POST MATCH DISCUSSION - Round 3

[binman 43,815]

1 minute ago, loges said:

No, we were well on top, no matter what the scenario, for nearly all the third quarter , fact !

Exactly. We dominated possession an inside 50's in the third, a combination that usually means you outscore the opposition. Our dominance would have been changed by the ball going back to the centre and in all probability we would have kicked away. We were 15 points up with 90 seconds to go (giving up those two goals was critical) but in all likelihood we would have been 5 goals plus up with accurate kicking. 

[binman 43,815]

3 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

Behind at quarter and half times and lost the game by 5 goals!!!! No-one on this planet can say the outcome would have been different, even if we had slotted any one of those misses.

I can. Roos did.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

Good luck to you and Roosy, but it is simply not logical.

Edited April 10, 2017 by iv'a worn smith

[loges 6,767]

6 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

Behind at quarter and half times and lost the game by 5 goals!!!! No-one on this planet can say the outcome would have been different, even if we had slotted any one of those misses.

Believe as you will , it was a game we threw away, not one that they won

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

4 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

If we can make finals I'll be keen to see us up against the Cats again.  We're better than them.

Now that I can agree with.

 

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

Just now, loges said:

Believe as you will , it was a game we threw away, not one that they won

I did not say we did not throw it away, I simply make the point that you cannot have a correlation between the circumstances which see a goal kicked and the ball going back to the middle for another contested centre clearance against the fact, that points were kicked. Again, the fact is we lost by as good as 5 goals, after the stirring 3rd quarter effort.  Other than that, we were behind for most of the day.  Fact.

[Devil is in the Detail 883]

3 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

Good luck to you and Roosy, but it is simply not logical.

On the flip if we had kicked a goal when we were a couple of goals up, you can possibly argue that the opposition could lose momentum and we pile another 2 goals on.

Ignoring the goal kicking, we were all over them in the second and third quarter and could have quite easily have taken a 5 - 10 goal lead into 3 qtr time.

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

Iv'a is correct.

We kick a behind. Cats kick it out. Play on etc.

 

BUT IF WE INSTEAD KICKED THE GOAL ... ball goes back to the centre. At the bounce, Watts gets a corked thigh, Cats clear it, Motlop kicks an incredible team lifting goal and the momentum changes with Watts in the change rooms for the rest of the day.

Maybe.

You just don't know.

It's sliding doors stuff.

You can't say "we WOULD HAVE". You can say, "it's likely ... it's probable ... " etc.

 

The one thing we can say with certainty is, we need to kick straighter.

[loges 6,767]

6 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

I did not say we did not throw it away, I simply make the point that you cannot have a correlation between the circumstances which see a goal kicked and the ball going back to the middle for another contested centre clearance against the fact, that points were kicked. Again, the fact is we lost by as good as 5 goals, after the stirring 3rd quarter effort.  Other than that, we were behind for most of the day.  Fact.

 

There is no reason to think that our dominance would have stopped if we had kicked a goal, in my experience the reverse usually prevails

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

Just now, Devil is in the Detail said:

On the flip if we had kicked a goal when we were a couple of goals up, you can possibly argue that the opposition could lose momentum and we pile another 2 goals on.

Ignoring the goal kicking, we were all over them in the second and third quarter and could have quite easily have taken a 5 - 10 goal lead into 3 qtr time.

But we didn't, and still lost by as as good as 5 goals. My point is, we gave it our best shot and had to grind it out to get back in the game and overtake them for for the period that we did.  After that and Maxy lost, we had spent our petrol tickets. 

I think this loss truly puts into perspective just how costly the loss of Lewis and Hogan, through stupidity, was to this outcome.  I don't blame 'inaccurate' goal' kicking for one minute.

 

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

1 minute ago, loges said:

 

There is no reason to think that our dominance would have stopped if we had kicked a goal, in my experience the reverse usually prevails

 Sadly, we will never know.  Either way, at the risk of sounding repetitive, had any one of those misses been goals, we cannot predict what the outcome of the subsequent centre clearance would have been.  Last week, I thought we had broken Carlton, but we didn't, as they headed us in the 3rd quarter.  It was only our class that got us through in the end.  Geelong, however, are an entirely different proposition.

 

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

2 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

I think this loss truly puts into perspective just how costly the loss of Lewis and Hogan, through stupidity, was to this outcome.  I don't blame 'inaccurate' goal' kicking for one minute.

Well now you're arguing against yourself.

Now you're saying "if those guys had played, we WOULD HAVE won".

We don't know. We'll never know.

All we know is, we had plenty of chances to kick goals, and we lost.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

5 minutes ago, Ted Fidge said:

Well now you're arguing against yourself.

Now you're saying "if those guys had played, we WOULD HAVE won".

We don't know. We'll never know.

All we know is, we had plenty of chances to kick goals, and we lost.

How am I doing that? I am simply responding to Loges point about having 'momentum'.  Had we had the experience of Lewis and the possible x factor of Hogan, the outcome may have been different, given the momentum Loges speaks of.  All I am saying is, when the game was in the balance, the loss of those 2 guys was more of a factor, in my view, than errant shots at goal.

