Autopsy Geelong Loses to Swans by 2 points - Rd 7, 2021

Remove this Banner Ad

cats_09

Moderator
Jun 21, 2011
30,057
55,750
AFL Club
Geelong
Hendo looked cooked at stages. Stanley can’t do it every week. Smith , touhy, Guthrie, menongola and Selwood need more than a week off. Hawkins needs a spell from time to time. Really need a squad mentality. I think narkle should play again and even Clark this week.
I'd omit Stanley anyway

If we manage Henderson, who is the KPD coming in for him?

Depending on how he's knee is holding up this year, Tuohy is one who may need managing through the back half of the season

As for the likes of Guthrie & Menegola, surely we're not managing 28/29 year olds unless they have a clear need to have a week's rest
 

Chinacats

Premiership Player
Sep 20, 2014
3,413
3,995
AFL Club
Geelong
I'd omit Stanley anyway

If we manage Henderson, who is the KPD coming in for him?

Depending on how he's knee is holding up this year, Tuohy is one who may need managing through the back half of the season

As for the likes of Guthrie & Menegola, surely we're not managing 28/29 year olds unless they have a clear need to have a week's rest
Agree Some don’t need a rest at this stage but we want them fresh towards the end of the year. 2 byes during the year will help . Maybe one or two games here or there also. Got to make finals anyway, so maybe it’s null & void at the moment.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

cats_09

Moderator
Jun 21, 2011
30,057
55,750
AFL Club
Geelong
Has anyone answered how we lost from 39 conceded inside 50’s?
14 goals from 39 entries... 36% . That’s horrendous.
simple really - they made the most of their chances & converted goals with 70% conversation rate is pretty damn good. As you said they had 39 inside 50s, scored from 42.6% of those entries and goals from 35.9%

Compare that to our efforts last week; we had 55 inside 50s where we scored from 52.7% of those entries and kicked a goal 38.5% of the time, but we only converted 67.7% of our chances

Or back to round 1 last year when we lost to GWS; they had 39 inside 50s and kicked 17.3 104 for the night, we had 41 inside 50s and kicked 11.7 73.
From their 39 inside 50s, they scored from 48.7% of them and kicked a goal 43.6% of the time

it's not purely about the numbers of inside 50s but also about how much advantage you take of them - if you're converting at 70% as Sydney did or 85% as GWS did last year, I would think that teams win more often than not
 

Chinacats

Premiership Player
Sep 20, 2014
3,413
3,995
AFL Club
Geelong
I can't believe we are talking managing player it's rd 8 not 18 ffs,only injury or sh*t form should see you mis this week.
That’s right and wouldn’t rest them this week against the best. It’s more a philosophical discussion about utilising the squad and keeping things fresh towards the back end of the year. (If we make it). Maybe it’s too pro active , but even Selwood said pre season that not many will play all games this year and that would be the expectation.
 

BORIS332

Club Legend
Dec 22, 2016
2,817
5,300
AFL Club
Geelong
I tend agree with you. lol, it's all we have to look forward too though. Fort is already 28 yrs of age and a journeyman at best.
All our other rucks are raw and need at least 3+ years of preseason work before they could become regular starters. By that time, the list is no longer a chance at finals.
Perhaps Ratugolea could just spark us in that department while we have one last shot at something.
Port has Ladhams and Hayes playing SANFL. I can't see why we wouldn't go after one/both of them.
 

Chinacats

Premiership Player
Sep 20, 2014
3,413
3,995
AFL Club
Geelong
simple really - they made the most of their chances & converted goals with 70% conversation rate is pretty damn good. As you said they had 39 inside 50s, scored from 42.6% of those entries and goals from 35.9%

Compare that to our efforts last week; we had 55 inside 50s where we scored from 52.7% of those entries and kicked a goal 38.5% of the time, but we only converted 67.7% of our chances

Or back to round 1 last year when we lost to GWS; they had 39 inside 50s and kicked 17.3 104 for the night, we had 41 inside 50s and kicked 11.7 73.
From their 39 inside 50s, they scored from 48.7% of them and kicked a goal 43.6% of the time

it's not purely about the numbers of inside 50s but also about how much advantage you take of them - if you're converting at 70% as Sydney did or 85% as GWS did last year, I would think that teams win more often than not
If the conversion is that high then there has to be an issue leading to such a high conversion. Lack of accountability? Backs not tight enough? Zone defence lost without Harry? King said we miss Harry. Ball coming out of our forward zone too easily? It’s not purely just about very good conversion. It’s more about how can they convert so well. What leads to great conversion before the score itself.
 

