Roast The mental game

[catempire]

Great to get the win in the end but it's time we addressed the issue of Geelong's weak mental game that sees us time and time again dominated for periods of games. It's not talent, we can and have beaten everyone and anyone in the past few years. But you always know that a lapse isn't far away and it will cost us a game or worse, a final.

What on earth can be done about this? There's got to be a time when you call in the shrinks, surely.

 

[Bobby_]

Yes it is talent.
Our top 6 or 7 players are very good. These are players like Selwood, Tuohy, Taylor, Henderson, Dangerfield, Menzel, Hawkins but then it drops right away and we are left with players dropping in and out on a weekly basis.

The reason why North Melbourne nearly got us, they simply played to their strengths and weakness and they went away from this when they knew they had a chance of winning the game. They froze and it allowed Selwood, Taylor, Danger and these elite players to seize on the moment.

 

[GeelongFTW]

What colour was the couch?

 

[catempire]

Yes it is talent.

If it was talent we wouldn't win. It's clearly not.

 

[catempire]

What was it? 6 tackles in the first quarter? 14 in the first half?

That's application. Plain and simple.

 

[Bobby_]

If it was talent we wouldn't win. It's clearly not.

So you saying to me that if Blicavs was elite, not an inconsistent project player, Motlop was doing what Greene does every week, Stanley was not brilliant one week, back to Stanley of St Kilda the next, you are saying we would not have led that North Melbourne side at halftime?

As I said, it's certainly not mental because we saw this team do similar back in 2013 & 2014 because we were relying on elite talent such as Johnson, Selwood, Taylor, Enright, Kelly, Bartel to will us over the line in many, many close matches.
It's purely talent.

I reckon Melbourne beats us next week on the basis of that alone. They have more talent than us.

 

[catempire]

So you saying to me that if Blicavs was elite, not an inconsistent project player, Motlop was doing what Greene does every week, Stanley was not brilliant one week, back to Stanley of St Kilda the next, you are saying we would not have led that North Melbourne side at halftime?

As I said, it's certainly not mental because we saw this team do similar back in 2013 & 2014 because we were relying on elite talent such as Johnson, Selwood, Taylor, Enright, Kelly, Bartel to will us over the line in many, many close matches.
It's purely talent.

I reckon Melbourne beats us next week on the basis of that alone. They have more talent than us.

There's a huge contradiction staring you in the face. If the talent deficiency was asyou describe it we wouldn't have won today nor so many games in recent years.

 

[Stan The Caddy]

So you saying to me that if Blicavs was elite, not an inconsistent project player, Motlop was doing what Greene does every week, Stanley was not brilliant one week, back to Stanley of St Kilda the next, you are saying we would not have led that North Melbourne side at halftime?

As I said, it's certainly not mental because we saw this team do similar back in 2013 & 2014 because we were relying on elite talent such as Johnson, Selwood, Taylor, Enright, Kelly, Bartel to will us over the line in many, many close matches.
It's purely talent.

I reckon Melbourne beats us next week on the basis of that alone. They have more talent than us.

Bobby, you're talking crap.

 

[Stan The Caddy]

Great to get the win in the end but it's time we addressed the issue of Geelong's weak mental game that sees us time and time again dominated for periods of games. It's not talent, we can and have beaten everyone and anyone in the past few years. But you always know that a lapse isn't far away and it will cost us a game or worse, a final.

What on earth can be done about this? There's got to be a time when you call in the shrinks, surely.

Some of us did try to tell you this after the Sydney prelim.

 

[catempire]

Some of us did try to tell you this after the Sydney prelim.

I know. There was a big skill/talent/tactical problem that night too though. This post is mainly about those games against opposition we should be beating easily but because of lapses we don't.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Great to get the win in the end but it's time we addressed the issue of Geelong's weak mental game that sees us time and time again dominated for periods of games. It's not talent, we can and have beaten everyone and anyone in the past few years. But you always know that a lapse isn't far away and it will cost us a game or worse, a final.

What on earth can be done about this? There's got to be a time when you call in the shrinks, surely.

Yep. Hardly laid a tackle in the first half and we're essentially turnstiles for the North players. That last quarter we were manic, we got a sniff and went harder than we had all day. We need to have that mentality for at least 3.5 quarters minimum. Not 1.

 

[Stan The Caddy]

I know. There was a big skill/talent/tactical problem that night too though. This post is mainly about those games against opposition we should be beating easily but because of lapses we don't.

I agree to an extent but it's about practicing the right habits all of the time and not just some of the time. If a team chooses not to do this then they run the risk of these bad habits surfacing at the wrong time. It happens in all sports and if we don't clean this up right now then I'm fearful that we'll see a repeat of what happened last season when IMO we clearly had the talent to go further than what we did. It's all linked IMO.

 

[catempire]

I agree to an extent but it's about practicing the right habits all of the time and not just some of the time. If a team chooses not to do this then they run the risk of these bad habits surfacing at the wrong time. It happens in all sports and if we don't clean this up right now then I'm fearful that we'll see a repeat of what happened last season when IMO we clearly had the talent to go further than what we did. It's all linked IMO.

Absolutely agree. Hence the thread!

 

[winty]

What was it? 6 tackles in the first quarter? 14 in the first half?

That's application. Plain and simple.

Then I think we had 16 in the 3rd quarter and 21 in the last. You're spot on when you say it's all about application. All pre-season we heard how they've been working on their tackling, then dish up what they did in the first half.

