I see where you're coming from but can't agree.

Cats finished on top of the ladder 2 of the last four years for 2 premierships. I couldn't call that underperforming.

Obviously any team that loses a Granny would be disappointed, but surely things can be evened out.

That's fine HG, you're entitled to your opinion, just like I am. I'm not going to treat you like you have leprosy just because our opinions are different.

I, like most in the AFL community, would believe that the way they have played over the past 4 years would have generated more premierships than 2. They lost one that they should have won, maybe theywon one that they should have lost, and I think this year, Thompson's arrogance had a fair bit to do with them in losing both those finals (as well as other factors). They still finished 2nd this year, so obviously were expected to challenge for a premiership.

How I look at it - I rate Brisbane as the team of the Decade. Winning 3 flags in a row was an amazing effort based on how the AFL is now (with even draft methods, salary caps, etc). Geelong should have been the best of the decade, but don't think they tasted the ultimate success enough to take it from Brisbane. Based on their on & off field performances, this to me means they have under performed.

I would put Melbourne's 1950's effort of 5 Flags in 7 years ahead of Geelong's 2 Flags in the past 4 years.

Geelong should have beaten Hawthorn, they Blew that one in the second Quarter & then Stuart Dew finished them off

So i would guess Geelong would be proud, but still very bitter they lost a 3peat chance.

The MFC must always keep in mind Geelong's effort over this 4 years as we grow. Great but Flawed.

If we could equal our 50's record in the next 10-15 years i will go to the Coffin Smiling big time. B)

So WYL, would you believe that some at the GFC beleive they have underperformed because they really should have won that extra flag?

Yes. About 15 other sides. I'd have MFC topping that list.

Premierships are not awarded on your win loss record for the year so your criteria is flawed.

Your measure was the last 4 years so the MFC side of the 1950 and 1960s just falls outside that.

As Daisycutter and others have told you "you're wrong". But keep trying. B)

Thanks Choco Williams.

Would be interested to see where Daisycutter said I was wrong in this thread.

My opinion of being underperformed is based on some people's claim of them being the best side of all time.

Funny I thought it was a thread about Max Rooke. Oh that right you hi jacked it.

Thanks for clarifying that they don't award premierships based on your win/loss record. I seriously question where you're coming from sometimes RR...loser.

You used the win/loss record to judge their premiership performance. And spare us the name calling..its childish.

Well, considering their win/loss record over the past 4 years, I think 2 premierships would be par.

Hmmmm!

And what makes my opinion "wrong", and further, what makes you think you're always "right"?

Ask the other posters who have stated that. I dont see you attacking them. And I have never claimed "right". Its a nervous thing you must have.Get over it.

How hard is it for you to understand what my opinion is in regards to this? I have a number of Geelong supporting friends, and while they are stoked to have won 2 out of the last 4, they believe that the Club could have probably done better. Ask anyone at the Club, and I'm sure they'll say the same thing. The way they have dominated the league over the past 4 years, it would be fair to expect more than 2 premierships. They had the potential/ability to win 4 straight, some experts are saying they are the best ever, and they are the ones I am disagreeing with. The fact that they only won half of what they seriously could've (and that includes them losing that Hawks one), to me = underperforming. I would say the same if it were Melbourne, but as I said in another post, I would still be stoked with 2 flags.

If you dont like your opinion challenged, get a blog. I have no problem with Geelong supporters feeling that they could have won more flags in a golden period. Hell every supporter does that! There have been posters on here who have been adamant that we should have won 1990! It does not mean the Cats have underperformed as a side. And I am not sure that this year they were the best side in the competition. Collingwood were clearly the superior side this year and flag favourite from July onwards (according to the experts - you seem to value them). Geelong's 3rd position is a fair reflection of where they were this year. They weren't good enough to win the flag this year. As for 2008, Geelong played a rampant Hawthorn on GF day. And if they are to be labelled underperformers just because of that then its harsh and unreasonable and based on flawed criteria. I dont think you have put up a reasonable argument to back an unreasonable assertion. Thats just my opinion.

And once more in your last paragraph, give away the name calling, its childish and unnecessary.

Funny I thought it was a thread about Max Rooke. Oh that right you hi jacked it.

