Grand final review

[Knightmare]

Votes:
5. Scott Pendlebury
4. Dale Thomas
3. Steele Sidebottom
2. Travis Cloke
1. Andrew Krakouer

Good:
Pendlebury: Showed great composure throughout and played his usual precision game. Played a desperate game and dominated with his inside work.
Thomas: Again ball use probably wasn’t as good as you’d like. Went hard all day and his attack on the footy and the man was a highlight throughout.
Sidebottom: Big game player having yet another big game. Good tackling game. Showed really great composure and in congested situations was fantastic – throwing in those spins and goals were both highlights!
Cloke: Loved his work rate early and really dominated that first quarter in particular. Kicked some goals he wouldn’t usually go forward and just seemed to get all of them to connect in the first half. Impact after that didn’t last and really lacked those contested grabs he usually gets which was the disappointing part.
Krakouer: Another big game player having a big game? Co-incidence? I think not. Was fantastic and was a real highlight. Played hard all game and was really lively with his tackling efforts. Loved the mark!
L.Brown: Played the physical, desperate game many predicted. Loved his effort and did everything he could to influence winning. Won plenty of 1v1s. Tackling pressure great. Did the little things around the ground physically imposing himself on the game which is what he is all about. Great career and think he might become a very good assistant.
Tarrant: Played a good game. When Podsiadly was on held him well. Finished with plenty of spoils and lost few 1v1s.

Ok:
Ball: Was good all game minus the final quarter. Tackling pressure good. Did all the usual hard inside work. Ball use generally good – had one or two poor kicks but otherwise generally good.
Davis: Can hold his head up high. Early started out pretty poorly. A few questionable kicks. But tackling and effort were there and played his usual solid game. Has another year in him if the motivation is still there.
Shaw: Attacked the footy well. Played a really hard game and tackled and did all those little things. Run from defence ok.
Johnson: Got his share of it. Ball use was a highlight and really liked his ball use + decision making. Has another year in him.
Jolly: Can hold his head high after that effort. Competed well and had plenty of meaningful taps to advantage. Thought he broke fairly even in the ruck minus some of those early free kicks he gave away. Unsure if he has many years left in him and just has to be managed Ottens style because he is necessary for September success.
Maxwell: Played hard and desperate. Wanted to win. Pure hustle game. Tackling efforts good throughout.
Wellingham: Liked some of his inside work early. Probably didn’t get enough of it in the end. Wouldn’t mind seeing him get more major inside minutes next season. Think his production can improve further.
Fasolo: Bought some energy but we just couldn’t get it forward to him unfortunately. Should push to become a regular next year. Think he will go past Blair.
Toovey: Had big tackling numbers to finish. Big effort game. Defensively good. Possibly a bit nervy. Some of his kicks were really poor by his standard. Also fumbled a fairly easy mark at one stage.

Poor:
O’Brien: Drive from the back line good and enjoyed some off his fakes and then burst by his man then kicking long. What I didn’t enjoy was 4 goals to the injured Stevey J. Needed to pay him more respect and play him allot more physically. Otherwise had a good finals series. Expect him to rebound with a better year next season.
Didak: Ball use good and really enjoyed his quick thinking. But didn’t get nearly enough of it. Should rebound next year with a full preseason.
Dawes: Didn’t get on the score board for any goals. Worked hard but played against some great defenders and was well held. Big preseason and hopefully he can get his production back to what he was showing in the preseason. Fit and firing alongside Cloke could be fun to watch.
Swan: Poor game by his standard and particularly disappointing considering how well he went in other finals. Really surprised Ling could limit his impact as well as he did and should have run him off his legs through work rate.
Reid: For the first 3 quarters was good with his spoiling and 1v1 game. But didn’t add customary rebound. Kicking by standard was poor. In final quarter was just too slow for Hawkins and was really disappointing in the end.
Blair: Didn’t produce his usual numbers and didn’t have any influence on the game. Will be disappointed in that effort.

Team notes:
Final quarter in particular forward 50 entry poor. Needed to kick to targets and not kick high and long to packs – Geelong continued to mark off all our kicks and rebound like anything. Would have been spoken about prematch and in that final quarter in particular we just completely lacked that composure with our forward 50 entries.

