Leon Cameron called it “tripe” but what Greater Western Sydney served up against Geelong was actually much less palatable that.
The Giants took on the Cats as AFL premiership contenders, but left Kardinia Park exposed as pretenders after copping a 61-point belting.
The Cats never really hit top gear in front of 25,079 fans on Friday night, but were far too good for the disappointing Giants, cruising to a 14.9 (93) to 4.8 (32) win.
GWS have suffered larger losses in their seven-year history, but their three-quarter time score of 2.7 was their lowest since joining the AFL, the final score their second lowest ever.
Cameron didn’t mince words in his post-match assessment.
“We can’t serve up basic fundamental tripe like that going forward because it’s not going to stack up in big games,” the coach said.
“We’re not up to A-grade standard, to be totally honest.
“It’s an A-grade game against Geelong, they’re an A-grade team … clearly, in terms of basic fundamentals of the game, we’re not up to that standard.”
“We fell really short in an A-grade game again.”
Dylan Shiel (32 possessions) and Stephen Coniglio (28) battled hard for the Giants, but they had precious little support.
The Giants were without stars Jeremy Cameron, Brett Deledio, Toby Greene and Josh Kelly, but the Cats were missing Gary Ablett, Daniel Menzel and Harry Taylor to name a few.
“That’s irrelevant, I reckon, I can’t sit here and say that we got beaten by ten goals because of our depth – I’m not sitting here saying that,” Cameron replied when asked if injuries had exposed some younger players who aren’t ready to perform on the big stage.
“We got beaten because we couldn’t execute under extreme pressure from Geelong and we need to find a way to do that.
“It’s not lost because it’s only Round 7 but clearly we have to use the ball better.
“And it’s not just that, our aerial work was poor, our ball use was poor by hand and foot and that leads to a lack of concentration when it doesn’t go your way.
“We need to be better than that. Whether that’s leadership or whatever, clearly it’s a disappointing night for us.”
Doctor Rotcod
Guest
Got to be better than a game decided by one goal scored by a player whose teammate was offside,where a goalie gets a face full of studs
Republican
Guest
.......footy devolves, harder to watch with each season. How does anyone kid themselves that this is something worth investing in as a spectator sport, seriously, the AFL comp really has degenerated into a bore fest........
Pope Paul VII
Guest
Geelong played pretty well. GWS were abysmal. The way they were bombing into the forward line made it look like they were tanking. Some of the umpiring was too soft and inconsistent although it'd didn't affect the outcome. Danger got a free for alleged arm chopping for what was a clean spoil. Then they pluck out a free for holding when both are hanging on for dear life. Live a little, just call play on. Not long after Hawkins is all over his bloke like a rash but takes a noice one hander so they ignore the holding. Anyway all credit to the puddy tats.
User
Roar Rookie
Cats won fair and square, umpiring was far from hometown bias the tried and true umpire blaming that goes on is in the DNA of some clubs supporters so don't expect a change in that anytime soon.
Cat
Roar Guru
I don't agree on the hometown umpiring, GWS got a lot of the marginal early calls, think it was 10-4 frees advantage GWS way at one point. I thought it was actually one of the better umpiring performances overall. Can't recall any absolute howlers. Giants only had 4 set shots the whole game, not sure making an extra two of them in a 10 goal loss makes any difference. GWS did probably have the game penciled in as a loss but they wouldn't have wanted to loss 20 percentage points. I realise they are 'out of phase' with their draw but there are still a lot of games to be played and another contender could draw or GWS could repeat last year and get back 'in phase' by drawing a second time. Even if you disagree on the percentage 10 goal losses are demoralising.
Aligee
Guest
Yep, agreed
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
How's this then...I'd say the Giants dismal outcome was mostly a combination of heightened Geelong intensity and focus, hometown umpiring, a spluttering forward system, missed set shots, all of which began to gel with the possible subconscious idea that this was a bit of a sacrificable game. ...tick tick tick...
Cat
Roar Guru
Way to hijack a thread.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
I've also said before that the reason coaches like to have numbers around the ball is because it's the most effective way to win the ball and contests. Coaches won't just give up on that because of player fatigue, they're more likely to find ways to combat the fatigue factor. I also think reduced interchange would make it harder for teams to manage six day breaks and travel. If you want to mandate to address congestion it's really going to have to be more direct to be effective most likely.
Paul D
Roar Guru
Nah, Dal's right. Coaches always favour defence first, they'd go for teams chocka full of Blicavs and Ed Curnow types who can run and harrass all day and just wear the other team down.
Aligee
Guest
You have said that before, but teams actually have to kick goals to win, i think it will mean stay at home forwards TBH
Aligee
Guest
To the right of this page is some highlights of the GWS- Geelong game, one is a highlight of a GWS goal where of course no one, not one player is in the forward 50, the ball gets scrubber kicked out of a huge pack into the 50, and the players all run into the forward fifty and GWS kicks a somewhat lucky goal - how is that a highlight!, of course we have Paul Roos in the next clip telling us how Tom Hawkins touching the umpire is a bad look, but for mine the bad look is the way a kick scrubbered into the forward 50 where not one player is and this apparently is a highlight.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
You reduce (further) or get rid of interchange and you'd be more likely to increase the quotient of elite endurance runners on lists and in teams. I'd reckon it's more likely to increase injury rates too, as fatigue increases, there's more resultant lapses in concentration and more sloppily executed skills.
Aligee
Guest
It was a shocker, i don't reckon Geelong played that well either. i am going to replicate another post i made ...... Spread the game out and you wont have so many injuries, we cant expect players built like 400/800 metre runners to play a rugby rolling maul. You do that by lowering I/C numbers You do that by changing tackle laws where players have their arms pinned and driven into the turf which is a dangerous practice You do that by paying push in the back free kicks which seem to be missed constantly or late tackles that seem to be missed. I dont watch to see Scott Selwood make 15 tackles. I watch to see some good high marking and running open play and goals kicked. There are so many players around the ball, when teams do get it they have no one to kick it to, and therefore it just ends up back into the scrum.