Kitcat

Debutant
Dec 4, 2019
102
214
AFL Club
Geelong
Good post. As much as the umpires sh*t me a lot of the time, it would be a bloody hard game to umpire with the ever changing rules and interpretations.
And the AFL head of umpiring said the umpire only had a split second to make the decision. No he didn't. The ball was high in the air and drifting. And they constantly call marks for 12 metre kicks.
 

Partridge

Hall of Famer
Nov 12, 2002
38,624
43,908
AFL Club
Geelong
I'd omit Stanley anyway

If we manage Henderson, who is the KPD coming in for him?

Depending on how he's knee is holding up this year, Tuohy is one who may need managing through the back half of the season

As for the likes of Guthrie & Menegola, surely we're not managing 28/29 year olds unless they have a clear need to have a week's rest
Fair question on Henderson, but it's an even bigger question for Stanley.
 

Turbocat

Hall of Famer
Dec 10, 2003
48,121
50,087
Newtown
AFL Club
Geelong
OK, we can refine it to say we dominated general play. The xS backs up the idea that clearances, I50s etc are relevant - we just did not take our chances. Which is important! But also suggests it's not about system or even skill but randomness.
Yes I agree there is a degree of 'defining' when one says domination. I dont think a game of footy is like a boxing match where each round you win on points ..and you lose after dominating a fight with one hit. Its more a race and who is ahead at the end.

We lost 3 out of 4 quarters. If we are winning on stats yet losing on the scoreboard then id say there are other stats that show why we lost that are more important, and perhaps there are flaws in the stats we won in.I heard DKing this morning say we should have won on that estimated goals 111 to 70 something. There is something very wrong when there is 40 points different to the outcome.

Why dont we measure inside 40's , inside 30's. Just because there is a line one the ground we measure I50's? 40 is more within scoring range. Did every I50 produce an entry that should have produced a goal? How often did a centre clearance produce a mark inside the i40?

Possessions are almost superficial as a measurement when we are playing kick to kick in the backline. What about marks around the ground. How many possessions in a chain before it produces a shot at goal. How much time in possession to produce the shots at goal. How many opponents are inside the i50 by the time we kick it in? How many times do we kick it to an out maned forward

Our tall man influence failed again. Henry was a standout which says a lot imo. It made me remember Nankervis in last year GF. Killed us at times with marks.

The missing of goals ..how much was our style a part of it? Are the forwards asked to work to far up the ground? I heard a discussion that talked about efficiency this morning that said WC forward do not go further than 70 from goal. So it may not just random when you miss shots. I wonder how often Hawkins has a shot at goal after expending a lot of energy. Its not the first time he has missed key shots at goal.

What Id like to see is the stats that show Stanleys influence against the WC and his non influence against Swans. How did that affect us. Its not the areas we won in , its the areas we lost in that I am interested in.

That McLean marked like he did is an issue. That is mark inside 50 ..but is far deadlier than a mark on the 50 Metre line.

It seemed to me that we failed to take it on more or were allowed to take it on more. Are there stats about how often we were quick and direct in Q1..but not the rest of the game

We did enough to win the game. That Swans were allowed to win is in the stats somewhere. Just saying we dominated ..and it was random bit of bad luck is almost ignoring what happened , so one can continue on with our current methods and procedures..with the attitude one can not help bad luck. We seem to have a lot of bad luck at times.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Seeds

Hall of Famer
Sep 15, 2007
40,369
36,486
I don't know
AFL Club
Geelong
Has anyone answered how we lost from 39 conceded inside 50’s?
14 goals from 39 entries... 36% . That’s horrendous.
they flooded their backline. It meant the ball spent a lot of time up our end but it was hard to score. When thry did finally manage to break through the wing there were few numbers so lots of scoring opportunities.
 

catempire

Premium Platinum
Mar 20, 2004
35,267
68,847
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
catempire ... are just going to disagree ..or are you will to discuss your point of view
Sorry, time poor this morning.

