.
 

BORIS332

Norm Smith Medallist
Dec 22, 2016
5,013
11,205
AFL Club
Geelong
I tend agree with you. lol, it's all we have to look forward too though. Fort is already 28 yrs of age and a journeyman at best.
All our other rucks are raw and need at least 3+ years of preseason work before they could become regular starters. By that time, the list is no longer a chance at finals.
Perhaps Ratugolea could just spark us in that department while we have one last shot at something.

Port has Ladhams and Hayes playing SANFL. I can't see why we wouldn't go after one/both of them.
 
simple really - they made the most of their chances & converted goals with 70% conversation rate is pretty damn good. As you said they had 39 inside 50s, scored from 42.6% of those entries and goals from 35.9%

Compare that to our efforts last week; we had 55 inside 50s where we scored from 52.7% of those entries and kicked a goal 38.5% of the time, but we only converted 67.7% of our chances

Or back to round 1 last year when we lost to GWS; they had 39 inside 50s and kicked 17.3 104 for the night, we had 41 inside 50s and kicked 11.7 73.
From their 39 inside 50s, they scored from 48.7% of them and kicked a goal 43.6% of the time

it's not purely about the numbers of inside 50s but also about how much advantage you take of them - if you're converting at 70% as Sydney did or 85% as GWS did last year, I would think that teams win more often than not
If the conversion is that high then there has to be an issue leading to such a high conversion. Lack of accountability? Backs not tight enough? Zone defence lost without Harry? King said we miss Harry. Ball coming out of our forward zone too easily? It’s not purely just about very good conversion. It’s more about how can they convert so well. What leads to great conversion before the score itself.
 

Kitcat

Club Legend
Dec 4, 2019
1,793
3,149
AFL Club
Geelong
Good post. As much as the umpires sh*t me a lot of the time, it would be a bloody hard game to umpire with the ever changing rules and interpretations.
And the AFL head of umpiring said the umpire only had a split second to make the decision. No he didn't. The ball was high in the air and drifting. And they constantly call marks for 12 metre kicks.
 
which means we did not dominate
OK, we can refine it to say we dominated general play. The xS backs up the idea that clearances, I50s etc are relevant - we just did not take our chances. Which is important! But also suggests it's not about system or even skill but randomness.
 
Nov 12, 2002
41,685
49,987
AFL Club
Geelong
I'd omit Stanley anyway

If we manage Henderson, who is the KPD coming in for him?

Depending on how he's knee is holding up this year, Tuohy is one who may need managing through the back half of the season

As for the likes of Guthrie & Menegola, surely we're not managing 28/29 year olds unless they have a clear need to have a week's rest

Fair question on Henderson, but it's an even bigger question for Stanley.
 
Dec 10, 2003
58,427
66,178
Newtown
AFL Club
Geelong
OK, we can refine it to say we dominated general play. The xS backs up the idea that clearances, I50s etc are relevant - we just did not take our chances. Which is important! But also suggests it's not about system or even skill but randomness.

Yes I agree there is a degree of 'defining' when one says domination. I dont think a game of footy is like a boxing match where each round you win on points ..and you lose after dominating a fight with one hit. Its more a race and who is ahead at the end.

We lost 3 out of 4 quarters. If we are winning on stats yet losing on the scoreboard then id say there are other stats that show why we lost that are more important, and perhaps there are flaws in the stats we won in.I heard DKing this morning say we should have won on that estimated goals 111 to 70 something. There is something very wrong when there is 40 points different to the outcome.

Why dont we measure inside 40's , inside 30's. Just because there is a line one the ground we measure I50's? 40 is more within scoring range. Did every I50 produce an entry that should have produced a goal? How often did a centre clearance produce a mark inside the i40?

Possessions are almost superficial as a measurement when we are playing kick to kick in the backline. What about marks around the ground. How many possessions in a chain before it produces a shot at goal. How much time in possession to produce the shots at goal. How many opponents are inside the i50 by the time we kick it in? How many times do we kick it to an out maned forward

Our tall man influence failed again. Henry was a standout which says a lot imo. It made me remember Nankervis in last year GF. Killed us at times with marks.

The missing of goals ..how much was our style a part of it? Are the forwards asked to work to far up the ground? I heard a discussion that talked about efficiency this morning that said WC forward do not go further than 70 from goal. So it may not just random when you miss shots. I wonder how often Hawkins has a shot at goal after expending a lot of energy. Its not the first time he has missed key shots at goal.

What Id like to see is the stats that show Stanleys influence against the WC and his non influence against Swans. How did that affect us. Its not the areas we won in , its the areas we lost in that I am interested in.

That McLean marked like he did is an issue. That is mark inside 50 ..but is far deadlier than a mark on the 50 Metre line.

It seemed to me that we failed to take it on more or were allowed to take it on more. Are there stats about how often we were quick and direct in Q1..but not the rest of the game

We did enough to win the game. That Swans were allowed to win is in the stats somewhere. Just saying we dominated ..and it was random bit of bad luck is almost ignoring what happened , so one can continue on with our current methods and procedures..with the attitude one can not help bad luck. We seem to have a lot of bad luck at times.
 
Sep 15, 2007
50,369
46,599
Where i need to be
AFL Club
Geelong
Has anyone answered how we lost from 39 conceded inside 50’s?
14 goals from 39 entries... 36% . That’s horrendous.
they flooded their backline. It meant the ball spent a lot of time up our end but it was hard to score. When thry did finally manage to break through the wing there were few numbers so lots of scoring opportunities.
 
catempire ... are just going to disagree ..or are you will to discuss your point of view
Sorry, time poor this morning.

Don’t think I could say it any better or succinctly than thejester has.

I will offer that if all of the key metrics suggest domination and the scoreboard is the only thing that doesn’t, it’s obvious where the problems lie. I’m open to hearing alternative ideas but to say we didn’t dominate because of the result/score misses the point IMO.

What you want to know is what should change? Is it execution/conversion or is it something else? If it’s something else I am not aware of what it could be because dominating all of the key metrics is in almost all circumstances the orthodox recipe to winning a s**t tonne of football.
 
Dec 10, 2003
58,427
66,178
Newtown
AFL Club
Geelong
Sorry, time poor this morning.

Don’t think I could say it any better or succinctly than thejester has.

I will offer that if all of the key metrics suggest domination and the scoreboard is the only thing that doesn’t, it’s obvious where the problems lie. I’m open to hearing alternative ideas but to say we didn’t dominate because of the result/score misses the point IMO.

What you want to know is what should change? Is it execution/conversion or is it something else? If it’s something else I am not aware of what it could be because dominating all of the key metrics is in almost all circumstances the orthodox recipe to winning a sh*t tonne of football.

My point revolves around..that if we are winning on these KM's and lost then there are others that should be measured and considered before saying we dominated the game. Id say we dominated the stats sheet with these metrics on it. Even gut feel , I do not think we were in control of the game after quarter time. We were always off balance and responding.

I don't believe that winning in some of the measurables that we "dominated" mean we dominated the game. Yes they often go hand in hand with winning a lot of football but I dare say there are plenty of situations that a side has lost and won that stats..therefore..there must be other measuables that are not measured.
 
Back