Tim Lane on Underachievers

[_Me_]

http://www.backpagelead.com.au/afl/2591-2010-afl-news-was-geelong-a-great-underachiever

 

[mrpusskins]

Don't rate his opinion - sanctamonious prick in my book.

How about he compares us to the Saints? Were rated a more talented list than ours back in 2003 and have nothing to show for it other than a pre-season flag or two. I wonder whether Ross Lyon agrees with him that Geelong underachieved?

I love his stat regarding our success in finals matches since 2008. Perhaps he could also have represented it that up until this year we had won 8 of our previous 9 finals.

 

[burto]

Tim Lane is one of the biggest tools in the game. Cannot stand the way he talks and writes in that Shakespearean tone like he is some sort of gift to the world.

One thing he is forgetting is that we weren't the best team in either 2009 or 2010. St Kilda and Collingwood were, respectively. Two years of dominance in 2007 and 2008 for two flags. Will take that thankyou ********.

 

[SJ]

What an awful piece. I was ready for him to argue one way or the other - or both - and come to a conclusion.

Buit it took Lane until his fifth paragraph to even ask the question, then he compared Geelong to other successful eras (you can certainly not judge an underachiever by comparison to others - surely it must be done against themselves), alluded to a couple of finals wins as lucky (I wonder if St Kilda's 2010 premiership will be lucky given the qualifying final, should they win) and basically concluded that Geelong weren't perfect.

If Geelong's four top four finishes for two minor premierships and two flags is an underachievement, then I'd hate to hear how the St Kilda (2004-2009) and Western Bulldogs (2006-2010) are rated. Not to mention Essendon's three minor premierships for one flag (1999-2001) and Port Adelaide likewise (2002-2004).

 

[Beth]

What do you expect from a bitter Carlton dipstick. Never liked him since he decided he was too ethical to call Collingwood games with Eddie, deaset flog.

 

[bulletproof]

This guy is really starting to get to me now. We won a Grand Final by 119 points, people look back now and say we played weak opposition but that side had numerous Premiership players and won it's prelim by more than a 100 points.

That achievement alone makes us great. The second one was one of the best matches of all time.

 

[johnnystav]

This guy is really starting to get to me now. We won a Grand Final by 119 points, people look back now and say we played weak opposition but that side had numerous Premiership players and won it's prelim by more than a 100 points.

That achievement alone makes us great. The second one was one of the best matches of all time.

WAIT...port only beat north by 90 something now i see where everyone is coming from obviously the opposition was weak

 

[STC]

Perhaps we could have won more, but they also could have won less - we could have lost in 2009, just as easily as we could have failed to reach the GF in 2007.

At the start of our charge up the ladder was round 22, 2003 when Geelong and St Kilda, the teams of the future, went head to head. The Saints were favourites that day and the Herald Sun ran a front page of the Sports liftout article that day, "St Kilda has won just one flag in their history. Over the next 5 years, they will win another 2, and this is the man to take them to it" - with Grant Thomas of course on the front page. Geelong won that day and until 2010, they beat St Kilda every year, twice in finals. They well and truly won the battle of the young Victorian teams. On Saturday, we will learn if this St Kilda era was wasted entirely. But a team that featured such an imposing group of youngsters and veterans, 5 years later, has yet to win its first. That seems like underachievement more than a team winning two flags in 3 years.

In 2004 and 2005, they both featured heavily in September - 3rd and 4th and then 4th and 5th respectively. In 2006, both dropped, the Cats out of the 8 and the Saints to lose an elimination final. In 2007, Geelong rose up and St Kilda fell into the bottom 8 under a new coach. The rest, as they say, is history. Until 2009, the two did not both fulfil their potential. But still, only one is a premiership side.

Also on the rise with those two, albeit coming up a few years later, were the Bulldogs, who first announced themselves as an excitement machine in 2005, when they won 5 of their last 7 games to finish just outside the 8 by half a game. From 2006-2010, like the Saints, they finished in the top 4 a few times, missed the finals in 07 but despite all their promise, couldn't deliver a flag.

