Mythbusting

This unofficial St Kilda Saints fan forum is for people of all ages to chat Saints Footy and all posts must be respectful.

Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
meher baba
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 6873
Joined: Mon 14 Aug 2006 6:49am
Location: Tasmania
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 405 times

Mythbusting

Post: # 432944Post meher baba »

(WARNING: THIS THREAD HAS BEEN RATED R FOR RATIONAL READERS ONLY. IT MAY CONTAIN REFERENCES TO SACKED COACHES AND DELISTED PLAYERS)

Reading, once again, a whole lot of posts saying "we finished 8th in 2006, so we were clearly going backwards", has - in the immortal words of Plant/Page - "made me wonder".

So I want to start a discussion on assessing the direction in which our team has gone over the 2003-07 period in which we all look at some facts and some logical analysis, rather than just abuse each other all the time.

I'll kick it off with a few points of analysis, which I'll break up into a few separate posts over the next day or so. I'm not trying to ram my ideas down other people's throats: I'm interested in stimulating debate.

Was 2004-05 a golden era in which we should have won at least one flag?

I know many think so, but I don't agree. Yes, the fans running on the field upset things in 2004 - but surely Port were always going to mount some sort of a comeback and some point - and we did suffer some key injuries leading up to the loss to the Swans in 2005, but the Swans played extremely well in that match and were deserved winners.

I don't believe we would have won the 2004 GF against the Lions. Port produced an unprecedently great performance on that particularly day, but their finals appearances in previous seasons had made them a seasoned and confident side, whereas we were pretty raw and nervous and would have been coming up against a team that had thrashed us in two recent matches.

I believe we would have beaten the WCE in the 2005 GF, but the simple fact is that we weren't good enough to beat the Swans in the PF.

There is far too much weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth on this forum - and possibly in the St Kilda boardroom - about lost opportunities in 2004 and 2005. In the modern AFL world - with its unbalanced draw, its low standard of umpiring, its higher incidence of serious injury, etc. - getting to a PF is a good result for any club, and getting beyond this to a GF or a premiership win requires a few lucky breaks. Perhaps the Brisbane Lions in the early 2000s were a bit of an exception to this rule but, when you consider it, they could easily have lost in 2002 against all expectations, and they did lose unexpectedly in 2004 against an inferior team that produced a better game on the day.

So, in summary, I do not believe that 2004-05 was our window. We were a pretty young and inexperienced team which would have needed better than a 60/40 share of the luck, which we certainly didn't get.


"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."
- Jonathan Swift
User avatar
meher baba
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 6873
Joined: Mon 14 Aug 2006 6:49am
Location: Tasmania
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 405 times

Post: # 432953Post meher baba »

We finished 8th in 2006, so we were going backwards

I believe that, given the impediments we faced, our 2006 outcome was probably equivalent to that of the two previous years. This was itself something of a disappointment, because we should have gone forward rather than stagnated, but I do not believe that there were too many signs that we were on a downward slide.

First of all, like this season, we suffered a terrible run with injuries.

Secondly, we had the most appalling draw, playing away games against 5 out of the 6 interstate clubs, including two in Perth and, on top of this, games against Freo and Port at what was effectively a neutral venue. Plus we had vastly more 6 day breaks between games than any other team, including some where we were coming back from interstate. Then, to top it off, we got to play our "home" EF against the Dees at their home ground.

We were robbed by the worst display of umpiring in recent years (even worse than last night) in the game against Port at AAMI.

We were robbed of two points by the AFL. (I know we didn't "deserve" the draw against Freo, but we achieved it under the rules of the AFL. We didn't "deserve" the loss against Port either.) If we had not been robbed of these 6 points we would have finished 3rd and played the Crows in Adelaide in the first final once again: just as we did in 2005.

Even with these injustices, we finished 6th in the regular season, beaten by 1 percentage point by the Filth, who - as they do every season - benefited from a favourable draw.

So, all in all, I reckon our team was at about the same place in 2006 as it was in 2005, but injuries and the general unfairness of the way that AFL is run and umpired (including the mystifying rules that determined that we were deemed to have finished 8th), meant that our official result was not as good.


"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."
- Jonathan Swift
User avatar
Solar
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 8144
Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 12:43pm

Post: # 432954Post Solar »

Good post so far, the first thing that springs to mind is that I would love to see a pre-season where the majority of our squad have a full pre-season. Jono Brown was interviewed after their games against the hawks yesterday and he said that the biggest thing that he was looking forward to was completing a full preseason for the first time in 4 odd years.

The last two years we have always been playing catch up because of early season injuries. This squad is in transition, with the likes of watts kicking goals for casey and armo and eddy coming through. We will lose the likes of hamill, gehrig, harvey, thommo, voss, etc. in the next year and the half.