You used the win/loss record to judge their premiership performance. And spare us the name calling..its childish.

Hmmmm!

Ask the other posters who have stated that. I dont see you attacking them. And I have never claimed "right". Its a nervous thing you must have.Get over it.

If you dont like your opinion challenged, get a blog. I have no problem with Geelong supporters feeling that they could have won more flags in a golden period. Hell every supporter does that! There have been posters on here who have been adamant that we should have won 1990! It does not mean the Cats have underperformed as a side. And I am not sure that this year they were the best side in the competition. Collingwood were clearly the superior side this year and flag favourite from July onwards (according to the experts - you seem to value them). Geelong's 3rd position is a fair reflection of where they were this year. They weren't good enough to win the flag this year. As for 2008, Geelong played a rampant Hawthorn on GF day. And if they are to be labelled underperformers just because of that then its harsh and unreasonable and based on flawed criteria. I dont think you have put up a reasonable argument to back an unreasonable assertion. Thats just my opinion.

And once more in your last paragraph, give away the name calling, its childish and unnecessary.

My initial post commented on the career of Max Rooke. I added a cooment about how great it is to see what is happeneing at Geelong, then all of a sudden I was having to defend my opinion. I'm not going to standby and have my comments attacked without justification, regardless of what the topic is and what thread we are on.

Perhaps if you want to drag others opinions in to it, maybe you need to start up a seperate thread.

A big factor in Geelong losing to Hawthorn was their inability to kick goals. Kick straight, they win the match, simple.

Geelong finished 2nd on the ladder this year. Had they beten St Kilda and played Collingwood in the GF, I'm not so sure that Collingwood would have won. It took the Pies 2 games to beat the Saints to get the flag. If they were soooooo superior, they probably should've beaten the Saints in the first GF. Any team that finishes 2nd at the end of the home and away rounds would be cinsidered a flag challenger. The fact it was Geelong would add further strength to that opinion.

So WYL, would you believe that some at the GFC beleive they have underperformed because they really should have won that extra flag?

sure would, Geelong would be quietly sad they didn't achieve what they could have. That said the forward line was carried by the sublime midfield.

2007 they were a totally awesome side from round 5, best i have seen.

My initial post commented on the career of Max Rooke. I added a cooment about how great it is to see what is happeneing at Geelong, then all of a sudden I was having to defend my opinion. I'm not going to standby and have my comments attacked without justification, regardless of what the topic is and what thread we are on.

You also could not help but make a smartazz dig at me without any need on the thread .So grow up and put aside the petulant indignation.Its fools just yourself. I just offered a different opinion to your underperforming comment. You dont like challenges and your prickly about it but give away the name calling.

Perhaps if you want to drag others opinions in to it, maybe you need to start up a seperate thread.

Like other Geelong supporters?? Did you consider starting a new thread? Hmmm. Goose and gander.

A big factor in Geelong losing to Hawthorn was their inability to kick goals. Kick straight, they win the match, simple.

Geelong finished 2nd on the ladder this year. Had they beten St Kilda and played Collingwood in the GF, I'm not so sure that Collingwood would have won. It took the Pies 2 games to beat the Saints to get the flag. If they were soooooo superior, they probably should've beaten the Saints in the first GF. Any team that finishes 2nd at the end of the home and away rounds would be cinsidered a flag challenger. The fact it was Geelong would add further strength to that opinion.

They challenged but weren't as good as the team that had lead the competition all year. They did not underperform. And I am glad that the fact its Geelong strengthens that opinion. Not sure how though? Its not hard. And I dont think one slip on the GF day in 2008 condemns a side to the tag "underperformer". And StKilda have proven that on the day things can happen. But Collingwood should they were sooo superior in their whitewash in the replay.

sure would, Geelong would be quietly sad they didn't achieve what they could have. That said the forward line was carried by the sublime midfield.

2007 they were a totally awesome side from round 5, best i have seen.

Thanks WYL. I totally agree, and hence my opinion.

Well done Max, great career, cut short due to injury. You were part of a great team that won a couple of flags, and who knows, maybe deserved one or two more such their dominance was over that period. As A MFC supporter, I wont miss you running out against us, but will miss you playing against other teams!