Don’t think I could say it any better or succinctly than thejester has.

I will offer that if all of the key metrics suggest domination and the scoreboard is the only thing that doesn’t, it’s obvious where the problems lie. I’m open to hearing alternative ideas but to say we didn’t dominate because of the result/score misses the point IMO.

What you want to know is what should change? Is it execution/conversion or is it something else? If it’s something else I am not aware of what it could be because dominating all of the key metrics is in almost all circumstances the orthodox recipe to winning a sh*t tonne of football.
 

Turbocat

Hall of Famer
Dec 10, 2003
48,121
50,087
Newtown
AFL Club
Geelong
Sorry, time poor this morning.

Don’t think I could say it any better or succinctly than thejester has.

I will offer that if all of the key metrics suggest domination and the scoreboard is the only thing that doesn’t, it’s obvious where the problems lie. I’m open to hearing alternative ideas but to say we didn’t dominate because of the result/score misses the point IMO.

What you want to know is what should change? Is it execution/conversion or is it something else? If it’s something else I am not aware of what it could be because dominating all of the key metrics is in almost all circumstances the orthodox recipe to winning a sh*t tonne of football.
My point revolves around..that if we are winning on these KM's and lost then there are others that should be measured and considered before saying we dominated the game. Id say we dominated the stats sheet with these metrics on it. Even gut feel , I do not think we were in control of the game after quarter time. We were always off balance and responding.

I don't believe that winning in some of the measurables that we "dominated" mean we dominated the game. Yes they often go hand in hand with winning a lot of football but I dare say there are plenty of situations that a side has lost and won that stats..therefore..there must be other measuables that are not measured.
 

thejester

BigFooty Broseph
Apr 22, 2006
7,788
6,821
Newstopia
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Huey & Riley Freeman
We lost 3 out of 4 quarters. If we are winning on stats yet losing on the scoreboard then id say there are other stats that show why we lost that are more important, and perhaps there are flaws in the stats we won in.I heard DKing this morning say we should have won on that estimated goals 111 to 70 something. There is something very wrong when there is 40 points different to the outcome.
The question you are posing - how can we win in so many statistical categories yet lose the game? - has a straightforward answer: we missed shots we would normally kick, and they were unusually accurate. That's it. Why did we miss those shots? xS is an average of every shot taken in the league over the last decade, so it accounts for factors such as distance and angle from goal. Could it be fatigue? Maybe, but then you'd expect Geelong to consistently underperform xS, and I don't think we did that last week. The more likely explanation (according to stats nerds) is randomness: we just had a bad night.
 

cowgirl_99

Senior List
Jun 13, 2013
164
1,417
AFL Club
GWS
Other Teams
Sydney
"Theft" comes to mind with the result..but as they say you take your chances..etc etc...Thought the call on Jeremy Cameron was wrong big league..that ball was "live" as in not touched & it traveled the required distance..plenty of smartphone footage showing the distance & how the umpire was not calling play on like they do when the ball is touched..The umps were sub-par on Saturday night for both teams..Not surprised at the AFL apology..The best thing I saw from Geelong on the night was clearly Jack Henry..The way he moved around the ground..the way he stood at the centre of defense..ran loose..accurate passing..ruckwork..and his spoiling was something to behold.. No wonder your team has signed him up very quickly for 3 years..leadership material there... I wouldn't worry too much where the team is headed....if you are getting plenty of the ball you are doing something correct..anyhow I'm not a coach..BTW Chris Scott is brilliant love his work...Please enjoy some snaps we took..and all the best for 2021 season..sorry to hear the news of Frank Costa passing.. Your club is all the more greater thanks to Frank..

