Autopsy Geelong lose to Port by 11 points

[Willo_]

If it were Ablett or Hawkins everyone would be screaming "dirty player" and "give him 4 weeks".
Then again, Lloyd is a sniper by trade so are you surprised its a brilliant piece of play to him? If Sam Mitchell had been at any other club he would be Lloyds favourite player of all time.

That hit on Henry was a massive dog act by a club that has form recruiting dog act players.

Sorry but that is nonsense IMO.. There was not a single thing wrong with the hit on Henry, it wasn't high, it was in the contest.. It is just that Henry was wide open and copped it... These things happen in footy

If one of our players got rubbed out for something like that or opposition fans were calling them dogs we would rightly be really shitty with it all

 

[steady2]

Sorry but that is nonsense IMO.. There was not a single thing wrong with the hit on Henry, it wasn't high, it was in the contest.. It is just that Henry was wide open and copped it... These things happen in footy

If one of our players got rubbed out for something like that or opposition fans were calling them dogs we would rightly be really ****ty with it all

I'm inclined to agree. Initially I thought it was in the back, but replays show in the side, not even a free kick. Tough Jack got up and back on the field after though.

 

[Ricky Vaughn]

No I was trying to assist you to present exactly what your theory is...it seemed that it was the statement I made since you were unable to articulate anything else.
Goody let's get to the nitty gritty.
Not really. We didn't play finals in 2015 and were not very impressive last year in the H&A, no surprise we were knocked out in the first final.

I do appreciate the thought that went in to your response. The reason I put points and counter points into my own post was to highlight the fact I see some the changes we’ve made, but question if it’s enough.

Although, if you think the basic premise that we’ve been good in H&A and rubbish in finals is “factually incorrect,” everything we respond to each other with becomes irrelevant.

All my concerns stem from shocking Finals performances, but you don’t believe that’s the case, so I reckon the old “agree to disagree” is our best option

 

[steady2]

I do appreciate the thought that went in to your response. The reason I put points and counter points into my own post was to highlight the fact I see some the changes we’ve made, but question if it’s enough.

You outlined a mass of positive changes then stated and again implied Not Enough. So again, what changes do you suggest?

Although, if you think the basic premise that we’ve been good in H&A and rubbish in finals is “factually incorrect,” everything we respond to each other with becomes irrelevant.

I proved your premise is incorrect by stating facts. We have been poor in finals, that part is not in dispute.

All my concerns stem from shocking Finals performances, but you don’t believe that’s the case, so I reckon the old “agree to disagree” is our best option

That was not your argument, nor did I dispute that selective part. This thread is about Saturday's game, your posts suggested that the loss after the bye was indicative that we are "predictable" and will therefore likely fail in September. Of course you had already contradicted your conclusion by presenting a series of facts showing how different we were, nevertheless you insisted the changes are not enough, to which I asked what changes do you want, to which I asked again. What changes do you want?

 

[BotsMaster]

That hit on Henry was a massive dog act by a club that has form recruiting dog act players.

Nothing in it.

 

[Ricky Vaughn]

You outlined a mass of positive changes then stated and again implied Not Enough. So again, what changes do you suggest?
I proved your premise is incorrect by stating facts. We have been poor in finals, that part is not in dispute.

You basically stated "well we missed finals in 2015, so everything you said is wrong." I know that, everyone posting on this board knows that. It was clear I was referring to our last 6 Finals appearances. "After promising home and away seasons, we've dished up a turd in Finals for the last 6 years" clearly refers to years we've made Finals. Thinking you proved my premise wrong by saying "we missed in 2015" is just odd.

That was not your argument, nor did I dispute that selective part. This thread is about Saturday's game, your posts suggested that the loss after the bye was indicative that we are "predictable" and will therefore likely fail in September. Of course you had already contradicted your conclusion by presenting a series of facts showing how different we were, nevertheless you insisted the changes are not enough, to which I asked what changes do you want, to which I asked again. What changes do you want?

My whole argument relating to Saturday's game stems from our bad Finals performances.

I presented a series of counter points to my own argument, because I like to assess both sides. Are the changes we've made throughout the season enough? What about the changes in personal? We cleared our periphery players, and brought in better periphery players. The reason I consider our team similar is because the key players, who I don't trust in a Final, remain the same.

