Review Geelong tries its best to lose and finds a way to stagger to a 4 point win over Demons

[Tony Barber]

The chip kicking could just as easily cost us the game in the end. Wasn't coaching it was Melbourne's inability to finish th a t won us the game

Wow. If you think that was chip kicking then I'd love to see you kick.
It was 40m bullet after 40m bullet.

 

[Cuzz09]

Yeah what about 1992 - Geelong very close to a flag - led at half time in the GF - ended up runners up

So Geelong had a very good year in 1992 - what was the Cats average score in 1992

Just did a quick look at the 92 ladder and Geelong scored 453.339.3057 in 22 games... average score 138 points!! [emoji44]

Eagles had the best defence conceding just 79 points p.g

Was a game of 2 halves the 92 GF. Cats attack 1st half. Eagles managed to score themselves in 2nd half while keeping the potent cats to 4.5 in 2nd half.

But 138 h & a ppg is huuuge

On SM-G925I using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Cataholic]

Are you serious? Have you racked up 18,000 posts on a Masterchef fan forum?

Yep.

You go to the footy to be entertained, to see footy played at the highest level, AND to see your team win, yeah?

 

[Tony Barber]

If by direct you infer staight down the line after alllowing the opposition to stream past him and the mark to fill the gaps, then yes.

His last 2 weeks IMO have been anything but direct. He has been slow, deliberate and in effective at times and have directly contributed to opposition scoring chains.


Not geed enough for mine.

GO Catters

I was watching the game and thinking. 'Sam, you've filled a gap for us for a number of years. But gee we need someone better with skil execution'

The guy can get it. But I have no expectation that the disposal will come to anything.

He is damn important marking down the line at times.
It's why I can't burn him.

 

[frggr]

Other than Guthrie, not sure how the Coaches found anyone worth giving votes to

 

[Goggin Our Best]

Just did a quick look at the 92 ladder and Geelong scored 453.339.3057 in 22 games... average score 138 points!! [emoji44]

Eagles had the best defence conceding just 79 points p.g

Was a game of 2 halves the 92 GF. Cats attack 1st half. Eagles managed to score themselves in 2nd half while keeping the potent cats to 4.5 in 2nd half.

But 138 h & a ppg is huuuge

On SM-G925I using BigFooty.com mobile app

And Materas 5 goals from a wing and at top pace - and they were booming drop punts - thats what people want to see ( well not on that day personally ) if you get my point

Not this succession of short passes - absolute craap

 

[Pollywaffle]

Looking forward to the next trilogy and meeting Fitz, the Fool and the Wolf again, as Bee Supergirl sets out to solve the mystery of Kelsingra and the Elderlings.
Just hope the 68-y-o author survives long enough to finish it.

Yeah. Hopefully. Liked the wolf...( no spoilers)
Probably get 'ghosted' or 'partnered' like a lot of the aged big selling authors.
Could write from beyond the grave like Crichton
Not even death can get in the way of milking the punters!

 

[Biggy_Boy]

Did Steven do anything productive in this game? Got the ball 17 times, so an improvement from last week on pure numbers, but seemed like every time he got it, he gave it right back to Melbourne, sold a team mate into trouble or just went for a nothing safe backwards option. Meanwhile he was dropping sitters, losing contests and failing to stick tackles throughout the game. You can't tell me Constable or Narkle would be a worse option than him.

 

[AM]

Scotts trying to hold back the dam wall long enough to steal another contract,so more of the same to come.

Whenever the time is up for CS with us – and I hope it’s a way off – he’ll walk into another head coaching job in the AFL. So I don’t buy the theory ypo.

And not for a second do I believe Scott is the only person setting the scene when it comes to our list choices or intent as far as on field performance is concerned. From the Prez and CEO down the clubs position is that we want to remain competitive and our efforts will be directed to achieving that end - à la Hawthorn.

 

[David the Cat]

Hmm...... I agree the administrators must take some ownership of the problem, but I disagree with absolving the likes of Scott from all responsibility.

The game plan we are employing has his mindset all over it - by his very nature he defaults to a dour, careful, slow strategy and he has persisted with it for years now.

I believe he has a personal role to play in changing his mindset for the betterment of the club, and by extension, the competition.

He's not Robinson Crusoe mate...I watched every game on the weekend, and apart from a couple of sides (and then only in bursts), defensive football is the norm right now.

Its not Scott's job to look after the state of the game. That task lies with the administrators. The present state is due to the playing conditions ... and the coaches have merely adapted their coaching to the conditions laid out before them.

The finger pointing at Scott in isolation is ridiculous...he has been (very carefully) calling for changes for some time, as has Clarkson. For example, many here have scratched their head at the way the "incorrect disposal" rule has been adjudicated, not just recently either. The Bulldogs won a premiership on the failure to police that rule, and Hawthorn have got away with it for years.

