Should Geelong have gone the knuckle?

[BigBadCam]

Grand finals are where passions erupt and players show through physicality and determination just how passionate they are about their jumper. I haven't watched the game again, but from what I recall, there was very little passion displayed by Geelong players.

Sam Mitchell played a shit first half, and was criticised all round when he smashed Ablett hard in the middle of the ground, and it seemed like Geelong were unwilling to go hard in response. From what I remember, nobody remonstrated with Mitchell and Ablett just helped himself up and went about his business. It is from this point that the Hawks seemed to lift and run away with the game. This wasn't the only display of physicality that brought about no response from Geelong and consequently gave the Hawks a big lift.

In my book, there should have been some sort of remonstration, and at least, there should have been someone there to help our boy up. But... There wasn't.

I know that during the year, Bomber had been drilling it into the players to play the ball rather than the man, no matter how hard the opposition came at them, but was this the right approach to have in a grand final? During the year you have to worry about supensions and next week, but in the big one, there is no next week. I would've loved to see a cat stand up and go toe to toe with Mitchell or at least do something.

During the leadup there were a few suggestions that it would be a hard fought game, but apart from a couple of opening bumps there was very little physical resistance from Geelong. In my book it was just another coaching stuff up, and proof once again that the 'week to week' gameplan which served us so well during the year was not going to work on grand final day, and that Bomber was well and truly outcoached.

Thoughts?

 

[Hinkley29]

Grand finals are where passions erupt and players show through physicality and determination just how passionate they are about their jumper. I haven't watched the game again, but from what I recall, there was very little passion displayed by Geelong players.

Sam Mitchell played a shit first half, and was criticised all round when he smashed Ablett hard in the middle of the ground, and it seemed like Geelong were unwilling to go hard in response. From what I remember, nobody remonstrated with Mitchell and Ablett just helped himself up and went about his business. It is from this point that the Hawks seemed to lift and run away with the game. This wasn't the only display of physicality that brought about no response from Geelong and consequently gave the Hawks a big lift.

In my book, there should have been some sort of remonstration, and at least, there should have been someone there to help our boy up. But... There wasn't.

I know that during the year, Bomber had been drilling it into the players to play the ball rather than the man, no matter how hard the opposition came at them, but was this the right approach to have in a grand final? During the year you have to worry about supensions and next week, but in the big one, there is no next week. I would've loved to see a cat stand up and go toe to toe with Mitchell or at least do something.

During the leadup there were a few suggestions that it would be a hard fought game, but apart from a couple of opening bumps there was very little physical resistance from Geelong. In my book it was just another coaching stuff up, and proof once again that the 'week to week' gameplan which served us so well during the year was not going to work on grand final day, and that Bomber was well and truly outcoached.

Thoughts?

Can't agree with this.

During the year, one of our great strengths was our ability to focus on the footy, even when teams went the knuckle against us. Why would we change that approach in the biggest game of the year?

The way they interpret the rules in footy circa 2008 doesn't lend itself to teams going the knuckle and being successful Like it or not, if you play the man rather than the ball you will be umpired out of the contest.

I am glad we didn't go the knuckle when we got frustrated. It would have made a bad day even harder to take. If we had tried to punch on ala Alistair Lynch in 2004 when things didn't go our way, it would have just been embarassing.

 

[Ablettttttt!]

Going the player never works

 

[BigBadCam]

Can't agree with this.

During the year, one of our great strengths was our ability to focus on the footy, even when teams went the knuckle against us. Why would we change that approach in the biggest game of the year?

The way they interpret the rules in footy circa 2008 doesn't lend itself to teams going the knuckle and being successful Like it or not, if you play the man rather than the ball you will be umpired out of the contest.

I am glad we didn't go the knuckle when we got frustrated. It would have made a bad day even harder to take. If we had tried to punch on ala Alistair Lynch in 2004 when things didn't go our way, it would have just been embarassing.

Losing with little resistance and not backing up our boys who got smashed was embarassing.

 

[Hinkley29]

Losing with little resistance and not backing up our boys who got smashed was embarassing.

Punching on and throwing cheap shots would have been embarassing. That sort of stuff is from the dark ages.

It didn't work in 1989 (in fact, I would argue it cost us the flag that year) and it doesn't work in 2008.

Please name 1 premier from the last 20 years who managed to turn a GF around because they went the knuckle.

 

[CF]

no, the gameplan works well enough and no need to go the knuckle at all. Only no talent teams use this tactic.

 

[BigBadCam]

Punching on and throwing cheap shots would have been embarassing. That sort of stuff is from the dark ages.

It didn't work in 1989 (in fact, I would argue it cost us the flag that year) and it doesn't work in 2008.

Please name 1 premier from the last 20 years who managed to turn a GF around because they went the knuckle.

Hawthorn.

 

[BigBadCam]

no, the gameplan works well enough and no need to go the knuckle at all. Only no talent teams use this tactic.

Perhaps going the knuckle is a bit full on, but there should have at least been some retaliation to the hurt that Hawthorn brought. That hit by Mitchell was a game turner.