 

[TradeDraft]

I think Reid was Poor as he was to Hurt to give the Rebound and that really stuffed him up

 

[danielnajdek]

The curse of the brownlow/ grand final struck again.

Swan was poor. I'm sure he is disappointed with his game. Needed him to stand up in the last and unfortuntely he didn't

 

[BEEG]

I will give the Mick Malthouse review

Now I'm still very angry so I will do my best not to try and offend anybody

MM showed yesterday why we had this succession plan in place he was very lucky to get a contract at the end off his last reign but we gave him 2 more years because he was building a list

What MM showed is he is still a stubborn prick and will still let the game slide infront off him just to prove a point now this has not really happend over the past 2 years because the team has been go good and dominant but does anybody ever forget the games his cost us or almost has by match ups his refused to change

We might not have won but letting Hawkins run around like Carey for the 2nd half was a disgrace Tarrant should have been placed on him and Reid moved you could have even put Leigh Brown on Hawkins and played Reid forward he wasn't doing much as he was injured so why have him sit in the most dangerous part off the ground

Very very happy this is all over and Buckley hopefully will come in similar to Scott and tweak the game style

 

[Go_Brad_Dick]

yea good riddance to Mick..

 

[BEEG]

I think Reid was Poor as he was to Hurt to give the Rebound and that really stuffed him up

You could see Reid was not right from
the start just did not move well and any one on one he struggled as he had no power through the legs because off the injury

 

[jonbe54]

I will give the Mick Malthouse review

Now I'm still very angry so I will do my best not to try and offend anybody

MM showed yesterday why we had this succession plan in place he was very lucky to get a contract at the end off his last reign but we gave him 2 more years because he was building a list

What MM showed is he is still a stubborn prick and will still let the game slide infront off him just to prove a point now this has not really happend over the past 2 years because the team has been go good and dominant but does anybody ever forget the games his cost us or almost has by match ups his refused to change

We might not have won but letting Hawkins run around like Carey for the 2nd half was a disgrace Tarrant should have been placed on him and Reid moved you could have even put Leigh Brown on Hawkins and played Reid forward he wasn't doing much as he was injured so why have him sit in the most dangerous part off the ground

Very very happy this is all over and Buckley hopefully will come in similar to Scott and tweak the game style

Mick has always been reluctant to make game day moves, he's very inflexible in that way but on the other side of the coin it builds confidence in his players knowing that he won't rip them off the ground or move them because they have had a bad quarter - swings and roundabouts.

I am glad to see Mick go on balance, he has either gone stale or ran out of new ideas, that is starkly apparent IMHO.

Goodbye Mick and thanks for all your hard work, welcome Bucks.

 

[Ed D]

Good review Knightmare, agree with most of what you wrote.

As for the final quarter, I think that was due to having to roll the dice and take a risk to try and win, and it didn't work. If we hadn't tried to start rushing things we would have lost by say 3 or 4 goals instead of 6. I didn't have much of a problem with it, but it made the game look like it wasn't as close. Geelong at this stage were also throwing players behind the ball as they knew they could hold on for a win, which made it even harder.

 

[TheFreshBanana]

Agree, the game was much closer than 30 something point loss.

We were only down by about 3 goals but we couldn't find a way to score so we decided to take risks, didn't work and turned out to be a 6 goal loss.

However I want to see the players taking the risk to go down the corridor more when in a situation like that. It's the only way to win.

 

[Frankie23]

In the toilets at the Grand Final dinner last night I overheard Reidy telling people that he tore/heavily strained his groin at the end of the first quarter...

Never ever do we take an injured player into a Grand Final again. Ever.

 

[THATSGOLD]

In the toilets at the Grand Final dinner last night I overheard Reidy telling people that he tore/heavily strained his groin at the end of the first quarter...

Never ever do we take an injured player into a Grand Final again. Ever.

Especially with a ready made player sitting out in Goldsack..

Why did this happen???

 

[Fasta_123]

This will effect his pre season if true?

 

[ant22]

Firstly I thought we played much much better than we did in the first 2 finals. I thought Geelong played the best game of footy they have played since the 07 granny. I dont think anyone including geelong thought they would be as good as they were this year. We were very still that another team(one that was supposed to go backwards) could produce such good footy this year and they deserve massive credit for that. Had that geelong played us in the first granny last year they would have brained us.