On changes I'd like to see? To be honest, there's not much we can do. There isn't a glaringly obvious solution to our problems staring us in the face. In fact I feel like our Finals shitshows aren't just one thing, more like 100's of little things culminating into a bigger problem, which makes it hard to fix. I'd like a better ruckman, we don't have one. I'd like an unknown like Cockatoo added to our forward half, no idea if he'll be fit. I'd like Guthrie to return to first half of 2016 form, he's probably not capable.

So back to Saturday; what's the strongest indicator of our performance in September? Right now, I consider it this loss. This is the standard I believe we'll play at in September. This is where we fundamentally disagree.

 

[Nickoo]

If it were Ablett or Hawkins everyone would be screaming "dirty player" and "give him 4 weeks".
Then again, Lloyd is a sniper by trade so are you surprised its a brilliant piece of play to him? If Sam Mitchell had been at any other club he would be Lloyds favourite player of all time.

That hit on Henry was a massive dog act by a club that has form recruiting dog act players.

Agreed, agreeed, agreeeeed!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Nickoo]

Sorry but that is nonsense IMO.. There was not a single thing wrong with the hit on Henry, it wasn't high, it was in the contest.. It is just that Henry was wide open and copped it... These things happen in footy

If one of our players got rubbed out for something like that or opposition fans were calling them dogs we would rightly be really ****ty with it all

Fair enough but he had no intention other than to hurt as he elected to brace and target the soft spot rather than tackle to stop the ball getting off which if interested he could have done.

The charge of sniper is about right IMHO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[steady2]

You basically stated "well we missed finals in 2015, so everything you said is wrong." I know that, everyone posting on this board knows that.

Naughty naughty!!! I made no such quote. That is your words that you have put in quotation marks and attributed it to me. Claiming everyone knows that quote is mine is clutching at straws.

My whole argument relating to Saturday's game stems from our bad Finals performances.

Saturday's game was not a final. You were claiming it was indicative that we would lose in September which I suggested was illogical.

...The reason I consider our team similar is because the key players, who I don't trust in a Final, remain the same.

This is a new argument. Who are the "key players" you don't trust in a final?

...On changes I'd like to see? To be honest, there's not much we can do. There isn't a glaringly obvious solution to our problems...I'd like a better ruckman, we don't have one. I'd like an unknown like Cockatoo added to our forward half, no idea if he'll be fit. I'd like Guthrie to return to first half of 2016 form, he's probably not capable.

Cockatoo is not unknown. I don't think one player, Guthrie is the difference between winning and losing a final. Most would agree that a better ruckman would be desirable, however the Bulldogs won a premiership without a proper ruck and Nankervis was not an A-grade ruck for Richmond in 2017. Again these arguments are unrelated to the game on Saturday.

So back to Saturday; what's the strongest indicator of our performance in September? Right now, I consider it this loss. This is the standard I believe we'll play at in September. This is where we fundamentally disagree.

Yes this is the argument you have been making but claiming it is not your argument. Halfway through the season and the eleven wins do not mean as much as one loss. Why is that? Oh it was after the bye! We will lose in finals because we cannot win after the bye. Illogical.

 

[you pick one]

In bizzarro world! It means that Geelong have not changed their inability to perform well after the mid-season bye. That is all. Your post ignores the brilliant and desperate footy by the Port team, excellent and clever coaching from Hinkley...it is all Geelong. The Cats team this year is considerably different in personnel, style and structure with a different game plan from previous years. OH the hoodoo bye...of course. Next year we need to buy hoodoo dolls, stick a few pins in, sacrifice a few chickens and pray to spirit of bye byes.

If we move Guthrie on check Gum Tree I'll have mine there forsale.

 

[catempire]

Sorry but that is nonsense IMO.. There was not a single thing wrong with the hit on Henry, it wasn't high, it was in the contest.. It is just that Henry was wide open and copped it... These things happen in footy

If one of our players got rubbed out for something like that or opposition fans were calling them dogs we would rightly be really ****ty with it all

It was in the back. It should have been a free. But wasn’t reportable.

