doriswilgus wrote:So I was wrong,along with about 95% of the football community.They'll be out in four sets next week,or three sets if you're talking about a women's game.
There is no harm in being "wrong". I thought your post deserved a re-visit because you tried to deny the obvious, not because you were "wrong". Your previous post was merely speculative and wishful thinking, just like your present one.
I'm with you in wanting them to lose. At one stage, I went through a few years of predicting that they were about to fall away.
Yet, here we are - no Bartel, no Scarlett, no Ablett, no Rooke, no Johnson, no Chapman, no Kelly, no Ling, no Milburn, no Mooney, no Ottens, no Corey, no Enright etc and they are still finishing second and winning finals against the odds with Selwood half-fit, Dangerfield playing full-forward and a make-shift full-back (with Lonergan out ill). Geelong has had 15 players who have reached 250 career games for them. 8 of those have retired in the last decade and they still keep backing up, year after year.
Geelong's home and away season ranking since 2007 has finished 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 6, 2, 3, 10, 2, 2. Of course, teams change their rankings after the finals. For example, in 2009 and 2011, Geelong finished "1" after the finals, although they'd "only" been "2" during the year.
In the same period, we finished 6, 8, 4, 1, 1, 4, 6, 11, 12, 12, 13. There's a fair question to be asked about why Geelong didn't fall too far after their two number one finishes and have remained there or thereabouts, whereas Collingwood has plummeted. So, Geelong dropped to 6th, then backed up to finish 3rd or higher in 4 of the next 5 seasons. We dropped to 6th and, well, that was it for our era. No "dead cat bounce". Nothing. Nor, for the record, do I think it's all about the coach.
It's fun to mock opposition teams when they lose big finals but it's not as much fun as barracking for your own team when they get there.
