Have Geelong Improved? Or has the Rest of the Comp Gone Backwards?

[demondavey]

I'm sure they have.

Yet you’ve simply overlooked this because you can’t ‘quantify’ it? You do realise you’ve contradicted yourself?

 

[demondavey]

You can't.

Have you ever heard of statistics? Have you ever heard of game plan? Coaching?

 

[PhatBoy]

This is the most barnburningly stupid argument.

‘Aside from all the metrics, relative and actual, rankings relative and actual, win/loss ratios, player output measurements and numerous other measures, you can’t quantify improvement.’

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Have you ever heard of statistics? Have you ever heard of game plan? Coaching?

You can improve in statistical categories and KPIs - but that does not mean your capability has improved.


Honestly, this is quite simple. I feel you're just arguing for argument's sake.


Port finished on top in 2002 with 18 wins. Brisbane finished 2nd with 17, and Collingwood 4th with only 13 wins.
Brisbane beat Collingwood in the Grand Final by 11 points - with Port not even making it.

A year later, Port finish on top of the ladder again with 18 wins. Collingwood 'improve' to 2nd with 15 wins, and Brisbane 'regress' to 32rd with only 14 wins. This time Brisbane flog Collingwood, and again Port don't even make it.

So did Collingwood improve? Or not? Did Brisbane regress? Or not? And what about Port? They finished on top - yet didn't win the flag? Does that mean that perhaps they in fact were not the best team??

Then the next year, Brisbane 'improve' to 2nd on the ladder, and Port 'regress' to only 17 wins for the season. Yet Port beat Brisbane in the GF.


How does this work? If it's as simple as the ladder being the indicator for improvement, then WTF happened??! If it's as simple as a team improving to win the flag - then WTF happened?? Port got worse, and beat a team that got better!


Footy is not like an athletic's meeting, where a time or distance can quantify your improvement. I could go out one week and kick 5 goals against a rubbish team with rubbish defenders - but actually play better the following week by kicking 3 against a top team with gun defenders.



But regardless, it is simply fact that you cannot quantify a team's improvement. It's just fact. You're wasting your breath trying to argue otherwise.

It is simply not quantifiable. You can drop ladder positions, and improve. You can improve your ladder position, but actually regress as a team. Or in what I believe to be Geelong's case, you can basically stay the same and win the flag. Simply because you've maintained your capability, whilst others have fallen away.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

‘Aside from all the metrics, relative and actual, rankings relative and actual, win/loss ratios, player output measurements and numerous other measures, you can’t quantify improvement.’

Yes.

And the reason being is that your opponent is not static. They're a variable. None of those things you listed quanfity your capability as a team.

Player output is obviously going to improve, if the opposition is weaker than it was last year. So will win/loss ratios, rankings and all other stats.


I've seen horses run mid-field in a race, then come out a run the same time the following year in the same race, and win it. They haven't improved - it was just a weaker race.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Yet you’ve simply overlooked this because you can’t ‘quantify’ it? You do realise you’ve contradicted yourself?

Sorry - I don't understand your point.

Are you asking me to quantify the fact that Geelong hasn't improved? If so, I can't. It's my opinion that they haven't improved. It's impossible to quantify it.

 

[PhatBoy]

Yes.

And the reason being is that your opponent is not static. They're a variable. None of those things you listed quanfity your capability as a team.

Player output is obviously going to improve, if the opposition is weaker than it was last year. So will win/loss ratios, rankings and all other stats.


I've seen horses run mid-field in a race, then come out a run the same time the following year in the same race, and win it. They haven't improved - it was just a weaker race.

Your opponent is not static in any sport.
So improvement, or general standard, may as well be all classified as ‘unquantifiable.’

What if you win every game in a season by 100 points but just HAPPENED to get every single team you played during their worst performance of the year.

What if you averaged 100 over an entire year of cricket but the opposition NEVER had a fielder in the spots your bad shots kept landing?

That’s the sort of approach your logic is taking.


The standard of elite Australian Rules football, like most sports, will rarely deviate from the mean by much.
It will deviate. There will be years when there are 2, 3 premiership worthy teams. There will be years when there is only 1. There will be years where there are 1-2 finalists not worthy of it, and others where 1-2 miss out who WOULD be worthy.

