Tribalists vs Ideologists. How do we better understand each other

[Farmer2Goggin]

Great thought provoking post Seeds

Reason I'm a Cat for Life is certainly tribal - started as a 6 year old in 1962 being taken to games by my one eyed Cat supporting Pop.
Fell in love with the game and the players in hoops back then and have never looked back.
Stuck fat through the lean years , went to a lot of losing GF's but did witness the GOAT throughout his career. Was at the drought breaker in 2007 and cried my eyes out with sheer bliss.

I also love the game and can see that Footy can illustrate the value of loyalty, passion and hanging in there over time - sounds corny but there's a life lesson feel to the journey the Cats have given and continue to give to us.
Where we are at now is a classic example - do we get shitty and splinter as supporters or do we appreciate the Club is less than perfect and needs a reset just as it has at various times in the past.
You can both support the Club and be critical at the same time but I can't see a situation where I would switch Clubs , maybe take a break from the game but I'd still be a Cat in my heart.

 

[PhatBoy]

That’s probably the best post I’ve ever seen from Seeds and I appreciate it.

can I ask something of him and others who share a similar viewpoint to his:

it’s the end of 2011 and we have just won the flag, obviously no argument from anyone then that we wanted to keep the party rolling. Fast forward to 2013 and we are potentially a straight varcoe kick from another grand final and maybe a flag.

I think after that night a lot of us thought ‘well this group has wrung every last drop out of itself, we will probably fall back now.’ That was accentuated by a straight sets exit that would have been even more embarrassing if Hawkins hadn’t turned it on in the second half against North.

So I think by that stage every cats fan thought the time at the top was well and truly over.

can the people who were wanting us to change things up and maybe go to the draft, at least see the merit in the club TRYING to stay up the top?
I’m not proud that we have been unable to win - what is there to be proud of in NOT achieving something after all - but I am certainly very proud of the club that they’ve tried. They got to a spot where with the players we had we could no longer be a powerhouse. They had a fork in the road. Maybe the chose the wrong path - that’s fairly subjective and I get that we don’t all agree on it - but aren’t you at least respectful of the fact that the management, coaching staff and presumably the leadership group, said ‘no we aren’t going to accept this. We are going to do everything it takes to stay at the pointy end.’

I think it’s to be applauded and I actually felt the same about hawthorn who tried the same.

 

[Spazz Cat]

That’s probably the best post I’ve ever seen from Seeds and I appreciate it.

can I ask something of him and others who share a similar viewpoint to his:

it’s the end of 2011 and we have just won the flag, obviously no argument from anyone then that we wanted to keep the party rolling. Fast forward to 2013 and we are potentially a straight varcoe kick from another grand final and maybe a flag.

I think after that night a lot of us thought ‘well this group has wrung every last drop out of itself, we will probably fall back now.’ That was accentuated by a straight sets exit that would have been even more embarrassing if Hawkins hadn’t turned it on in the second half against North.

So I think by that stage every cats fan thought the time at the top was well and truly over.

can the people who were wanting us to change things up and maybe go to the draft, at least see the merit in the club TRYING to stay up the top?
I’m not proud that we have been unable to win - what is there to be proud of in NOT achieving something after all - but I am certainly very proud of the club that they’ve tried. They got to a spot where with the players we had we could no longer be a powerhouse. They had a fork in the road. Maybe the chose the wrong path - that’s fairly subjective and I get that we don’t all agree on it - but aren’t you at least respectful of the fact that the management, coaching staff and presumably the leadership group, said ‘no we aren’t going to accept this. We are going to do everything it takes to stay at the pointy end.’

I think it’s to be applauded and I actually felt the same about hawthorn who tried the same.

