Review The decade that was.

[Max Milburn]

POSITIVE:
2011 GF win - full credit to the players and coaching staff, especially Chris Scott who picked us up off the canvas.

NEGATIVE:
Finishing top 2 four times in eight years between 12' - 19', yet not once making a GF during this period;
I don't care what anyone says, we underachieved massively!

You should care what others say.
Then it feels even better when you reject it.

 

[Cattery]

So what do we do when our genuine forwards are not kicking goals or are injured?
Exactly why we have recruited big JJ.
I have seen no issue with our F v A. Our % has been great. Even young Frank who has just been recruited as a "genuine" small forward said he wants to be seen as more than a forward. As did Taheny.
'Defensive setups these days can make it hell for forwards.

Except that wasn't the reason we kept playing non forwards up forward, it was more about Scott (and the MC) trying to squeeze eight defenders into the side, which meant other positions had to be found for some of them.

If it was meant to strengthen deficiencies in our forward line as you suggest it was a miserable failure, between them (Taylor, Touhy, Henry and Henderson) they kicked seven goals for the year.

Good pints.
I just can't recall thinking we were clearly #1 in 13, and you don't have to be to win it. As you say. But losing Simpson was bad news, Hawkins was not himself all season, nor was Chappy.
With all that, it certainly adds fuel to the fire that I think CS gets us to overachieve in H & A.
Losing to Freo in Geelong vindicated that. Partridge can go on about not playing West, but as we saw during the season, he was smashed by Goldstein and his exit papers were stamped.
Losing to Hawks in that prelim was agonising, but in reality, how many of us really thought we'd get up?

Two wins against them during the year, both at the MCG, so why wouldn't we have expectations of beating them in the PF?

Did you think we'd win in 09/11 just out of curiosity (or 07 for that matter)

 

[Partridge]

Good pints.
I just can't recall thinking we were clearly #1 in 13, and you don't have to be to win it. As you say. But losing Simpson was bad news, Hawkins was not himself all season, nor was Chappy.
With all that, it certainly adds fuel to the fire that I think CS gets us to overachieve in H & A.
Losing to Freo in Geelong vindicated that. Partridge can go on about not playing West, but as we saw during the season, he was smashed by Goldstein and his exit papers were stamped.
Losing to Hawks in that prelim was agonising, but in reality, how many of us really thought we'd get up?

Firstly, it's not just me, as has been shown. Even allowing for that game which is your personal life raft, have you ever looked at how the other ruckmen fared in the same game? Here's a hint - worse than West. Even better - after the apparent stamping of exit papers - have a look at what happened to Blicavs in the three finals in 2013. If you've got the stomach for it. Much, much, much worse. It isn't and has never been that we had a great ruckman. It was he was the best option we had. Exactly the same as with Stanley this year.

This is where supporters like yourself turn into Nostradamus and have an amazing ability to know the future ("Stanley wouldn't have made a difference", "In 2013 we wouldn't have won anyway"). Except you don't. They were both monumental cockups directly attributable to the coach. Which I'm guessing is why some are reluctant to acknowledge it, as they're too scared to criticise him.

 

[Vdubs]

Firstly, it's not just me, as has been shown. Even allowing for that game which is your personal life raft, have you ever looked at how the other ruckmen fared in the same game? Here's a hint - worse than West. Even better - after the apparent stamping of exit papers - have a look at what happened to Blicavs in the three finals in 2013. If you've got the stomach for it. Much, much, much worse. It isn't and has never been that we had a great ruckman. It was he was the best option we had. Exactly the same as with Stanley this year.

This is where supporters like yourself turn into Nostradamus and have an amazing ability to know the future ("Stanley wouldn't have made a difference", "In 2013 we wouldn't have won anyway"). Except you don't. They were both monumental cockups directly attributable to the coach. Which I'm guessing is why some are reluctant to acknowledge it, as they're too scared to criticise him.

I don't need a personal life raft but nice line.
211 REGULARLY BEAT MOST IF NOT ALL RUCKS THAT SEASON, PARTICULARLY short people THE SIZE OF WEST.
Nostradamus or not, you're the one regularly crapping on about how West would have been the answer in that game.
You don't KNOW that at all, and evidence that year justified his omission in my eyes at least, and it seems also the MC.
I don't go to games alone as you know, and after the NM game, which we lost and in which Goldy was sheer dominance, while West was insipid, we both said that would be the end of West, and it virtually was.
You think my thoughts affect the MC?
They saw what we saw, and reacted. West was no longer our best option. A fine second ruck in the 11 season, but that is all.

 

[Vdubs]

Except that wasn't the reason we kept playing non forwards up forward, it was more about Scott (and the MC) trying to squeeze eight defenders into the side, which meant other positions had to be found for some of them.

If it was meant to strengthen deficiencies in our forward line as you suggest it was a miserable failure, between them (Taylor, Touhy, Henry and Henderson) they kicked seven goals for the year.



