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

Remove this Banner Ad

witsend

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 22, 2008
7,464
4,073
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Lakers
Thanks for that!
Looks like Saints led for 54 minutes, Cats for 42 and even for 28.

So out of 124 minutes the Saints led for a total of 12 minutes more.

Off topic (and on my phone so cant do it myself) but is the 07 prelim broken down like that as well?
I have pie meathead mates that STILL try to claim they should have won that game.. Whilst my feeling was we would have led for 75% of the game and always deserve to win.. We just couldn't shake them
 
Sep 26, 2011
1,251
1,209
AFL Club
Geelong
Oh really? They smashed us? Not much "smashing" in my view. Outcoached us? Yep!. Took advantage of our poor disposal? Yep! Smashed us? Nope!

The Saints won three quarters against us. They missed many easy shots under no pressure. Even players who are reliable kicks like Schneider sprayed 'em. It's one we got away with.

Indeed they did. Once they hit the lead in the 3rd, the Cats had no more fight, at least not in any manner to get goals on the board. Set-shots are one thing, but when you see you're missing them, and you keep trying them, there's not a lot left.

The Saints were a strong opponent, but I felt the entire game was an arm wrestle. As great as they played, no way can it be said they won 3 of the quarters.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

AM

The standard you walk past is the one you accept
Aug 18, 2006
24,579
23,475
Here there and everywhere
AFL Club
Geelong
Looking at scoring shots is but one indicator. Though it’s interesting that by ¾ time they had 7 more shots in a low scoring game.

They also had a heap more inside 50’s and butchered many easy goal opportunities especially in the 2nd quarter - quite a few of which didn't register as they missed entirely.

Methinks some here are re-writing history. But I’ll leave it to the coaches post match comment to sum up : “To St Kilda, footy sucks sometimes ... we were very, very lucky and we're very proud of what we've done.”
 

witsend

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 22, 2008
7,464
4,073
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Lakers
Looking at scoring shots is but one indicator. Though it’s interesting that by ¾ time they had 7 more shots in a low scoring game.

They also had a heap more inside 50’s and butchered many easy goal opportunities especially in the 2nd quarter - quite a few of which didn't register as they missed entirely.

Methinks some here are re-writing history. But I’ll leave it to the coaches post match comment to sum up : “To St Kilda, footy sucks sometimes ... we were very, very lucky and we're very proud of what we've done.”
As for the post-match comment...what is he gonna say?
"Did we win... we s**t it in"?

I think you'll find the scoring shots/I50s flatter them somewhat.
If you are on a roll/dominating in a, let's say, 15 minute period and kick 4-5 points in a row, it's gonna pad both your scoring shot tally and I50 count.
I have always believed St Kilda were clearly the best team for the year, so in that sense they were entitled to be gutted but we prevailed at the right time.
 

RogersResults

Premiership Player
May 7, 2009
3,174
1,370
Wagga Wagga
Looking at scoring shots is but one indicator. Though it’s interesting that by ¾ time they had 7 more shots in a low scoring game.

They also had a heap more inside 50’s and butchered many easy goal opportunities especially in the 2nd quarter - quite a few of which didn't register as they missed entirely.

Methinks some here are re-writing history. But I’ll leave it to the coaches post match comment to sum up : “To St Kilda, footy sucks sometimes ... we were very, very lucky and we're very proud of what we've done.”

I'll post this yet again.

4 of St Kilda's behinds were rushed.

More accurate kicking for goal can very, very rarely if ever, turn rushed behinds into goals.

0 of Geelong's behinds were rushed.

Actual scoring shots:

Geelong 20
St Kilda 19

Kicks for goal that that went behind the goals and scored a point or went out of bounds, that instead become kicks that went through the goals and scored 6 points in an alternate reality end our knowledge of the progress of the match. After that, it is all complete speculation of what happens after the ball has gone back to the centre instead of being kicked in.

The discussion of the meaning of "lucky" has been had before. Thompson's statement more likely meant not that random chance gave us the premiership, but that Geelong was fortunate to have an administration, football department and club culture that had got together and developed the most skillful and most fit group of players at the right end of this season.