We are also evolving our game plan, which could take the whole year. It took brisbane 5-7 years to win one, port finished top 2 years runninng till they won one.


FQF
loyal in the good times and bad
In richo I trust

2013 trade/draft best ever?
Billings - future brownlow medallist Longer - future best ruck
Dunstan - future captain Eli - future cult hero
Acres - future norm smith
Richter
SS Life Member
Posts: 3914
Joined: Wed 30 Nov 2005 1:18pm
Location: Elwood

Post: # 432960Post Richter »

It's all very well trying to rationalise mb, but you've forgotten to factor in the most important evidence. That which we all see week in, week out with our own eyes.

In 2004-5 we were playing hard, attacking football which won us a lot of games. We won some high pressure games (vs Brisbane in the H&A, 2004; vs Sydney, Elim Final, 2004; vs Adelaide, QF, 2005) but crucially lost a couple too (PFs both years). The Grant Thomas mantra was working and the players played like a team who believed in themselves. The motto could well have been.... "we don't mind how many goals you score, we'll get more....."

In 2006 we did not play as well. Our previously starring midfield starting losing both one-on-one and as a unit. The ruck situation was a joke and crucially we lost Lenny Hayes to a serious knee injury early in the season when he was in some of the best form of his career. Luke Ball's OP problems took hold. Neither of these players have been the same since.

We did not rip up any teams last year and lost a number of crucial games - WCE, Adelaide in the H & A and vs Melbourne in the Elim Final. We did not win a single pivotal match. The selection of the injury prone and unfit Aaron Hamill and Raphael Clarke for that game cost us the season and the GT reign was over.

This season has seen a change in game plan. So far we are struggling even more than last year. We have lost many more games against inferior opposition (Essendon, Filth, Bulldogs (as good as a loss)) but we have won a crucial game in Perth. It is too early to conclusively judge this new coach but so far many are scratching their heads.

Ross Lyon, it's up to you to turn around the fortunes of this team. Are you capable of doing it? I hope so. If you can't you'll lose your job and there will be more gnashing of teeth and wailing down on the Bayside......


Hird... The unflushable one is now... just a turd...
kaos theory
Club Player
Posts: 1521
Joined: Sun 14 Mar 2004 8:38pm
Been thanked: 25 times

Post: # 432962Post kaos theory »

Even with these injustices, we finished 6th in the regular season, beaten by 1 percentage point by the Filth, who - as they do every season - benefited from a favourable draw.
You are not analyzing the whole situation. The quality of other teams has significnatly improved over the last year compared to us. Teams like Hawks, Essenodn (earleir in the year were vastly superior to their 2006 form), Roos, Geelong, Port, Lions have, overall, improved on last year. The pies have improved, a little, but are stagnating now. The dogs, swans, eagles, freo have stagnated, but not gone backwards significantly. Only the tigers & Melborune have gone significantly backwards. Therefore we have a much tougher competition this yr versus the last 2 or 3 years.

Also, your injury comparisions are worng. In the first half of this yr we had the worst injury list since 2002, and the worst pre-season for at least 5 years. Therefore, it is extemely difficult to get everything running perfectly when 'on paper' you have most players available for the second half of the yr, becuase of what has happened in the pre-season and the first half of the yr.

When you factor in all these conditions, plus the major changes to the footy department (IMO was urgently needed), our performance, while very dissapointing, is not wholly unexpected....


kaos theory
Club Player
Posts: 1521
Joined: Sun 14 Mar 2004 8:38pm
Been thanked: 25 times

Post: # 432966Post kaos theory »

The ruck situation was a joke and crucially we lost Lenny Hayes to a serious knee injury early in the season when he was in some of the best form of his career. Luke Ball's OP problems took hold. Neither of these players have been the same since.
Yes, The contribution of these 2 through 04 & 05 was critical to our successes. The value they bring is not easy to replace, and we are finding that especially true this yr.


User avatar
Oh When the Saints
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 5621
Joined: Wed 29 Mar 2006 4:25pm
Location: QLD
Contact:

Post: # 432978Post Oh When the Saints »

Firstly, great thread meher baba.

This thread will be moderated tightly, and anything irrational or overtly emotive will be deleted immediately.


meher baba wrote:So, in summary, I do not believe that 2004-05 was our window. We were a pretty young and inexperienced team which would have needed better than a 60/40 share of the luck, which we certainly didn't get.
I haven't quoted your whole first post, but I will refer to it all.


In essence, I believe in 2004-05 we found ourselves in a unique situation in the balance of our list, development of our players and unity of our coaching staff.

We had a blend of youth and experience, and some older players who improved significantly with the injection of talent around them.

