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

[Cataholic]

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.

True, though I never said being entertaining necessarily means higher scoring.

People have to be invested, and to do that you have to present a game that is exciting. And the stuff being dished up isn't that.

 

[David the Cat]

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.

Thanks for that thejester ..great to watch. Of course it was the Navy shorts that won it for us! That and no Coleman of course.

Can you imagine spectators on the ground these days? LOL...you would need a fleet of ambulances....

 

[Pollywaffle]

No, it isn't. The 1963 Premiership side - heirs to the amazing Geelong tradition of attacking football - averaged 78 points a game.

Interesting. Many of the games in that era were played on 'gluepot' suburban grounds though. Stats may have been different if they'd played on contemporary surfaces.

 

[Mr Meow]

True, though I never said being entertaining necessarily means higher scoring.

People have to be invested, and to do that you have to present a game that is exciting. And the stuff being dished up isn't that.

People are invested. They still watch on TV, they still buy memberships and they still attend games (when they can). A die hard fan becoming a casual fan doesn't hurt either the AFL or GFC's bottom line that much. They are both businesses, that don't mind a few folk on bigfooty having a whinge.

Best way for a "fully invested" fan to speak out is to not renew memberships (if they were one), no longer attend games and no longer watch the games on TV. Then, the team results have to suffer and the aesthetics for Geelong footy clearly have to be worse than the average AFL club standard. So there are five factors there, three of which you can control and two of which are up to what happens out on the field.

At the moment all five factors are in line with keeping the status quo (coach, game plan etc) so it's an exercise in self delusion expecting things to change. Venting is a useful exercise in letting it all out, but just remember to finish on the bitter sweet notes of pragmatism and realism.

 

[Cataholic]

People are invested. They still watch on TV, they still buy memberships and they still attend games (when they can). A die hard fan becoming a casual fan doesn't hurt either the AFL or GFC's bottom line that much. They are both businesses, that don't mind a few folk on bigfooty having a whinge.

Best way for a "fully invested" fan to speak out is to not renew memberships (if they were one), no longer attend games and no longer watch the games on TV. Then, the team results have to suffer and the aesthetics for Geelong footy clearly have to be worse than the average AFL club standard. So there are five factors there, three of which you can control and two of which are up to what happens out on the field.

At the moment all five factors are in line with keeping the status quo (coach, game plan etc) so it's an exercise in self delusion expecting things to change. Venting is a useful exercise in letting it all out, but just remember to finish on the bitter sweet notes of pragmatism and realism.

People are becoming disenchanted with the game,and our last attempt was described as one of the worst ever games in the media.

Mooney just looked embarrassed and King pitying. Even Clarko was astounded by the spectacle.

Change IS needed.

 

[Mr Meow]

People are becoming disenchanted with the game,and our last attempt was described as one of the worst ever games in the media.

Mooney just looked embarrassed and King pitying. Even Clarko was astounded by the spectacle.

Change IS needed.

Absolutely. Take action, stop watching/using the product and if enough join you while Geelong results go down the toilet, you will get your change. If I was a betting man I know where my money would lie though. And I'm afraid to say it's "no change at all".

By the way, commentators relevance is second only to BigFooty posters for inducing positive changes in the game. They get paid for their hopefully honest analysis, and go home with a juicy pay cheque contented in the position they are in. Outrage and disgust is encouraged. A lot of people yelling at clouds is still people engaging with the product. Flat silence, and lack of viewership, are the two things that actually hurt clubs and the AFL. You need to be courageous and actually stop watching the games - and yes, that includes Geelong games.

 

[Seeds]

No, it isn't. The 1963 Premiership side - heirs to the amazing Geelong tradition of attacking football - averaged 78 points a game.

They played on muddy wind swept suburban fields and the quality of ball disposal was attrocious back then. Plus the attacking handball game wasnt really a thing then. If you actually watch a video of a game back you will be mortified about how poor a spectacle it was.

 

[FredLeDeux]

They played on muddy wind swept suburban fields and the quality of ball disposal was attrocious back then. Plus the attacking handball game wasnt really a thing then. If you actually watch a video of a game back you will be mortified about how poor a spectacle it was.

The greater popularity of the game back then was a by-product of the tribalism between the two competing sides and their supporters, with the main emphasis being on the competition rather than is now the case the TV spectacle for non-involved third parties.

 

[Cataholic]

They played on muddy wind swept suburban fields and the quality of ball disposal was attrocious back then. Plus the attacking handball game wasnt really a thing then. If you actually watch a video of a game back you will be mortified about how poor a spectacle it was.

It was a spectacle though, as they knew it.

 

[00VicWard001]

I honestly don’t get the whinging. I enjoy every game that we play. Every loss we have, I just pick myself up the next week because once again, I get to see the team play again.

No one is stopping anyone who dislikes the team, the coach, the way that we play to actually leave and go find another sport/team whatever.

 

[Spazz Cat]

I'm going to get in trouble. But I liked the discipline in the way we played and our skill execution.

Did I want more scoring? Sure. By not scoring we kept Melbourne in it.

But that game style effectively cut out the influence of Gawn, Viney, Petracca.
We minimised stoppages by playing keeping off.

Well done to fort.
And I thought o'connor was excellent right up until he almost handed them the game.

Excellent coaching. Albeit a defence first plan, he got the players to buy in.

Each to their own. If you enjoyed it you enjoyed it.
And I get it. Last week he seemed to acknowledge we have a problem at the start of games if the other team goes hard, and plays good footy, so he thought F**k It no-ones going to play footy then, Take that Muthaf**kers!
But it'll just put us under more pressure against a good team. And for a Sunday afternoon too! What a waste.
Maybe it could be slightly more palatable on a Sunday night or a Thursday night.
It's a bit much to expect supporters to take time away from their families for that sort of stuff.