 

[you pick one]

It was in the back. It should have been a free. But wasn’t reportable.

In the side, play on,it takes time to stop the footage at the first point of impact,easy to see the in the back thinking but it's wrong.

 

[catempire]

In the side, play on,it takes time to stop the footage at the first point of impact,easy to see the in the back thinking but it's wrong.

If you reckon there was no contact to the back I disagree.

 

[you pick one]

If you reckon there was no contact to the back I disagree.

As long as we can agree the hit that did the damage was from the side my job here is done.

 

[Ricky Vaughn]

This is a new argument. Who are the "key players" you don't trust in a final?

Not really, I've been saying literally the whole time that the bye loss indicates lack of change, lack of change indicates poor finals performance. Key players remaining the same is an extension of that argument.

Players I don't trust in a Final. Dangerfield, Menegola, Guthrie, Blicavs, Stanley, Hawkins (to a degree), Rohan, Kolodjashnij, Henderson. Guys I'm not sure on. Stewart, Kelly, Parfitt, O'Connor, Henry, Taylor, Ratagoulea, Miers, Clark, Duncan. Guys I trust, J. Selwood, Ablett

Cockatoo is not unknown. I don't think one player, Guthrie is the difference between winning and losing a final. Most would agree that a better ruckman would be desirable, however the Bulldogs won a premiership without a proper ruck and Nankervis was not an A-grade ruck for Richmond in 2017. Again these arguments are unrelated to the game on Saturday.

You asked me what changes I wanted to see, I provided a few. If you're upset they don't relate directly to Saturday, don't ask the question.
Also, you might be alone considering Cockatoo a known quantity for what he might produce this season.

Yes this is the argument you have been making but claiming it is not your argument. Halfway through the season and the eleven wins do not mean as much as one loss. Why is that? Oh it was after the bye! We will lose in finals because we cannot win after the bye. Illogical.

Nope, I've been making the same argument the whole time. I've been unwavering on it, I've expanded on it, produced counter points to it, but have never once changed my argument, and I keep arriving at the same conclusion.

In it's simplest form
Geelong are bad in Finals after being good in H&A
Geelong lose every game after the bye
In order to correct the Finals problem, I want to see sufficient change.
Losing after the bye is the key indicator we haven't made sufficient change
So, my prediction is, Geelong will still be bad in Finals.

It may seem illogical to you, but under Chris Scott, if Geelong lose after their first bye, they fail in finals 100% of the time! (when they make Finals, I know how badly you want to mention 2015)
If my argument is so "illogical," I'd expect it's success rate not to be 100%.

 

[steady2]

Not really, I've been saying literally the whole time that the bye loss indicates lack of change, lack of change indicates poor finals performance. Key players remaining the same is an extension of that argument.

This is illogical repetitive nonsense. I'm not going to repeat my responses.

Players I don't trust in a Final. Dangerfield, Menegola, Guthrie, Blicavs, Stanley, Hawkins (to a degree), Rohan, Kolodjashnij, Henderson. Guys I'm not sure on. Stewart, Kelly, Parfitt, O'Connor, Henry, Taylor, Ratagoulea, Miers, Clark, Duncan. Guys I trust, J. Selwood, Ablett

By all means suggest to the MC to drop Danger, Blicavs and Hawkins for the finals, because you don't trust them! Are you really being serious or just pulling my leg?

...In it's simplest form
Geelong are bad in Finals after being good in H&A
Geelong lose every game after the bye
In order to correct the Finals problem, I want to see sufficient change.
Losing after the bye is the key indicator we haven't made sufficient change
So, my prediction is, Geelong will still be bad in Finals.

