- Banned
- #126
We were competitive in every final under Bomber except 1. Even as rank underdogs.
Review Season Review
- Thread starter iameviljez
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Banned
- #127
Don't reckon we overachieved.
Last year we beat all the top 8 teams except 1.
This year we beat the Crows, Tigers, and GWS.
Overachieving is a cop out IMO.
I agree with a review. It would be interesting to include someone like Hodge or other recent opposition player/coach to in the discussion of our poor starts. What weakness did he see in real time, etc.
Big question might be why CS and staff are reluctant to go to runnng game more often.
Do Geelong even do Leading Teams like stuff anymore? Would it even work on millennials?
For perspectives sake only: I just watched a 2004 match v Essendon; Scarlett, Milburn, Harley, Hunt, Enright, Rooke, Mackie, Ablett, Wojcinski, Corey, Mooney, Chapman, Ling. Glimpses of class here and there, some clangers, some aggro, lol at Mackie trading jumper punches with McVeigh. How long had this group been together and how long before they went to a Grand Final? after a few handy additions I admit
This year they've been inconsistent, last preseason they sorted the conditioning, next preseason I hope they work on the skills and teamwork.
Big question might be why CS and staff are reluctant to go to runnng game more often.
Do Geelong even do Leading Teams like stuff anymore? Would it even work on millennials?
For perspectives sake only: I just watched a 2004 match v Essendon; Scarlett, Milburn, Harley, Hunt, Enright, Rooke, Mackie, Ablett, Wojcinski, Corey, Mooney, Chapman, Ling. Glimpses of class here and there, some clangers, some aggro, lol at Mackie trading jumper punches with McVeigh. How long had this group been together and how long before they went to a Grand Final? after a few handy additions I admit
This year they've been inconsistent, last preseason they sorted the conditioning, next preseason I hope they work on the skills and teamwork.
- Thread starter
- #129
I think there's one common theme to those wins, though: at home. Away from that home ground advantage, not even close.
In 2016:
- We finished 2nd on the ladder.
- We won 17 games, with a percentage of 143.8.
- We lost one final, by 37 points.
In 2017:
- We finished 2nd on the ladder.
- We won 15 games with one draw, with a percentage of 117.4.
- We lost two finals, by 51 points and 61 points.
Clearly improvement everywhere.
- Thread starter
- #131
We were only rank underdogs twice under Bomber - that 2010 PF, and the 2004 game vs Port. Both we got done pretty bloody handsomely.
- Thread starter
- #132
I reckon we struggled to cover Enright, Bartel and Caddy more than we'd like to admit, and the loss of form from Guthrie and Blitz really hurt. In my estimation we have dropped perhaps half a yard on last year - and Adelaide's a better side than either of the grand finalists last year.
Those nine debutants weren't all AFL-ready players who had demanded selection. Parfitt yes, Tuohy derr, but Zuthrie, Simpson, O'Connor and, to a lesser degree, Buzz, all had a bit of the Hail Mary about them. We didn't have 22 AFL-ready players to play every week; that wasn't the case in 2016.
Last edited:
Yep, and Adelaide had question marks on them, for good reason. But they haven't cracked yet, and really should win on Saturday. Although Richmond have proven to be much, much better than anyone thought, and far better than anyone will admit.
- Banned
- #134
Sorry forgot about the Port game. Got pummelled.
I considered us underdogs in both the Essendon and Brissy games that year.
- Thread starter
- #135
Definitely in the Brissy game, but we were better than Essendon and beat them in regular season IIRC. I wouldn't have said we were - to quote - rank underdogs, though. Same with Nick Davis vs Geelong 2005.
1958, 1957, 1944 and 1915
- Banned
- #137
What is considered over achieving finishing 2nd anyway.
Not beating any of the other top 8 teams.
Not beating any other top 4 teams.
Only doing it once and then falling completely out of finals.
I don't really get it. It would just seem on results for a few years we just fail in finals.
Eh our worst ever finals performance came under Bomber
We have been playing two forwards, two rucks and three defenders as talls since the early 2000's. Mooney, NAblett, Ottens, King, Egan, Scarlett and Harley sound familiar? Obviously the dastardly Scott must have been whispering in Bomber's ear back then even while he was still playing.
- Banned
- #140
I thought we were in 2005. I thought we could win but was an interstate final and Sydney were hard to score against.
bit hyperbolic... not everyone who broadly supports scott is a coward and liar.
i dont know how many times it happened under the others... ill guess 0?
odd finals series, though. a single close game in the whole lot.
ive always rated richmond this season. change one result in their run of 'last gasp losses' after adelaide thumped them, and theyre the top team (not counting that changing a result means the season plays out entirely differently). there are people on here that rate them, though. however, people dont give up on tried and true 'ammunition' when it comes to pot-shots on BF, ive found!
far better than their still decent season record indicates, in my opinion. they play one of those risky games as far as premiership chances go, though... high on defense, and not great on offense. those teams dont historically do as well as 'high-scorers'. although lately they have been putting up impressive scores and offensive displays.
i think the reason a lot on here dont rate richmond is because posters arent overly reactive on BF. people on here generally have their beliefs, and they search for anything to prove them right, and ignore anything to the contrary. a lot of confirmation bias on here.
ive enjoyed the tigers since 2013, really hope they can do it this year. but i have a perennial soft spot for underdogs in any sport.
- Banned
- #143
Huh?
- Thread starter
- #144
A very good effort for Bomber to coach the 1969 Semi Final at just five years of age, but it may also explain the result.
Last edited:
and also many of our best, including possibly the two most dominant finals this club has ever played!
- Banned
- #146
3 tall defenders are fine. But then you add Kolo to that and it's a bit much.
Also Stewart and Mackie aren't really small defenders. Mackie has done the job well on Cyril though.
- Banned
- #147
Even out of just those 3 coaches mentioned Blight and Ayers have had worse.
Mackie was also part of the 2007 lineup along with Milburn who played CHB in the GF, Blitz hasn't been playing tall for much of the season, more like a ruck-rover in spite of his height. However with Kolo in defense alongside the others I felt we could have been too tall, although he has tended to play further upfield when Taylor is playing back. It would have made little difference to the outcome if say Zuthrie had been in instead of Kolo. We were smashed by the Crows and Tigers all over the field, particularly in the last quarters when we choked.
