A Different Result???!!

[Deep North]

Just caught this as part of an AFP report in The Age

Rawlings was the only clear winner for the Kangaroos with his tag on Corey.
The 'Roos now play Hawthorn in Saturday's semi-final.
Laidley is promising a resurgence and was defiant post-match, keen to portray today as a one-off.
"If you went out and played the game again, it would probably be a different result," he said.

I reckon if my team got spanked by over a hundred points I'd be hoping my coach was a little more thoughtful than that and looked at things to learn from to improve the next week. This could perhaps include a slightly better choice of tagging options.
I like the roos and I hope for their sake the coach isn't saying the same things behind closed doors. Maybe he was just a little shell-shocked?

 

[madcat001]

agree.
i think he'd be looking for much more from shannon grant and harvey for a start they were pathetic today.

 

[winty]

Just caught this as part of an AFP report in The Age

Rawlings was the only clear winner for the Kangaroos with his tag on Corey.
The 'Roos now play Hawthorn in Saturday's semi-final.
Laidley is promising a resurgence and was defiant post-match, keen to portray today as a one-off.
"If you went out and played the game again, it would probably be a different result," he said.

I reckon if my team got spanked by over a hundred points I'd be hoping my coach was a little more thoughtful than that and looked at things to learn from to improve the next week. This could perhaps include a slightly better choice of tagging options.
I like the roos and I hope for their sake the coach isn't saying the same things behind closed doors. Maybe he was just a little shell-shocked?

I think what he meant is if the game was replayed, Geelong would've won by about 130 points. After all, we did miss a few relatively simple shots at goal.

 

[jim boy]

On that point, I picked up that when we thrashed Richmond by 157 points, the tiges actually managed twice as many scoring shots as the kangas did today.

If it was for some poor finishing on our part (eg Nathan playing on and getting caught) and accurate kicking on North's part, it could have been much worse.

 

[rizzo]

Laidley better have a big towel. Lots of egg on his face tonight.

 

[cancat]

Check the North Melbourne board, some of their fans are blaming the umpires!

 

[winty]

Check the North Melbourne board, some of their fans are blaming the umpires!

You think that's bad? You should check out the "disgusting umpiring" thread on the umpire board. All and sundry were blaming the umpires, except Geelong fans of course.

 

[Furious_G]

I thought the umpiriing was biased in the first quarter to us, but after that, while the table was unbalanced, I felt it was because we were playing better. A lot of those free kicks to us were for "in the back", the Roo's players just seemed nervous when tackling, worried we would get another goal, so their tackles were sloppy. If that makes sense.

 

[jess_555]

"If you went out and played the game again, it would probably be a different result," he said.

Dean Laidley also said it was a level playing field.

 

[Claude Balls]

Don't be so precious Cat's fans. Laidley spoke quite well in the post match press conference and certainly offered Geelong sufficient praise. What he meant was that if we played again, the result would not be 106 points... i.e. it might be 45 points, or 60 points, or it might even be a tight one... he was simply alluding to the fact that football is a funny game, in which a lot can change in a short period of time. He certainly wasn't implying that the Roos would win in the event that we played them again.

 

[CF]

Laidley was out coached by Bomber plain and simple. I thought that the Roos fell into the mistake of bombing the ball into the forward line which played into our hands beautifully. I thought most clubs reallised by now from games early in the season (tigers, Carlton, Melb) that bombing the ball into the forward 50 against us only results in us spanking them. But also I think the Roos fell into this because their onballers were all so well nullified that they were left with no other option. I also wondered why the hell Rawlings was tagging Corey when Ablett and Bartel were killing them.

The free kicks reflected the fact that we were first at the ball and drew the errant tackles.

 

[someday-somehow]

Laidley was out coached by Bomber plain and simple. I thought that the Roos fell into the mistake of bombing the ball into the forward line which played into our hands beautifully. I thought most clubs reallised by now from games early in the season (tigers, Carlton, Melb) that bombing the ball into the forward 50 against us only results in us spanking them. But also I think the Roos fell into this because their onballers were all so well nullified that they were left with no other option. I also wondered why the hell Rawlings was tagging Corey when Ablett and Bartel were killing them.

The free kicks reflected the fact that we were first at the ball and drew the errant tackles.

No I reckon we got a few easy one's in the first quarter from the umps, there was a couple of times when the roos players were pinged for holding the ball when they had no prior - as for wether it would have made a difference????...not a chance. We saw a demolition yesterday and a few umpire decisions were never going to change that (maybe it would have been 90 points instead).

 

[Brasil2007]

Laidley was out coached by Bomber plain and simple. I thought that the Roos fell into the mistake of bombing the ball into the forward line which played into our hands beautifully. I thought most clubs reallised by now from games early in the season (tigers, Carlton, Melb) that bombing the ball into the forward 50 against us only results in us spanking them. But also I think the Roos fell into this because their onballers were all so well nullified that they were left with no other option. I also wondered why the hell Rawlings was tagging Corey when Ablett and Bartel were killing them.

The free kicks reflected the fact that we were first at the ball and drew the errant tackles.

Not sure it was a deliberate plan, I think they just were under pressure from about the ten minute mark of the first quarter and looked to kick as quickly as possible. I can't ever recall seeing a team under as much perceived pressure everywhere across the ground (even in the Richmond game Foley still looked classy).

I agree with the second bit - when you have that much of the ball, you're going to get more frees. They were hot on holding the ball but they were pretty even. In the end we actually only kicked one goal directly from a free kick - they kicked three, and most independent commentators think the umpiring was good.

 

[Prismall32]

A straight bat from a Roos supporter on SEN this morning - Geelong were always first to the ball and in that situation you are more likely to win frees when tackled. Just an opinion, but more sensible than the drivel on the Umpiring board of BF. The Roos supporters near us were abusive of McLaren, then of Laidley, then of us as Cats supporters! Half shot before they arrived anyway so probably couldn't see!