Review Season Review

[DanA]

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.

The game changes, you adapt or get left behind. Scott didn't whispering anything into Bomber's ear in 2000, but 17 years later he's being left behind.

 

[iameviljez]

The game changes, you adapt or get left behind. Scott didn't whispering anything into Bomber's ear in 2000, but 17 years later he's being left behind.

I agree that we're too tall down back, but the side that beat us did play three talls up forward (and would've added McGovern if fit) plus Lever, Jacobs, Talia, Hartigan. Jacobs can ruck all day, mind.

 

[Spazz Cat]

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.

True. Yeah Milburn too you're right. I wouldn't really call Josh Hunt a midget either.
This seems to be the time of the small forward though. Not sure if there more important now or it's just the same and their getting more credit.

 

[Spazz Cat]

If you mean the 2010 prelim the margin was 41 points.

We just lost by more than that twice in three weeks.

Can't be bothered checking but I'll go out on a limb and say Friday was our worst finals loss for over 20 years.

 

[Partridge]

Can't be bothered checking but I'll go out on a limb and say Friday was our worst finals loss for over 20 years.

At a guess I'd say since the 1994 Grand Final.

 

[Spazz Cat]

At a guess I'd say since the 1994 Grand Final.

That's what I was thinking.

 

[DanA]

I agree that we're too tall down back, but the side that beat us did play three talls up forward (and would've added McGovern if fit) plus Lever, Jacobs, Talia, Hartigan. Jacobs can ruck all day, mind.

And the Richmond side that beat us?

Are we calling 191cm Tom Lynch and Mich McGovern talls? That 1cm bigger than Menzel, 2cm shorter than Kolodjashnij and Mackie.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

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.

We won some really close games late, Hawthorn 2016 were similar, it flattered us.
Our 2nd place ladder position isn't a true reflection of where we are, we are not and were not the 2nd best team in the competition. Do you believe we are the 2nd best side?

Pre-season most expected a 5-8 so in that regard we overachieved on expectations.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-03-20/crystal-ball-aflcomaus-2017-season-predictions
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...7/news-story/6de92f0a2ef8b4494b6f4f9a768e8106

Now we underachieved in the goal of winning a flag, that's everyone's goal and for us it is in reach.
So given we can rule out underachieving relative to expectations due to the above that means the only way to assert we have underachieved is based on what we should be achieving, which most prior to the season thought would be less. Expectations change up or down as the season goes on, I feel those early wins that were lucky elevated expectations when in fact we achieved about what we should have, we flattered to deceive. FWIW on the main board I predicted Prelim in a thread somewhere over summer so we ended up where I thought we would, thought it'd be Swans v Giants GF though.

 

[DanA]

We won some really close games late, Hawthorn 2016 were similar, it flattered us.
Our 2nd place ladder position isn't a true reflection of where we are, we are not and were not the 2nd best team in the competition. Do you believe we are the 2nd best side?

Pre-season most expected a 5-8 so in that regard we overachieved on expectations.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-03-20/crystal-ball-aflcomaus-2017-season-predictions
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...7/news-story/6de92f0a2ef8b4494b6f4f9a768e8106

Now we underachieved in the goal of winning a flag, that's everyone's goal and for us it is in reach.
So given we can rule out underachieving relative to expectations due to the above that means the only way to assert we have underachieved is based on what we should be achieving, which most prior to the season thought would be less. Expectations change up or down as the season goes on, I feel those early wins that were lucky elevated expectations when in fact we achieved about what we should have, we flattered to deceive. FWIW on the main board I predicted Prelim in a thread somewhere over summer so we ended up where I thought we would, thought it'd be Swans v Giants GF though.

I think a good argument could be made that we were the 3rd best side in the competition. With things pretty interchangeable between us and GWS.

Our performance was almost exactly as I predicted, but I really think we could have beaten Adelaide and Richmond if we'd been smarter with our system and selections. We shall see next season.

 

[barmy44]

I think a good argument could be made that we were the 3rd best side in the competition. With things pretty interchangeable between us and GWS.