But this periods won’t usually follow one another year upon year and in general things won’t deviate much. That is the nature of professional sport.

What does change year upon year are the visible and easily measurable changes within the teams who play it.

How can you say a team’s forward line hasn’t improved because ‘reasons’ when Jeremy Cameron has played virtually every game and his output has been greater, when a player who wasn’t there last year has arrived and kicked nearly 50 goals. When max holmes has gone from a fringe and probably not ready first 22 member to bring the best rated winger in the competition for nearly 3 months? Sam De Koning wasn’t part of our defence last year. Now aside from Stewart he’s the focal point of it.

Dangerfield and Selwood have noticeably less time on the field. Brad Close had visibly improved and statistically as well, so too Gryan Miers.

Putting this down to ‘gut feel that other teams have just gotten worse’ makes a mockery of virtually every number that has ever been discussed in this great game

 

[biggiemediums]

The narrative this year has been about the genius of Chris Scott and his reinvention of Geelong, in order to take them to the next level.

Apparently this is why they're better this year, statistically, than in recent years.

But I put it to you, that Geelong haven't improved at all. They're the same. They're the same Geelong that is a top 4 team with some warhorse superstars, some solid pros, and some average young guys.
The same Geelong that wins enough games at home to have a healthy % to match their win/loss and land in the top 4 - but always seems to find 1 or 2 teams that are just better each year.

The difference this year is not any changes to their game plan. It is not any changes to their personnel. It is that those 1 or 2 teams that are just better than them each year don't exist!

The comp has, without doubt in my mind, gone backwards this year.

That's why the standard feels better - because good teams are playing other good teams, and good teams are playing average teams each week. Not great teams beating up on average teams, and great teams handling good teams comfortably each week.

Collingwood are an average team in any other season. Sydney would be a 'team on the rise' in any other season. The 2022 version of Brisbane does not play in a Prelim in any other season.

St Kilda does not 'just miss the 8' in any other season. I mean s**t, they beat both Geelong and Sydney!

The comp is even, not because the rubbish teams are better this year, but because the great teams don't exist this year, and the really good teams aren't as good as other years.


Now this ain't a bad thing. And it's not a knock on Geelong. I just felt the need to dispel yet another bullshit footy myth that the media spruik and the public lap up.

What a load of shite.

Every bit bolded is pure opinion based on 0 fact. So how is anyone meant to take this post seriously when you've spouted opinions with no factual backing, as fact?

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Your opponent is not static in any sport.
So improvement, or general standard, may as well be all classified as ‘unquantifiable.’

What if you win every game in a season by 100 points but just HAPPENED to get every single team you played during their worst performance of the year.

What if you averaged 100 over an entire year of cricket but the opposition NEVER had a fielder in the spots your bad shots kept landing?

That’s the sort of approach your logic is taking.


The standard of elite Australian Rules football, like most sports, will rarely deviate from the mean by much.
It will deviate. There will be years when there are 2, 3 premiership worthy teams. There will be years when there is only 1. There will be years where there are 1-2 finalists not worthy of it, and others where 1-2 miss out who WOULD be worthy.

But this periods won’t usually follow one another year upon year and in general things won’t deviate much. That is the nature of professional sport.

What does change year upon year are the visible and easily measurable changes within the teams who play it.

How can you say a team’s forward line hasn’t improved because ‘reasons’ when Jeremy Cameron has played virtually every game and his output has been greater, when a player who wasn’t there last year has arrived and kicked nearly 50 goals. When max holmes has gone from a fringe and probably not ready first 22 member to bring the best rated winger in the competition for nearly 3 months? Sam De Koning wasn’t part of our defence last year. Now aside from Stewart he’s the focal point of it.

Dangerfield and Selwood have noticeably less time on the field. Brad Close had visibly improved and statistically as well, so too Gryan Miers.

Putting this down to ‘gut feel that other teams have just gotten worse’ makes a mockery of virtually every number that has ever been discussed in this great game

FWIW, most numbers that are discussed are a load of s**t.

I mean f**k, people still look to 'Disposals' as a measure of performance.


But having said that, I think you're missing the point. Stats are fine, KPIs are fine, so are all the metrics that coaches, analysts and fans use.

They have their place.