You have not proposed any significant changes when challenged. To quote you; "To be honest, there's not much we can do. There isn't a glaringly obvious solution to our problems..." You might note the quotation marks are added to an actual quote. Here is your previous quote:
"...we've dished up a giant turd in Finals for 6 years, so now I'm looking for things that will indicate if it will or won't happen again, because we can't actually know until Finals start...
But 2019 has seen plenty of things to suggest it won't.
We haven't run into a Sydney 2016 (A side we simply can't beat)
We're still beating top sides, but not dropping our bundle against average sides
When the opposition controls the game, we are still difficult to score against.
When we control the game, we score in bunches....
Senior players are putting pressure on spots, rather than being gifted games.
Playing the MCG brilliantly
There's a lot of little, difficult to define things also
Our leaders (particularly Selwood and Dangerfield) seem far more selfless this season.
Adding new players and re-defining some roles has refreshed the group.
Structure and 1%'s seem to have been a focus right until the end. No excuse for not doing the little things or sticking to the structure regardless of the score..." You argue that there has been a host of positive changes this year which suggests that we won't fail in finals again. Yet you contradict yourself by claiming we will fail...because of the post-bye loss!!!

It may seem illogical to you, but under Chris Scott, if Geelong lose after their first bye, they fail in finals 100% of the time! (when they make Finals, I know how badly you want to mention 2015)
If my argument is so "illogical," I'd expect it's success rate not to be 100%.

It is illogical. You have now added "under Chris Scott" is this relevant? Are you suggesting under a different coach we could lose the bye and win in finals? If that is the case then your whole argument is nonsense. It is simply one of the coach, not the bye hoodoo.

 

[Ricky Vaughn]

This is illogical repetitive nonsense. I'm not going to repeat my responses.

Might be "illogical" to you, but is 100% accurate. So maybe question your logic?

By all means suggest to the MC to drop Danger, Blicavs and Hawkins for the finals, because you don't trust them! Are you really being serious or just pulling my leg?

You built a straw man to argue against, so you're pulling your own leg.

You have not proposed any significant changes when challenged. You argue that there has been a host of positive changes this year which suggests that we won't fail in finals again. Yet you contradict yourself by claiming we will fail...because of the post-bye loss!!!

Do you understand exploring both sides of an argument is not a contradiction? Have you ever considered alternate points of view in order to arrive at a conclusion?

No I didn't propose any significant changes, not once have I claimed to have the answers, I'm just using data available to me to make predictions.

It is illogical. You have now added "under Chris Scott" is this relevant? Are you suggesting under a different coach we could lose the bye and win in finals?

Is Chris Scott our head coach? When the answer's yes, he's relevant.
and no, I'm not suggesting that about a different coach, none of us know what a different coach would produce.
Again with the strawman building.

 

[Drunkcat]

When 2 people are going back and forward at each other, does anyone keep reading them posts? I give up

 

[Ricky Vaughn]

When 2 people are going back and forward at each other, does anyone keep reading them posts? I give up

No, and I'm one of them.

 

[Strange Cat]

Sorry but that is nonsense IMO.. There was not a single thing wrong with the hit on Henry, it wasn't high, it was in the contest.. It is just that Henry was wide open and copped it... These things happen in footy

If one of our players got rubbed out for something like that or opposition fans were calling them dogs we would rightly be really ****ty with it all

I don’t know it was a gutless hit on a player unable to defend himself as he took the mark

Just another dirty play by port in that game imo

 

[Max Milburn]

When 2 people are going back and forward at each other, does anyone keep reading them posts? I give up

Too right.

 

[steady2]

When 2 people are going back and forward at each other, does anyone keep reading them posts? I give up

In essence it is one person saying the post bye loss is indicative of why we will fail in finals and the other is saying that is not logical, the rest is fairy floss.

 

[Ricky Vaughn]

In essence it is one person saying the post bye loss is indicative of why we will fail in finals and the other is saying that is not logical, the rest is fairy floss.

I knew we'd finally agree on something.

 

[Willo_]

I don’t know it was a gutless hit on a player unable to defend himself as he took the mark

Just another dirty play by port in that game imo

There was not a single thing gutless about it.. And to be honest i would love to see every single one of our players play with that intent and aggression.
The best teams in any sport play on the edge, if you can impact a contest or get your opponent you do.

 

[Strange Cat]

There was not a single thing gutless about it.. And to be honest i would love to see every single one of our players play with that intent and aggression.
The best teams in any sport play on the edge, if you can impact a contest or get your opponent you do.

Agree to disagree

I didn’t see it as a contest , rather a player smashing into a kid side on who had his hands on the ball mid air and was unable to defend himself.

There was no intent to spoil the mark, rather just the intent to take him out of the contest and hurt him.