History is littered with great teams that could never win a flag. Similar are those that did win a flag, but could have and should have won more (Essendon of 99-01 comes to mind). Geelong is neither of those - and it is a testament to how good they have been over the last 4 years, that people are dissatisfied with two premierships. Many would trade places in a heartbeat.

 

[CFC16]

http://www.backpagelead.com.au/afl/2591-2010-afl-news-was-geelong-a-great-underachiever

Tim Lane = jealously

 

[Boxhead_31]

Move over Robert Walls we have a new biggest flog and his name is Tim

"Robert Wall's day's of domination are over"

The king is dead long live the King

 

[jimmy.h]

What an awful piece. I was ready for him to argue one way or the other - or both - and come to a conclusion.

Buit it took Lane until his fifth paragraph to even ask the question, then he compared Geelong to other successful eras (you can certainly not judge an underachiever by comparison to others - surely it must be done against themselves), alluded to a couple of finals wins as lucky (I wonder if St Kilda's 2010 premiership will be lucky given the qualifying final, should they win) and basically concluded that Geelong weren't perfect.

If Geelong's four top four finishes for two minor premierships and two flags is an underachievement, then I'd hate to hear how the St Kilda (2004-2009) and Western Bulldogs (2006-2010) are rated. Not to mention Essendon's three minor premierships for one flag (1999-2001) and Port Adelaide likewise (2002-2004).

This.

Since the start of the true national competition (or the end or Hawthorn;s 1980s dominance whichever you'd rather) there have been 4 teams to have won dual premierships (West Coast 92/94, Adelaide 97/98, North 96/99 and Geelong 07/09) and one side to win three (Brisbane).

Brisbane were able to build and keep together a great side on the back of an AFL supported massive salary cap concession making it hard for 'regular' sides to match their feat. Of the teams to have won dual flags, three also lost GFs (WC 91, North 98, Geelong 08) and all lost the GF having been minor premier that season. Take out the home and away record and Geelong 07-10 looks awfully similar to WC 91-94 and North 96-99, hard to say we underachieved compared to those sides.

Essendon's 2000 side is considered by many to be one of the best and is undoubtedly one of the most dominant sides in history, yet they were unable to win flags in either the years before or after. Port twice won minor premierships and failed to make the GF (and went out in straight sets finishing third). Then there are the teams who failed to win a single flag (Geelong 89-95, Dogs 97-99, St Kilda 04-?). To look through the last 20 years and conclude this Geelong side have underachieved in disingenuous. We simply lost a GF we should have won (but won one we should have lost).Over the four years we finished top 4 3 times, minor premier twice, played in 3 GFs and won 2.

Geelong 2007-2010 won't compare to Hawthorn in the 80s or Melbourne in the 50s but I'd be very surprised if any modern side will. Sure I'd rather we had pulled out a third but it's very, very difficult to look back and begrudge this Geelong side all that much.

 

[thejester]

Question is worth asking but I don't think he does a great job of arguing it. Basic problem IMO with the argument is that out of all the examples he uses, only one - Brisbane - has existed within the same system of 'AFL socialism', with the draft and salary cap ensuring a premiership cycle; and Brisbane had an expanded salary cap (although I don't think that really is the difference in this case). If you look at it that way, I don't think we underachieved at all. In the last decade, Collingwood and St Kilda have nothing to show for grand final appearances (two and one respectively) and multiple prelims each. Sydney and WCE went at 50%, for one flag each. Port in a similar boat. Essendon, much the same. Dogs don't even have a GF appearance, let alone a flag. All those examples would suggest that home and away dominance does not translate into success in September and that, by Lane's definition, underachieving is the norm even for premiership sides - which would make his definition an oxymoron.

 

[bulletproof]

SJ, that quote in your sig, is that from an article? I could not find it on the Addy site. I am fond of his written work I must say.

