Opinion Which is it? Underperforming or results true to ability?

[Vdubs]

Id argue , depending on results at the end of the year , that those type of wins can contribute to a miss reading of where we really are. KP appears to hide our deficiencies and the home ground advantage can get us across the line. Its why I'm not overly enamoured with the result or over distraught with it. Its just another 4 points that we get to add to our tally to get us to the finals. Its when we play at the MCG that I want to see us playing with raw jaw dropping power , we play Hawks and Pies there.. and considering their ladder position , if we are a serious finals contender we should squash them like snails under foot.

That was the point of that post.
Is 4 points the be all and end all?
Every match is where we are at.

 

[Benny78]

That was the point of that post.
Is 4 points the be all and end all?
Every match is where we are at.

KOLOKOTRONIS

 

[Ray Donovan]

Their three losses were to the Crows, Giants and Eagles. They've definitely played some good teams but like the Crows they inflate their percentage by absolutely pumping teams when they have the advantage, especially weak teams.

Really is that how percentage works....... Stupid teams padding their own percentage

 

[Landgraft]

Really is that how percentage works....... Stupid teams padding their own percentage

If you got it flaunt it, I just don't think that the ability to dismantle a weak team correlates to anything else - the Crows last year were a really good example of that, flogging bottom teams but barely winning any games against other top teams.

 

[Ray Donovan]

If you got it flaunt it, I just don't think that the ability to dismantle a weak team correlates to anything else - the Crows last year were a really good example of that, flogging bottom teams but barely winning any games against other top teams.

They were an upcoming side last season building lost there best player in dangerfield. They started the season 4-4.

So the above is just hogwash they knocked off the swans geelong couldnt do that!

They beat sydney, GWS, North, WC

Lost to hawthorn by 3

Lost to geelong twice and western bulldogs

It's like your using one example against brisbane to mount an argument!
I've been through the draw it reads the same as any side in the top 4. Look how close the ladder was rd 22

These three wins were there biggest

Belting brisbane by 138
Ess 82
St kilda 88

Geelong played essendon and brisbane (4 times) !!!!

belted gold coast by 120 and melbourne by 111. And we lost to st kilda

Better teams are going to win games by margins it's what has happened in the AFL since i can remember.

Rd 22 ladder

 

[Landgraft]

They were an upcoming side last season building lost there best player in dangerfield. They started the season 4-4.

So the above is just hogwash they knocked off the swans geelong couldnt do that!

They beat sydney, GWS, North, WC

Lost to hawthorn by 3

Lost to geelong twice and western bulldogs

It's like your using one example against brisbane to mount an argument!
I've been through the draw it reads the same as any side in the top 4. Look how close the ladder was rd 22

These three wins were there biggest

Belting brisbane by 138
Ess 82
St kilda 88

Geelong played essendon and brisbane (4 times) !!!!

belted gold coast by 120 and melbourne by 111. And we lost to st kilda

Better teams are going to win games by margins it's what has happened in the AFL since i can remember.

Rd 22 ladder

You are incredibly excited about an average team from last year for some reason. I guess they do look marginally better in a year when everyone else has taken a step backwards.

Yay for them and you I guess?

 

[Ray Donovan]

You are incredibly excited about an average team from last year for some reason. I guess they do look marginally better in a year when everyone else has taken a step backwards.

Yay for them and you I guess?

Just pointing out you talking rubbish

 

[Landgraft]

Just pointing out you talking rubbish

My dearest pot, are you familiar with the kettle?

My point was that percentage does not correlate to performance against good opposition in big games. Hard to see how you could think they weren't big time chokers last year outside of a few games against North on the slide down and a few good games in the middle of the year.

 

[Ray Donovan]

My dearest pot, are you familiar with the kettle?

My point was that percentage does not correlate to performance against good opposition in big games. Hard to see how you could think they weren't big time chokers last year outside of a few games against North on the slide down and a few good games in the middle of the year.

Oh thats your point got it.
So we can cling to the regular season results when it helps our point. Then disregard it in the finals gotcha

Because they got knocked out of the finals by sydney in sydney gee what a shock!

 

[Landgraft]

Oh thats your point got it.
So we can cling to the regular season results when it helps our point. Then disregard it in the finals gotcha

Because they got knocked out of the finals by sydney in sydney gee what a shock!

No, it's just good to contextualise games to better understand the situations in which a team played better/worse. Seems like you were spoiling for a fight but I'm just not seeing the point, unless you believe that percentage gained against weak teams is a good predictor of success - personally I don't buy into it like that, but you can do whatever you want.

