Geelong's form post-bye

[sthmelb_dimmies]

Not sure if this has been posted around elsewhere, but

Geelong post-bye matches since the bye was implemented:

2016: v Sydney (Skilled) lost 60 - 98
2015: v North (Etihad) lost 120 - 79 (two week bye given v. Crows abandoned due to Phil Walsh passing)
2014: v. Freo (Patersons) lost 96 - 64
2013: v. Brisbane (Gabba) lost 103 - 98
2012: v. Sydney (SCG) lost 80 - 74

Not a great track record of turning up after a vacation...

 

[bungwahl]

Not sure if this has been posted around elsewhere, but

Geelong post-bye matches since the bye was implemented:

2016: v Sydney (Skilled) lost 60 - 98
2015: v North (Etihad) lost 120 - 79 (two week bye given v. Crows abandoned due to Phil Walsh passing)
2014: v. Freo (Patersons) lost 96 - 64
2013: v. Brisbane (Gabba) lost 103 - 98
2012: v. Sydney (SCG) lost 80 - 74

Not a great track record of turning up after a vacation...

In a weird twist they're also the only team we ever beat following our bye.

 

[Artax]

It reads well but they did beat the Hawks after the bye 2 weeks ago...

 

[SilentHunter_]

I find this stat useless for preliminary finals.

 

[DeadlyAkkuret]

This can only end very badly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Nool Carpenna]

It reads well but they did beat the Hawks after the bye 2 weeks ago...

it was only the hawks ahahahahahahaha

6 and 2 record against top 8 sides this year and haven't lost since we beat them

 

[sthmelb_dimmies]

I find this stat useless for preliminary finals.

Why?

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

It reads well but they did beat the Hawks after the bye 2 weeks ago...

Hawks are soooo last year.

 

[SilentHunter_]

Why?

Because it barely ever holds. We have been terrible in Home and Away byes over the years but have managed to win a lot of prelims.

 

[Tedeski]

Not sure if this has been posted around elsewhere, but

Geelong post-bye matches since the bye was implemented:

2016: v Sydney (Skilled) lost 60 - 98
2015: v North (Etihad) lost 120 - 79 (two week bye given v. Crows abandoned due to Phil Walsh passing)
2014: v. Freo (Patersons) lost 96 - 64
2013: v. Brisbane (Gabba) lost 103 - 98
2012: v. Sydney (SCG) lost 80 - 74

Not a great track record of turning up after a vacation...

And with those few words the pressure goes onto our friends at Geelong.

They are gorrrrrrn!

 

[Tedeski]

This can only end very badly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don't worry about it. The expectation is that we are wounded.
We will have legitimate reasons should we lose.

The Cats have no excuse what so ever!
Rested! Plenty players available! Dangerfield!
They couldn't lose....................could they?

 

[fpm84]

2016: v Sydney (Skilled) lost 60 - 98
2015: v North (Etihad) lost 120 - 79 (two week bye given v. Crows abandoned due to Phil Walsh passing)
2014: v. Freo (Patersons) lost 96 - 64
2013: v. Brisbane (Gabba) lost 103 - 98
2012: v. Sydney (SCG) lost 80 - 74

If you look at these in context, the only time we finished ahead of a team on the ladder after losing to them post-bye was Brisbane in 2013 when we coughed up a 50-odd point lead (in other words, the bye had no impact on the game).

No shame in losing to you guys, the eventual premiers, in 2012. Nor Fremantle away in 2014, a team we struggled to beat during their finals-bound years, bye or no bye. And last year we were a mediocre side that missed the 8, so it was no surprise we lost to the Kangaroos.

On paper as a whole it doesn't look great but I suspect if we had played a few weaker teams along the way, things would look a bit more balanced (worth noting that 4 of those 5 teams we have lost to after the bye have finished top 4 after H&A and/or finals that year).

 

[bungwahl]

If you look at these in context, the only time we finished ahead of a team on the ladder after losing to them post-bye was Brisbane in 2013 when we coughed up a 50-odd point lead (in other words, the bye had no impact on the game).

No shame in losing to you guys, the eventual premiers, in 2012. Nor Fremantle away in 2014, a team we struggled to beat during their finals-bound years, bye or no bye. And last year we were a mediocre side that missed the 8, so it was no surprise we lost to the Kangaroos.

On paper as a whole it doesn't look great but I suspect if we had played a few weaker teams along the way, things would look a bit more balanced (worth noting that 4 of those 5 teams we have lost to after the bye have finished top 4 after H&A and/or finals that year).

Also worth noting that prelims tend to be different in that the post-bye blues don't usually apply. The teams that win the qualifying finals usually win the prelims.

This year is a complete mystery with the additional bye thrown in. It's definitely helped the Bulldogs! Wouldn't be surprised to see Geelong off the speed a little early, before coming home strong. That also lines up with the fact the Swans favourite quarter is the 1st, whilst the Cats love the 4th. Swans need an early lead!

 

[fpm84]

This year is a complete mystery with the additional bye thrown in. It's definitely helped the Bulldogs! Wouldn't be surprised to see Geelong off the speed a little early, before coming home strong. That also lines up with the fact the Swans favourite quarter is the 1st, whilst the Cats love the 4th. Swans need an early lead!

Completely agree with this. If it's reasonably close at half time and 3/4 time, most Geelong supporters will be confident - your players may slow down after a six day break and we are the best fourth quarter team in the league.