Our performance was almost exactly as I predicted, but I really think we could have beaten Adelaide and Richmond if we'd been smarter with our system and selections. We shall see next season.

overall, who knows... i think arguments can also be made that, when things went our way, we were the best team in the comp. other days, we were easy beats.

 

[Spazz Cat]

We won some really close games late, Hawthorn 2016 were similar, it flattered us.
Our 2nd place ladder position isn't a true reflection of where we are, we are not and were not the 2nd best team in the competition. Do you believe we are the 2nd best side?

Pre-season most expected a 5-8 so in that regard we overachieved on expectations.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-03-20/crystal-ball-aflcomaus-2017-season-predictions
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...7/news-story/6de92f0a2ef8b4494b6f4f9a768e8106

Now we underachieved in the goal of winning a flag, that's everyone's goal and for us it is in reach.
So given we can rule out underachieving relative to expectations due to the above that means the only way to assert we have underachieved is based on what we should be achieving, which most prior to the season thought would be less. Expectations change up or down as the season goes on, I feel those early wins that were lucky elevated expectations when in fact we achieved about what we should have, we flattered to deceive. FWIW on the main board I predicted Prelim in a thread somewhere over summer so we ended up where I thought we would, thought it'd be Swans v Giants GF though.

Yeah I thought we were 2/3 best. Beat GWS comfortably. Didn't think we were better than the Swans but we beat them.
Before the finals I thought we were a better team than Richmond. We beat them a few weeks earlier with Duncan, Hawkins and Selwood out.
What's the point of finishing second if we're just overachieving. Just lose finals and get lower draft picks.
Is that what we should expect and be happy with. heck that.
I never expected a flag at any time during this year. But we were uncompetitive in 2 finals.
2 finals being over at the start, just like last year is underachieving or underperforming for me. I expected better than that so I guess for me personally we underachieved.

 

[catempire]

Recruitment

• Zac Tuohy (costing Billie Smedts, a four pick downgrade from pick 16 to pick 20, and pick 63) was an excellent addition. Even though Boris was irreplaceable it was great that we targeted and landed a high possession, running player to address a hole. Somewhat soured by a really poor Prelim Final but he wasn’t alone there.
• We said goodbye to Josh Caddy (pick 24 which became Brandon Parfitt and a late pick swap) which was a surprise at the time and not ideal but he was a forward pocked being paid $450k who wasn’t the best use of that money so I can see why they let him go. The good part is Parfitt who has had an excellent start to what should be a long and successful career with he club.
• The maligned pair Shane Kersten (traded for pick 63 which became Timm House) and Nathan Vardy (pick 72 which became Ryan Abbott) sought greener pastures and, as is the Geelong way, we didn’t stand in their way. Kersten had an underwhelming season at Freo while Vardy was very good at West Coast, almost playing more games this season than he did in his entire time at Geelong.
• Aaron Black (pick 92) was a relative bust in terms of output but has provided cheap depth which is really all we could have hoped for.
• Tom Stewart (pick 40) who started the season slowly, had a brilliant purple patch leading up to the finals and then a very disappointing finals series, save for one outstanding passage of play in the semi. Plenty to work with there and should be a 100 game player for the club.
• Ratugolea, Narkle, House and Abbott made no AFL impact in significant part due to injuries and judgement is reserved for now. If we get one of those making 50 games it will be a win given where they came from in the draft.
• Jack Henry, Zac Guthrie, Jermaine Jones and Sam Simpson all look promising and excellent value as rookie picks. Guthrie and Simpson in particular played much more than would have been expected and in Guthrie’s case the future looks really bright. Henry and Simpson should get another year to show something.
• Mark O’Connor looked very raw but had some ingredients of the archetypal Gaelic to AFL player.

Who improved?