Geelong finished 2nd on the ladder this year. Had they beten St Kilda and played Collingwood in the GF, I'm not so sure that Collingwood would have won. It took the Pies 2 games to beat the Saints to get the flag. If they were soooooo superior, they probably should've beaten the Saints in the first GF. Any team that finishes 2nd at the end of the home and away rounds would be cinsidered a flag challenger. The fact it was Geelong would add further strength to that opinion.

Had Geelong beaten St.kilda in that Final and played Collingwood in the GF this year, I suspect Geelong would have been smashed the same way they were in the Prelim.

Like a V8 in a long distance race by the end the Cats were leaking oil badly & limping to the finish. 4 years is a long time to be up at this level.

Geelong 2007-2010 are a great side, they should be proud, but in 2008 there forwards were exposed by a brutal Hawthorn (who themselves over cooked in winning 2008) In 2009 the cats list was beautifully managed so they would peak in september. They did & just made it. 2010 they had lost the edge, but were still good enough to finish top 4.

Billy where do you think the cats will finish in 2011?

Had Geelong beaten St.kilda in that Final and played Collingwood in the GF this year, I suspect Geelong would have been smashed the same way they were in the Prelim.

Like a V8 in a long distance race by the end the Cats were leaking oil badly & limping to the finish. 4 years is a long time to be up at this level.

Geelong 2007-2010 are a great side, they should be proud, but in 2008 there forwards were exposed by a brutal Hawthorn (who themselves over cooked in winning 2008) In 2009 the cats list was beautifully managed so they would peak in september. They did & just made it. 2010 they had lost the edge, but were still good enough to finish top 4.

Billy where do you think the cats will finish in 2011?

Sorry for getting off thread - just answering the question of WYL.

Mate, I still think they will go close to top 4 - closer to the bottom of it than the top. Wouldn't be surprised if they dropped down to 6th though. It will depend on how much the recent events will affect the players. It will also depend on who is challenging from lower positions on the ladder from this year.

They did severely limp in to the finals. I kept telling my Geelong friends, from about round 18 onwards, that they were playing a lot sore players, and a couple of injured players (you can't afford to do this going in to finals). I think this is where Bomber's arrogance harmed them this year by continuing to play these blokes, and as a result, a couple of their developing kids have left due to limited opportunity.

If it had've been a Cats/Magpies GF, who knows the result. Hopefully this doesn't start an arguement, but I think if Geelong made it, they would have been hard to beat, regardless of how superior Collingwood were during the year. I think Geelong's best would have beaten Collingwood's best, just.

Sorry for getting off thread - just answering the question of WYL.

Mate, I still think they will go close to top 4 - closer to the bottom of it than the top. Wouldn't be surprised if they dropped down to 6th though. It will depend on how much the recent events will affect the players. It will also depend on who is challenging from lower positions on the ladder from this year.

They did severely limp in to the finals. I kept telling my Geelong friends, from about round 18 onwards, that they were playing a lot sore players, and a couple of injured players (you can't afford to do this going in to finals). I think this is where Bomber's arrogance harmed them this year by continuing to play these blokes, and as a result, a couple of their developing kids have left due to limited opportunity.

If it had've been a Cats/Magpies GF, who knows the result. Hopefully this doesn't start an arguement, but I think if Geelong made it, they would have been hard to beat, regardless of how superior Collingwood were during the year. I think Geelong's best would have beaten Collingwood's best, just.

But that's just it. Geelong's best was gone, they had used it up over the last 4 years. Look at Cameron Ling in the Prelim, he could hardly move. The Cats were out of gas, apart from Ablett

who i think may be an alien-His endurance is F$%^kin' unbelievable!!

Interesting Geelong did no trading in the past week, i would have. Position 5-8 for mine in 2011. The Demons will beat them next year at the MCG post Ablett.

And don't worry we are discussing not argueing!!

But that's just it. Geelong's best was gone, they had used it up over the last 4 years. Look at Cameron Ling in the Prelim, he could hardly move. The Cats were out of gas, apart from Ablett

who i think may be an alien-His endurance is F$%^kin' unbelievable!!

Interesting Geelong did no trading in the past week, i would have. Position 5-8 for mine in 2011. The Demons will beat them next year at the MCG post Ablett.