They were able to keep their stucture for 4 quarters and our broke down late in the 3rd. Goldsack should have played. I can understand reid playing but if he was re-injured during the game taz should have gone to hawkins as soon as pods went down. Blair was poor but didak should have been subbed off because he is not tackling or chasing. I think the cats still would have won but it would have been alot closer.

I can't comlpain about the effort I thought under the circumstances our blokes gave everything they had. We just got beaten by a wonderful football team out played out of their skins. For 3 quarters we where involved in what I think is the best standard of footy in those type of conditions that I have ever seen and I think we can take some heart from that. If we were no good they would have destroyed us.

 

[ant22]

Re the injured players I think it was a hard call. I dont agree that you never take injured players into a granny. I think it depends on the player. Goldsack is not a replacement for reid. They had 3 big talls and we needed reid to play. Goldsack should have played for didak.

Jolly was injured and did everything he was needed to do. stevie j was injured and killed us(we gave him way too much latitude btw)

I dont blame them for playing reid

 

[upnsmoke]

Re the injured players I think it was a hard call. I dont agree that you never take injured players into a granny. I think it depends on the player. Goldsack is not a replacement for reid. They had 3 big talls and we needed reid to play. Goldsack should have played for didak.

Jolly was injured and did everything he was needed to do. stevie j was injured and killed us(we gave him way too much latitude btw)

I dont blame them for playing reid

You dont blame them for Reid?
Okay so we have to blame Reid then...

Presti CALLED it.... injured players should of raised their hands up if they weren't 100% sure they will last the entire game.

Presti did this in 2010, he had a "feeling" he would re-injure himself playing against Riewoldt.... what happened?
Malthouse took a risk on Nathan Brown and SHUT DOWN Riewoldt.

Goldsack is 193cm... with mobility of someone who is 185cm. Would of fared better defensively.... Put Tarrant on Hawkins then Goldsack on whomever is second "tallest" Cats forward... would of been Stevie J.

 

[lgarth80]

Goldsack is 193cm... with mobility of someone who is 185cm. Would of fared better defensively.... Put Tarrant on Hawkins then Goldsack on whomever is second "tallest" Cats forward... would of been Stevie J.

Easy to make assumptions here.

First we would have expected O'Brien to do the job on Johnson. He didn't, and so was moved.

Second we would have thought we needed someone to take Podsiadly. His injury was a blessing to Geelong on such a wet day, as it made our back division top heavy.

I still thought Beams for Goldsack would have been the right call with the Sack on the bench as sub.

If you had the Sack available, I think you play the sub mid-way through the third and change the matchups around the ground. It might have made a difference, though I'm not certain it would have been anything more than cosmetic.

There was no way Goldsack would have started in the 21 though, given their starting lineup.

 

[Ed D]

This will effect his pre season if true?

Nope, he'll fully recover in a month or two and be right for the preseason after draft week.

Reid was a risk, but considering he got through the Hawthorn game and was getting better as the game wore on, it seemed like it was in our favour. He trained well and things seemed OK. It backfired and hindsight is a great thing.

 

[Stripes B and W]

Have the watched the replay now, after a self imposed 48 hour media ban...
A few observations but generally agree with Knighmare with the exception of Reid. Thought he was poor most of the day, falling apart after half time. I thought a few efforts resulted in goals to the cats at crucial times, ie , when the game was alive. One comes to mind where ottens outbodied him way too easily for Hawkins to dribble a simple goal

I really think some exceptional goal kicking had us in front and close at various stages. Geelong for the most part were cleaner and created space to work in, they counter our game betetr than anyone else. i know this is self evident given they are the only side to beat us, but it points to the way to turn this around.

A couple of decisions that irked me, although the margin means these had no impact on the result.

The Bartel goal before half time... Swan likely marked it, its not clear the ball was out on the full from Jolly's tap and clearest of all, Bartel was outside the field of play when play on was called. The correct decision is a throw in. Another was when Dids took his only mark ( that i can recall) on a lead 65 meters out members side and scarlett ran meters through the mark, an obvious 50m gifting a goal to us.
Wellers goal that wasnt balances one out of course

issue of playing injured guys has been covered, selection of Fas v Dids V Goldy also done. In hindsight we wouldl have selected a different side...hindsight is a wonderful thing. I wonder also if conditions played a factor, as it turned out, the playing conditions were not as bad as was forecast.