I can only speak for myself because I am old school and behind the times.
Not a huge American sports fan.
But I hate FA. I hated when we got Rivers to replace Scarlett. Not that I hated Rivers or didn't think he was good. But I liked the draft system.
And after this era is over FA is going to turn around on us and hurt us badly. Like we have hurt others.
I hated Carlton and how I heard they bought flags at the expense of us and the Dogs etc back in the day.
Then now we're Carlton.
I see the merit from a financial point though for sure. And we had to justify to the govt they should pay for our new stands.
So I see the merit.
And I agree we're good at it. Not that I've ever thought it would bring ultimate success.
But I agree we're excellent at it and probably better than any other club that would want to do it.
So yeah I see the merit somewhat and see the competence in applying it.

 

[Partridge]

can the people who were wanting us to change things up and maybe go to the draft, at least see the merit in the club TRYING to stay up the top?
I’m not proud that we have been unable to win - what is there to be proud of in NOT achieving something after all - but I am certainly very proud of the club that they’ve tried. They got to a spot where with the players we had we could no longer be a powerhouse. They had a fork in the road. Maybe the chose the wrong path - that’s fairly subjective and I get that we don’t all agree on it - but aren’t you at least respectful of the fact that the management, coaching staff and presumably the leadership group, said ‘no we aren’t going to accept this. We are going to do everything it takes to stay at the pointy end.’

I think it’s to be applauded and I actually felt the same about hawthorn who tried the same.

Yes. But it's not a simple yes or no. It's not about never bringing in mature age players (which I'm sure my words will be twisted to read because they have been many times); it's about the volume of them. Some trades were absolutely worth it. Dangerfield for sure. Henderson yes (although I think a first round pick was too much). Some were solid enough and have turned out to be solid - Tuohy a good example (although he's just about done now). But some were train wrecks from the very start and should never have been entertained - they're the ones that annoy people. Which goes right back to McIntosh, Clark, Scott Selwood, Gary Rohan, Jack Steven, and now Shaun Higgins. Should have been a firm no thanks to all of those. Selwood tried hard and it was never a question of endeavour, he'd simply had too many injuries. So not only do they get recruited - they all get senior games which means whichever youngsters you might want to develop aren't. Which is ok, as in case you missed it, there are no guarantees with young players.

It's not getting the odd mature pick that is the problem; it's doing that with clearly broken or players with major question marks, and playing them relentlessly in the senior team that is the main issue. We're never going to let a young player get through their first 40-50 crap to average to solid games anymore, because there's a 32-year-old we brought in that gets played instead. And they weren't recruited to play VFL, never forget that line either.

That's the most frustrating thing, far above simply a blanket "never bring in any mature ager" (incorrect although I'm proudly in the do it as little as possible camp) or "play all the kids" (a gross exaggeration as well).

 

[goyoucatters]

If there's a need to be categorised according to this criteria (which, of course, there is not), I would no doubt be labelled as a tribalist. Had a love for the club passed on to me from my Dad, who was drawn in to following the Cats after emigrating from the U.K. and winding up in the migrant camp at North Geelong. I've lived almost my entire life nearly 2,000 kilometres from Kardinia Park and yet the hoops have been my passion since some of my earliest days. Won't ever change, no matter how lamentable and irrelevant we might become over my years left on the planet.

Having said that, the idea that my so-called 'tribalism' renders me incapable of seeing the club's shortcomings at any point in time is complete nonsense and absolute reductionism. Even the strongest 'ideologist' on here could not have been more infuriated than I was watching our latest PF implosion. The GFC has gambled and lost with pursuing an unaltered course for so long. And I am as frustrated and irritated by that outcome as anyone here, I'm sure.

But it would be also true to say that my failure to truly embrace or understand the ideological fan's viewpoint will mean that I will still be here supporting the club, despite all the inevitable mistakes and missteps (however foreseeable) that the GFC makes in the future. I won't be blithely waving the horrific decisions through and shrugging my shoulders when we get it wrong. But I won't be contemplating whether I can continue to front up to support a club that's supposedly 'abandoned its values', either. After all, what does that even mean, after over 160 years of existence?

