Geelong Loss, Rout or Rouse?

[ReLoad]

Ok here is my wild theory about the loss to Geelong.

Firstly some background:

Last year we played our "A game" in the last few rounds against both Geelong and Collingwood, which we won, we basically stuck to the main plan and that was it, it was clear to me that in those two games we threw everything we possibly could at them to win.

Looking back at both those games we played our cards too early, Geelong in particular had answers to what we did in that match and were ready to roll against us in the final.

Now how does that apply to our loss last week? Well, it was very clear upon watching the replay, and doing a basic review that we did not play our usual game plan, certain players were under clear instructions which differed from the previous month, and even focussing on our runner and whom and where we conveyed messages to.

Its actually really clear that we had no intent of playing our "A game" against them, I got the distinct feeling that they had and were willing (given injuries and the like) to try different things.

I am NOT making excuses for the performance, nor the outcomes from the loss, nor am I saying that it was an OK result, I am merely suggesting that given history, the circumstances and the clear change in modus operandi that we were up to something.

Now of course it all went horribly wrong, but at NO stage did the coaches box or players attempt to change what was happening, now bag them all you like but the coaches box is full of smart guys, they knew exactly what was unfolding and how it was playing out, they were under no illusion that they were trying something different, and were of course paying the price for it.

So perhaps for the risk of trying to polish and put glitter on the proverbial i am not concerned nor upset because i think they are doing things differently this year, and heaven knows we have to.

That's my .02 Peoples Republic of West Footscray Roubles.

[The Adelaide Connection]

Showing our hand wouldn't have been wise and maybe we lost a lot of chips but we will win the hand that matters.

That said Geelong were seriously shitting themselves in the finals last year on the back of our round 20 win and we lost mainly because we kicked ourselves out of it. This time around they are going to be super confident.

[bornadog]

For example why would you put a player that has only played ten odd games on their most dangerous forward, ie Wood on Johnson, unless you were teaching the kid a few things.

[LostDoggy]

And why would you let Ablett roam free the whole game? I swear I saw Boyd look at Ablett and he would intentionally give him 4-5 meters space

[Ghost Dog]

I have a slightly related view. In Language learning theory we have a bell shaped curve.
This is when the mind adjusts to recent changes, new information and gears itself for a large input or period of effort.
This adjustment phase often involves a drop in performance and it looks like things are mysteriously going pear shaped. In fact, the system is just arranging the bits and given time will proceed sharply upward . Alrighty...I can see you all rolling your eyes! :rolleyes:

[LostDoggy]

And why would you let Ablett roam free the whole game? I swear I saw Boyd look at Ablett and he would intentionally give him 4-5 meters space

I don't think Eade ever tags Ablett though. Can you remember the last Geelong game where we had a hard tag on Ablett?

[LostDoggy]

I don't think Eade ever tags Ablett though. Can you remember the last Geelong game where we had a hard tag on Ablett?

Honestly can't remember. But this looked like we wanted Ablett to run around completly free.

[chef]

I don't think Eade ever tags Ablett though. Can you remember the last Geelong game where we had a hard tag on Ablett?

Not since Griffen(2006?) played on him when Ablett was a forward.

[LostDoggy]

Heck, I'd love to believe these theories.........and maybe I would have accepted it for one half of footy, but why then when it obviously wasn't working, wouldn't they have effected some changes? I know Lake started forward in the 3rd qtr, and Everitt went down back, but there weren't too many other moves? I hope you are right ReLoad, I really do! ;)

[Mofra]

Our quickest forward (Grant) back (Harbrow) best burst mid (Cooney) and no 1 ruck (Hudson) will be back next time we play them.

4 pretty handy ins - I rate our "outs" as much better than Geelongs.

[Mantis]

Honestly can't remember. But this looked like we wanted Ablett to run around completly free.

I just watched the game again and Boyd was Ablett's direct opponent for 75% of game time.

Why he paid him no respect is anyones guess.

[stefoid]

Ablett killed boyd.

[LostDoggy]

I just watched the game again and Boyd was Ablett's direct opponent for 75% of game time.

Why he paid him no respect is anyones guess.

Yep. And maybe he was told to try play loose against him, but Boyd just never got the ball...

[Mantis]

Yep. And maybe he was told to try play loose against him, but Boyd just never got the ball...

Boyd had 35 disposals, just 4 less than Ablett.

It shows that Boydy's touches weren't (aren't) all that damaging and he needs to start to playing more defensive role.

[1eyedog]

Ok here is my wild theory about the loss to Geelong.

Firstly some background:

Last year we played our "A game" in the last few rounds against both Geelong and Collingwood, which we won, we basically stuck to the main plan and that was it, it was clear to me that in those two games we threw everything we possibly could at them to win.

Looking back at both those games we played our cards too early, Geelong in particular had answers to what we did in that match and were ready to roll against us in the final.

Now how does that apply to our loss last week? Well, it was very clear upon watching the replay, and doing a basic review that we did not play our usual game plan, certain players were under clear instructions which differed from the previous month, and even focussing on our runner and whom and where we conveyed messages to.

Its actually really clear that we had no intent of playing our "A game" against them, I got the distinct feeling that they had and were willing (given injuries and the like) to try different things.

I am NOT making excuses for the performance, nor the outcomes from the loss, nor am I saying that it was an OK result, I am merely suggesting that given history, the circumstances and the clear change in modus operandi that we were up to something.

Now of course it all went horribly wrong, but at NO stage did the coaches box or players attempt to change what was happening, now bag them all you like but the coaches box is full of smart guys, they knew exactly what was unfolding and how it was playing out, they were under no illusion that they were trying something different, and were of course paying the price for it.