In this period, we happened to win ten matches in a row, and I believe the judgment of many has been skewed ever since, simply because of the benchmark that achievement set.

Our core group of more senior and hardened players in this period - Penny, Jones, Black, Hamill, Gehrig, Powell, Thompson, Harvey, Hudghton, Hayes and Peckett - made up at least half of our senior side.

I think we found ourselves in a unique situation where we had a group of older players who had the experience and ability that allowed our young players to shine.

They were not duds - all of the players in that list were worthy of All-Australian selection in their best season.


Hence why I think we achieved as we did in '04/'05 -- on the back of the strength that our talented senior players brought to the team.

Instead of people saying that we were a young team, I believe we were an experienced side who had a higher than normal element of youth.


I believe that 2004 and 2005 did provide an opportunity in terms of the state of the playing group.

Contrary to what many think, I did not see us as an inexperienced side in that period, but rather a side that genuinely deserved the chance at winning a premiership.

We gave ourselves that chance - twice - but fell two wins short on both occasions.

I agree with you meher baba that a Preliminary Final is a terrific result in modern football, and to reach two consecutively was an achievement -- but one that brought with it higher expectations.


The problem that arises if you follow my point of view is that the strength and results of your team depend on your senior players.

The group of senior players in 2004/05, who IMO were largely responsible for our success (because they allowed the younger element of the team to play without inhibition), and who made up at least half the team, have all either retired or diminished in their output.

Look at that list again.

Penny, Jones, Black, Hamill, Gehrig, Powell, Thompson, Harvey, Hudghton, Hayes and Peckett.

All players with 100+ games experience in 2004/05, and all regulars in the team.

Penny (gone), Jones (gone), Black (gone), Hamill (gone), Gehrig (reduced), Powell (gone), Thompson (gone), Harvey (same), Hudghton (same), Hayes (same), Peckett (gone).


We lost a huge amount of experience and ability that was at it's peak in 2004/05, but has diminished significantly since then.


IMO people do not take into account the loss of this ability and its effect on the team.

Basically we have lost 50% of our 2004 team in 2 years.

That has a dramatic impact on the playing group.

Some people like to blame Grant Thomas for not preparing us for that, but I think that is a simplistic view that puts an unreasonable expectation on the club and coaching/recruiting staff.


Since that time, the development and addition of younger players to the squad (Dal, Rooey etc.) - who were playing in '04, but were not the senior experienced players taking the pressure - has meant that we tend to overlook the impact of losing some of our experienced senior players.


As I see it, many of these guys are now being asked to step up. Which is fair enough, but there's not the same level of talent coming through underneath them that there was in 2004/05.


But I wander too much into another topic.


I do see 2004/05 as a missed opportunity because I believe for two years we were in a situation that allowed us to win a premiership.

I do not blame the coach for the fact that we didn't win the flag, because I don't believe anyone else would have put us any closer.


As meher baba says, we just didn't get a bit of the luck you need to win a premiership.


We had a unique blend in that era, with some super-talented senior players in the last 2-3 years of their career who allowed our youngsters to shine.


They should only play AFL games now when it's raining. Slow games of footy are so much better to watch.
To the top
SS Life Member
Posts: 3266
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2007 4:05pm
Been thanked: 390 times

Post: # 432986Post To the top »

If we finished 8th in 2006, why are we drawn against BOTH of the Grand Finalists for the last two years in the last 4 rounds of the year?

The draw is unfair by nature, but it seems to be more consistently unfair against some versus others.

This year we played Melbourne in the first round of the year but do not play them again.

Melbourne, despite being finanlists last year and touted for a high finish again this year, are where the are on the table.

There is some luck in the draw, given some teams improve on the previous year's results and others fall off, and in a manipulated tight competition (except in regards some particular clubs, including some in need of financial impetus because of spending on other than pure football related items) you need every bit of luck riding for you.

When you have people with out-sized egos, looking for every media opportunity sitting at the head of the AFL, and they have their associations based on "who they are seen with" for mutual ego-stoking self importance purposes, you have a recipe for what we see today.

You need a CEO who has been there, done that and has no need to further enhance their perceived reputation (or financial position) sitting at the head of the AFL.

This is why Jackson was effective.

He was self-made, had his impeccable corporate record and came to the AFL free of the needs of Demetriou, needs which include maintaining a life style seen as appropriate to the position.

Jackson retired to his farm, which he could have done when he left the corporate world and joined the AFL.

What is Demitriou's CV versus Jackson's CV?

Demitriou at the AFL is a carbon copy of Thomas at St Kilda.