"Football sucks" because St Kilda didn't and you lot have to sit here and watch us celebrate even though during the year you were very successful.

But you can't say that in so many words, or your turn into Port Adelaide 2004 or Hawthorn 2008.
 

Goggin Our Best

Norm Smith Medallist
May 23, 2011
7,525
11,744
sydney
AFL Club
Geelong
As for the post-match comment...what is he gonna say?
"Did we win... we s**t it in"?

I think you'll find the scoring shots/I50s flatter them somewhat.
If you are on a roll/dominating in a, let's say, 15 minute period and kick 4-5 points in a row, it's gonna pad both your scoring shot tally and I50 count.
I have always believed St Kilda were clearly the best team for the year, so in that sense they were entitled to be gutted but we prevailed at the right time.

I totally disagree with you -Malcomb Blight was on the special comments that day. I think Blight has much more fondness for Geelong than Stkilda for obvious reasons.At qtr time Blights exact words were -i think the Cats are a bit lucky -meaning we were lucky that Stkilda blew so many chances and we were still in the game . At half time Blight really ripped into Geelong-he nearly called our effort to that point pathetic .After the game he congratulated Geelong on its win -but he did say that the last 2 grand finals ie 2008 and 2009 the team that has dominated have both lost .

So i say we were extremely fortunate to win -but it was still a sensational win -which i have got tremendous joy from. I think the great thing about the last 2 flags which Geelong have won is they have come from behind and withstood tremendous pressure -where as for the previous 30 years Geelong were known as front runners -and any sort of pressure and they would wilt
 

bulletproof

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 3, 2003
8,418
19,838
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Geelong
It was an extremely gutsy win, that St Kilda team of 09 were the best side we faced in a GF in my opinion. They were very unlucky not to win a Flag during that period but we were just that little bit more of an even team all the way from 06 through to now and that has made all the difference in the end.
 

witsend

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 22, 2008
7,464
4,073
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Lakers
I totally disagree with you -Malcomb Blight was on the special comments that day. I think Blight has much more fondness for Geelong than Stkilda for obvious reasons.At qtr time Blights exact words were -i think the Cats are a bit lucky -meaning we were lucky that Stkilda blew so many chances and we were still in the game . At half time Blight really ripped into Geelong-he nearly called our effort to that point pathetic .After the game he congratulated Geelong on its win -but he did say that the last 2 grand finals ie 2008 and 2009 the team that has dominated have both lost .

So i say we were extremely fortunate to win -but it was still a sensational win -which i have got tremendous joy from. I think the great thing about the last 2 flags which Geelong have won is they have come from behind and withstood tremendous pressure -where as for the previous 30 years Geelong were known as front runners -and any sort of pressure and they would wilt

The only unlucky thing about St Kilda in 2009 was that they had their best year in their history in a year that contained the best team of the past 5 years including 2009. They were completely outclassed in the final 30 minutes of the GF. They certainly failed to capitalise on their only significant period of dominance in the 2nd Q, but bad kicking is bad footy. Look at Milne's pathetic attempt to dribble one through on a wet day as if it was Etihad. Or Schneider's shots that missed. Bad, bad footy.
Very similar you our efforts in 2008, yet I don't hear anyone saying we were unlucky to lose in 2008? We were beaten by the better team on the day, in September and therefore for the year overall.
They timed their run to perfection, as have we since that fateful day, with the exception of 2010 when we were on the cusp of necessary change.
How can a team that failed to score a goal in the 4th quarter of a GF possibly be regarded as the better team on the day and unlucky to lose?
 


So i say we were extremely fortunate to win

It always makes me laugh when people say "you were lucky or fortunate to win"

To be leading when the final siren sounds means you've taken your chances and made your own luck, by playing decent football when it matters.

St.Kilda missing easy goals etc, means their skill level wasn't up to standard and the better side capatalized and took their chances to win.

You could say the Saints were lucky the margin wasn't greater as a few Geelong players didn't play to their ability.
 