• Jed Bews heads the list in a year where he really had to step up he certainly did. After being overlooked early for Tom Ruggles, he went on to play 19 games and collect a host of scalps along the way. His confidence appeared to grow as the season went on and he was clearly keen to take the ball and run with it at any opportunity. Just re-signed for a further two years and the #1 small defender spot is now firmly his to lose.
• Mitch Duncan seemed to take the “Dangerwood” insult to heart and stepped up his game to A-grade level to have a brilliant year. Extremely unlucky to miss the All-Australian 40-man squad, he was a model of consistency and class in the midfield. Now in his prime as a player, we can look forward to several high quality years ahead from him.
• Sam Menegola played 22 games, averaging 24 possessions and kicking a few little bags of goals. In the second half of the year in particular he seemed to find his niche as a high half forward who would use his running power to get to contests all across the park and then provide a dangerous option forward. Another who had a poor finals series which will need to be the spur for better things from here on in. At 25 years old he’s coming into his prime and will need to consolidate on a very good 2017.
• Zach Smith played mostly a lone hand in the ruck, amassing 675 hitouts for the year, putting him in the top 10 in the AFL. It was a more consistent season than we’ve seen from him previously. Still needs to get involved more around the ground, particularly in the air, but he’s entering his prime as a ruckman now and the continuity he has had over the past two years is clearly paying off for him.
• Jordan Murdoch makes the list purely on H&A where he had a very solid season playing 22 games and improving his output across most measures. Unfortunately his qualifying final was a stinker for the ages and he is again in a place of uncertainty.

Honourable mentions to Andrew Mackie (almost looked done at the end of 2016, Lachie Henderson who had a very solid year and James Parsons who just ran out of steam but played an important role as a defensive forward for most of the year when all other options were unavailable.

Who regressed?

• Cam Guthrie, let’s face it, had a terrible year on the whole. While he showed signs toward the end of the season as he re-entered the midfield during the skipper’s absence, it was a hugely underwhelming year overall. His season never got going and he was thrown around as the Mr Fixit but never really grasped any of those roles. After finishing 4th in the B&F in 2016, he now has a huge task ahead of him in 2018 as a player who is meant to be a leader of the next generation.
• Mark Blicavs had an up and down year as another player who struggled to find his niche. Played an excellent semi final on Josh Kennedy and was useful at other times either side of a month long absence with a cracked leg bone. Another who has question marks over his role and importance in 2018 - will he continue to be a midfielder or will he, after Lonergan’s retirement, be thrown back as has been mooted many times over the year?
• Steven Motlop had a well-publicised poor season. Not helped that he was in the final year of a significant seven-figure deal, he failed to deliver even to last year’s standards which were not have been at the required level of a player of his talents. He had half the scoring shots he had in 2016 and his confidence and demeanour looked shot until the finals started. In September he was Geelong’s best player, somehow managing to regain his dynamic zig-zag running and clever ball use. What does that all mean? Is he already out the door or can the relationship be salvaged? We are about to find out. Losing him for a second round pick at this point would be an enormous waste.

Dishonourable mentions here to Rhys Stanley (seems like he’ll never live up to the talent he has), Jackson Thurlow (ACL a notable excuse), Tom Ruggles (overtaken by Bews) and Josh Cowan (doesn’t have the body, let alone the talent for AFL football).

The coaches and gameplan

Hard to know where to start here as it seems like we finished the year not much differently to where we finished 2016.

We started the year seemingly willing to play a more attacking and dynamic brand of footy, kicking 100 points plus in our first five matches (all wins). But the signs were worrying at that time, also conceding high scores in all of those games and being very exposed on the counter-attack. Rounds 6-8 were all losses, two of which were despicable in nature. Round 9 back at home against the Bulldogs saw a return to 2016-style football - win the midfield, lock the game down, grind out a win. A brand which we deployed to great success for the remainder of the H&A season losing just three more games. This is both a blessing and a curse, however. While this brand has proven to effective to get us to the top 4 two years in a row, it has also proven to be a brand that will not stand up in September against the best sides.

Other troubling signs included:

• another post-bye failure in Perth against West Coast
• A failure all season to overcome a propensity to start games slowly and need to work excessively hard to get back into games
• A gameplan that again failed when the whips were cracking and at odd times throughout the year.

But it wasn’t all bad.