It's where ideologists become idealists for me, in imagining that any entity can exist for that long without supposedly abrogating many 'core principles' along the way. The pleasant (and erroneous) notion that we are somehow better than all the other clubs (by virtue of adherence to some mantras about football that other teams have chosen to jettison) is simply not backed by the facts. All clubs exist to win, and will do almost anything to achieve that aim. If we're honest about it (and less obnoxious about our self-perceived 'standing' in the game), we would acknowledge that we can only lay claim to being different rather than to any sense of actual cultural or moral superiority. I can just as easily reference all the years of being known as 'handbaggers' as I can those where we supposedly 'played the game as it should be played'.

I love when the club behaves well, performs well and achieves the ultimate. But I'd be the first to concede that every other club has the capacity to do exactly the same, rather than seeing that we're somehow not upholding our 'destiny' when we mess up, play poorly and find ourselves back in the pack.

It's miserable times like those (this latest PF debacle included) when my love for the club (despite all its wrinkles and 'issues') is actually at its 'best'. And I guess it's then that a label like 'tribalist' truly means something to someone like me.

 

[Heckler]

Firstly, everyone here wants the cats to succeed.
Many felt the Cats were tracking in the right direction in recent years.
Others understood we were carried on the backs of aging stars
While the rest of the team were good ordinary players at best.
Fundamentally the team was fragile and needed everyone played to their best.
The PF debacle shocked everyone as true extent of that fragility was exposed.
Resultant anger was understandable, from both the surprised and told you so's
Disagreement between Rebuilding and Not Over-Reacting is passionate.
Debate on delisting players, trading and coaching is on going.
The division between groups is subjective and frustrating.
Clearly the club has lost it's way. The fallout has seen good servants leave.
Many like Sheeds want to return to past principles of the Good Old Days.
Though I recall them fondly... I'm planted firmly in a bright future.

 

[Boronia67]

Yes lots of fans came across during the ablett/blught years.we may not of tasted ultimate success but the way the club approached the game was highly appealing.


as to the thompson years. We had a lot of dour defensive teams during that era (roos swans, worsfold eagles, the crowbots, clarkos clusters, lyon saints, the malthouse foward press and kick it to the boundary pies). Yet geelong played the game the right way. In some ways that geelong team saved the competiton by bringing back fast ball movement.

the fifties and sixties im told were similar as well. The reason we got the handball tag was cos of lou richards envy of our flashy fifties flags sides.

We did not win the 2008 and 2010 premiership because we played a game style that was too attacking.

I think most supporters want us to play the game style that gives us the best chance of winning. You can make an argument for moving the ball faster but we do not have the talent to move the ball as quick as we did back in 07-11. We would be turnover merchants.

Geelong through most of its history has attempted to attract established players. It was just more a case of mature age players not wanting to come to Geelong.

 

[Shai]

Nice post Sigmund Interesting enough to keep reading.

I would be firmly in the middle and no, I'm not a fence sitter! Love the club with a passion, that will never change but nor will I hesitate to post criticism either.

Most of all I try to view with an open and unbiased mind. Sometimes I'm guilty of posts deliberately seeking that in other posters, sometimes I'm worse. Did I mention I'm human and not a bot?

If you are truly seeking a balance, I'm all for it. After all every one of us love the club or we wouldn't be here and I despise the sh*t fights that continually appear.

"Minds are like parachutes. They only function when open."

 

[iameviljez]

We did not win the 2008 and 2010 premiership because we played a game style that was too attacking.

I think that's a gross oversimplification.

We didn't win the 2008 flag because absolutely everything went wrong on the one day that counted. Clarkson had the perfect game plan, we forgot to share the footy and kick straight, the likes of Dew, Rioli, Ellis and Sewell played out of their skins and the plan to sideline Scarlo worked a treat.

We didn't win in 2010 because the club had gone stale, and Collingwood was incredible.

 

[Partridge]

I think that's a gross oversimplification.

We didn't win the 2008 flag because absolutely everything went wrong on the one day that counted. Clarkson had the perfect game plan, we forgot to share the footy and kick straight, the likes of Dew, Rioli, Ellis and Sewell played out of their skins and the plan to sideline Scarlo worked a treat.