However, if you grab a 3-5 goal lead early which is highly possible, some of the younger Geelong players may begin to panic and we will rely on the old firm of Selwood, Dangerfield, Hawkins, Enright and co to lift us.

 

[BlightysCats]

Not sure if this has been posted around elsewhere, but

Geelong post-bye matches since the bye was implemented:

2016: v Sydney (Skilled) lost 60 - 98
2015: v North (Etihad) lost 120 - 79 (two week bye given v. Crows abandoned due to Phil Walsh passing)
2014: v. Freo (Patersons) lost 96 - 64
2013: v. Brisbane (Gabba) lost 103 - 98
2012: v. Sydney (SCG) lost 80 - 74

Not a great track record of turning up after a vacation...

I brought this up after the bye this year on the Geelong board but most posters blocked their eyes and ears and said it wasn't relevant - then we lost to you guys by 30 something odd points at home, our biggest loss of the season; as for our last second reprieve against Hawthorn it was hardly very convincing form and football against a team that was destroyed by the Bulldogs on Friday night and went out in straight sets. In short I still think it's a very valid stat and concern for us as a team.

 

[kickthething]

I brought this up after the bye this year on the Geelong board but most posters blocked their eyes and ears and said it wasn't relevant - then we lost to you guys by 30 something odd points at home, our biggest loss of the season; as for our last second reprieve against Hawthorn it was hardly very convincing form and football against a team that was destroyed by the Bulldogs on Friday night and went out in straight sets. In short I still think it's a very valid stat and concern for us as a team.

This is a really solid insight for mine. Not forgetting the Smith miss which changes things again if that went through. The win v Hawthorn was (in hindsight following last weekend) not a particularity solid win, it could be argued that final of the four that weekend was the least intensely battled, only the score kept it interesting. This game is a true 50/50 there are so many scenarios that could play out. The intensity will be the key, and whether Sydney bring it, and if they do, how Geelong cope with it will decide the game.

Geelong's lead up to this game has been ...Rnd 20 v Ess, Rnd 21 v Rich, Rnd 22 v Bris, Rnd 23 v Mel, Bye, QF v Hawks, Bye

A real lack of hardended footy and 2 byes? They will be fresh, of that wee can be sure so I guess the line of thinking is if they can stay in touch or lead through the first 3 qtrs they will be fine come the 4th qtr?

 

[BlightysCats]

it could be argued that final of the four that weekend was the least intensely battled, only the score kept it interesting. This game is a true 50/50 there are so many scenarios that could play out. The intensity will be the key, and whether Sydney bring it, and if they do, how Geelong cope with it will decide the game.

Agree with that completely, I thought Geelong v Hawthorn behind the Adelaide v Nth Final was the worst final standard wise of the first weekend of finals. I think if you guys start well it could be over by half way through the second quarter.

 

[The King!]

Oh well cancel the game we have it won

 

[The Swans Blog]

Pretty confident of getting this done. Lets face it, stop Dangerfield and Selwood and you pretty much lose.

 

[BlightysCats]

Pretty confident of getting this done. Lets face it, stop Dangerfield and Selwood and you pretty much lose.

No doubt your midfield bats way deeper than ours but to stop Dangerwood for the whole game hasn't really been achieved by any team all year so good luck with that.

 

[The Swans Blog]

No doubt your midfield bats way deeper than ours but to stop Dangerwood for the whole game hasn't really been achieved by any team all year so good luck with that.

Erm... we did? 18 useless possessions in the 1st and **** all for the rest of the game.

 

[BlightysCats]

Erm... we did? 18 useless possessions in the 1st and **** all for the rest of the game.

I said Dangerwood meaning Danger and Selwood - and you said yourself he had 18 possessions in the first quarter so you didn't stop him for the whole game. Last time we played Sydney Dangerfield and Selwood had 57 possessions and 234 champion data points between them, not their best game for the season but hardly an outcome any sane person would argue meant you completely contained both of them for the whole game.

 

[The Swans Blog]

I said Dangerwood meaning Danger and Selwood - and you said yourself he had 18 possessions in the first quarter so you didn't stop him for the whole game. Between them last time we played Sydney Dangerfield and Selwood had 57 possessions and 234 champion data points not their best game for the season but hardly an outcome any sane person would argue meant you completely contained both of them for the whole game.

Danger had like 5 effective disposals in the first. He worked so hard but was pretty shit when he had the ball. Took a horrible ping at goal on the run from 45 and shanked all but 1 or 2 kicks out of 10.

 

[BlightysCats]

Danger had like 5 effective disposals in the first. He worked so hard but was pretty shit when he had the ball. Took a horrible ping at goal on the run from 45 and shanked all but 1 or 2 kicks out of 10.

It will be the depth of your midfield that wins it, your ability for your midfield spread in talent to beat ours beyond Danger and Selwood. It doesn't matter if Danger and Selwood have crackers if Blicavs, Caddy, Menegola, Motlop, Duncan, S. Selwood, Guthrie etc are all soundly beaten, we'll still lose.

 

[sthmelb_dimmies]

I said Dangerwood meaning Danger and Selwood - and you said yourself he had 18 possessions in the first quarter so you didn't stop him for the whole game. Last time we played Sydney Dangerfield and Selwood had 57 possessions and 234 champion data points between them, not their best game for the season but hardly an outcome any sane person would argue meant you completely contained both of them for the whole game.

you must be new here