AM

The standard you walk past is the one you accept
Aug 18, 2006
24,579
23,475
Here there and everywhere
AFL Club
Geelong
I totally disagree with you -Malcomb Blight was on the special comments that day. I think Blight has much more fondness for Geelong than Stkilda for obvious reasons.At qtr time Blights exact words were -i think the Cats are a bit lucky -meaning we were lucky that Stkilda blew so many chances and we were still in the game . At half time Blight really ripped into Geelong-he nearly called our effort to that point pathetic .After the game he congratulated Geelong on its win -but he did say that the last 2 grand finals ie 2008 and 2009 the team that has dominated have both lost .

So i say we were extremely fortunate to win -but it was still a sensational win -which i have got tremendous joy from. I think the great thing about the last 2 flags which Geelong have won is they have come from behind and withstood tremendous pressure -where as for the previous 30 years Geelong were known as front runners -and any sort of pressure and they would wilt

Top post GOB.:thumbsu: Some folk will just never accept it though. Despite the evidence and the consensus at the time. Including our coach who you'd imagine was reflecting the views of the coaching group. It's called denial in some circles.;)
 
Mar 21, 2006
2,604
1,200
Near Kardinia Park
AFL Club
Geelong
Top post GOB.:thumbsu: Some folk will just never accept it though. Despite the evidence and the consensus at the time. Including our coach who you'd imagine was reflecting the views of the coaching group. It's called denial in some circles.;)

So if we give up '09 that that mean we get '08?

It isn't Geelong's fault that St Kilda didn't take their chances - we did, they didn't - the opposite to '08.

It was the most nerve racking game I've ever been to. TBH I didn't think we could win until the great #33 gave three of the best contests I've seen and finally soccered through a point..
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

RogersResults

Premiership Player
May 7, 2009
3,174
1,370
Wagga Wagga
Top post GOB.:thumbsu: Some folk will just never accept it though. Despite the evidence and the consensus at the time. Including our coach who you'd imagine was reflecting the views of the coaching group. It's called denial in some circles.;)

In the last 49 minutes and 45 seconds of the match St Kilda scored 13 points. 1 goal 4 behinds kicked and 3 behinds rushed.

(That from a team that was at best 10 points ahead for 2 minutes and 13 seconds in the 2nd quarter.)

In the same time Geelong scored 29 points. 4 goals and 5 behinds kicked.
That's how matches are won.

As for St Kilda's 19 shots for goal, 10 of which resulted in behinds. There have been 1,179 scores with 19 scoring shots. Even with St Kilda's 4 rushed behinds added in, only 71 (6.02%) of those scores would have beaten Geelong's tally of 80 points from 20 scoring shots.

Alternative reality "what if" fantasies of wasted scoring opportunities hardly ever have some going the way of the other team as well.

If just two of Geelong's kicks for goal had resulted in goals instead of behinds then St Kilda's 19 scoring shots + the 4 rushed behinds would have had to be in the top 9 scores (0.76%) of scores from 19 scoring shots to beat Geelong's tally of 90 points from 20 scoring shots. (They have been 59 such tallies or higher from 20 scoring shots.)

As for "inside 50's" they still don't add to your points tally on the scoreboard and may not be actually "opportunities wasted" when scoring does not result but "opportunities denied" by the opposition's defence and "opportunities created" for the opposition as the ball is turned over.

Without Mr. Milburn's unfortunate slip of the tongue scores at half-time with 32 secs to play would have most likely been equal - demonstrating the nonsense of raw "inside 50" figures. Which the TV commentary team at the time seemed to have trouble comprehending and interpreting.

RogersResults
 

Monniehawk

Premiership Player
Apr 1, 2008
3,525
638
Mornington Peninsula
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Monbulk, Upwey, Strathmore, St Alba
It isn't Geelong's fault that St Kilda didn't take their chances - we did, they didn't - the opposite to '08.
TBH I didn't think we could win until the great #33 gave three of the best contests I've seen and finally soccered through a point..
The Wrecking Ball at his best! Rates with Harmsie's knock-on in the GF, except that Max did 3 times...... with pure courage, not desperation.