 

[SJ]

SJ, that quote in your sig, is that from an article? I could not find it on the Addy site. I am fond of his written work I must say.

http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/article/2010/09/20/211851_geelong_sports.html

 

[RegHickeyStand]

For me this pales into insignificance compared to the crass question Tim Lane made to Jim Stynes on Brownlow night.

In the Jim Stynes special there is and interview with his wife and she admits she thinks this cancer will eventually kill Jim. During the Brownlow night interview on the podium, Tim Lane reminds Jim Stynes of this comment by his wife Samantha, and how does hearing that affect him. Jim is a little taken aback but quickly regains his composure and talks about how to cope with black thoughts in general. The camera sweeps to the Stynes' table and obviously there is concern on the faces of Samatha and their daughter and I can't help but think Samantha must have absolutely cringed at Lane bringing this up at that moment in front of everyone. I was watching it with my family and we all cringed. I think he was trying to be hard hitting, or controversial, or something.

Among other things, Lane must have the emotional IQ of an gnat. Pompous twit.

 

[TheRealComptroller]

This guy is really starting to get to me now. We won a Grand Final by 119 points, people look back now and say we played weak opposition but that side had numerous Premiership players and won it's prelim by more than a 100 points.

Hindsight has changed everybody's perception of Port in 2007.

They are the only side to beat the Cats at KP (although missing Jimmy B, Ling and Sel) since May 2007.

FFS Tim Lane confidently tipped Port to win the 2007 GF.

I get the feeling he's been hanging out to write this article for 3 years.

I told you in 2007 they weren't any good but you wouldn't listen!

I've always detected some GFC hatred from Lane for 10+ years. In the mid '90s the issue of Tasmania having a team was being discussed and I couldn't believe it when he mentioned that there were X number of Tasmanian players in the AFL and there weren't that many from Geelong so thus Tasmania was more/as deserving of a team. I was totally bewildered; FFS I'm guessing there are more Tasmanian players than there are players from the suburb of Carlton too Tim.

Tim Lane = genteel troll.

Question is worth asking but I don't think he does a great job of arguing it. Basic problem IMO with the argument is that out of all the examples he uses, only one - Brisbane - has existed within the same system of 'AFL socialism', with the draft and salary cap ensuring a premiership cycle; and Brisbane had an expanded salary cap (although I don't think that really is the difference in this case). If you look at it that way, I don't think we underachieved at all.

FWIW Brisbane's list wasn't built without unfair advantages IMO.

Two of their best players (Voss and Akermanis) were zoned to them and were unavailable to the rest of the league.

 

[InnocentBystandr]

For me this pales into insignificance compared to the crass question Tim Lane made to Jim Stynes on Brownlow night.

Thanks Reg, didn't get to see that as I'm OS at the moment. As much as Tim Lane's comments about Geelong are a repocharge to justify his gaff of round 20 (?), his comments to Jim Stynes is just ludicrous (I hope his TV network is fielding complaints and gives him a rocket!)

It's amazing how prescient Gerard Whateley's article was (the one SJ quotes from) as it was written before Lane's pulp but directly refutes it! (Proud he's a fellow Geelong supporter!)

 

[Gavin Excell]

The loss to Hawks was horrible but had they won 2008, I doubt Cats would have had it in them to win 2009

Geelong was not the dominant force in 2009 - the flag won made up for 2008

2 from 3 is solid return

2 from 3 (given I'd never think I'd see a cats premeiship) is amazing.

Dont let insignificant journlsits with chips on their shoulder (eg 2 years staight choking Carlton finals exits) detract from that

 

[David the Cat]

I read Lane's article as being more of an effort at self justification and a defence for his much quoted gaffe in the Cats 101 point demolition of the Bulldogs. He copped so much ridicule, and derisory ribbing from his fellow commentators that his ego couldn't take it. The Cats loss allowed him to say..." see, I was right" ... even though in the context of the game he was commentating, it was a monumental blunder. And one he deserved to cop a bucketful of criticism about.

