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

[witsend]

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.

You're presuming this is not a subjective argument/discussion. I understand your viewpoint, but you seem very dismissive of mine. I don't take coaching staff post match comments seriously. I regard those comments as magnanimous and yet disingenuous. Draw MY attention to one statement by a Geelong coach for any win over the past 5 years where they say "We won because we were better than them." Just one...
There was no "luck" involved in that win.
We outscored them, out-toughed them, out-lasted them and out-coached them.
But I agree that we do in fact have the silverware and that's all that counts. It's pretty fabulous that we can be arguing over how we won one of our 3 flags!

 

[GFC123]

Saints blew it ? No, we WON it. St. Kilda just didn't take their chances, and we did, just like 2008 when Hawthorn took pretty much every chance they got and we kept misfiring infront of goal. In the end, we deserved to win the 2009 Grand Final, no ifs and buts.

 

[RegHickeyStand]

Bomber Thompson caused this!

After the game he was overly gracious and said words to the effect that we were lucky to win, and St Kilda was unlucky. That comment gave the media at the time license to talk about Geelong being lucky to win 2009.

Load of b/s. We ground the Saints into dust by the game's end.

 

[Willo_]

In a game as tight as that... I wouldn't be surprised if either coach said they were lucky if they won...

At the end of the day who really cares? Bad kicking is bad football, if you can't put a team away and not score a goal at all in the last quarter when the games to be won, then you don't deserve to win...

Regardless of what happened in the 3/4s before - when the game was there to be won, only 1 team stepped up to the plate

 

[MightyHawks]

Having Grand Final week in the lead up to the season.

And have just watched the 2005 and 2009 Grand Finals.

Interesting tracking Schneider in both these matches.

He was awesome for the Swans in 2005 and awful for the Saints in 2009.

The only thing that was lucky for the Cats was the weather - it definitely suited Geelong.

There's no question that Geelong deserved to win the game. Had most of the best players - Harry Taylor and Selwood especially.

Every Grand Final has opportunities for both sides to take control of the game. Saints didn't take theirs. Cats did. End of story.

 

[RogersResults]

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.

 

[AM]

You're presuming this is not a subjective argument/discussion. I understand your viewpoint, but you seem very dismissive of mine. I don't take coaching staff post match comments seriously. I regard those comments as magnanimous and yet disingenuous. Draw MY attention to one statement by a Geelong coach for any win over the past 5 years where they say "We won because we were better than them." Just one...
There was no "luck" involved in that win.
We outscored them, out-toughed them, out-lasted them and out-coached them.
But I agree that we do in fact have the silverware and that's all that counts. It's pretty fabulous that we can be arguing over how we won one of our 3 flags!

Agree that we have the silverware and that’s what matters. I’m just intrigued that no one on the side of the discussion suggesting the Saints weren’t the better unit for the greater part the day can give a credible person from our club or the broader footy community to support their case. In Bomber and Scarlo I’ve provided two who are better placed and better informed than any of us in support of my position. On the other side, zilch.

The fact is the conclusion both from within our club and outside was that the team that had the ascendency for the greater part of the game lost. It actually happens quite a lot. I can’t see what the big deal is in acknowledging it as people much better placed than us in the coach, Scarlo and, if my memory serves me correctly, Balmy have.

 

[witsend]

Agree that we have the silverware and that’s what matters. I’m just intrigued that no one on the side of the discussion suggesting the Saints weren’t the better unit for the greater part the day can give a credible person from our club or the broader footy community to support their case. In Bomber and Scarlo I’ve provided two who are better placed and better informed than any of us in support of my position. On the other side, zilch.

The fact is the conclusion both from within our club and outside was that the team that had the ascendency for the greater part of the game lost. It actually happens quite a lot. I can’t see what the big deal is in acknowledging it as people much better placed than us in the coach, Scarlo and, if my memory serves me correctly, Balmy have.

That's their opinion and of course they are very learned men. I'm sure that at the end of what was an extraordinarily stressful game they may we'll have felt "lucky". And no doubt relieved that Saints missed a few sitters.
But the Saints were lucky to be gifted a couple of goals.
Finals are full of "luck" and opportunities.
See 2008...
Were we "unlucky" Moons missed a shot on half-time? Ottens missed a sitter in the 3rd he would kick 9 times out of 10? Chappy missed a hook shot he's usually a monty for?
Harley was off concussed for the time when Hawthorn put us away in the 3rd?
No... we simply weren't good enough.
I think people feel sorry for the Saints to some degree. They were clearly the dominant team in the H & A season as were we in 2008. But this ain't the Premier League.
Cups go to teams that win a game over 4 quarters.
We had the fresher, stronger legs, the will-to win and the imagination and flair when it counted.
Sainst didn't. They failed.