I'm all for changes that will eliminate the dross being dished up right now. I used to watch plenty of VFA football where it was 16v16...open quick exhilarating footy...so I'm for 16v16...play on if you kick backwards...minimum 20-25 metre kicks paid for marking ...

...and umps? How about penalising full backs who run 30+ metres from the goal square on kick outs....make them bounce it like everyone else has to.

 

[Purrfect pussy]

Did Steven do anything productive in this game? Got the ball 17 times, so an improvement from last week on pure numbers, but seemed like every time he got it, he gave it right back to Melbourne, sold a team mate into trouble or just went for a nothing safe backwards option. Meanwhile he was dropping sitters, losing contests and failing to stick tackles throughout the game. You can't tell me Constable or Narkle would be a worse option than him.

Steven hasn’t played a whole lot of football the last 2 years, so him taking a little bit of time to adjust to a new club is to be expected.

If Steven is still playing poor football in a months time then I doubt he’ll just be handed games, but ATM we need to play him to see if/how he connects with the rest of the midfield.

 

[David the Cat]

Did Steven do anything productive in this game? Got the ball 17 times, so an improvement from last week on pure numbers, but seemed like every time he got it, he gave it right back to Melbourne, sold a team mate into trouble or just went for a nothing safe backwards option. Meanwhile he was dropping sitters, losing contests and failing to stick tackles throughout the game. You can't tell me Constable or Narkle would be a worse option than him.

He was ok...not great, but ok. We know what he's capable of...lets give him a lil more time, not crucify him after 2 games.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

At least menegola plays direct and tries to make things happen rather than just take the safe option side ways like half the team. He had a bad disposal day. But usually his disposal is better.

agreed.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

He's not Robinson Crusoe mate...I watched every game on the weekend, and apart from a couple of sides (and then only in bursts), defensive football is the norm right now.

Its not Scott's job to look after the state of the game. That task lies with the administrators. The present state is due to the playing conditions ... and the coaches have merely adapted their coaching to the conditions laid out before them.

The finger pointing at Scott in isolation is ridiculous...he has been (very carefully) calling for changes for some time, as has Clarkson. For example, many here have scratched their head at the way the "incorrect disposal" rule has been adjudicated, not just recently either. The Bulldogs won a premiership on the failure to police that rule, and Hawthorn have got away with it for years.

I'm all for changes that will eliminate the dross being dished up right now. I used to watch plenty of VFA football where it was 16v16...open quick exhilarating footy...so I'm for 16v16...play on if you kick backwards...minimum 20-25 metre kicks paid for marking ...

...and umps? How about penalising full backs who run 30+ metres from the goal square on kick outs....make them bounce it like everyone else has to.

hear hear.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

His job is to win games and to put forward the best plan to do that. That includes winning ugly if it takes it.

agreed.

 

[Spearman]

Hmmmmm that was not quite what I expected a Guthrie BOG game to look like

 

[Baudolino]

I'm all for changes that will eliminate the dross being dished up right now.

Agreed!

I'm open-minded to the possibility of pretty much anything. Out of the suggestions being floated, the only major suggested change I am unequivocally opposed to is the idea of on-field zones, as I view the 360 degree, "anyone can run anywhere they want once play has started" nature of footy as fundamental to the fabric of the sport in a way that, say, 18 players per side isn't. But other than that I'm happy for them to trial anything that might help.

 

[Cataholic]

He's not Robinson Crusoe mate...I watched every game on the weekend, and apart from a couple of sides (and then only in bursts), defensive football is the norm right now.

Its not Scott's job to look after the state of the game. That task lies with the administrators. The present state is due to the playing conditions ... and the coaches have merely adapted their coaching to the conditions laid out before them.

The finger pointing at Scott in isolation is ridiculous...he has been (very carefully) calling for changes for some time, as has Clarkson. For example, many here have scratched their head at the way the "incorrect disposal" rule has been adjudicated, not just recently either. The Bulldogs won a premiership on the failure to police that rule, and Hawthorn have got away with it for years.

I'm all for changes that will eliminate the dross being dished up right now. I used to watch plenty of VFA football where it was 16v16...open quick exhilarating footy...so I'm for 16v16...play on if you kick backwards...minimum 20-25 metre kicks paid for marking ...

...and umps? How about penalising full backs who run 30+ metres from the goal square on kick outs....make them bounce it like everyone else has to.

Sorry, I don't completely agree.

I'm pointing the finger at Scott in the sense that I believe he is part of the problem as it specifically relates to the GFC.

I haven't seen the AFL punish fast, direct play...... the coaches are the ones who introduced flooding.

Because of that, coaches then taught players to hold on to the ball, to chip it around, and wait for a crack to appear in the dam wall.

 

[Cataholic]

He's not Robinson Crusoe mate...I watched every game on the weekend, and apart from a couple of sides (and then only in bursts), defensive football is the norm right now.