And don't worry we are discussing not argueing!!

Geelong finished with 17 wins, 1/2 a game behind Collingwood. I think their best was still available this year, but took sore and injured players in to the finals.

That game of Ablett's was one of the best individual performances I've seen, truly amazing.

Geelong finished with 17 wins, 1/2 a game behind Collingwood. I think their best was still available this year, but took sore and injured players in to the finals.

That game of Ablett's was one of the best individual performances I've seen, truly amazing.

Sure they got 17 wins, but september is a new season & they had very little left after that St.kilda game.

That's why Flags are so hard to win. The physical toll on the Geelong boys after 4 years would be immense (remember how many jabs the lions had during the 2004 GF)

It will be Fascinating to quietly watch the cats next year.

Sure they got 17 wins, but september is a new season & they had very little left after that St.kilda game.

That's why Flags are so hard to win. The physical toll on the Geelong boys after 4 years would be immense (remember how many jabs the lions had during the 2004 GF)

It will be Fascinating to quietly watch the cats next year.

Sadly, I can't watch them quielty, my wife and her best friend & husband are all Geelong supporters. Well, the latter 2 are Geelong at the moment, but were Brisbane in the first half of the decade, hence my heavy scrutiny on the Club. Can't stand fence jumpers when it comes to barracking for a team in the AFL!

Sadly, I can't watch them quielty, my wife and her best friend & husband are all Geelong supporters. Well, the latter 2 are Geelong at the moment, but were Brisbane in the first half of the decade, hence my heavy scrutiny on the Club. Can't stand fence jumpers when it comes to barracking for a team in the AFL!

What!! you have friends who Barracked for Brisbane earlier this Decade, then swapped to Geelong after that??

FFS that aint on!!! Have them killed immediately.

People can be unfairly harsh on coaches, players and other senior staff involved at AFL clubs when only a premiership = success.

It's the ultimate aim, it's what you play for. Everyone knows you have to be fit, in form and get the job done on that last Saturday day in September (first Saturday in October, whatever), otherwise the year essentially amounts to nothing.

But it takes so much effort and planning and getting a hell of a lot of decisions right to be as good a team as Geelong have been for this long. Let's not forget they were in the finals during the Lions' run of flags, even getting close in a prelim (2005?). They then had a bad year in 2006. Came back in 2007 and tore everyone apart and were clearly the best side in the comp by a long, long way. They were the best or second best team for the best part of the next three seasons. That's a long time at the "top" in anyone's book.

What I'm getting at is, they did almost everything right as a club to be a dominant club. No matter what you do, you can have an off day, quarter, even five minutes in ONE game in September and it costs you "success". Even in 2007, Geelong were only a kick or two away from not even making the grand final against a Collingwood side that eventually matured together and learned how to beat the Cats in 2010.

The Saints were up there in 2004 and 2005 ... and if you want to talk about premiership windows, their window has been open since then. But a few things go wrong on one of those big days/nights in September and you blow it. The Saints have easily been one of the most successful clubs (not teams) of the decade (ok 2001-2010), but have no on field success to show for it. They've been "up" for a long time after being down for a while, getting all the concessions that go with that, but have no on-field "success".

Over a soccer league season, when you play everyone home and away, there can be no excuses, no debate, no doubting who the best team and deserved champions are. The league table doesn't lie.

There's so much less certainty in a cup competition, in a finals format... and that's part of what we love, isn't it?

Not sure what my real point is... Maybe it's that all those with their future's planned out, making sure they're free for the first week of the finals next year, the prelim finals in 2012 and the grand final in 2013 might want to realise that no matter how good we're supposed to be, no matter how good we become... it doesn't always go to plan.

Let's hope when we're up and about we get to the odd grand final and win one... that's all you really want, isn't it?

People can be unfairly harsh on coaches, players and other senior staff involved at AFL clubs when only a premiership = success.

It's the ultimate aim, it's what you play for. Everyone knows you have to be fit, in form and get the job done on that last Saturday day in September (first Saturday in October, whatever), otherwise the year essentially amounts to nothing.