However they do not measure a team's capability. It's basic logic.

You have an opponent, that directly influences those numbers. If your opponent cannot tackle, for example, your stats and metrics will be vastly different to what they would be if they did tackle well.

If the midfields throughout the competition are strong, it will influence your numbers. If they are weak, it will influence your numbers.

So comparing your numbers from one year to the next is futile largely, because the opponent changes. It's not a direct comparison - therefore it cannot be used to quantify improvement.

Just basic logic.

 

[PhatBoy]

FWIW, most numbers that are discussed are a load of s**t.

I mean f**k, people still look to 'Disposals' as a measure of performance.


But having said that, I think you're missing the point. Stats are fine, KPIs are fine, so are all the metrics that coaches, analysts and fans use.

They have their place.

However they do not measure a team's capability. It's basic logic.

You have an opponent, that directly influences those numbers. If your opponent cannot tackle, for example, your stats and metrics will be vastly different to what they would be if they did tackle well.

If the midfields throughout the competition are strong, it will influence your numbers. If they are weak, it will influence your numbers.

So comparing your numbers from one year to the next is futile largely, because the opponent changes. It's not a direct comparison - therefore it cannot be used to quantify improvement.

Just basic logic.

Except that in years gone by teams who could tackle were beating us.
Now teams who bring a similar, same, or higher level of tackling and physical pressure, are losing to us.

I agree that a whole heap of afl numbers are garbage and meaningless. There are also many that aren’t.

We aren’t an improved team this year because our win-loss ratio is better.

We are improved because we have a better list. The players who were best 22 but not good contributors last year have been replaced by players who are good contributors. The young players who were not there or on the fringe last year are good. They are fast. They are composed.

 

[Rockford]

Ladder position does not quantify a team's capability.

Ladder position. Literally a quantifier of a team’s capability.

 

[Chaisa]

I reckon there is clear-cut notable improvement:

• De Koning an upgrade on Henderson
• Cameron getting properly fit and being close to the best player in the competition
• Blicavs's role change giving their side a new dimension
• Stengle's arrival ensuring that their biggest hole - a quality small forward - was filled.

When you add a more attacking gameplan that pressure sides don't cut holes through then you've got yourselves a side that is well and truly world-beaters.

 

[ZGuhT]

I rarely post and am very much a lurker. That being said i find this whole thread hilarious and frustrating at the same time to the point I had to log in.

For a start...

In general as much as it may not look like it year upon year the competition as a whole improves with the development of strategy, conditioning, sports science, analysis etc etc so even though there are regressions you could probably put a middling team from this year against a top team from yesteryear and they would win.

Secondly...

Statistics are meaningless in some respects bases on strategy. Some strategies are based around metres gained, some are based around possession, some are based around pressure etc etc so depending on each teams strategy then of course you cannot use 1 set of stats and say this team is the best.

Thirdly... is that a word??

I am a staunch cats supporter and I am pretty sure I have followed and watched far more cats game than yourself and although you may not see the differences in game style it is stark this year. The ability and willingness to move the ball quickly is easy to see and has forced the team to be able to handle the pressure that comes with finals.

If you train to take the quick option then obviously you get the ball off quicker in general negating some of that pressure when it finally comes because that is how you are used to playing during the season. In past seasons the team has been trained to take the best option no matter the time taken meaning the players are slower in their decision making. So when the pressure came they weren't trained to move it quickly naturally creating errors.

Fourthly?! :?

I cannot believe ive been sucked into replying to this nonsense thread.

 

[Angus Young]

Geelong have improved a lot.

 

[Sttew]

I rarely post and am very much a lurker. That being said i find this whole thread hilarious and frustrating at the same time to the point I had to log in.

For a start...

In general as much as it may not look like it year upon year the competition as a whole improves with the development of strategy, conditioning, sports science, analysis etc etc so even though there are regressions you could probably put a middling team from this year against a top team from yesteryear and they would win.

Secondly...

Statistics are meaningless in some respects bases on strategy. Some strategies are based around metres gained, some are based around possession, some are based around pressure etc etc so depending on each teams strategy then of course you cannot use 1 set of stats and say this team is the best.

Thirdly... is that a word??