We didn't win in 2010 because the club had gone stale, and Collingwood was incredible.

I think there's a lot of mythology about that game. I maintain a lot went right for us - we won pretty much every metric that counted. Clearances, contested possessions, inside 50s, you name it. Your main point is rightly the one that killed us - we didn't convert. They did. I don't buy that they had this mystical plan that worked to perfection - there's no serious way Mitchell getting only 13 touches, or Franklin and Roughead only kicking 2 each was part of their master plan. They just absolutely did one thing right - converted their opportunities.

Even now, they hype of Rioli still remains - he had 10 touches, kicked 2, and laid 3 tackles. Apparently he was great. Rooke had 13 touches, kicked 2, and laid 7 tackles. Never mentioned.

 

[goyoucatters]

I think there's a lot of mythology about that game. I maintain a lot went right for us - we won pretty much every metric that counted. Clearances, contested possessions, inside 50s, you name it. Your main point is rightly the one that killed us - we didn't convert. They did. I don't buy that they had this mystical plan that worked to perfection - there's no serious way Mitchell getting only 13 touches, or Franklin and Roughead only kicking 2 each was part of their master plan. They just absolutely did one thing right - converted their opportunities.

Even now, they hype of Rioli still remains - he had 10 touches, kicked 2, and laid 3 tackles. Apparently he was great. Rooke had 13 touches, kicked 2, and laid 7 tackles. Never mentioned.

Bad kicking is bad football. End of story.

 

[Seeds]

Bad kicking is bad football. End of story.

Bad kicking is bad footy. But bad kicking often isnt good footy by your opponent. For them your bad kicking is just good luck.

 

[Seeds]

Firstly, everyone here wants the cats to succeed.
Many felt the Cats were tracking in the right direction in recent years.
Others understood we were carried on the backs of aging stars
While the rest of the team were good ordinary players at best.
Fundamentally the team was fragile and needed everyone played to their best.
The PF debacle shocked everyone as true extent of that fragility was exposed.
Resultant anger was understandable, from both the surprised and told you so's
Disagreement between Rebuilding and Not Over-Reacting is passionate.
Debate on delisting players, trading and coaching is on going.
The division between groups is subjective and frustrating.
Clearly the club has lost it's way. The fallout has seen good servants leave.
Many like Sheeds want to return to past principles of the Good Old Days.
Though I recall them fondly... I'm planted firmly in a bright future.

The two teams about to play off in the grand final play attacking football. Certainly much more so then geelong. The current, past and future of success is the same.

 

[Sire of Claude]

Just stumbled on this thread and I like it - well started Seeds.

I'm not sure which i am but I do know that my old man, who was a Fitzroy man, was pissed off at my apostasy. My first engagement with the club was listening to us lose a final in 53 or 54.

I was 16 when I went to the G to see us win and never imagined I'd be waiting another 44 years. I have remained passionate ever since through some very long and rather depressing eras when we were simply not good enough....

... partly because the club was a basket case. Gary Sidebottom missing the bus comes to mind. The loss of Williams and the other 2 blokes to Sydney arguably cost us 2 flags.

I'm not sure that we have always been an exciting team that plays so-called attacking football; that reputation derives from the great 52/53 team and was justified in Bomber's era, particularly after he told the team "we're going up the guts" (see Scott Gullan's very poorly edited book about the 2007 flag).

Now for the present day. I'm not a Scott fan for this reason. In several finals since our last flag we have been done by quarter time. Now the less gifted team often hangs in for a half or even 3/4 of a game, through guts and determination, sound coaching etc etc. But we were blown out of the water in 25 minutes.

In other words Scott has many times failed to prepare the team to be competitive for even a quarter of football!

Our game style is part of the problem: maybe that makes me an ideological. Here is an instance: most of the other teams have managed to exploit the new kicking in rule. But our players spend 5 minutes thinking about it; nor do they run their full measure. only in desperation we try a long bomb down the centre a la Tuohy and it usually fails. Why? Because it's not in the coaching plan and the players up the field are not expecting it.

