Did Geelong have all the best players

[saintrod]

I don't know if this is just me but one of a number of things that has annoyed me after the game is the blatant bias in player assessments and rewriting of history after the game . What I mean by that is that the cats player seemed to get way better comparative rankings than the saints player yet I must have been at the wrong game because I would have sworn that for about 31/2 Qtrs we were the better side. Walls is the worst at laying the boots in but by no means the only one.

[Dan Warna]

history shows that geelong beat st kilda.

That is all.

the courage of the saints on the day counts for nothing.

Goddard running on with a broken nose and damaged collarbone would have been up there with dermie in 89 was it? HAD WE WON.

no one cares about the losers.

NOBODY.

and as for as 15 other clubs and other casual observers, thats all we are to them.

[Thinline]

Walls did one, Eade did the other. I suspect one marked hard and the other didn't.

Not that I give a s***.

We lost. I know what I saw. That's that.

[saint66au]

For a contest that had a milllion lead changes and the biggest margin all day just two goals, the Norm Smith voting was amazingly pro-Geelong

I genuinely think the Norm Smith judges make a conscious effort to ensure that the Medal goes to a member of the winning side. I dont actually have a problem with that..it just seemed weird that about 6 Geelong players to St Kilda's 2 got votes in such a tight game. Given the votes arent cast until after the game, seems pretty likely to me

I stress again, not sour grapes, just a thought

[Launcestonsaint]

For a contest that had a milllion lead changes and the biggest margin all day just two goals, the Norm Smith voting was amazingly pro-Geelong

I genuinely think the Norm Smith judges make a conscious effort to ensure that the Medal goes to a member of the winning side. I dont actually have a problem with that..it just seemed weird that about 6 Geelong players to St Kilda's 2 got votes in such a tight game. Given the votes arent cast until after the game, seems pretty likely to me

I stress again, not sour grapes, just a thought

I thought the same. After reading the votes I thought we must have lost by 5-10 goals. We were beaten by a team that kicked straighter but we must have had several players that were ok during the game.

[Moods]

Funny talking with a geelong mate. He reckons that the cats players were either really good, or really poor, whereas he reckons the saints team was very even across th board. Pretty much sums up the two teams I reckon.

I agree with the OP though and was strangely annoyed with the ratings. If we'd played a little better in the last 5 minutes, does that mean that all of a sudden Zac did a wonderful job in keeping Mooney under control, or does that mean Mooney was still dangerous all day and Zac made some crucial errors??

Does Raph recover well and play a serviceable game after a shakey start.

AS for the Norm Smith. My understanding is that the votes are cast at the 20 minute mark of the last 1/4. Don't reckon many commentators would know the result at that stage in such a tight game. Was the big criticism of the NS in 02 when Buckley won it. Voss played out of his socks in the last 15 minutes after being great all game, to virtually win the lions the game, but the votes had already been cast.

[matrix]

no

[Thinline]

Makes you wonder doesn't it:

The NS bodgily and prematurely adjudicated...

The Brownlow - the king of them all - gifted to midfielders at the behest of umpires who can't possibly have anything other than fleeting ideas about who is good or not...

Obvious posters undetected in - of all games - the GF...

Failure is rewarded - draft picks...

There's some really odd quirks in our game. Very bloody weird if you think too much about it...

[SainterK]

Bomber Thompson admitted tonight that Gram was giving them headaches all day, finding space and disposing of the ball very well....