 

[Ray Donovan]

If you got it flaunt it, I just don't think that the ability to dismantle a weak team correlates to anything else - the Crows last year were a really good example of that, flogging bottom teams but barely winning any games against other top teams.

I never said anything about percentage making a difference before any game. I made one sarcastic comment about percentage then i replied to your comment. Then you pranced around for a bit and lobbed back to it. Everybody knows percentage makes zero difference going into a game no percentage in finals when it counts.

Now your onto contexualise when i actually used proper results from last season to debate a point all of a sudden i need to contexualise it to pad against the actual results.

# big time chokers another quote from you so it's fair to say you went off point then back to percentage at the end .

I debated the argument they didnt knock off any good teams they beat 1 prelim and 1 grand finalists throughout the year. For a 5th ranked side by the end it's not horrible.

I don't think adelaide this season are anything more than a top 4 side nothing special. Gws are an injury ward, western bulldogs and sydney have been hammered by injuries too and poor form plays a part of course regardless of ladder right now if those sides get full strength which may not happen they will be the teams to beat.

 

[Landgraft]

I never said anything about percentage making a difference before any game. I made one sarcastic comment about percentage then i replied to your comment. Then you pranced around for a bit and lobbed back to it. Everybody knows percentage makes zero difference going into a game no percentage in finals when it counts.

Now your onto contexualise when i actually used proper results from last season to debate a point all of a sudden i need to contexualise it to pad against the actual results.

# big time chokers another quote from you so it's fair to say you went off point then back to percentage at the end .

I debated the argument they didnt knock off any good teams they beat 1 prelim and 1 grand finalists throughout the year. For a 5th ranked side by the end it's not horrible.

I don't think adelaide this season are anything more than a top 4 side nothing special. Gws are an injury ward, western bulldogs and sydney have been hammered by injuries too and poor form plays a part of course regardless of ladder right now if those sides get full strength which may not happen they will be the teams to beat.

Maybe I misinterpreted you rating the Crows, if so I apologise. Nobody should be accused of something so reprehensible if undeserved.

Back to your point I don't see the inconsistency you're alluding to. I think percentage isn't necessarily indicative of a teams quality and that the Crows last year are a good example when you look at how they struggled in the big games. Being chokers or floppers or however you prefer to describe being down on expected form is a pretty intrinsic part of that.

But then this is a deeply unnecessary conversation. We'd be more productive going back to the Tuohy trade and how it's looking at present.

 

[Ray Donovan]

Maybe I misinterpreted you rating the Crows, if so I apologise. Nobody should be accused of something so reprehensible if undeserved.

Back to your point I don't see the inconsistency you're alluding to. I think percentage isn't necessarily indicative of a teams quality and that the Crows last year are a good example when you look at how they struggled in the big games. Being chokers or floppers or however you prefer to describe being down on expected form is a pretty intrinsic part of that.

But then this is a deeply unnecessary conversation. We'd be more productive going back to the Tuohy trade and how it's looking at present.

The second paragraph your getting back to the percentage refer to my previous post at the top! Or the fact i never once mentioned percentage as being an indicator of team strength v opposition. I believe i said makes no difference.

It's like your blowing adelaide up now to pad your choking argument. I don't think adelaide were recognised as an incredible team who underperformed. My assessment was they were a young talented side who were on the up and they struggled against the benchmark sides. It's not really mind blowing stuff Hawthorn were on a four peat run. Sydney were minor premiers and geelong were a pre-season premiership favourite
finished 2nd and GWS was widely regarded as the most talented. And the dogs were written off with injury.



I mean the ladder is close from top to bottom there percentage probably indicates they were in the 4-8 range lol.

Rounds 1-8 ( went 4-4)
Lost (NM) 10
Lost (Haw) 3
Lost (WB) 15
Lost ( Gee) 26

Rounds 8-23 ( went 12-2)
Lost ( geelong 30)
Lost ( west Coast)

I am assuming this is the game you are talking about the choke west coast knocked off GWS and hawthorn previous two weeks and won 9 of their last 10.

Belted north in elimination final by 62 then headed to sydney and got belted. And if i remember correctly they lost their coach in 2015.

So in summary and look i used context for you they got beaten by better sides. Geelong was a better side than adelaide finished higher and got swallowed by the sydney shark as well.

And the tuohy trade as i believe you called it worlds greatest trade im happy to analyse that down the track when we have some results and the picks are mapped out!