Edited April 10, 2017 by iv'a worn smith

[loges 6,767]

6 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

 Sadly, we will never know.  Either way, at the risk of sounding repetitive, had any one of those misses been goals, we cannot predict what the outcome of the subsequent centre clearance would have been.  Last week, I thought we had broken Carlton, but we didn't, as they headed us in the 3rd quarter.  It was only our class that got us through in the end.  Geelong, however, are an entirely different proposition.

 

Well we can agree that the outcome was certainly sad, 4 points missed in what I believe will be an incredibly tight year

[Redleg 41,469]

10 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

I don't blame 'inaccurate' goal' kicking for one minute.

 

Well you might be the only person on the planet who holds that view. 

Even Scott conceded we were the better side and if we had kicked straight would have won.

[Bimbo 940]

43 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

Read above.  You kick one of those goals and the ball goes back to the middle.  No-one can predict what the next play will be in that scenario.  To keep saying; 'if only we had kicked straight' is moot.  We didn't and we cannot know what the next play would have been if we slotted even one of those misses.  The loss of Lewis, Hogan and obviously big Max hurt us more than anything else.

In the end, we lost by 5 goals.  Enough said.

iv'a, the corollary to this view is that such was our dominance in general play for much of the day, if they had missed some of their 50/50 shots at goal, the liklihood is that we would have again taken the ball up to the other end for a scoring chance.  

I cant remember such a disparity in inside 50's in our favour.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

If ya Aunty had a moustache she'd be your uncle

[Bimbo 940]

1 minute ago, iv'a worn smith said:

If ya Aunty had a moustache she'd be your uncle

she had - and she wasn't

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

2 minutes ago, Bimbo said:

iv'a, the corollary to this view is that such was our dominance in general play for much of the day, if they had missed some of their 50/50 shots at goal, the liklihood is that we would have again taken the ball up to the other end for a scoring chance.  

I cant remember such a disparity in inside 50's in our favour.

Agree with the inside 50 count, but like I said, other than for a very small percentage of the game, Geelong were in front for the majority of playing time and obviously in front when it mattered.

Edited April 10, 2017 by iv'a worn smith

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

1 minute ago, Bimbo said:

she had - and she wasn't

nuance.  

[Devil is in the Detail 883]

7 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

How am I doing that? I am simply responding to Loges point about having 'momentum'.  Had we had the experience of Lewis and the possible x factor of Hogan, the outcome may have been different, given the momentum Loges speaks of.  All I am saying is, when the game was in the balance, the loss of those 2 guys was more of a factor, in my view, than errant shots at goal.

You can't predict that for sure.

[Fat Tony 5,272]

I felt like one of the reasons we struggled to defend the Cats’ entries was the lack of a third tall in our defence. With Smith, Garland, Frost, Hibberd and Wagner all injured or underdone, Vince was playing the third tall role and I felt we did not get strong enough spoils in. Part of this also was Oscar not having enough impact when he did get the ball to ground. I hope that Goodwin sees this and we bring Frost or Wagner in next week.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

13 minutes ago, Devil is in the Detail said:

You can't predict that for sure.

Precisely and the prediction works both ways.  I am simply offering an opinion as to that aspect against the so-called bad kicking at goal.

 

 

[Lucifers Hero 40,364]

1 hour ago, iv'a worn smith said:

Behind at quarter and half times and lost the game by 5 goals!!!! No-one on this planet can say the outcome would have been different, even if we had slotted any one of those misses.

Our score at 3/4 time was 12.17.

Obviously, converting any one of those 17 misses would not make a difference.  But converting 3 or 4 of them could have kept Geelong at a distance for us to better defend. 

 

 

Nothing to do with your post or discussion point, it is the 2 Geelong 3rd qtr junk time goals that really bug me.  (This is where the momentum swung as they kicked two more in the first minutes of the 4th).  Last year it was Watts who dropped back in the last few minutes of each quarter to stop late goals.  In the first few games it was Lewis.  Jack couldn't be everywhere so this is where we really missed Lewis both his positioning and his leadership to get some else back there.

 

For a variety of reasons, it was the game that got away.  All history now.  Onward and upward!

Edited April 10, 2017 by Lucifer's Hero

[ArtificialWisdom 4,045]

Just now, Lucifer's Hero said:

Nothing to do with your post or discussion point, it is the 2 Geelong 3rd qtr junk time goals that really bug me.  (This is where the momentum swung as they kicked two more in the first minutes of the 4th).  Last year it was Watts who dropped back in the last few minutes of each quarter to stop late goals.  In the first few games it was Lewis.  Jack couldn't be everywhere so this is where we really missed Lewis both his positioning and his leadership to get some else back there.

For a variety of reasons, it was the game that got away.  All history now.  Onward and upward!

The forwardline/midfield structure completely fell apart in that period, both goals came from down the line turnovers where there were not enough at the contest to force a stopage. Defenders had nowhere to kick but straight back to geelong. But your final comment is the one I'm running with. We will still be right in with favourable chances in the next 4 games.