A few final obsevations on the day. the geelong people are me at the game we great, no arrogance , cockiness etc, they were terrific.
Rushing over to our race with my son as we trudged off, actually felt good to see the boys warmly and genuinely applauded, pain and anguish etched in every face, all looking downward and forward up the tunnel. Im sure MM was the only one to acknowlege the applause.

No question in any way, Cats worthy winners

 

[Knightmare]

For mine we had to role the dice with both Reid + Jolly.

Without them we just aren't giving ourselves the chance to win.

Jolly I really had no issue with. Sure he couldn't really push forward to pose a marking threat, but he competed well and ruckwork when he didn;t give away frees was not bad and got plenty of hitouts to advantage.
Wood would not have done nearly as well.

Reid I didn't have an major issues with up to 3/4 time. Didn't lose many 1v1s and spoiled most balls. Didn't provide his usual rebound or take those marks off opposition kicks but was still clearly better than any other alternative.

Had we not played Reid our backline would have been seriously undersized. Goldsack while his form has not been an issue is not at all a like for like replacement and cannot be asked to play on Hawkins/Podsiadly or Ottens/West. Then Keeffe even doesn't have the appropriate size to play on Geelong's big forwards so wouldn't have been a great option either considering opposition.

Hindsight tells us that we should have subed Reid off to get Fasolo in - because Reid wasn't needed anyway with Podsaidly off and we needed that extra little bit of run and probably the Tarrant v Hawkins matchup.

But the players who played I still would have played - with possibly Goldsack in for Blair who didn't perform on the day the only change - but we weren't to know this.


But really Geelong were the better team on the day. Had the better formline with fewer players carrying injury. Move on. Get ready for next year and work hard + get better.

 

[Nicco_jj]

The thing that facinated me was that Fasolo was put in to the forward line when he finally got home. He has been the "super sub" because he comes on and plays on the ball and makes an impact. His speed and toughness was wasted in the forward line

 

[Stripes B and W]

Spot on Knight about moving on, 2012 has started!!

I would have played Goldy, left Fas out. Then the sub has to be Blair or Dids, and given the conditions i would have gone with Dids as sub,
I just thought Goldy can play defensive forward, wing or 3rd or 4th back.
I think conditions mitigated against Fas, and playing him he always had to be sub.

No doubt at all we had to go with Jols and Reid, as the cats had to go with SJ.

 

[Ed D]

The Bartel goal before half time... Swan likely marked it, its not clear the ball was out on the full from Jolly's tap and clearest of all, Bartel was outside the field of play when play on was called. The correct decision is a throw in.

I'll just pull you up on this. Players are allowed to run off their mark if they're out of bounds and it's OK unless they deviate from their chosen path while they're out of bounds. Meaning if Bartel ran off the mark while he was out of bounds, a player came in to stop him, and then he changed directions (while still being out of bound) it's a throw in. If he runs off his mark and keeps going in a straight line it's play on.

In saying that it should have been a Swan mark and Jolly was a little unlucky, but we got one our way with Wellingham's poster.

 

[Stripes B and W]

Yes Ed i think i follow you, however if the umpire calls play on, not because of a time 'hurry up' and the player is out of bounds, isnt if actually out of bounds?. Play on means play is live, and the ball is out of play..but i stand corrected....

 

[Ed D]

Yes Ed i think i follow you, however if the umpire calls play on, not because of a time 'hurry up' and the player is out of bounds, isnt if actually out of bounds?. Play on means play is live, and the ball is out of play..but i stand corrected....

It's the same deal, they can run in one direction only and be ok.

 

[The Coach]

In the toilets at the Grand Final dinner last night I overheard Reidy telling people that he tore/heavily strained his groin at the end of the first quarter...

Never ever do we take an injured player into a Grand Final again. Ever.

Never ever do we believe an 'in the toilets' whisper

It's the same deal, they can run in one direction only and be ok.

Yep or else every shot on goal from over the boundary line where the player opens up the angle a la Buddy is deemed a throw in (saw it called in a Diamond Valley GF once )