"The harder I work...the luckier I get"-Samuel Goldwyn

You're right...it is no big deal. I just simply don't agree we were lucky or were outplayed over 3/4. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm not, but my opinion is both considered and valid, as is yours.

 

[Jef Costello]

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..

Speaking of three brilliant efforts in one play, did anyone see on AFL360 tonight the three 2012 GF Bartel efforts highlighted? Just before the critical Stokes grubbed goal to bring us back in some touch. Jimmy in a pack desperately trying to clear, somehow Jimmy in a contest 20m 5 sec later and then Jimmy ripping his way out of a pack straight after that again. Anyone video types able to pull out a clip of this? Inspiring stuff just like the great Max.

And shows the thing we have had over everyone in recent years - the absolutely unbelievably contested nature of our mighty Cats.

 

[David the Cat]

St Kilda threw everything they had at Geelong for 3 quarters and couldn't break them. Geelong absorbed it all until St Kilda were spent and then took the game away.


You want a simile for this game??? Foreman v Ali.....


It was a sensational performance.

 

[witsend]

St Kilda threw everything they had at Geelong for 3 quarters and couldn't break them. Geelong absorbed it all until St Kilda were spent and then took the game away.


You want a simile for this game??? Foreman v Ali.....


It was a sensational performance.

"Muhammed Ali was statistically "beaten" by George Foreman in Zaire for almost all of the fight in the famous rope a dope epic, but would anyone dare say Foreman was robbed and should have won?
Ali planned his battle, took his punches and wore Foreman down until the knockout blows.
See the analogy?"

From a previous post in this thread from me...:thumbs:

Great minds think alike!

 

[AM]

Of course you’re very much entitled to your opinion Witsend. Really goes without saying. That’s what forums are for.

But you’ve claimed the matter is all subjective which is another misreading in my view. St Kilda having had 7 more shots for goal by half time in a low scoring game isn’t subjective. St Kilda having had a truckload more inside fifties isn’t subjective. They are indicative and given more weight to by Scarlo’s suggestion he felt “under siege”. A powerful remark from a top player in a position, and with the knowledge, to know.

Thompson’s remark made more that once that we were “very very” lucky is fact not imagined and based on a truckload of information we’re not privy to during the game. And it wasn't just said after the game but repeated subsequently. While it’s subjective for us who weren’t present to say that all other coaching staff were of the exact same view as Bomber you’d have to be naive in the extreme to suggest they weren’t.

The matter of the consensus of those connected to the club and every credible footy reviewer saying that the Saints had the ascendency for the greater part of the game is a powerful point. One of the things that stuck in my mind at the time was how no one I’d read or heard from inside the club or outside came to any other conclusion than our coaches. I’ve had a couple of quick looks to see if I’ve missed any credible reviewer with a contrary view but haven’t found one and asked you to come up with just one which you haven’t been able to do. So it’s reasonable ask the question who is out of step.

You’ve mentioned the Zaire fight before. It’s just a distraction. During this thread I’ve said there are countless competitive events where the team or individual which hasn’t/haven’t had the ascendency carrying the day. Anyone who has a remote interest in boxing will know of numerous bouts that have been won by knockout when the opponent has been clearly ahead on points. It happens regularly during our home and away games where the loser had the ascendency during the better part of the game.

It’s a credit to our team that we finished in front when it counted. And, of course, you’re very much entitled to your viewpoint which I think you suggested is largely subjective. On the other hand, I’m more than comfortable with my conclusions and more importantly being on the same page as those who are better informed and who have more intimate and direct knowledge than either of us.

That’s all from me on the issue as the discussion has become circular.

Best wishes and Go Cats!

 

[Vdubs]

Time for an unbiased view?? By the time GF day was upon us, Geelong was the favourite team for the flag. Saints had already looked shaky leading to this game. On the day itself, which was the most chilling game I've ever been to, I never felt any team had the ascendancy. We'd get a lead, they'd catch us. Our pressure, and the perceived pressure and lack of GF experience caused them to err. In the last/4, the MOST important/4 of2009, Saints not only did not score a goal, they were simply not as desperate or unwilling to lose as Geelong was. No player typified this attitude more than Max Rooke. We were lucky that Goddard broke his collar bone and nose as he could have been THEIR Max.