So perhaps for the risk of trying to polish and put glitter on the proverbial i am not concerned nor upset because i think they are doing things differently this year, and heaven knows we have to.

That's my .02 Peoples Republic of West Footscray Roubles.


What a very odd thing to do two weeks out from finals. A 100 point defeat does not instill confidence in the young guys of this side. I hope we are good enough to recover. The only positive I can put on this is that we are the clear underdogs again, probably with little to no expectation to win the flag. Saturday's loss also should provide a pretty good kick in the guts to all of our players in terms of how much work needs to be done between now and the grand final. If you want it you can get it, remember how important it is to you all boys> Well heads down bums up and make it happen rather than just coasting along.

[Sedat]

Boyd had 35 disposals, just 4 less than Ablett.

It shows that Boydy's touches weren't (aren't) all that damaging and he needs to start to playing more defensive role.
Reminds me of the 2008 QF when Crossy had 39 inconsequential touches and Hodge was the most influential player on the ground with 'only' 20 - stats are meaningless when not put into context. If Boydy allowed Ablett such a free reign to run riot on Saturday night, he could have had 50 possessions and would have still been a liability to the team on the night.

[Doc26]

Wow ReLoad, as you claim it certainly is a wild theory. A cunning plan, I think not. Geelong put us to the sword and we ungracefully fell on it. Many if not all of the deficiencies we often speak of on this forum were magnified last Saturday against a supreme opposition - our lack of defensive pressure, our lack of working for each other, minimal intimidation and the known deficiencies of our suspect players all came to the fore etc


but the coaches box is full of smart guys

Is this a statement of fact or merely an assumption of what they should be ?

[Murphy'sLore]

Who was it that said, if the choice is between a conspiracy and a stuff-up, it's almost certainly a stuff-up?

[comrade]

I just watched the game again

Geez, you're keen.

I personally think Boydy has bought into the hype of being a 'ball winning clearance machine' and subsequently ignores the defensive side of his game - similar to a Judd or Ablett.

That's all well and good against dud opposition, but the best teams have the most damaging mids and Boydy's output just doesn't match up.

I'm happy for him to hunt the ball against North Melbourne, but he should be in Pendlebury's back pocket in that first final - for the greater good.

[Mantis]

Geez, you're keen.

I personally think Boydy has bought into the hype of being a 'ball winning clearance machine' and subsequently ignores the defensive side of his game - similar to a Judd or Ablett.

That's all well and good against dud opposition, but the best teams have the most damaging mids and Boydy's output just doesn't match up.

I'm happy for him to hunt the ball against North Melbourne, but he should be in Pendlebury's back pocket in that first final - for the greater good.

Agree with these views.

Against Collingwood in rd 11 it was a similiar story in that Boyd (and Cross) picked up 30 odd touches, but their opponents (Swan & Pendlebury) had similiar numbers, but were much more damaging.

[Bulldog4life]

After watching the replay closely it appeared to me that the team looked stuffed. In the last quarter some couldn't raise a gallop. On top of that Lake injured himself in the warm up and wasn't a patch on the player he can be. Hopefully our fitness level this week will be up to handle the Swans. I think whatever virus went through the camp had a bigger affect than most people think.

[LostDoggy]

If Cross and Boydy are thinking that they are Ablett and Selwood, or Swan and Pendlebury in terms of ball use they are kidding themselves -- but there's no need to pretend to be something they are not. Brett Kirk, Cam Ling etc were some of the most influential mids in the last ten years just by being hard-nosed defensively. If Cross and Boydy were our Kirk and Ling, we can leave the flash to Griff and Coons (our Ablett and Swan, as it were). I don't understand why we need four unaccountable guys running around out there, especially two with middling to poor disposal skills.

[Scorlibo]

Reminds me of the 2008 QF when Crossy had 39 inconsequential touches and Hodge was the most influential player on the ground with 'only' 20 - stats are meaningless when not put into context. If Boydy allowed Ablett such a free reign to run riot on Saturday night, he could have had 50 possessions and would have still been a liability to the team on the night.

Not that I disagree with what you are saying, but I thought Cross was very good in that final, playing in defense from what I recall, maybe he wasn't as good as his disposal tally suggested, but still probably second best for us behind Griffen.

[Scorlibo]

If Cross and Boydy are thinking that they are Ablett and Selwood, or Swan and Pendlebury in terms of ball use they are kidding themselves -- but there's no need to pretend to be something they are not. Brett Kirk, Cam Ling etc were some of the most influential mids in the last ten years just by being hard-nosed defensively. If Cross and Boydy were our Kirk and Ling, we can leave the flash to Griff and Coons (our Ablett and Swan, as it were). I don't understand why we need four unaccountable guys running around out there, especially two with middling to poor disposal skills.

Away from the stoppages Cross and Boyd are pretty unaccountable and hopeless disposal wise, but at the stoppages they and Hudson are the biggest reason for us being the best clearance side in the competition, they nullify opposition players in tight and when they win it themselves are very clever with their disposal. To say that their accountability and disposal skills are poor is a bit of a generalisation imo.

[LostDoggy]

Boyd had 35 disposals, just 4 less than Ablett.

It shows that Boydy's touches weren't (aren't) all that damaging and he needs to start to playing more defensive role.

Agree - Boyd backwards, sidways versus Ablett running straight, forward and going long. Big difference in the pressure created.

[stefoid]

You know youre doing allright if you force geelong to handball 3 or 5 times before they get a hurried disposal away... either win the ball yourself, or harass them into chains of handballs.

we let ablett and co carry and kick the ball...

[ReLoad]

OK, this post has now been confirmed, it was a Rout, given the same performance against the swans.

So officially do NOT listen to anything I have to say or any posts I make I am clearly full of it.