As for the thread title: Meh...
It's all subjective. Saints feel dudded for '09 and '10. They blew the drawn match in '10 and dropped their heads. The Pies were up and about when the siren blew and were always going to win the replay.

Then there was last season.
The Pies lost because of one or all of the following:
1. They had injuries,
2. they had a tough game v Hawthorn the week before,
3. they didn't manage their list well enough,
4. the Swan mark was disallowed.
Replies:
1. Geelong had a few out, too. We're just not nambie-pambies!
2. The Eagles weren't exactly soft and we had to front up in only 6 days!
3. They had all year sitting on top and still couldn't rest players in a gruelling season? Go figure!
4. Didak, Ball and Johnson getting soft frees all day and that goalposter goal!
Have to admit though, most Pies fans actually acknowledged us as winners, not them losing. So they aren't drop kicks.

But, believe it or not, it wasn't the Pies who were stiff not to clinch the '11 flag....
..... it was The Dorks!! Just ask them.
They reckon they were dudded in the semi and would have creamed us in the GF.
???????????
They were beaten every time the Pies or Cats played them. WE have beaten them EIGHT TIMES in succession!! :p

The didn't even make the GF, yet they still think they were stiff??!!!?? :rolleyes:
 
While people are rightly saying that we won the game on the ground, we also won the game in the coaches box. The move of having Bartel sit on a red-hot Hayes after quarter time was a master stroke. On the other hand, Ross Lyon's mistake of having a bashed up Goddard on the ground while a fully fit Luke Ball was sitting on the pine in the last term was mind boggling to say the least.

I remember listening to his press conference after the game, and someone asked him about why he kept Goddard on the ground in the last term, and Lyon said something like he didn't know how badly Goddard was injured. Surely that was part of his job on the day, to know the welfare of his charges. Ignorance is not a good excuse in that regard IMO.
 
While people are rightly saying that we won the game on the ground, we also won the game in the coaches box. The move of having Bartel sit on a red-hot Hayes after quarter time was a master stroke. On the other hand, Ross Lyon's mistake of having a bashed up Goddard on the ground while a fully fit Luke Ball was sitting on the pine in the last term was mind boggling to say the least.

I remember listening to his press conference after the game, and someone asked him about why he kept Goddard on the ground in the last term, and Lyon said something like he didn't know how badly Goddard was injured. Surely that was part of his job on the day, to know the welfare of his charges. Ignorance is not a good excuse in that regard IMO.

it was remiss of me to completely forget the impact it had of Thompson moving Bartel onto Hayes

It was as you said a masterstroke.
 

witsend

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 22, 2008
7,464
4,073
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Lakers
Top post GOB.:thumbsu: Some folk will just never accept it though. Despite the evidence and the consensus at the time. Including our coach who you'd imagine was reflecting the views of the coaching group. It's called denial in some circles.;)

Why would I accept what is patently untrue?
All I'm hearing is rhetoric and mythology.
The facts are indisputable. Saints put all their energy into the 1st half and pulled up well short. It is a credit to them that they fought it out to the end and it is only their will and commitment to negativity that kept them in it.
I repeat my earlier analogy. A 1500 meter race is run over 1500 meters.
Nobody remembers or credits who was leading at 800 or 1200.
Why should Geelong?
As Rogers Results said earlier...they only scored 13 points in the last 45 minutes!!!
How can anyone possibly say Saints deserved to win a game they barely scored in, in the 2nd half?
 
May 8, 2007
10,579
14,813
vic
AFL Club
Richmond
Sorry, thought I'd join in as a neutral (after all, what do I know about Grand Finals?).

In my opinion, most analysis of 'who was dominating the game' and 'stats show the opposition were on top' are misleading. It sounds trite, but the only statistic or 'domination' that matters is on the scoreboard.

If you are leading in stats, and dominating everywhere except the scoreboard, maybe you're not really playing that well. If all your stats dont translate into scores, what's the point of them? If you keep missing shots at goal, you're kicking badly.