 

[Hinkley29]

Hawthorn.

Surely you aren't referring to Hawthorn 2008.

If you are, then I have a very different definition of "Going the knuckle" than you do.

 

[Catsace]

Surely you aren't referring to Hawthorn 2008.

If you are, then I have a very different definition of "Going the knuckle" than you do.

I have no doubt that Barry Hall's recent brain fades are a possible frustrated reaction to his poor game in the 2006 Grand Final. In that match, the Swans lost by a single point, and Barry did little in the match. I can't help but think a well timed jab to the jaw of any of Cousins, Kerr or Judd would have turned the game around, and enabled the Swans to go back to back, which would just about have bestowed greatness on the club. I think he had petrol left in the tank at the end of that game, and his lashing out and hot temper may be as a result of this.

With Geelong, BigBadCam you make a pretty valid point i reckon. Geelong under Bomber have really never gone the knuckle, maybe apart from vs Carlton in Rd 22 2001, which was a terrible day for the club. But this was a Grand Final, against a side that has done more in the last 30 years to pound Geelong into the dust than anyone. Maybe Rooke running through Mitchell might have given the Hawks something to think about, they have a history of hot-headedness themselves, and particularly against the Kangaroos, they have sometimes let their anger get the better of their footy.

Geelong sort of got swept away with a 15 minute patch of unbelievable footy from peripheral players like Dew, Williams and Rioli in that 3rd quarter. A whole season of 23-1, all the hard work, sweat, the pre-season, everything the year was played for, was washed away so quickly, and without any real incident. It was a loss that sort of one would say was, ah well, we'll get them next time. Trouble is, there isn't a next time in Grand Finals.

Just from a fan's perspective, just see how the Hawks are gloating on the main board and Bay 13. See Jeff Kennett regain his arrogance his premiership became infamous for. See how yet again we are left speechless, we have nothing to say, nothing can be said but just accept the fact that Hawthorn beat us again, in a game that counts. There is no tomorrow in a Grand Final, and there should be never anything be left on the table. Maybe if another Hawk runner was taken down, it would have taxed them too much. It rankles with me still that despite them losing Croad, and i think Young for much of the 2nd half, their running players still had run in their legs, when they should have been tiring. They outscored us in the last quarter, which was just sad.

Possibly Bomber, having established his awesome side to have accumulated a magnificent record of 42-2 in the preceeding weeks, felt that he should live and die by the pure footy aspect. And Geelong's discipline has been an admirable feature in all that time, not getting sucked in, ie against Freo and Port. But, as we all know, hindsight is 20-20 vision. I just wish, like BigBadCam, that more was done by Geelong, to defend their record, to really put it all out there to say to Hawthorn....We are the greatest side, and we WON'T be beaten. As i have said before, Geelong is, and i bet my bottom dollar, will remain exclusively, the ONLY side ever to lose as few as two games in a season and come out flagless. That record, their efforts as a club, demanded everything to be laid out on the line to reward themselves for this work. They let themselves down on Grand Final day, a chance at greatness was left behind, and of all the sides Hawthorn, winner of 39 of their last 57 clashes against us, were there to deal the knockout blow.

It hurts just as much now as it did on the day....and only another Grand Final appearance next season can give the players any sense of getting it back. To be honest, even a premiership next season still leaves this year as a gaping hole, but it is what is needed if the side is to be considered great. I'll be there to support them, as we all need to be. I just hope that they take an intense anger into any clash against Hawthorn, and play them as if their lives depend on it. That club, more than any other, even the Eagles, has been the bane of Geelong for too damn long!

 

[Jumpin' Jimmy]

Cam Mooney should have given himself an uppercut. Same goes for Brad Ottens

 

[bigdroppunt]

Biff or no biff.....bad kicking is bad football.....we didnt loose the GF by not going the "knuckle"....

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Great post Catsace

I don't think going the knuckle is the right term, but someone should have given Mitchell something back. We really looked weak after that, and played accordingly. We needed a bit more fire about us I'm afraid.

 

[cats2rise]

Going the player never works

Kicking points doesnt either. Shoulda gone the biff as emotions would have been high, and Mooney would have kicked this amazing goal, pumped his fists, got the crowd going, got the team going and we would have won by 26 points.

 

[Turbo911]

What if's, should of's, could of's, does it really matter now?
Can't go back & I don't think it would have made a difference.

 

[Rockford]

At the time when Mitchell was running around with flying elbows the Cats were very much on top of the game, just weren't converting their chances. Wouldn't have been wise to lose focus at _that_ stage. When the Hawks got a bit of a run on in the 3rd quarter thats when I would've liked to have seen a bit more agro, try to unsettle the Hawks and pull them back as they ran past like they did to the Cats for the first half. Whether it meant Rooke running through players with a leading elbow like Mitchell or just someone walking up to Rioli or any player really and decking them. Easy to say after the event though. If they'd gone the biff and the result hadn't changed we'd all be lamenting that they didn't stay focused etc.. etc..