But nevertheless, when the game was there to be won, Geelong actually knew what to do, and Saints have struggled with that concept since that game under Lyon. They were nearly impossible to beat in 09, but Geelong did. I felt stunned at the final result on the day, but looking back at that game, it truly was meant to be. Perhaps we were all just too chilled to appreciate how great Geelong's last/4 effort was.

BTW, Bomber also said some contradictory statements, to the effect that he ALWAYS had the feeling and confidence we would win that game. His comment about how lucky we were, was in my way of thinking at the time, empathising with St Kilda as he and we knew exactly how they felt.

 

[witsend]

Time for an unbiased view?? By the time GF day was upon us, Geelong was the favourite team for the flag. Saints had already looked shaky leading to this game. On the day itself, which was the most chilling game I've ever been to, I never felt any team had the ascendancy. We'd get a lead, they'd catch us. Our pressure, and the perceived pressure and lack of GF experience caused them to err. In the last/4, the MOST important/4 of2009, Saints not only did not score a goal, they were simply not as desperate or unwilling to lose as Geelong was. No player typified this attitude more than Max Rooke. We were lucky that Goddard broke his collar bone and nose as he could have been THEIR Max.

But nevertheless, when the game was there to be won, Geelong actually knew what to do, and Saints have struggled with that concept since that game under Lyon. They were nearly impossible to beat in 09, but Geelong did. I felt stunned at the final result on the day, but looking back at that game, it truly was meant to be. Perhaps we were all just too chilled to appreciate how great Geelong's last/4 effort was.

BTW, Bomber also said some contradictory statements, to the effect that he ALWAYS had the feeling and confidence we would win that game. His comment about how lucky we were, was in my way of thinking at the time, empathising with St Kilda as he and we knew exactly how they felt.

Couldn't have said it better myself!

 

[witsend]

Of course you’re very much entitled to your opinion Witsend. Really goes without saying. That’s what forums are for.

But you’ve claimed the matter is all subjective which is another misreading in my view. St Kilda having had 7 more shots for goal by half time in a low scoring game isn’t subjective. St Kilda having had a truckload more inside fifties isn’t subjective. They are indicative and given more weight to by Scarlo’s suggestion he felt “under siege”. A powerful remark from a top player in a position, and with the knowledge, to know.

Thompson’s remark made more that once that we were “very very” lucky is fact not imagined and based on a truckload of information we’re not privy to during the game. And it wasn't just said after the game but repeated subsequently. While it’s subjective for us who weren’t present to say that all other coaching staff were of the exact same view as Bomber you’d have to be naive in the extreme to suggest they weren’t.

The matter of the consensus of those connected to the club and every credible footy reviewer saying that the Saints had the ascendency for the greater part of the game is a powerful point. One of the things that stuck in my mind at the time was how no one I’d read or heard from inside the club or outside came to any other conclusion than our coaches. I’ve had a couple of quick looks to see if I’ve missed any credible reviewer with a contrary view but haven’t found one and asked you to come up with just one which you haven’t been able to do. So it’s reasonable ask the question who is out of step.

You’ve mentioned the Zaire fight before. It’s just a distraction. During this thread I’ve said there are countless competitive events where the team or individual which hasn’t/haven’t had the ascendency carrying the day. Anyone who has a remote interest in boxing will know of numerous bouts that have been won by knockout when the opponent has been clearly ahead on points. It happens regularly during our home and away games where the loser had the ascendency during the better part of the game.

It’s a credit to our team that we finished in front when it counted. And, of course, you’re very much entitled to your viewpoint which I think you suggested is largely subjective. On the other hand, I’m more than comfortable with my conclusions and more importantly being on the same page as those who are better informed and who have more intimate and direct knowledge than either of us.

That’s all from me on the issue as the discussion has become circular.

Best wishes and Go Cats!

Hey Ammo
Yeah I think we will simply agree to disagree on this one!
I'll close by noting that Scarlo's comment that he felt under siege doesn't necessarily mean we were being dominated.
I wonder how the St Kilda back-line felt? It was that kind of game. One for the ages and a classic arm-wrestle!
And re the Zaire fight. I singled that out as an example of a game-plan that suited the opponent. Ali didn't win with a "lucky punch". He allowed Foreman to pummel him until completely exhausted and then finished him off in brutal fashion.
Anyhoo, I've enjoyed the repartee!
Go Cats indeed!!

 

[vinum coupe]

Ammo is going way too hard on this. But that's what stubborn people do.