But it takes so much effort and planning and getting a hell of a lot of decisions right to be as good a team as Geelong have been for this long. Let's not forget they were in the finals during the Lions' run of flags, even getting close in a prelim (2005?). They then had a bad year in 2006. Came back in 2007 and tore everyone apart and were clearly the best side in the comp by a long, long way. They were the best or second best team for the best part of the next three seasons. That's a long time at the "top" in anyone's book.

What I'm getting at is, they did almost everything right as a club to be a dominant club. No matter what you do, you can have an off day, quarter, even five minutes in ONE game in September and it costs you "success". Even in 2007, Geelong were only a kick or two away from not even making the grand final against a Collingwood side that eventually matured together and learned how to beat the Cats in 2010.

The Saints were up there in 2004 and 2005 ... and if you want to talk about premiership windows, their window has been open since then. But a few things go wrong on one of those big days/nights in September and you blow it. The Saints have easily been one of the most successful clubs (not teams) of the decade (ok 2001-2010), but have no on field success to show for it. They've been "up" for a long time after being down for a while, getting all the concessions that go with that, but have no on-field "success".

Over a soccer league season, when you play everyone home and away, there can be no excuses, no debate, no doubting who the best team and deserved champions are. The league table doesn't lie.

There's so much less certainty in a cup competition, in a finals format... and that's part of what we love, isn't it?

Not sure what my real point is... Maybe it's that all those with their future's planned out, making sure they're free for the first week of the finals next year, the prelim finals in 2012 and the grand final in 2013 might want to realise that no matter how good we're supposed to be, no matter how good we become... it doesn't always go to plan.

Let's hope when we're up and about we get to the odd grand final and win one... that's all you really want, isn't it?

Well said, and I respect everything you have written.

I can be a harsh judge, and set very high expectations on players, coaches and Clubs in general, but try to remain as realistic as possible - hence me already booking holidays in early September because I don't think we will be playing finals.

Seeing 1 flag in my life time will be an amazing experience (especially considering I'm well and truly old enough to celebrate it!), any more than that is a bonus.

I suspect Geelong will come right back to the field 7-8 finish. New coach ( eventually) , compromised trade/ drafting as result , Possibly a wonky preseason as all sort themselves out . Cats apparently already ruing retaing Milburn and Wojo . there's still talent and emerging kids but the core structure ain't what it used to be. Rooke going won't make any dif as was already shot. GA and Bomber going along with his assistant ... Big shoes to fill.

It's not a happy Cattery anymore and that parochial town is bound to turn the heat up!

Geelong the power is gone .. Geelong , a team will replace them. Competitive ? Yes ! A force ? Nupp

What!! you have friends who Barracked for Brisbane earlier this Decade, then swapped to Geelong after that??

FFS that aint on!!! Have them killed immediately.

Better yet get them to swap to the dees. These tinny bastards have multiple premierships whoever they support.

I agree with Billy, the cats underachieved just like Essenscum 99-01. Anyone who disagrees obviously isn't up to their necks in Geelong supporters like me and Bill;)

Oh, and back on topic, I did like Maxy Rooke. Nowhere near enough facial hair in the AFL these days.

Will be interesting to see how there memberships go this year...

Geelong will always, always have good membership figures. They just won 2 flags in 4 years ffs.

Over a soccer league season, when you play everyone home and away, there can be no excuses, no debate, no doubting who the best team and deserved champions are. The league table doesn't lie.

The reason they don't have finals is the probable ignominy of a 6 month season of 400 games being decided in a penalty shoot-out.

There is a difference between underperforming and underachieving relevent to expectations. Probably many Cat supporters consider that they underperformed but did they ? I think they performed exactly as they were able . What they did was disappoint those that expected they would achieve more!

It's not semantics , there's actually a difference.

The reason they don't have finals is the probable ignominy of a 6 month season of 400 games being decided in a penalty shoot-out.

The dig at "soccer" aside, that is the point I'm making about "cup" competitions with a final / finals deciding the winner. The best team on the day wins, not the best team over the previous 6 months (or even the previous 6 days).

Back to Rooke, I agree about the facial hair, need more of it. And no, Dunn's dirty mo does not count. Maybe when he grows up he'll be able to grow a real one.

That's fine HG, you're entitled to your opinion, just like I am. I'm not going to treat you like you have leprosy just because our opinions are different.

Um, OK. Is this in reference to, well, anything?