2005/2006 - difference?

[chapmanmagic35]

2005 - Round 20: 10 wins and 10 losses
2006 - Round 20: 10 wins and 10 losses

What's the difference? Really, the only one is that the teams around us are further in front than last year.

- In 2005, we had a few more injuries.
- In 2006, the expectations were higher.

Have we fabricated a problem that begun last year? Maybe.

Is it possible that the gallant effort in the semi-final last year and the theory that we were a kick away from a PF covered up what was really an average 2005?

 

[finrod]

yep I agree 2005 was pretty average...

 

[SJ]

ABSOLUTELY! People forget about that. We fell into the finals, with results such as a 1 point win over Richmond at Skilled late in the year. Had 12 wins for the season and finished 5th. The past two years have seen a big change in game style compared with 2004 (15-7), where we were much more direct and hard at it.

But you're right - last year we had many more injuries and therefore not as much media attention.

 

[CF]

We had a horrible slump last year too, but it was due to the injuries. We came good at the end of the season, same as this year. I think maybe we could be still the same as last year. Just the competition has changed and we have been caught out. Our side hasn't adapted or adjusted.

 

[SJ]

Forgot to mention - in 2005, won only 5 out of last 13. That Richmond 1 point win was in Round 22 at Skilled.

 

[chapmanmagic35]

We had a horrible slump last year too, but it was due to the injuries. We came good at the end of the season, same as this year. I think maybe we could be still the same as last year. Just the competition has changed and we have been caught out. Our side hasn't adapted or adjusted.

Injuries were a factor no doubt, but not sure if it was solely the reason.

 

[Inferno]

I blamed injuries last year. And I blamed injuries for us losing to Sydney because after King went off it was 11 clearences to 1 Sydney's way. Then again the Dogs injuries have been just as bad or worse and look where they are.

 

[burto]

well i have decided we are actually a very ordinary side.

we happen to always play teams when the opponents are having a terrible game or struck with injuries. take freo after the split round for example.

geelong = an over rated side. we are a 6th-8th side at best.

 

[CF]

burto I agree we are not at present a top 4 side. We are a couple of players short for that. Hopefully though with the likes of Varcoe, Hawkins, Grima, Nathan and another top 10 draft pick this year it will give us the players we need to take the next step in the the coming years.

 

[chapmanmagic35]

well i have decided we are actually a very ordinary side.

we happen to always play teams when the opponents are having a terrible game or struck with injuries. take freo after the split round for example.

geelong = an over rated side. we are a 6th-8th side at best.

However, we did force those teams to play ordinary on the day because we were switched on (eg. Freo).

We were very good yesterday.

 

[GeeCat]

Have we fabricated a problem that begun last year? Maybe.

Is it possible that the gallant effort in the semi-final last year and the theory that we were a kick away from a PF covered up what was really an average 2005?

In some respects, I'd have to say yes.

Perhaps a comparison of 2004 to 2005/06 is more fitting, the most obvious difference being the gameplan. Where '04 saw us grind it out week after week in a fairly defensive approach, '05 and beyond has seen us switch the majority of our concentration toward building up the goal tally. I guess the notion that some sort of change had to be made after the Brisbane PF has its merits, but the switch may have, at the very least, led to a change for the worst.

Whilst we've proven ourselves more adept at finding greater options up forward, it seems to have come at a cost of the widespread mentality of a team effort. For our '04 gameplan to work, we needed to work our arses off for each other, needed to adopt the notion that everything really did revolve around a concerted effort. Our goal tally has gone up, but so has the opposition's. Our players' running ahead of the ball has seen a relaxed effort/ability to the defensive side of their game (which was a key to ensuring we were more than capable of shutting down the opposition's avenues to goal in the first place). Our current gameplan can't be pinpointed as the sole reason or instigator of everything we lack, but it certainly has played a role. The '04 blueprint was flawed, but so is our current one (the fact that our forward line structure is still %$# only underlines this).

I guess the underlying irony is that, whilst the change may have initially been made for the good of this team to move forward, it's arguably done anything but (at least, to the extent the change has been forced upon - which in itself has arguably done more bad than good).

 

[chapmanmagic35]

In some respects, I'd have to say yes.

Perhaps a comparison of 2004 to 2005/06 is more fitting, the most obvious difference being the gameplan. Where '04 saw us grind it out week after week in a fairly defensive approach, '05 and beyond has seen us switch the majority of our concentration toward building up the goal tally. I guess the notion that some sort of change had to be made after the Brisbane PF has its merits, but the switch may have, at the very least, led to a change for the worst.

Whilst we've proven ourselves more adept at finding greater options up forward, it seems to have come at a cost of the widespread mentality of a team effort. For our '04 gameplan to work, we needed to work our arses off for each other, needed to adopt the notion that everything really did revolve around a concerted effort. Our goal tally has gone up, but so has the opposition's. Our players' running ahead of the ball has seen a relaxed effort/ability to the defensive side of their game (which was a key to ensuring we were more than capable of shutting down the opposition's avenues to goal in the first place). Our current gameplan can't be pinpointed as the sole reason or instigator of everything we lack, but it certainly has played a role. The '04 blueprint was flawed, but so is our current one (the fact that our forward line structure is still %$# only underlines this).

I guess the underlying irony is that, whilst the change may have initially been made for the good of this team to move forward, it's arguably done anything but (at least, to the extent the change has been forced upon - which in itself has arguably done more bad than good).

Some pretty good points in there.