Its not Scott's job to look after the state of the game. That task lies with the administrators. The present state is due to the playing conditions ... and the coaches have merely adapted their coaching to the conditions laid out before them.

The finger pointing at Scott in isolation is ridiculous...he has been (very carefully) calling for changes for some time, as has Clarkson. For example, many here have scratched their head at the way the "incorrect disposal" rule has been adjudicated, not just recently either. The Bulldogs won a premiership on the failure to police that rule, and Hawthorn have got away with it for years.

I'm all for changes that will eliminate the dross being dished up right now. I used to watch plenty of VFA football where it was 16v16...open quick exhilarating footy...so I'm for 16v16...play on if you kick backwards...minimum 20-25 metre kicks paid for marking ...

...and umps? How about penalising full backs who run 30+ metres from the goal square on kick outs....make them bounce it like everyone else has to.

I'm with you on making changes.

I don't see a need to reduce the number of players, just call play on for anything short of 25 - 30 metres, and if absolutely needed, call play on for anything kicked backwards.

 

[steady2]

As all know this is a weird season, assuming the pandemic thing will be over next year, then hopefully it is only this year we all have to suffer. The clubs, players, coaches and staff are all going through completely different processes. Training is different, match day is different, we don't know who we play in 6 weeks time...or where, the rules have changed, quarters are shorter, no crowd, little home ground advantage, can't hug your teammate after a great goal, trying to get momentum and players revved up is harder than ever. We don't know how each team is going to perform each week, not at the moment, form does not mean much. Richmond are still winless. The Suns are playing well, the world is upside down. If teams who are expected to perform and play finals this year do not make it, it will probably be an inability to adapt to the changes, the team that wins this years premiership will be the team that adapts best. If next year is "normal", this year won't mean much.

Our players head space was haywire against Carlton who were wired up, no real home ground advantage and yet we almost stole it. We probably should have, when is the last time anyone saw Gary Ablett miss a crucial set shot 25m from goal in the dying minutes, or at any time?

I'm still confused why people think Geelong are playing a chipping style of play as our standard. They played that way against Melbourne to break their preferred style of play, but played faster against Hawthorn as they are the masters of chipping. It seems clear to me that Scott wants the team to develop both styles and be able to switch from one to the other, a quite difficult strategy, but if mastered...well the Cats could do anything.

 

[David the Cat]

I'm pointing the finger at Scott in the sense that I believe he is part of the problem as it specifically relates to the GFC.

I haven't seen the AFL punish fast, direct play...... the coaches are the ones who introduced flooding.

Because of that, coaches then taught players to hold on to the ball, to chip it around, and wait for a crack to appear in the dam wall.

No they haven't...but obviously all the coaches, not just Scott, believe that present day structures based on defensive football, will prevail over "fast direct play" as you put it. If they didnt believe that, they would adopt what you're suggesting. ...that is self evident.

After all, coaches want to win. If they thought fast direct play under the present playing conditions would prevail, they would adopt it.

Changes must be made...

 

[Mr Meow]

People are conflating the spectacle with the substance. The spectacle stunk but I totally agree that coaching was what won the game. It was boring but very effective. I think it’s going to be a problem over the course of the season though because I don’t rate Melbourne and better teams will shut down space better.

Therein lies the problem. It was a pragmatic enough stifle-a-thon that suited a desperately out of form team being able to scrape a win (2-2 looks a hell of a lot better than 1-3). However that particular style won't work against a team that applies relentless pressure and executes with speed and skill on the transition. The thing that keeps us in it year after year is that the standard of the competition is woeful and some very mediocre teams can make it into top 4. This year is already playing out like that again.

 

[thejester]

Yep.

You go to the footy to be entertained, to see footy played at the highest level, AND to see your team win, yeah?

The emotional commitment to the team is way more important than the entertainment, even ignoring that I don't think it's true that entertaining = higher scoring alone. More to the point: this whole debate is underpinned by the idea that the footy of the 80s and 90s is the natural state of the game and that any deviation from it is a failure that threatens the entire game. It's crap. Here's a clip of the 1951 grand final. It does not look anything like footy in the 90s, and the scoring was much lower, and yet! The MCG is so full people are sitting on the oval.

 

[BennyGan]

really hope scott drops atkins but i doubt he will

 

[Cataholic]

No they haven't...but obviously all the coaches, not just Scott, believe that present day structures based on defensive football, will prevail over "fast direct play" as you put it. If they didnt believe that, they would adopt what you're suggesting. ...that is self evident.

After all, coaches want to win. If they thought fast direct play under the present playing conditions would prevail, they would adopt it.

Changes must be made...

So current structures are based on defensive footy......... Which has been designed to overcome what? Fast, direct play?

Is that called flooding - invented by coaches to stop fast, direct play - which in turn requires the slow, chipping style to expose a hole in its structure?

The mistake I see administrators made was allowing 15m kicks as legitimate passes. That encourages the chipping.

The rest I see as the monster created by coaches over time.