9 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

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!

Yes, if that indeed occurred, but again, this is pure speculation on a scoring outcome.  Goals kicked......... different play entirely as a result.  But totally agree with your other points.

In quarters 2 and 3 the Dees had 23 scoring shots to 9.  14 more shots at goal.  That is a massive imbalance.  Under normal circumstances a club at Etihad would kick at least 14 goals.  14.9 = 93 and the other team would typically kick 6.3 = 39.  That's a difference of 54 points in quarters 2 and 3 and has the game over at 3/4 time.  

I appreciate the ball doesn't go back to the middle, etc., which is why it's an argument that is futile, but our dominance was such that under typical circumstances we don't lose that game.

 

Every time me missed one of those very gettable shots at goal Geelong got the ball back with sole possession ... on a number of occasions they eventually scored from those numerous possessions but quite often we ended up getting the ball back off them and worked our way into a position to have another very gettable shot at goal. 

Only to miss again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again.  It happened at least 7 times in the first half and about as many times again in the 2nd half.  I was keeping tabs and posted as much at half time on the game day thread - here's the post

The game should have been over at half time and definitely over at 3/4 time.  And we could/would have won the game in even more convincing fashion if Lewis & Hogan had been available.  Take the worst 2 players out and replace them with those 2.

What could go wrong did go wrong.  Losing Max just added salt into the wound. 

 

5 hours ago, Redleg said:

I'va, we were behind because we couldn't kick a goal from 20 out, straight in front, multiple times, not because Danger and Duckmyheadwood were hurting us. When Gawn went off, Danger was on 6 possies.

I agree it is hard to come from behind against Cats, but we should have been 8-10 goals in front at the last change.

My old man (who missed the game on Saturday) was telling me he watched the replay for the first time today.

I asked him whether the commentators were praising Melbourne or Geelong. He said that almost everyone, including Hudson (who is a Geelong supporter), agreed that the game should have been over if we'd kicked straight.

I'm intrigued by David King's new found love of Melbourne too. He's been talking us up big time as of late and apparently was complimentary again during Saturday's commentary. 

ALFCA votes:

Dangerfield - 8

Hunt - 8

Selwood - 6

Jones - 3

Blicavs - 3

Hawkins - 2

My guess as to a breakdown for this week -

       Good     Scott

5)  Hunt     Selwood

4) Danger   Danger

3) Jones     Hunt

2) Blicavs   Hawkins

1) Selwood   Blicavs

 

 

Coaches votes are in:

GEELONG v MELBOURNE
8 Patrick Dangerfield (Geel) 
8 Jayden Hunt (Melb)
6 Joel Selwood (Geel)
3 Mark Blicavs (Geel)
3 Nathan Jones (Melb)
2 Tom Hawkins (Geel)

The numbers would have to break down as follows then: 4+4 5+3 5+1 3+0 2+1 2+0

I would guess then that the coaches rated them as follows:

Goodwin: Hunt; Dangermouse; Jones; Bliclavs; Selwood

Scott: Selwood; Dangermouse; Hunt; Hawkins; Bliclaves;

Look about right?

5 hours ago, iv'a worn smith said:

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

I'm sorry, mate. You're not looking closely enough. Even as we were down by a couple of goals at quarter time, you would have seen that we dominated play and simply didn't lower our eyes. Our inside 50s were atrocious and we kicked it on the head of our small forwards against tall Geelong backs.

By the second quarter, we'd taken control and continued until pretty much three quarter time. We kick those 10 or so easy shots and we're 10 goals up at three quarter time and you don't come back from there. We blew it.

 

8 minutes ago, A F said:

My old man (who missed the game on Saturday) was telling me he watched the replay for the first time today.

I asked him whether the commentators were praising Melbourne or Geelong. He said that almost everyone, including Hudson (who is a Geelong supporter), agreed that the game should have been over if we'd kicked straight.

I'm intrigued by David King's new found love of Melbourne too. He's been talking us up big time as of late and apparently was complimentary again during Saturday's commentary. 

This sounds like the game last year against WCE were we won every statt except the scoreboard.

Sadly the scoreboard decides who gets the four points and we got nil last year and nil on Saturday.

If you dont kick the highest score you dont win and are not the best side.

Poor kicking is poor football. We did not win because we were not good enough.

11 minutes ago, old dee said:

This sounds like the game last year against WCE were we won every statt except the scoreboard.

Sadly the scoreboard decides who gets the four points and we got nil last year and nil on Saturday.

If you dont kick the highest score you dont win and are not the best side.

Poor kicking is poor football. We did not win because we were not good enough.

I agree that poor kicking is poor football. But that discounts all the hard work we did to dominate the contest around the ground, and get the ball into decent scoring positions. We did this on numerous occasions. I take it you haven't seen the game yet either, OD? It might be worth giving it a watch, rather than being too defeatist about it.

I'd also say it was a bit different from the West Coast game in that we never deserved to beat the Eagles by at minimum 5+ goals, but given our dominance around the ground, we should have beaten Geelong by that margin. 

4 minutes ago, A F said:

I agree that poor kicking is poor football. But that discounts all the hard work we did to dominate the contest around the ground, and get the ball into decent scoring positions. We did this on numerous occasions. I take it you haven't seen the game yet either, OD? It might be worth giving it a watch, rather than being too defeatist about it.

I'd also say it was a bit different from the West Coast game in that we never deserved to beat the Eagles by at minimum 5+ goals, but given our dominance around the ground, we should have beaten Geelong by that margin. 

Yes I have seen the game and if you dont kick the highest score you dont win.

We are still short on the necessary skill level and still have too many inexperienced players.

I have been hearing "we kicked ourselves out of it" one for 50 years We were not good enough or we would have won.

12 minutes ago, old dee said:

Yes I have seen the game and if you dont kick the highest score you dont win.

We are still short on the necessary skill level and still have too many inexperienced players.

I have been hearing "we kicked ourselves out of it" one for 50 years We were not good enough or we would have won.

Folk are still want of over complicating this game.

They who kick straight, invariably win.

Funny eh

22 minutes ago, old dee said:

We are still short on the necessary skill level and still have too many inexperienced players.

18:12 the first week and 13:8 the second.

We're not short on skills, we're short on the experience necessary to consistently apply those skills.

13 hours ago, buck_nekkid said:

Question:  what if Spencil goes down with an injury in the 8-12 weeks?  Is King even nearly ready?  Flippers is just a kid that gets pushed about in the VFL.

All of a sudden, ruck depth becomes a thing of concern.

 

Get well, soon, Maxy!

It'll be Pedo time! The forgotten big man!

1 hour ago, Moonshadow said:

It'll be Pedo time! The forgotten big man!

This is from Wikipedia, but . . .

He made his AFL debut in the opening round of the 2011 season against West Coast at Patersons Stadium where he recorded twenty disposals, fourteen hitouts, five marks, four clearances and three tackles.^[9] After Todd Goldstein was a late withdrawal for North Melbourne, Pedersen was forced to play as the main ruckman against six-time All-Australian ruckman, Dean Cox.^[10] Conceding ten centimeters in height to Cox, Pedersen had the advantage in the ruckman duel and was North Melbourne's "Mr fix-it" according to The Age journalist, Tim Clarke.^[11]

^{Also: Pedo has just about the longest Wiki page of any AFL footballer. Nice to know he's keeping himself busy when not in the firsts.}

Still [censored] off. What a waste of 4 points. Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. 

 

Sigh