Two wins against them during the year, both at the MCG, so why wouldn't we have expectations of beating them in the PF?

Did you think we'd win in 09/11 just out of curiosity (or 07 for that matter)

07 Yes.
09 Not until the actual GF. I thought Saints were the team to beat all year, until the prelim.
11. Worried as always but the last wins against Pies, and then Hawks in finals gave us all huge confidence.

 

[kickazz]

The good:

Staying a very good side for so long. There really had been plenty to enjoy this decade.

2011 flag. Arguably our best season. A great grand final. Chris Scott's influence on this is underrated too. Our old game plan had been found out a bit, jnr had left the club.

Maintaining a club culture that sees players want to play for Geelong

KP becoming a great modern venue with good facilities.


The bad:

Not developing some good young talent as well as we could have as a result of importing and favouring too many B graders from other teams.

A defensive game style that means we don't ever look like winning a final as underdog, and underperforming when favourite.

Feeling less like a club member and more like a marketing lead.

A feeling that "old Geelong" is creeping back in, individual vs team ethos.

 

[Tony Barber]

You can't include bomber or losing gazza in this discussion as they were in the previous decade.
This decade started in 2011.

The thread is a year early....

 

[Vdubs]

You can't include bomber or losing gazza in this discussion as they were in the previous decade.
This decade started in 2011.

The thread is a year early....

2011 is the first year without Bomber and Gazza- very appropriate inclusions as losses

 

[TheMenz Gallery]

The good:

Staying a very good side for so long. There really had been plenty to enjoy this decade.

This has been the highlight for me, I honestly can’t remember the last time I didn’t think we would be playing finals at the start of the year(maybe 04).
Every year the club gives us something to be excited about going into the next season.
I’m really looking forward to 2020.

 

[cats_09]

You can't include bomber or losing gazza in this discussion as they were in the previous decade.
This decade started in 2011.

The thread is a year early....

I thought the decade went from 2010 to 2019

When talking about previous decades like the 50s, surely that's 1950 to 1959 and not 1951 to 1960, because wouldn't 1960 be the start of the 60s?

The Noughties was 2000 to 2009 and the 10s was 2010 to 2019 - so isn't next year the start of the next decade?

 

[Vdubs]

I thought the decade went from 2010 to 2019

When talking about previous decades like the 50s, surely that's 1950 to 1959 and not 1951 to 1960, because wouldn't 1960 be the start of the 60s?

The Noughties was 2000 to 2009 and the 10s was 2010 to 2019 - so isn't next year the start of the next decade?

Even if it does start at 2011, which makes sense if you start a count from 1-10, 11 was still a year representing no GAJ or Bomber.

But this decade is about to end for most of us...

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Starting to regret this now. Most are remaining balanced.
A couple focusing purely on negative claptrap. Pure nonsense mostly.

I thought the decade went from 2010 to 2019

When talking about previous decades like the 50s, surely that's 1950 to 1959 and not 1951 to 1960, because wouldn't 1960 be the start of the 60s?

The Noughties was 2000 to 2009 and the 10s was 2010 to 2019 - so isn't next year the start of the next decade?

Correct. 2000 is the start of a new millennium but under this logic the first year in the first decade in that millennium is 2001. Lol what.
2000-09
2010-19

and so on.

 

[Tony Barber]

Starting to regret this now. Most are remaining balanced.
A couple focusing purely on negative claptrap. Pure nonsense mostly.


Correct. 2000 is the start of a new millennium but under this logic the first year in the first decade in that millennium is 2001. Lol what.
2000-09
2010-19

and so on.

Ahh, see that was heavily debated too. I'm sure you remember it.
Year 2000 was the completion of the second millennium.
2001 was the start of the 3rd.

Sorry for the sidetrack. Ha ha

 

[Partridge]

I don't need a personal life raft but nice line.
211 REGULARLY BEAT MOST IF NOT ALL RUCKS THAT SEASON, PARTICULARLY short people THE SIZE OF WEST.
Nostradamus or not, you're the one regularly crapping on about how West would have been the answer in that game.
You don't KNOW that at all, and evidence that year justified his omission in my eyes at least, and it seems also the MC.
I don't go to games alone as you know, and after the NM game, which we lost and in which Goldy was sheer dominance, while West was insipid, we both said that would be the end of West, and it virtually was.
You think my thoughts affect the MC?
They saw what we saw, and reacted. West was no longer our best option. A fine second ruck in the 11 season, but that is all.

Actually that's not what I've written.

What I have said - and will again - is the same. I believe it would have given us the best chance to negate Sandilands' influence and help us win the game. I definitely don't know that for sure. Exactly the same situation with Stanley this year, I think it would have given us the best chance to negate his influence and help us win the game (of course in this case we have evidence from Round 1 - when he did and it did).

Would have? No. Might have? Yes.