geenwb4.jpg


geen3wb.jpg


geen2wb.jpg


geenwb.jpg


geen1wb.jpg
 

pollywaffle

Premiership Player
Apr 2, 2008
3,854
5,372
adelaide
AFL Club
Geelong
My point revolves around..that if we are winning on these KM's and lost then there are others that should be measured and considered before saying we dominated the game. Id say we dominated the stats sheet with these metrics on it. Even gut feel , I do not think we were in control of the game after quarter time. We were always off balance and responding.
I don't believe that winning in some of the measurables that we "dominated" mean we dominated the game. Yes they often go hand in hand with winning a lot of football but I dare say there are plenty of situations that a side has lost and won that stats..therefore..there must be other measuables that are not measured.
Lies,damned lies and statistics. (Mark Twain?)
 

catempire

Premium Platinum
Mar 20, 2004
35,267
68,847
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
"Theft" comes to mind with the result..but as they say you take your chances..etc etc...Thought the call on Jeremy Cameron was wrong big league..that ball was "live" as in not touched & it traveled the required distance..plenty of smartphone footage showing the distance & how the umpire was not calling play on like they do when the ball is touched..The umps were sub-par on Saturday night for both teams..Not surprised at the AFL apology..The best thing I saw from Geelong on the night was clearly Jack Henry..The way he moved around the ground..the way he stood at the centre of defense..ran loose..accurate passing..ruckwork..and his spoiling was something to behold.. No wonder your team has signed him up very quickly for 3 years..leadership material there... I wouldn't worry too much where the team is headed....if you are getting plenty of the ball you are doing something correct..anyhow I'm not a coach..BTW Chris Scott is brilliant love his work...Please enjoy some snaps we took..and all the best for 2021 season..sorry to hear the news of Frank Costa passing.. Your club is all the more greater thanks to Frank..

View attachment 1117785

View attachment 1117786

View attachment 1117787

View attachment 1117788

View attachment 1117789
Nice shots!
 

Sire of Claude

Debutant
Mar 18, 2021
119
267
AFL Club
Geelong
Only one of our numerous pings at goal need to go through the big sticks. We lost because that didn't happen.

There are too many average kicks in the team - Bews, Dalhouse, Parfitt to name three.

Third, we spend too much time hugging the boundary line; the injury to Mieirs hurt us because he is one of the few who try to find someone in the corridor. It fascinates me that teams that are in theory worse than us seem able to play more scintillating football. Our most dynamic player right is Jack Henry, followed by the inconsistent Rohan. We have one dasher in defence - Stewart and Clark when he plays there - while the forward set-up is in a state of flux.
 

00VicWard001

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 3, 2011
6,254
12,327
AFL Club
Geelong
Top four usually requires a 15-7 record or better. So we now have to go 11-3 through to the end of the home and away season to make it. And we still have to play Richmond twice while doing that.

In any event, we need to beat one of Port, Demons, Bulldogs or Tigers to top four. Those are the our rivals for the four spots. I think we can rule out the idea of Richmond missing top four given their quality. So that leaves Port, Melbourne and the Bulldogs. Which of those three teams do you see us finishing ahead of?
Top four doesnt really matter (in my opinion) if we end up 5th or 6th.

We end up 5th/6th, avoid Richmond/Melbourne at the MCG or Port/WB at Adelaide oval/Marvel. There's no way we'd get a home game at GMHBA unless we ended up playing Port and we were ahead of them.

We will however get that home game at GMHBA if we end up playing WCE/Sydney/Brisbane/EFC.

The teams 6-8 are fairly weak this year and are ripe for picking for any of the top 5 contenders (yes Sydney won, but really, inaccuracy beat us not Sydney).

The top 4, double chance situation is only relevant if you aren't confident of beating a fellow top four team (double chance), or if you like to have a rest after your first win play 1 game in 3 weeks (something our team hates). So its a bit of a double edged sword for the Cats in my opinion.

I'd rather be hitting form by demolishing one of the teams 6 to 8 and then hitting a wounded losing top 4 team hard, and then taking on a lethargic winning top four team.
 

Remove this Banner Ad