The Saints had the opportunity to do some damage in the second quarter.
But they didn't dominate us for 3/4's. That's utter nonsense.

 

[Hoffy95]

No one dominated the game at all. It was the ultimate arm wrestle.

Saints probably had some easier shots on goals they should have converted compared to us but they didn't.

Does that mean the Saints blew it? Well they will think so and so too their supporters but I refuse to accept a side can win a Grand Final because another team stuffs up somewhere along the line. The game was riddled by errors it's just people remember the finishing plays that are either points or goals rather than everything in between and define which way they look at who won or lost it purely on these moments.

 

[candiehappy]

I well remember the days when Geelong would regularly snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. To me the 09 GF (like the early rounds of H&A last year) typify the "new Geelong" that snatches victory from the jaws of defeat.

I believe that we won it through sheer refusal to lose. Saints didn't have that ability/attitude/belief.

 

[Senatorguesty]

I believe that we won it through sheer refusal to lose.

Bingo!

These Cats just HATE TO LOSE. Its something they have over every other side in the comp and 1 of the biggest reasons why they have been brilliant for several years.
Its probably the 1 thing that I love about these guys, I remember watching the boys from the 90s not give a yelp sometimes and/or be in front early they just lack heart and lose a game (even "that Eagles game" at KP, gee did I give em a mouthful that day! I remember being at the players race SPRAYING the players ) so to see this side just never give up and always strive to win the game no matter the situation is just awesome.

 

[RogersResults]

I well remember the days when Geelong would regularly snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. To me the 09 GF (like the early rounds of H&A last year) typify the "new Geelong" that snatches victory from the jaws of defeat.

I believe that we won it through sheer refusal to lose. Saints didn't have that ability/attitude/belief.

Geelong's win/loss record in matches with margins of 1 to 11 points in different eras compared to all other teams is here:

 

[romeoh]

I was at the game and not for a moment did it enter my head, in that frenetic, relentless match, that we weren't going to win the game-I just thought we were always in it and I just accepted that we would keep finding something and get over the line.

 

[Farmer2Goggin]

Time for an unbiased view?? By the time GF day was upon us, Geelong was the favourite team for the flag. Saints had already looked shaky leading to this game. On the day itself, which was the most chilling game I've ever been to, I never felt any team had the ascendancy. We'd get a lead, they'd catch us. Our pressure, and the perceived pressure and lack of GF experience caused them to err. In the last/4, the MOST important/4 of2009, Saints not only did not score a goal, they were simply not as desperate or unwilling to lose as Geelong was. No player typified this attitude more than Max Rooke. We were lucky that Goddard broke his collar bone and nose as he could have been THEIR Max.

But nevertheless, when the game was there to be won, Geelong actually knew what to do, and Saints have struggled with that concept since that game under Lyon. They were nearly impossible to beat in 09, but Geelong did. I felt stunned at the final result on the day, but looking back at that game, it truly was meant to be. Perhaps we were all just too chilled to appreciate how great Geelong's last/4 effort was.

BTW, Bomber also said some contradictory statements, to the effect that he ALWAYS had the feeling and confidence we would win that game. His comment about how lucky we were, was in my way of thinking at the time, empathising with St Kilda as he and we knew exactly how they felt.

That's a great summary of the 09 GF Veedubs , well played.
Thank God for Max and I agree that the Goddard injury was very fortunate for us - much like the Harley KO was unfortunate for us in 08 - at the end of the day that's footy I guess.

Unlike past Cats Teams this group just has the mental resolve to excell in the big ones and come up trumps. The fact that we have only conceded 1 goal in last quarters from 3 GF victories says how tough we are to beat and how mentally strong our group is.
We arm wrestled the Saints for much longer than normal but in the end we were pulling away and had broken their resolve.

 

[candiehappy]

Geelong's win/loss record in matches with margins of 1 to 11 points in different eras compared to all other teams is here:

Fantastic Roger - effectively went from 50% to 70%. And top of the table. Love it!

 

[iameviljez]

May I go against the grain here? I really do think that the Saints blew 2009 and only have themselves to blame for not being five goals up in the third quarter. We managed to pull it back in the last quarter, but it was not our fault that it was not too little, too late.

However, it doesn't matter. I like to see it as being just reward for 2008-2009. If you take how we played through those two seasons, one flag is a just result.

 

[Senatorguesty]

I like to see it as being just reward for 2008-2009. If you take how we played through those two seasons, Two flags is a just result.

fixed