I am a staunch cats supporter and I am pretty sure I have followed and watched far more cats game than yourself and although you may not see the differences in game style it is stark this year. The ability and willingness to move the ball quickly is easy to see and has forced the team to be able to handle the pressure that comes with finals.

If you train to take the quick option then obviously you get the ball off quicker in general negating some of that pressure when it finally comes because that is how you are used to playing during the season. In past seasons the team has been trained to take the best option no matter the time taken meaning the players are slower in their decision making. So when the pressure came they weren't trained to move it quickly naturally creating errors.

Fourthly?! :?

I cannot believe ive been sucked into replying to this nonsense thread.

But you did it well

 

[Foxx]

Better get used to seeing Geelong at the top every year.

Something drastic would have to happen for them to bottom out like every other club.

The difference is their cultural advantage, being in Geelong.

 

[kickazz]

Geelong have made incremental improvements on many dimensions:

Game plan
Playing the kids
Health / player management
Key recruits.

... which has added up to a significantly improved side.


The comp hasn't really gotten any worse. A fully healthy Melbourne playing at their best - that midfield would probably be too much for Geelong.

But there hasn't been a bona-fide standout ridiculously strong side for a good decade now. I think with 18 teams you can get away with having some ordinary players in premiership teams. Threepeats etc aside, if you look at individual seasons since the dominant Brisbane/Geelong/Saints/Collingwood sides of early this century, then I'd say the only really, really dominant teams were:

Hawthorn 2013 (maybe 2012)
Richmond 2018
Melbourne 2021


The other premiership winners were very good and Geelong could have beaten them if they were good enough but they weren't

 

[Narkee]

Good idea for a thread. The execution, however, is appalling.

OP has lost the plot or has only watched one game a week for the past two years.

 

[lethalsax]

The narrative this year has been about the genius of Chris Scott and his reinvention of Geelong, in order to take them to the next level.

Apparently this is why they're better this year, statistically, than in recent years.

But I put it to you, that Geelong haven't improved at all. They're the same. They're the same Geelong that is a top 4 team with some warhorse superstars, some solid pros, and some average young guys.
The same Geelong that wins enough games at home to have a healthy % to match their win/loss and land in the top 4 - but always seems to find 1 or 2 teams that are just better each year.

The difference this year is not any changes to their game plan. It is not any changes to their personnel. It is that those 1 or 2 teams that are just better than them each year don't exist!

The comp has, without doubt in my mind, gone backwards this year.

That's why the standard feels better - because good teams are playing other good teams, and good teams are playing average teams each week. Not great teams beating up on average teams, and great teams handling good teams comfortably each week.

Collingwood are an average team in any other season. Sydney would be a 'team on the rise' in any other season. The 2022 version of Brisbane does not play in a Prelim in any other season.

St Kilda does not 'just miss the 8' in any other season. I mean s**t, they beat both Geelong and Sydney!

The comp is even, not because the rubbish teams are better this year, but because the great teams don't exist this year, and the really good teams aren't as good as other years.


Now this ain't a bad thing. And it's not a knock on Geelong. I just felt the need to dispel yet another bullshit footy myth that the media spruik and the public lap up.

I don't fully agree with you, but I think by and large you're onto something.
I think the Cats have been fortunate to avoid any major injuries this year.
I think they're playing exceptionally well, especially against teams that pressure well.
I tend to agree that the top teams aren't quite as formidable as recent years, but I wouldn't go so far as to say the competition as a whole has gone backwards.
I would say Geelong was fortunate to face Collingwood and Brisbane, not that any team is fortunate to face Collingwood this year, but that squad had an incredible run, they haven't got much finals experience, and Geelong matched up well with them. Brisbane was just happy to win a final, so Geelong cruised in that one.
I think Sydney offers the stiffest competition for Geelong all year since Melbourne and the Bulldogs never seemed to put it all together (though to very different degrees). I think that opened the door for some surprise sides to make finals like Freo and the Pies.
I'd say it's as much a product of the middle of the pack rising as it is the top of the pack dropping off.
But it seems we're splitting hairs here. I think in general it makes for more exciting footy, having more parity in the league.

 

[Danw0w]

I think footy has never been better than it has been in the last three seasons. 2019 was a bit of a down year across the comp except for Richmond really, but since 2020 the standard across the competition has been great!