Autopsy Cats get belted by Suns by 50 odd

[iameviljez]

It is a trend that teams that suffer GF beltings don't come back anywhere near the mark the next season. They often drop significantly.

Yes, but there's an element of chicken-and-egg with it, in so far as whether that side got belted because they overachieved to get there (Port 2007, Sydney 2022, Dogs 2021), or whether they got belted because they had a crap day.

Regardless, I think our age profile always makes us a bit of a risk to slip backwards.

 

[Biggy_Boy]

Yes, but there's an element of chicken-and-egg with it, in so far as whether that side got belted because they overachieved to get there (Port 2007, Sydney 2022, Dogs 2021), or whether they got belted because they had a crap day.

Regardless, I think our age profile always makes us a bit of a risk to slip backwards.

I don't really understand how you can over-achieve into a grand final. How can you finish high enough on the ladder then make it through multiple cut-throat finals only to discover you're not really at the standard? I might be missing the point you're making.

I don't think our age profile is that bad anymore. Nowadays Dangerfield, Blicavs, Cameron and Stewart are the only relevant players we have well past 30. The others are fringe players. All of our other important players are in a pretty good age bracket and don't have any age-related reason to deteriorate. In fact, we should expect several to be on the improve.

 

[iameviljez]

I don't really understand how you can over-achieve into a grand final. How can you finish high enough on the ladder then make it through multiple cut-throat finals only to discover you're not really at the standard?

By playing "above your level" at the right time - be it for a few weeks in September, or for just a single year where everything just seemed to come together.

The Dogs in 2021 are a good example IMO. They were pretty good through 2021, but by no means the second-best side in it. They managed to squeak over Brisbane by a point in a classic semi-final, then played out of their skin to belt Port in a prelim.

Melbourne '88 is another, where they squeaked into the 5, then won a few close games to then get pulverised by Hawthorn.

Port Adelaide in 2007... from 2005 to 2009, their ladder finishes were 8th, 12th, 2nd, 13th and 10th. 2007 was pretty clearly an aberration - for all the narrative that we write about after-effects of the 119 point thrashing, the evidence seems to suggest that they just went back to being a mid-table side.

 

[Kobe Gryant]

By playing "above your level" at the right time - be it for a few weeks in September, or for just a single year where everything just seemed to come together.

The Dogs in 2021 are a good example IMO. They were pretty good through 2021, but by no means the second-best side in it. They managed to squeak over Brisbane by a point in a classic semi-final, then played out of their skin to belt Port in a prelim.

Melbourne '88 is another, where they squeaked into the 5, then won a few close games to then get pulverised by Hawthorn.

Port Adelaide in 2007... from 2005 to 2009, their ladder finishes were 8th, 12th, 2nd, 13th and 10th. 2007 was pretty clearly an aberration - for all the narrative that we write about after-effects of the 119 point thrashing, the evidence seems to suggest that they just went back to being a mid-table side.

That's disingenuous for mine. The Dogs were clearly the second best team in '21.

They sat top - or second - for literally the entire year until they screwed up the last two weeks. It was historic that they missed the top four from 1st in round 20, and 2nd in round 21 with a percentage of 140.

This wasn't a 2016 job. They were brilliant all year, off for two weeks, and then brilliant again.

You have to remember too, this was Brisbane pre Dunkley and Ashcroft when they were still a flakey finals team with a poor midfield, and Port, who were never true contenders with their finals record.

You could mount an argument for us, but we never truely got going that year IMO.

Everytime we looked like making a leap, Cameron would be out with a hamstring, Duncan missed three months with a knee, Dangerfield with an ankle for 10 weeks, etc.

Even by process of elimination, you have to give it to the Dogs for mine.

 

[iameviljez]

That's disingenuous for mine. The Dogs were clearly the second best team in '21.

They sat top - or second - for literally the entire year until they screwed up the last two weeks. It was historic that they missed the top four from 1st in round 20, and 2nd in round 21 with a percentage of 140.

This wasn't a 2016 job. They were brilliant all year, off for two weeks, and then brilliant again.

You have to remember too, this was Brisbane pre Dunkley and Ashcroft when they were still a flakey finals team with a poor midfield, and Port, who were never true contenders with their finals record.

You could mount an argument for us, but we never truely got going that year IMO.