A string of injuries led us to debut many more players than we would have anticipated. Better still, the debuts showed, on the whole, very promising signs for the future. Stewart, Parfitt, Parsons, Guthrie, Buzza, Simpson, O’Connor and Cunico all showed varying signs of prowess, from the right-at-home to the raw-but-promising. On current evidence we’d hope to get at least a few hundred games out of the group and probably more with even luck. This has to speak, at least to some degree, to the quality of the coaching group that was able to maintain a significant degree of continuity in the gameplay and approach even while these debutants were thrown in to play important roles.

The coaching group also pulled a few rabbits from hats at times through the year. The GWS draw interstate when completely undermanned demonstrated a real willingness to throw caution to the wind and try something completely different, nearly pulling off the win. The use of Dangerfield as a forward was judicious and very successful when deployed. The semi final effort was the pinnacle of it all, showing a resolve and flexibility that we could not have been confident the coaching group possessed.

Looking ahead - what needs to change?

It’s pretty clear that it has to be back to the drawing board from a gameplan point of view. You can forgive a few failures as just a bad run against good opposition. But this is now clearly a pattern. This Geelong needs to win the midfield, slow the game down and grind out wins. It demonstrably does not work in finals and that needs to be accepted and changed as a matter of priority.

With Lonergan and Mackie retiring there is both a hole left behind but an opportunity to seek to overhaul our structure and the way we move the ball from the back half of the ground. Lonergan’s ball-in-hand play has been limiting for several years now and Mackie is no longer the hard running long kicking player he once was. We have several players waiting in the wings to fill the voids. Stewart for one has already proven himself very capable. Thurlow played only a bit-part in the year but in his second year back from an ACL will add dash and excellent foot skills when he does cement his spot. Just those two changes will see quite a change in the way the ball comes out of D50. Kolodjashnij, who managed to find an unusual niche for himself as a winger, will probably return to his more natural home.

There’s clearly another big opportunity to improve the list at the trade table. The names in discussions would slot straight into the 22 and displace poorer performers from the 2017 team. However, even grabbing Ablett and Stringer will not solve all structural issues. To me, those structural issues are what holds us back from being a real flag threat. Realistically, finishing 3rd-4th is a fair reflection of our list and the obvious gaps.

There’s a need to inject some better kicking skills into the 22. It’s not obvious where that comes from on the current list. That should be a focus in the draft.

We’re also crying out for some crumbing forwards. While Gregson and McCarthy will hopefully play a greater role in 2018, neither are your typical front and square electric pace players that would compliment Hawkins so well. Will Jones provide something here? He looked to be getting close to a debut late in 2017.

The second key forward role is also a big question mark. Stanley has failed to make it his own. While Buzza has shown some promising signs, it’s hard to see him being a 30-plus goal forward in 2018. The Taylor experiment will probably be put to pasture with Lonergan's retirement, placing even more urgency on finding the long-term solution.

The prospect of losing a couple of players on the more attacking end of the spectrum is also pretty concerning. Menzel’s limitations are well-known but as his 40 goals would not be easily replaced. Likewise Motlop is a player of a type where we have very little depth and a stagnant gameplan needs more, not less, of his ilk.

On the whole, there’s not a huge case for concern but nor is there a large amount of confidence that we can bridge the gap between also-rans and Premiers. I’m confident the club will give us a good showing again in 2018 but the outstanding questions will make for fascinating and nervous viewing.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Yeah I thought we were 2/3 best. Beat GWS comfortably. Didn't think we were better than the Swans but we beat them.
Before the finals I thought we were a better team than Richmond. We beat them a few weeks earlier with Duncan, Hawkins and Selwood out.
What's the point of finishing second if we're just overachieving. Just lose finals and get lower draft picks.
Is that what we should expect and be happy with. Damn that.
I never expected a flag at any time during this year. But we were uncompetitive in 2 finals.
2 finals being over at the start, just like last year is underachieving or underperforming for me. I expected better than that so I guess for me personally we underachieved.

Who said be happy about it?
I'm just saying that the manner in which we won some games, and KP in particular again masked problems that we can't seem to solve and as such our H&A finish of 2nd was overstated on where we are as a side.