His " see I told you so" efforts of late show him to be weak...taking a serious stance and taking aim at Geelong rather than making a joke of it and looking objectively at the subject of his article.

Lane's stature as a football journalist is sinking fast IMO. Wouldn't be surprised to see him shifted aside before too long.

 

[Catman]

He's losing what respect I had for him quickly, which wasn't much to start with I might add.

He continued to fire off cheap shots at us last Friday and in particular at Pods, saying amongst other things he was found out again on the big stage as not up to it. Not only were we comprehensively belted, with few winners at all, to bag our best key forward when he was was starved of any service was in poor taste and to me, the words of someone sadly and childishly revelling in our demise, taking aim at an easy target.

Can only hope he's left in Delhi after the Commonwealth Games end.

 

[Boxhead_31]

Just watching the 2009 GF again.
It is unbelievable how much Lane is going for the Saints in that game and the amount of shot's he takes at our game style and players is off the wall.
He is now firmly in the Robert Walls camp as a tool who's opinion means less to me than the fecal matter that I flush after a few cups of coffee and a bran muffin

 

[OldStyle2007]

It's not as bad as that nasty, spiteful article he wrote after the PF loss

But how can he say "Of their last seven finals over three seasons, beginning with that fateful 2008 match against the Hawks, Geelong won four and lost three." ??

It's stupid. In the 2007 finals we won 3/3; 2008 2/3; 2009 3/3. And obviously it was 1/3 this year

So in making his point about how we went 4-3 over last 7 finals matches he skips over the fact we were perfect in 2009 finals series

 

[Cheshire Cat]

The loss to Hawks was horrible but had they won 2008, I doubt Cats would have had it in them to win 2009

Geelong was not the dominant force in 2009 - the flag won made up for 2008

2 from 3 is solid return

2 from 3 (given I'd never think I'd see a cats premeiship) is amazing.

Dont let insignificant journlsits with chips on their shoulder (eg 2 years staight choking Carlton finals exits) detract from that

Hehe. And I agree with the rest.

If there is one word that had dogged the Geelong Footy Club in our existence is the word 'underachievers'. I dont think any Geelong supporter, if not, anyone who knows football, could apply that tag to the current Geelong team. As you say, 2 flags in 3 years. That is amazing. Sure, it is not 3 flags a la the Brisbane Lions - our winning percentage is better, they won more flags...in no way does that detract from the achievements of this group.

I think it can be accepted in hindsight that we choked in 2008. Whilst Hawthorn then were twice as good as Hawthorn now, clearly had we taken our chances we'd have won that game. 2009 was redemption in every sense of the word...down and out, late in the season, late in the Grand final, and we still won - did the Brisbane Lions ever come behind at 3/4 time against a team that had won 22-2? When Bomber Thompson said that the 3/4 huddle that if we won if would be one of the great victories, he was spot on. St Kilda of 2009 were a powerhouse - it was this flag in conjunction with one of the most dominant displays in a Grand Final that make this team great, they achieved what they deserved.

Viewed in isolation - Geelong of 2008 were underachievers. Perhaps being so convincingly flogged in the prelim by Collingwood at least demonstrated that this group is spent, rather than if we had lost a close one and wondered what if?

As a Geelong supporter I could not be prouder of the achievements of this team. The history books will show 2007, 2009 premiers - they wont show some silly little column from someone who we all know has a vehement Geelong agenda - I almost hope Collingwood get up this weekend just to rile him further!

 

[RegHickeyStand]

Under-achievers:

Geelong V Saints.


You decide, Timmy.

 

[Barabbas]

Geelong was the best team 2 years out of four, and won 2 premierships - we lost one we shouldn't have and won one we shouldn't have. I wouldn't call that under achieving at all.

Saints, and Pies have been roundabout top 4 over the same period, and have one and zero cups to show. But if I had to tar someone with that brush it's gotta be Hawthorn, how they managed to turn a young bold premiership team into an also-ran is beyond me.