 

[Spazz Cat]

I honestly don’t get the whinging. I enjoy every game that we play. Every loss we have, I just pick myself up the next week because once again, I get to see the team play again.

No one is stopping anyone who dislikes the team, the coach, the way that we play to actually leave and go find another sport/team whatever.

That's the problem people can't. They've grown up watching their club their whole life.
Not everyone likes other sports either.

 

[thejester]

Interesting. Many of the games in that era were played on 'gluepot' suburban grounds though. Stats may have been different if they'd played on contemporary surfaces.

Yep, but the cause isn't really relevant - what matters is that for most of the history of footy people have been enthralled by games that were lower scoring and lower skills than the 80s and 90s.

 

[Spazz Cat]

No argument from me on this. Comes back to the question of who has responsibility to make the game attractive? I think Scott’s right: it’s not the coaches job. It’s the administrators.

I don't think it's anyone's responsibility. And I don't think changes are needed.
Most of the higher teams on the ladder thus far this year a playing an attractive enough style.
If it wins, others will follow.

 

[thejester]

They played on muddy wind swept suburban fields and the quality of ball disposal was attrocious back then. Plus the attacking handball game wasnt really a thing then. If you actually watch a video of a game back you will be mortified about how poor a spectacle it was.

I think this is really important and is why I'm pretty skeptical that rule changes will make that much of a difference. CS has been explicit about this for a long time: footy in the 90s was really dumb. You can't put the genie back in the bottle of coaches and players thinking about the game in a more systematic, analytical way.

 

[catempire]

I don't think it's anyone's responsibility. And I don't think changes are needed.
Most of the higher teams on the ladder thus far this year a playing an attractive enough style.
If it wins, others will follow.

Agree with the bolded. Can’t see the AFL not acting on rules if things don’t change though.

 

[Spazz Cat]

Agree with the bolded. Can’t see the AFL not acting on rules if things don’t change though.

Yeah if viewing numbers fall because of it they'll do something.
Can't see much working in any meaningful way though.

 

[Spazz Cat]

Yep, but the cause isn't really relevant - what matters is that for most of the history of footy people have been enthralled by games that were lower scoring and lower skills than the 80s and 90s.

That's true. But you had punch ons then!
When you take away that you need entertainment from the sport itself.
There was no kicking backwards, sideways either so at least there was a contest after most kicks. Something was happening.

 

[Seeds]

I think this is really important and is why I'm pretty skeptical that rule changes will make that much of a difference. CS has been explicit about this for a long time: footy in the 90s was really dumb. You can't put the genie back in the bottle of coaches and players thinking about the game in a more systematic, analytical way.

The handball game didnt peak in the nineties. It peaked with thompsons cats during our flag era. We had very high handball to kick ratios. Bulldogs flag side a couple of years ago was also built off handball.

But you can easily make it more important by stopping chip kicking as a tool. Make kicks have to travel forward and at least 20 metres before a mark is paid. It will change a lot of coaches strategies,

 

[Munich]

"Overcoached" yesterday is just wrong says Scotty.

 

[Seeds]

Its not just backwards and defensive half chip kicks that are a blight on the game. Its terrible when you see a player burst towards goal with ball in hand get to 55 metres out, crowd at full roar, only to chip the ball 8 metres to a player leading in the opposite direction. And its paid a mark. The player ends up kicking the ball from almost the same spot as the guy who kicked it except all the momentum is gone. The exhilaration dead.

 

[romeohwho]

People are becoming disenchanted with the game,and our last attempt was described as one of the worst ever games in the media.

Mooney just looked embarrassed and King pitying. Even Clarko was astounded by the spectacle.

Change IS needed.

Still, Hawks have been boring to watch forever so Clarko can take a hike.
We were second highest scorers overall in the comp last year, only behind the entertaining Brisbane ( who went out in straight sets).
We played pretty entertaining footy against the hawks, so hopefully we go back to that this week. Think there is something in dees being a tricky team for us in recent years, so happy to get the win. Melbourne games always feel a bit ‘empty’ to me. No real rivalry, no real hatred lol.
Might be weird playing at the g too-it’s so big, must be really cavernous without a crowd. Not that it was a factor but the whole game felt weird from the start.

 

[Seeds]

The greater popularity of the game back then was a by-product of the tribalism between the two competing sides and their supporters, with the main emphasis being on the competition rather than is now the case the TV spectacle for non-involved third parties.

True. But we have access to any sport in the world now if we just want competition. It has to be a spectacle as well now otherwise we would all just watch english football or american basketball. Plus i imagine that the game in the sixties was a better spectacle than in the forties. It was improving. The game improved as a spectacle further by the nineties. But it has gone backwards as a spectacle since. Its the change that matters.

 

[Baudolino]

CS has been explicit about this for a long time: footy in the 90s was really dumb. You can't put the genie back in the bottle of coaches and players thinking about the game in a more systematic, analytical way.

All of this is true, however you *can* make changes to the game that makes systematic, analytical thinking more likely to produce aesthetically pleasing results when put in to practice.

Systematic, analytical thinking should not be so closely associated with defense-first football. You mentioned that 90s football was really dumb and unsophisticated, and I agree with that. Well, maybe the job of the AFL rules committee is to put in place a system that makes playing conservative football the dumb and unsophisticated coaching strategy? I don't know how they'd do that of course, but I also don't see any reason why it should be a fundamental impossibility.

 

[Spazz Cat]

"Overcoached" yesterday is just wrong says Scotty.

Can't believe people don't like him.