 

[Partridge]

Again, good points.
BUT- The Bomber years though gave us the appalling 08 GF loss, and the dismal 2010 finals series..
The fact that CS was able to turn that around with a weakened list that was already declared too old and slow in 2010 is a credit.

How would you compare it to 2017 or 2019? The form pattern was identical.

 

[dazbroncos]

Actually that's not what I've written.

What I have said - and will again - is the same. I believe it would have given us the best chance to negate Sandilands' influence and help us win the game. I definitely don't know that for sure. Exactly the same situation with Stanley this year, I think it would have given us the best chance to negate his influence and help us win the game (of course in this case we have evidence from Round 1 - when he did and it did).

Would have? No. Might have? Yes.

on this ive agreed with you since it happened.



Go Catters

 

[Vdubs]

How would you compare it to 2017 or 2019? The form pattern was identical.

We had a premiership list in 07 and 09 and 11. 08 and 10 suggest we underperformed.
Our list in 17, 18, 19 is not in my thinking at that level.
I could be wrong.
Many things need to go so right to win a flag, and losing 08 will always be the one that haunts me. Nothing else compares since that one.

 

[Vdubs]

Actually that's not what I've written.

What I have said - and will again - is the same. I believe it would have given us the best chance to negate Sandilands' influence and help us win the game. I definitely don't know that for sure. Exactly the same situation with Stanley this year, I think it would have given us the best chance to negate his influence and help us win the game (of course in this case we have evidence from Round 1 - when he did and it did).

Would have? No. Might have? Yes.

With most analyses of yours I agree, but West having any ability to negate 211 I believe is nonsense- 12 -13 cm shorter, and at best, he was only ever a number 2 ruck. I can't recall who else we had after Simpson went down, but that's why we were no chance in 13 to go all the way. You need at least ONE good #1 ruckman. We had none.

More argument for Stanley this year, yes.

 

[Biggy_Boy]

but West having any ability to negate 211 I believe is nonsense- 12 -13 cm shorter, and at best, he was only ever a number 2 ruck.

Previous year's elimination final West (our only real ruck) went 21 HOs to Sandi's 35. Geelong lost HOs by 13 and won clearances by 4.

QF 2013 they went with Blicavs and Vardy, who accrued 7 and 6 HOs respectively. Sandilands got 31, Clarke 19. Geelong lost HOs by 37 and clearances by 21.

 

[Tony Barber]

With most analyses of yours I agree, but West having any ability to negate 211 I believe is nonsense- 12 -13 cm shorter, and at best, he was only ever a number 2 ruck. I can't recall who else we had after Simpson went down, but that's why we were no chance in 13 to go all the way. You need at least ONE good #1 ruckman. We had none.

More argument for Stanley this year, yes.

My stance on that game has never changed.
It's not so much about who played against 211.

By not picking west we had to use walker as the forward.

 

[Vdubs]

My stance on that game has never changed.
It's not so much about who played against 211.

By not picking west we had to use walker as the forward.

We had many hybrids but no real rucks. Simpson was a loss.
People seem to forget the reason West was not selected. He had lost form and confidence.What happened 12m before was irrelevant.

 

[Vdubs]

Previous year's elimination final West (our only real ruck) went 21 HOs to Sandi's 35. Geelong lost HOs by 13 and won clearances by 4.

QF 2013 they went with Blicavs and Vardy, who accrued 7 and 6 HOs respectively. Sandilands got 31, Clarke 19. Geelong lost HOs by 37 and clearances by 21.

Explain why West was not selected. Most seem to ignore that his form and confidence were ordinary. What happened 12m before is irrelevant.

 

[cats_09]

We had many hybrids but no real rucks. Simpson was a loss.
People seem to forget the reason West was not selected. He had lost form and confidence.What happened 12m before was irrelevant.

I'd also say disinterest played a role

I watched him in the VFL gf against Hawthorn and was very disappointed in his performance - I know some would argue that Hawthorn players were also playing for a spot in the AFL GF side which gave them added incentive, but surely a premiership at any level should be incentive enough

I wasn't surprised when he found a new home that off-season and think it was the best option for all

 

[Tony Barber]

We had many hybrids but no real rucks. Simpson was a loss.
People seem to forget the reason West was not selected. He had lost form and confidence.What happened 12m before was irrelevant.

West hadn't lost form. You may recall I spoke to him at a VFL game about 3 weeks before the finals and asked him why he wasn't being picked.

He said they wanted him to get the ball more around the ground.
Nothing to do with his ruck work.

 

[Vdubs]

West hadn't lost form. You may recall I spoke to him at a VFL game about 3 weeks before the finals and asked him why he wasn't being picked.

He said they wanted him to get the ball more around the ground.
Nothing to do with his ruck work.

Go back to the NM game. End of story. Anyway, that's how it ended. Wonder why we keep talking about that game. Is there some feeling that his omission is relevant to Stanley's this year?