We can point towards game plan, tactics, team selection all we like, our biggest problem is still personnel and it's again showing.
Does that mean we're overachieving or underachieving, well that's subjective, but we won't achieve jack shit until our personnel gets better one way or another.

 

[thecatattack]

If you mean the 2010 prelim the margin was 41 points.

We just lost by more than that twice in three weeks.

You mean the game that blew out to 80+ points in the 3rd before they started resting for next week?

 

[thecatattack]

Huh?

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.

"At one stage, Collingwood led by over 80 points, before Geelong scored 8 second-half goals to finish 41 points behind. The Cats' 62-point half-time deficit was the largest that Geelong had faced in any game since Round 18, 1998 against Sydney."

Yeah, it was bad.

 

[barmy44]

2 finals being over at the start, just like last year is underachieving or underperforming for me. I expected better than that so I guess for me personally we underachieved.

adelaide ended both their finals by quarter time.

richmond ended theirs in the third and fourth quarters respectively.

best two teams - finals teams, at least, but i think richmond have been excellent all year with two notable exceptions - are playing off this weekend and deservedly so.

 

[JumpyHolden]

we can win the premiership next year .

Not a hope in hell, you're just talking rubbish again. By the way did you notice we were beaten by more in the 2017 prelim then we were in the 2010.

 

[thecatattack]

We were only rank underdogs twice under Bomber - that 2010 PF, and the 2004 game vs Port. Both we got done pretty bloody handsomely.

We weren't even rank underdogs in the 2010 PF.

The line was 2.5pts and we were 1.97 to win.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

"At one stage, Collingwood led by over 80 points, before Geelong scored 8 second-half goals to finish 41 points behind. The Cats' 62-point half-time deficit was the largest that Geelong had faced in any game since Round 18, 1998 against Sydney."

Yeah, it was bad.

Oh dear some are discounting the 2010 prelim because the Pies put the cue in the rack and margin then flattered.
By far the worst final I've seen in my lifetime. 2004 v Port comes close.

 

[iameviljez]

And the Richmond side that beat us?

Are we calling 191cm Tom Lynch and Mich McGovern talls? That 1cm bigger than Menzel, 2cm shorter than Kolodjashnij and Mackie.

Yeah, I am - because they both (particularly Lynch) play as talls, though they are more flexible than ours.

Seriously, though, who would you have brought in up forward instead of (I assume) Stanley? We didn't exactly have players knocking down the VFL door.

 

[thecatattack]

Oh dear some are discounting the 2010 prelim because the Pies put the cue in the rack.
By far the worst final I've seen in my lifetime. 2004 v Port comes close.

It was probably the worst I've ever seen us play.

44 to 7 after the first.

85 to 23 at the half.

Out to 80+ points in the third.

It would've been a 120pt loss had Collingwood not started looking to next week.

 

[iameviljez]

If you mean the 2010 prelim the margin was 41 points.

We just lost by more than that twice in three weeks.

As I'm sure has been pointed out by others, you know good and well that the 41 point margin flatters a side who was down by ten goals at half time and 80-something in the third before Collingwood cue >>>> rack. At least the Adelaide game never got that bad.

 

[iameviljez]

We weren't even rank underdogs in the 2010 PF.

The line was 2.5pts and we were 1.97 to win.

You cannot be serious?

Collingwood the best team in it and we couldn't beat StKilda.

Well, I guess I was being a tad revisionist then.

 

[iameviljez]

Oh dear some are discounting the 2010 prelim because the Pies put the cue in the rack and margin then flattered.
By far the worst final I've seen in my lifetime. 2004 v Port comes close.

2004 vs Port was disappointing, but that was really men against not quite boys, but teenagers.

That said, the 2004 H&A game vs Port was one of the best games of footy I can remember.

 

[thecatattack]

You cannot be serious?

Collingwood the best team in it and we couldn't beat StKilda.

Well, I guess I was being a tad revisionist then.

That season we finished 2nd, 2pts behind the Pies with a better percentage and lost to the Saints by a kick and would've won had Mooney not laid a shit tackle.