 

[geelong_crazy26]

If you got it flaunt it, I just don't think that the ability to dismantle a weak team correlates to anything else - the Crows last year were a really good example of that, flogging bottom teams but barely winning any games against other top teams.

They really must be kicking themselves hard over what could have been with Dangerfield still in their side. Would probably be the premiership side this year and possibly last year.

 

[Landgraft]

They really must be kicking themselves hard over what could have been with Dangerfield still in their side. Would probably be the premiership side this year and possibly last year.

I doubt they would, tbh. Anything's possible but I just don't see them able to beat the Dogs, Swans or Giants in September last year or the Dogs or Giants this year.

Besides, just ask an Adelaide fan and they'll tell you that losing him made them better. So really they should be thanking us for the season they've had so far.

 

[fpm84]

I doubt they would, tbh. Anything's possible but I just don't see them able to beat the Dogs, Swans or Giants in September last year or the Dogs or Giants this year.

Besides, just ask an Adelaide fan and they'll tell you that losing him made them better. So really they should be thanking us for the season they've had so far.

It is literally impossible for a side to lose a player of Dangerfield's quality and actually become more of a premiership threat. Losing a player like Danger can give other players more minutes, more responsibility, more chance to thrive; and in the Crows' case it probably has.

But when a tough game on the line is on the line, it is *exactly* players like Dangerfield, Fyfe, Franklin, Martin etc who you want out there.

Look at Dangerfield's last 5 minutes v Port. He won two free kicks by laying superb tackles and kicked the winning goal. Few players in the comp have the ability to rise to the occasion like that on almost a weekly basis.

 

[Landgraft]

It is literally impossible for a side to lose a player of Dangerfield's quality and actually become more of a premiership threat. Losing a player like Danger can give other players more minutes, more responsibility, more chance to thrive; and in the Crows' case it probably has.

But when a tough game on the line is on the line, it is *exactly* players like Dangerfield, Fyfe, Franklin, Martin etc who you want out there.

Look at Dangerfield's last 5 minutes v Port. He won two free kicks by laying superb tackles and kicked the winning goal. Few players in the comp have the ability to rise to the occasion like that on almost a weekly basis.

Said point was tongue in cheek. Of course you don't become better by losing an elite player.

I still doubt that the Crows would win the flag.

 

[fpm84]

Said point was tongue in cheek. Of course you don't become better by losing an elite player.

I still doubt that the Crows would win the flag.

I got your post, I was more responding to what some Adelaide fans believe.

We were able to win a flag and Hawthorn were able to win two after losing Ablett/Franklin respectively, but both lists were still chock full of talent. Our 2011 premiership side contained no less than 12 players who were AA at some point in their career.

 

[catempire]

our list stinks, there is no depth

oldies are cooked, mid tier arent good enough and bottom tier falls away very quickly

coaching and selection is a joke, fringe players yo-yo in and out of the team, still too many talls

Taylor being moved back and forward

there is no set structure or plan

we are doing better than i expected due to our superior fitness and a bit of luck at the start of the year

 

[ATSAM]

The wins of the last three weeks do beg the question about the losses of the previous three. How can we come out and play sparkling footy after such nonsense against Pies, Suns and Essendon.
Is it simply the addition of S Selwood or has there been a soul searching exercise complete with Leading Teams like activities of 2007???

 

[Mad_Hatter]

The wins of the last three weeks do beg the question about the losses of the previous three. How can we come out and play sparkling footy after such nonsense against Pies, Suns and Essendon.
Is it simply the addition of S Selwood or has there been a soul searching exercise complete with Leading Teams like activities of 2007???

Talk of a "good hard" honesty session post bombers game between the coaches and the players, players and the coaches and players and the players.
Maybe similar to that old Leading Teams activity of making your team mates accountable for their poor work.

There's also been a pretty big structural change with how we setup that I think is making a big difference too, we now setup to provide as much frontal pressure as possible, force a hurried kick down the line and use our excellent backline intercepts to do exactly what they are elite at doing.

I also believe Scott Selwood is making a massive difference in there, not only by nullifying the oppositions best midfielder but he wins plenty himself, uses it very well and tackles like a dog on heat. On top of that it's that vital extra second tier midfielder that we needed, now we have Dangerwood, Duncan, Selwood and Menegola as our main midfielders, all 5 are good players in good form and bring something different to each other.

Reckon we find out in Perth if it's working away from home.