We play 3 or 4 slashing quarters every year, convincing ourselves that "our best can beat anybody" ha ha ha. Other wise we stick to the boundary like glue and it is mega tedious - and to a degree embarrassing - to watch. Ideological?

Having seen it all before i think it likely I'll be 6 feet under before we win another flag; I've seen it all before. It seems the young players with any talent are leaving, while only Jenkin of the over-30 brigade has gone. Our first pick is 30!

Accordingly i want to see radical change and I'm prepared to spend some time in the cellar if it allows us to rebuild in to a force again - whether or not it costs us a few member ships. So there.

 

[Wojcinski]

I dunno what I am, I've never lived in Geelong and only follow the Cats because my best mate in primary school did. But once you're in, you're in.

 

[Seeds]

Just stumbled on this thread and I like it - well started Seeds.

I'm not sure which i am but I do know that my old man, who was a Fitzroy man, was pissed off at my apostasy. My first engagement with the club was listening to us lose a final in 53 or 54.

I was 16 when I went to the G to see us win and never imagined I'd be waiting another 44 years. I have remained passionate ever since through some very long and rather depressing eras when we were simply not good enough....

... partly because the club was a basket case. Gary Sidebottom missing the bus comes to mind. The loss of Williams and the other 2 blokes to Sydney arguably cost us 2 flags.

I'm not sure that we have always been an exciting team that plays so-called attacking football; that reputation derives from the great 52/53 team and was justified in Bomber's era, particularly after he told the team "we're going up the guts" (see Scott Gullan's very poorly edited book about the 2007 flag).

Now for the present day. I'm not a Scott fan for this reason. In several finals since our last flag we have been done by quarter time. Now the less gifted team often hangs in for a half or even 3/4 of a game, through guts and determination, sound coaching etc etc. But we were blown out of the water in 25 minutes.

In other words Scott has many times failed to prepare the team to be competitive for even a quarter of football!

Our game style is part of the problem: maybe that makes me an ideological. Here is an instance: most of the other teams have managed to exploit the new kicking in rule. But our players spend 5 minutes thinking about it; nor do they run their full measure. only in desperation we try a long bomb down the centre a la Tuohy and it usually fails. Why? Because it's not in the coaching plan and the players up the field are not expecting it.

We play 3 or 4 slashing quarters every year, convincing ourselves that "our best can beat anybody" ha ha ha. Other wise we stick to the boundary like glue and it is mega tedious - and to a degree embarrassing - to watch. Ideological?

Having seen it all before i think it likely I'll be 6 feet under before we win another flag; I've seen it all before. It seems the young players with any talent are leaving, while only Jenkin of the over-30 brigade has gone. Our first pick is 30!

Accordingly i want to see radical change and I'm prepared to spend some time in the cellar if it allows us to rebuild in to a force again - whether or not it costs us a few member ships. So there.

Great post

 

[Seeds]

We did not win the 2008 and 2010 premiership because we played a game style that was too attacking.

I think most supporters want us to play the game style that gives us the best chance of winning. You can make an argument for moving the ball faster but we do not have the talent to move the ball as quick as we did back in 07-11. We would be turnover merchants.

Geelong through most of its history has attempted to attract established players. It was just more a case of mature age players not wanting to come to Geelong.

We should of been 6 goals up at half time in 2008 and game over if it wasnt for a bad day goal kicking wise.

as for 2010 our game plan was wrong to deal with the foward press. It wasnt about it being to attacking. We were too focused on running the ball out with handball rather then kicking the ball dowm the line quickly. Scott adopted a more direct down the line game plan next year in 2011 to beat the foward press. It was not a defensive game plan. It was just as attacking but in a more conventional way. We racked up a couple of massive 150 plus point wins that season and beat the pies by over 100 points too With some incredibly exciting attacking football.