Bluey McGrath was talking on K-Rock before the game and was recalling a game against Sydney when Ben Graham was due to play on Plugger and was pumping himself up all week and getting ready to play on the best goalkicker in the history of the game. Plugger ended up being a late withdrawal and when he heard about it, Benny was like "Awesome! Don't have to play on Plugger anymore!" Turns out he ended up playing on Troy Luff who kicked about 5 or 6 in a Sydney win. Wonder if Stanley in particular was in a similar mindset today after hearing Goldstein wouldn't be playing. Sure looked like it.

 

[Willo_]

So you saying to me that if Blicavs was elite, not an inconsistent project player, Motlop was doing what Greene does every week, Stanley was not brilliant one week, back to Stanley of St Kilda the next, you are saying we would not have led that North Melbourne side at halftime?

As I said, it's certainly not mental because we saw this team do similar back in 2013 & 2014 because we were relying on elite talent such as Johnson, Selwood, Taylor, Enright, Kelly, Bartel to will us over the line in many, many close matches.
It's purely talent.

I reckon Melbourne beats us next week on the basis of that alone. They have more talent than us.

I actually expect us to be more 'ready' next week mentally than this week and wouldn't surprise me to see us a completely different side

 

[iameviljez]

There's a huge contradiction staring you in the face. If the talent deficiency was asyou describe it we wouldn't have won today nor so many games in recent years.

I can't believe I'm saying this - I agree with Bobby. It's not the amount of talent that's the issue, it's the evenness of its application. Basically put, if we're reliant on our top eight or so to win us games of footy, the gap between best and worst is going to be huge because our fortunes rest of the performance of a few players.
Our best players (acc. to AFL.com.au) this week were: Dangerfield, Menzel, Selwood, Hawkins, Mackie, Tuohy. That will not surprise anybody whatsoever.

 

[Down at K Park]

Cause the players are not being held accountable for only turning up when they feel like it by CS. Just look at motlop last year, couldnt be bothered in some games but was never dropped. No incentive to stop it cause he was never going to be dropped so who cares right? Scott needs to grow some balls and make the hard calls. And not just a frindge player like cowan or lang.

 

[iameviljez]

Cause the players are not being held accountable for only turning up when they feel like it by CS. Just look at motlop last year, couldnt be bothered in some games but was never dropped. No incentive to stop it cause he was never going to be dropped so who cares right? Scott needs to grow some balls and make the hard calls. And not just a frindge player like cowan or lang.

I agree that we should have dropped him, but let's at least admit that he was shopped around like a cheap suit at the end of the year.

 

[Goggin Our Best]

I agree with Bobby - Geelongs got at the moment ( and im not complaining ) quite a few average/ordinary unproven players

Cowan Murdoch Lang Thurlow GHS Stanley Motlop Stewart

Thats 8 from yesterday - when Geelong had their great sides they didnt have one - 2008 GF David Wojinski got left out of a Grand Final team

Its chalk and cheese

And its also a very even competition

 

[Bobby_]

What was it? 6 tackles in the first quarter? 14 in the first half?

That's application. Plain and simple.

No, we had 13 tackles to halftime.
Only one player had more than 1 tackle and that was Murdoch (coincidentally added 1 more in the entire second half).

Selwood & Dangerfield had 12 tackles after halftime.
Motlop & Duncan had 7.
All the rest managed 2 or less so it was still primarily down to the two superstars who worked their butts off.

 

[Seeds]

If it was talent we wouldn't win. It's clearly not.

Maybe we won because nth are mentally soft.

 

[Partridge]

What was it? 6 tackles in the first quarter? 14 in the first half?

That's application. Plain and simple.

Application is a huge part of it. And contributing to that is a few players that know they'll never be dropped. You're never going to get the same level of desperation from guys in cruise control. Top of the list is Motlop, but he's not the only one. Blicavs, Cowan, Stanley even. Until that changes it's unlikely to be resolved. This board does mental gyrations to justify why poorly performing favourites can't be left out, instead of simply looking at which players deserve to be brought in.

 

[Ricketz]

I can't believe I'm saying this - I agree with Bobby. It's not the amount of talent that's the issue, it's the evenness of its application. Basically put, if we're reliant on our top eight or so to win us games of footy, the gap between best and worst is going to be huge because our fortunes rest of the performance of a few players.
Our best players (acc. to AFL.com.au) this week were: Dangerfield, Menzel, Selwood, Hawkins, Mackie, Tuohy. That will not surprise anybody whatsoever.

It shouldn't. Why should it?

 

[iameviljez]

It shouldn't. Why should it?

Because then effectively our performs rests on whether two players are playing well or not. If one or both are down, we're in trouble - conversely, if they are both up, we're usually flying. In our heyday, if Ablett or Bartel had a down day, it didn't have such a great effect on the side because there were so many others to step into that breach.

 

[Ricketz]

Because then effectively our performs rests on whether two players are playing well or not. If one or both are down, we're in trouble - conversely, if they are both up, we're usually flying. In our heyday, if Ablett or Bartel had a down day, it didn't have such a great effect on the side because there were so many others to step into that breach.

Nope, I still don't get it. We have (clearly) two best players, who would be (clearly) two best players in any side, and we don't want them in our best players every week? That sounds like crazy talk.

But skirting around the logic you are presenting, even suggesting that we relied on them alone to win is a fallacy. Whilst those two definitely featured, other critical moments were won by Tom Hawkins, Henderson, Horlin-Smith, Lang and Menzel, to name a few.