 

[TheWoodenSlug]

I'm still worried that our gameplan, while very effective on the narrow KP, doesn't hold up on wider grounds which is a big concern if we want to win finals at the MCG.

But I think it's been proven over the past few weeks that if the gameplan is good enough, we certainly have the players to contend.

 

[catempire]

I'm still worried that our gameplan, while very effective on the narrow KP, doesn't hold up on wider grounds which is a big concern if we want to win finals at the MCG.

But I think it's been proven over the past few weeks that if the gameplan is good enough, we certainly have the players to contend.

There's no doubt that our game style is perfectly suited to KP. The players also love playing there and opposition sides seem to find it hard to break open the game.

That said, there is nothing inherently incompatible between Geelong's "style" and a bigger ground. I think we've been beaten in two different ways in recent years on the MCG in particular:

1. Not enough pressure. Playing the loose zone instead of the press. See Collingwood/Essendon games.
2. Beaten in the contest and/or not damaging enough with our weight of possession. See 2016 Prelim.

There's no reason to lose for reason #1. Apply a proper structure and bring reasonable pressure and those results shouldn't happen.

It's number #2 I'm more worried about because we do have off days around the ball and when we don't win the contested ball/clearances and capitalise on winning them we struggle. It's not hard to imagine a very good midfield (i.e. GWS or maybe Footscray, thankfully Sydney is gorn) getting on top of us in September.

 

[TheWoodenSlug]

There's no doubt that our game style is perfectly suited to KP. The players also love playing there and opposition sides seem to find it hard to break open the game.

That said, there is nothing inherently incompatible between Geelong's "style" and a bigger ground. I think we've been beaten in two different ways in recent years on the MCG in particular:

1. Not enough pressure. Playing the loose zone instead of the press. See Collingwood/Essendon games.
2. Beaten in the contest and/or not damaging enough with our weight of possession. See 2016 Prelim.

There's no reason to lose for reason #1. Apply a proper structure and bring reasonable pressure and those results shouldn't happen.

It's number #2 I'm more worried about because we do have off days around the ball and when we don't win the contested ball/clearances and capitalise on winning them we struggle. It's not hard to imagine a very good midfield (i.e. GWS or maybe Footscray, thankfully Sydney is gorn) getting on top of us in September.

That all makes sense, but why do you think those things tend to happen more at the MCG? I think I heard them say last night that we've lost 10 of the last 17 games at the MCG, and quite a few of those games would have been against teams we should have beaten. Why do you think our pressure is down, we are beaten in the contest and/or we don't take advantage of weight of possession at the MCG but not KP, if it's not gameplan related?

Edit: just reread you post and saw you said there's no reason for number 1. Do we apply a different zone/setup at the MCG than KP, do you think? I.e. is it the coaching or the players not playing to instruction?

 

[catempire]

That all makes sense, but why do you think those things tend to happen more at the MCG? I think I heard them say last night that we've lost 10 of the last 17 games at the MCG, and quite a few of those games would have been against teams we should have beaten. Why do you think our pressure is down, we are beaten in the contest and/or we don't take advantage of weight of possession at the MCG but not KP, if it's not gameplan related?

Edit: just reread you post and saw you said there's no reason for number 1. Do we apply a different zone/setup at the MCG than KP, do you think? I.e. is it the coaching or the players not playing to instruction?

I don't know if that's the exact record (I suspect it's not). If it is I think it's anomoly more than anything else.

We were 4-2 there last year. Losses to Swans and Pies.

We were 2-3 there in 2015 with two of the losses against the eventual premiers and the other against the Pies.

We were 4-3 there in 2014 with two losses against the eventual premiers and the other against North.

We were 4-2 there in 2013 with one loss against the eventual premiers and one against Collingwood.

2-3 in 2012 with two of those to the Pies and the other Freo.

Really, what stands out is that Collingwood has an outstanding record against us since 2012, having beaten us five times (out of the 13 losses there in that time). For all of Buckley's flaws he certainly knows how to beat Geelong.

Five of the other losses were against eventual premiers in Hawthorn so it's hard to argue we underperformed against expectations there.

The remaining three are the types of games that counfound us where we expect something much better:

1. Last year's Prelim
2. The 2014 SF v North
3. The 2012 EF v Freo

When I reflect on those games there's nothing about them being at the MCG that I think was significant about the result. In the Prelim we were just thoroughly outplayed and given a football lesson. The other two we didn't show up to play and would have got beaten anywhere.