The aim of the game is to score more than your opponent - not to lead in 'clearances', 'inside 50's' or '1%-ers'. These help, but if you are leading in all the 'key categories' and still not in front on the scoreboard - the other side is playing better than you.

End of story.
 

witsend

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 22, 2008
7,464
4,073
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Lakers
Sorry, thought I'd join in as a neutral (after all, what do I know about Grand Finals?).

In my opinion, most analysis of 'who was dominating the game' and 'stats show the opposition were on top' are misleading. It sounds trite, but the only statistic or 'domination' that matters is on the scoreboard.

If you are leading in stats, and dominating everywhere except the scoreboard, maybe you're not really playing that well. If all your stats dont translate into scores, what's the point of them? If you keep missing shots at goal, you're kicking badly.

The aim of the game is to score more than your opponent - not to lead in 'clearances', 'inside 50's' or '1%-ers'. These help, but if you are leading in all the 'key categories' and still not in front on the scoreboard - the other side is playing better than you.

End of story.

Precisely! Riewoldt was average and well beaten by Taylor, Hayes was held well after a stellar 1st Q by Bartel, Schneider and Milne were average at best. The Saints game plan kept them in it as it ahd all year.
 

BotsMaster

2022 Sep Premiers
Jan 26, 2009
29,274
34,657
Cheat Park
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Everton, Cardinals
Sorry, thought I'd join in as a neutral (after all, what do I know about Grand Finals?).

In my opinion, most analysis of 'who was dominating the game' and 'stats show the opposition were on top' are misleading. It sounds trite, but the only statistic or 'domination' that matters is on the scoreboard.

If you are leading in stats, and dominating everywhere except the scoreboard, maybe you're not really playing that well. If all your stats dont translate into scores, what's the point of them? If you keep missing shots at goal, you're kicking badly.

The aim of the game is to score more than your opponent - not to lead in 'clearances', 'inside 50's' or '1%-ers'. These help, but if you are leading in all the 'key categories' and still not in front on the scoreboard - the other side is playing better than you.

End of story.

Spot on:thumbsu:

This translates into soccer as well such as you could be absolutely dominating the opposition in possession, shots...etc, but all it takes is one defensive error and you're a goal down. In AFL that might be 3 goals straight against the run of play.
 

AM

The standard you walk past is the one you accept
Aug 18, 2006
24,579
23,475
Here there and everywhere
AFL Club
Geelong
Why would I accept what is patently untrue?
All I'm hearing is rhetoric and mythology.
The facts are indisputable. Saints put all their energy into the 1st half and pulled up well short. It is a credit to them that they fought it out to the end and it is only their will and commitment to negativity that kept them in it.
I repeat my earlier analogy. A 1500 meter race is run over 1500 meters.
Nobody remembers or credits who was leading at 800 or 1200.
Why should Geelong?
As Rogers Results said earlier...they only scored 13 points in the last 45 minutes!!!
How can anyone possibly say Saints deserved to win a game they barely scored in, in the 2nd half?

Witsy, you don’t have a very good record here in relation to recognising the truth. First you attempted to attribute remarks to me that I never made. Then you mischievously and unfairly attempt to discredit the coaches comments made after the grand final, and reiterated at other times, where he said “To St Kilda, footy sucks sometimes ... we were very, very lucky and we're very proud of what we've done”. Your "what is he expected to say “As for the post-match comment...what is he gonna say?"Did we win... we s**t it in"? response is frankly childish . All he needed do was congratulate the Saints effort. There was absolutely no need to say we were very very lucky. He said it because he believed it and I’d bet still believes it. Something he and other Geelong people repeated in the weeks following the GF. Not the least of whom was Scarlo who on the AFL website was aware of being “under siege for much of the first half”.

Draw my attention to one coaching staff member or player whose public comment refute that the Saints were not better than us for three quarters. Or a reputable football commentator who supports your viewpoint. Just one will do.

All I’ve been saying from the get-go is that the Saints were the better team for three quarters during which time they missed many easy shots.

Anyhoo, we’ve got the silverware, which is all that really matters.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back