 

[Boronia67]

We should of been 6 goals up at half time in 2008 and game over if it wasnt for a bad day goal kicking wise.

as for 2010 our game plan was wrong to deal with the foward press. It wasnt about it being to attacking. We were too focused on running the ball out with handball rather then kicking the ball dowm the line quickly. Scott adopted a more direct down the line game plan next year in 2011 to beat the foward press. It was not a defensive game plan. It was just as attacking but in a more conventional way. We racked up a couple of massive 150 plus point wins that season and beat the pies by over 100 points too With some sincredibly exciting attacking football.

Geelong didn't use the corridor or play on as often in 2011 as 2010. By any definition this is less attacking.

Do you want Geelong to priorities attacking exciting football or football that gives them the best chance of winning ?

My view is we have a number of players especially in our back half who would turn the ball over too often for an attacking game plan.

 

[CabWesty]

It's a good post. I probably fall somewhere in the middle.

Lived just out of Geelong when I got to the age of picking a team to support in the mid 70s, so it made sense to support the Cats.
Weathered the trials of the 80s and 90s with a team that should have won at least one premiership.

I do want to be entertained. I love to see the quick ball movement that ends with a lace out delivery to a chest mark in the forward 50 (whether that's us, or another team - but I really want it to be us)!

But I don't want to spend my life b*tching about the umpiring (for a game with this big a budget they should be able to get it right more). Nor do I want to spend my weekend micro-analysing who should have swung onto their left instead of giving off a handball. There's too much other stuff going on in my life to do that.

We've been really spoiled over the last 15 years. Selwood and Hawkins are the last vestiges of the 2007 crop (and only Joel played the 2007 GF). Only Mitch Duncan adds to that from the 2011 GF - everyone else from that era is gone.

I hope we get through the next 5 years without falling into the basement, but I hope we can get our younger Cats playing the Geelong way (whatever that means) and get back toward the top end again.

(I like these sorts of threads. Gives us a chance to be a bit more philosophical and thoughtful without getting up in each other's faces.)

Edit: I've said elsewhere, there should be a lot of soul searching over the summer. I think that is starting in that some of the coaching staff are moving on, the delistings are commencing (though I'd have hoped we could have kept Kreuger). I guess we'll see what happens over the next few months.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Great post Seeds. I’m sure as you elude to there are nuances but it seems a pretty accurate summation.

One observation of your “tribalist” group is that they frustratingly accept everything that the club does. It’s almost sect like worshipping. And if decisions are made that draw the ire of the “ideologists” they are quickly shut down with “I’m sure Scott would know more than you blah blah”. The tribalists rarely if ever question any decision or direction the club is taking.

I’m sure they are also more scammed than the ideologists in life. Sitting down at home wondering why the $900 penis enlarger they bought from an anonymous text hasn’t arrived. Gullible fxxks that they are. I’ve got no need to understand them any better.

Translation:

Those that are 'happy clappers' (of which there are very few among 60k members who qualify) are the problem and those that critique the club/players on various issues (aka 99% of the fanbase) are burdened with putting up with this non-existent sub group.


"The tribalists rarely if ever question any decision or direction the club is taking."
This is about as accurate (not at all) as making the inverse statement. The % of the Geelong fanbase that fall hardcore into either category would be less than 1%. Everyone praises something, and everyone criticises something else with this club.

 

[Seeds]

Geelong didn't use the corridor or play on as often in 2011 as 2010. By any definition this is less attacking.

Do you want Geelong to priorities attacking exciting football or football that gives them the best chance of winning ?

My view is we have a number of players especially in our back half who would turn the ball over too often for an attacking game plan.

Yes they did. maybe go watch some of those games again.

 

[Sticksman]

My view is we have a number of players especially in our back half who would turn the ball over too often for an attacking game plan.

I think our highly defensive style results in more errors than would an attacking style.

 

[Boronia67]

Yes they did. maybe go watch some of those games again.

No they did not play on at all cost up the middle of the ground in 2011 like they did in 2010. This is why we beat Collingwood in the the 2011 Grand final by 38 points and trailed them by 80 points in the 2010 preliminary final.