Everytime we looked like making a leap, Cameron would be out with a hamstring, Duncan missed three months with a knee, Dangerfield with an ankle for 10 weeks, etc.

Even by process of elimination, you have to give it to the Dogs for mine.

Yeah, you make a good point and it was probably the wrong example. However, I do think my argument that sometimes teams overachieve just by making the GF is reasonable.

Carlton '99 would be another that comes to mind. Actually, they are kind of the epitome of "overachieved in just making it":
- Finish 5th with a % of 103
- Belted by 3rd-place Brisbane in week one to the tune of 12 goals
- Get gifted a home final vs West Coast in week 2 because of the ridiculous MCG finals agreement
- Essendon has 9 more scoring shots but somehow loses the 99 PF.

They weren't half-bad in the GF, but it would have been a travesty had they actually won it.

 

[Pollywaffle]

I think its going to be a topsy turvy year for a number of expected finalists this year. (My smokey is the dogs..!)
Tough draw and some lukewarm form/application from our stalwarts will probably see us just making up the numbers.
Too many comfortable downhill skiers. To be honest, I think we overachieved last year.
Happy to be proven wrong come September

 

[Mr Meow]

I don't really understand how you can over-achieve into a grand final. How can you finish high enough on the ladder then make it through multiple cut-throat finals only to discover you're not really at the standard? I might be missing the point you're making.

I don't think our age profile is that bad anymore. Nowadays Dangerfield, Blicavs, Cameron and Stewart are the only relevant players we have well past 30. The others are fringe players. All of our other important players are in a pretty good age bracket and don't have any age-related reason to deteriorate. In fact, we should expect several to be on the improve.

We didn't over achieve to make it as far as we did the previous 2 seasons. We were just the 2nd best performing finals team overall both times.

2024: Belted Port away, then lost a nail biter against Brisbane. Better effort than Sydney, Port, GWS and Hawthorn.

2025: Beat Brisbane and Hawthorn quite comfortably. Got belted by Brisbane in the rematch. Better effort than Collingwood, Adelaide, Hawthorn and Gold Coast.

Brisbane have won 5 of the last 6 against us I believe, so it's a shame they've also become a brilliant side in knockout finals. Our main bogey side is the best performer in the do-or-die format.

 

[stevothedevo]

It did happen. They had a 22 round home and away system, with every team playing each other twice, from 1970-1986 inclusive. The perfect fixture. All sides played each other twice, and then a final five. Still the best finals system as well. As soon as more sides got added, unless the home and away season gets extended, it isn't going to work. From 1987-1989 there was a rough attempt with 14 teams as the all played each other twice, but now they don't even bother.

Yep apologies. I've miss remembered my findings from a couple of years ago. What I would've discovered was the fixture prior to the 70's and it's that that would've disappointed me at the time. I'd forgotten what I was disappointed about.
So yes, from 1970 to 1986 was indeed a fine fixture.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Oh oh

View attachment 2544540

I think we'll win probably 2 of the next 3 though

Mr Meow

Hope this is not an easter omen

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Yeah, maybe I'm just a hopeless optimist but i think we can beat both

Narrator: the beat both

 

[Mr Meow]

Mr Meow

Hope this is not an easter omen

I am disappointed to see you aren't complaining about the performance though (and there were plenty of issues). I think you're turning glass half full on me!

FWIW I thought we'd win both but have serious challenges - which we did, in different ways and parts of the game.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

I am disappointed to see you aren't complaining about the performance though (and there were plenty of issues). I think you're turning glass half full on me!

FWIW I thought we'd win both but have serious challenges - which we did, in different ways and parts of the game.

I think i see continuous improvement. From atrocious all game against the suns, to bad for a quarter then good against the dockers, then 4 quarters of hard work with poor forward line execution.

Every game has been better than the last.

 

[Mr Meow]

I think i see continuous improvement. From atrocious all game against the suns, to bad for a quarter then good against the dockers, then 4 quarters of hard work with poor forward line execution.

Every game has been better than the last.

Yeah, the last 7 quarters have given us "flawed but plenty to work with", which is fine as long as you bank some wins. As always, winning the close ones makes a big difference. We are running games out well. I think it's a given that games in NSW/QL/NT we will only be good maybe 1 in 4 times. Victorian and westward travelling (SA/WA) form is the marker of whether we'll have a decent season.