 

[geelong_boy]

Excellent, excellent post Catsace.

bigdroppunt is right, we lost because while we had the ascendancy we didn't put the score on the board. Hawthorn did, and as much as it pains me, well done to them.

And all those advocating a retaliation to Mitchell, we did get a goal out of it, so the players should've been in his face for costing his team a goal. Having not seen the replay I don't know if that happened. And I never will know.

 

[bigdroppunt]

Not many have semd to pick up on the hawks set play of rushing behinds.... in most of our games of 08 we have been able to turn the ball over from a kick in....and score..... the hawks were willing to rush the behind to wait for the better option....

 

[witsend]

bigdroppunt...good point..that was one aspect of the Hawks game that was weak as p**s. In all other areas they were courageous and outstanding.
It saw little or no reward for our defensive pressure near goal.
Good coaching but...

 

[witsend]

They "should" have b***dy kicked straight!

 

[BigBadCam]

bigdroppunt...good point..that was one aspect of the Hawks game that was weak as p**s. In all other areas they were courageous and outstanding.
It saw little or no reward for our defensive pressure near goal.
Good coaching but...

Dogs employed the same tactic.

 

[witsend]

Dogs employed the same tactic.

Which is why the Rules committee needs to act. It is a direct result (excessive rushing) of the play on before the Goal Umpire waves rule change. It needs to be addressed as 11 times in the GF is ridiculous and a blight on the spirit of the game. I'm not bagging Hawthorn...they used a stupid rule to their advantage, but it is directly contradicting the spirit of the Deliberate Out Of Bounds Rule and to my mind, is of more serious concern.
Had there been a stiffer penalty (eg 3 points for rushed, or a turnover), you have an entirely different game. Every time we built up pressure...boom...rush it. One player kicked it back 20 metres from memory!!!

 

[Gold Member]

Sorry to intrude guys.

Don't know about "going the knuckle", more like "flying the flag" (semantics really!). But yeah, a bit of push and shove, couple of jumper punches, just a general show of strength was warranted. Just to say we won't stand for this treatment.

Spud Frawley summised what you guys are talking about on the Triple MMM pre-game (yes I have a copy - lame ) "if Geelong go the knuckle early on Luke Hodge, there is no doubt in my mind that hard nuts Lewis, Sewell and Croad will down tools and give it back in spades..."

Sadly no-one stood up for you guys.

Great thread BTW!

Not full of we woulda....

 

[AM]

Sorry to intrude guys.

Don't know about "going the knuckle",more like "flying the flag" (semantics really!). But yeah, a bit of push and shove, couple of jumper punches, just a general show of strength was warranted. Just to say we won't stand for this treatment.

Spud Frawley summised what you guys are talking about on the Triple MMM pre-game (yes I have a copy - lame ) "if Geelong go the knuckle early on Luke Hodge, there is no doubt in my mind that hard nuts Lewis, Sewell and Croad will down tools and give it back in spades..."

Sadly no-one stood up for you guys.

Great thread BTW!

Not full of we woulda....

Not semantics G.M. There's a marked difference between 'flying the flag' in response to an incident that is outside the rules (or even borderline) and 'going the knuckle'. Reckon you lost the final against North last year by 'going the knuckle'

Glen Archer said during the year he was always confident of doing sides that went out to belt their way to victory. It was the sides that were hard at it (head over the ball stuff) that always worried him.

The opening text of this thread has some well made points. It’s the inflammatory heading that is the crock. “Going the knuckle” is counterproductive and outdated. Power and the Dockers tried it on us during the year and we know what the results were there. We won so many games on the trot this year by being hard at the ball and hard at the man with the ball. We got done in the G.F because we were out played, out thought and made too many skill errors.

 

[Gold Member]

Not semantics G.M. There's a marked difference between 'flying the flag' in response to an incident that is outside the rules (or even borderline) and 'going the knuckle'. Reckon you lost the final against North last year by 'going the knuckle'

Glen Archer said during the year he was always confident of doing sides that went out to belt their way to victory. It was the sides that were hard at it (head over the ball stuff) that always worried him.

The opening text of this thread has some well made points. It’s the inflammatory heading that is the crock. “Going the knuckle” is counterproductive and outdated. Power and the Dockers tried it on us during the year and we know what the results were there. We won so many games on the trot this year by being hard at the ball and hard at the man with the ball. We got done in the G.F because we were out played, out thought and made too many skill errors.

"It’s the inflammatory heading that is the crock."
That's what I was attempting to point out. I just felt BBC was talking about players not "flying the flag" and the thread was being railroaded because of the thread title, with responses about A. Lynch 2004 and Barry Hall.

Agree regarding our North final last year, that was Knuckle and it resulted in players missing games.

Is it possible your players were out psyched in the lead up. With the constant talk of knuckle were they waiting for something that never came? Possibly making them wary of instigating some kind of incident. The closest was Stokes on Hodge pre-bouce and the footage of that is damning.

edit: also lack of physical or verbal directed at Mooney after 1/2 time miss.

edit: let me know if I'm not welcome around here, I mainly post on the Hawks board.