User avatar
meher baba
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 6873
Joined: Mon 14 Aug 2006 6:49am
Location: Tasmania
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 405 times

Post: # 433073Post meher baba »

Richter wrote:In 2006 we did not play as well. Our previously starring midfield starting losing both one-on-one and as a unit. The ruck situation was a joke and crucially we lost Lenny Hayes to a serious knee injury early in the season when he was in some of the best form of his career. Luke Ball's OP problems took hold. Neither of these players have been the same since.

We did not rip up any teams last year and lost a number of crucial games - WCE, Adelaide in the H & A and vs Melbourne in the Elim Final. We did not win a single pivotal match. The selection of the injury prone and unfit Aaron Hamill and Raphael Clarke for that game cost us the season and the GT reign was over.
I agree to some extent that we didn't look as dominant on the field last year as in previous seasons. I don't think benchmarking our losses to Adelaide and WCE in the home and away is quite fair: we were thrashed by Adelaide at the TD in both 2005 and 2006 and lost to the WCE at Subi both years (getting much closer last year than in 2005, against a team which had both Judd and Cousins playing in it, unlike this year). We lost moderately heavily against WCE at the TD last year, but were in it until comparatively late in the game.

Whatever about the Melbourne game: people seem to have violently opposing and immovable views on what happened there. Yes, Raph and Hamill are injury prone and they proved to be bad selections , but so did Harves, X and Gehrig unexpectedly and there may have been others I have forgotten. It was simply one of those things IMO. It's not as if we haven't seen heaps of players breaking down in matches this year.


"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."
- Jonathan Swift
User avatar
Solar
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 8144
Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 12:43pm

Post: # 433081Post Solar »

meher baba wrote:
Richter wrote:In 2006 we did not play as well. Our previously starring midfield starting losing both one-on-one and as a unit. The ruck situation was a joke and crucially we lost Lenny Hayes to a serious knee injury early in the season when he was in some of the best form of his career. Luke Ball's OP problems took hold. Neither of these players have been the same since.

We did not rip up any teams last year and lost a number of crucial games - WCE, Adelaide in the H & A and vs Melbourne in the Elim Final. We did not win a single pivotal match. The selection of the injury prone and unfit Aaron Hamill and Raphael Clarke for that game cost us the season and the GT reign was over.
I agree to some extent that we didn't look as dominant on the field last year as in previous seasons. I don't think benchmarking our losses to Adelaide and WCE in the home and away is quite fair: we were thrashed by Adelaide at the TD in both 2005 and 2006 and lost to the WCE at Subi both years (getting much closer last year than in 2005, against a team which had both Judd and Cousins playing in it, unlike this year). We lost moderately heavily against WCE at the TD last year, but were in it until comparatively late in the game.

Whatever about the Melbourne game: people seem to have violently opposing and immovable views on what happened there. Yes, Raph and Hamill are injury prone and they proved to be bad selections , but so did Harves, X and Gehrig unexpectedly and there may have been others I have forgotten. It was simply one of those things IMO. It's not as if we haven't seen heaps of players breaking down in matches this year.
agreed. At the time it seemed worth it to chuck in hamill on a wet night to attempt to win a final. We also were missing our CHB in maguire and our best midfielder in hayes. We lost gehrig and x to freak accidents and harvey played the final quarter with a bunged hammy in the goal square to just make up numbers.... oh and we were still in front at three quarter time.....


FQF
loyal in the good times and bad
In richo I trust

2013 trade/draft best ever?
Billings - future brownlow medallist Longer - future best ruck
Dunstan - future captain Eli - future cult hero
Acres - future norm smith
kalsaint
Club Player
Posts: 1941
Joined: Sat 24 Apr 2004 10:24pm
Location: Perth WA
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 19 times

Post: # 433089Post kalsaint »

I welcome the discussion.

In 2004 I was saddened to see th loss to port as I firmly beleive we had the goods to beat Brisbane. Brisbane were really struggling at that stage of the season and only just beat Geelong (who were not bad but probably the weaker of the top four sides that year). The earlier losses to Brisbane were not typical of the finals arenas and the heat in the early match was extreme for footy. Nuff said here.

Port beat us. The fans on the ground had little to do with this result. Port basically outplayed us in quarters 3 and 4 and held on to win.

In 2005 I believe West Coast has developed a game plan that was always going to beat us. We were struggling and to quote GT (we seen to struggle against the teams that run hard) this showed us up sevferal times.

I believe we could have been embarrased in 2005 unless the accountability was there. Especially seeing we ad several players out due to injury over the last 3 or 4 weks of the regular season. These players were not up to the requirement of finals participation and particularly WCE game style.

2006 - I believe we needed a change to the game plan but recruitment had not been addressd in the years leading up to this so we were on the way down again. We had lost some quality, hard at it midfielders such as BlacK and others were aging. We had also lost the ability to sustain weekly forward pressure without Hamill, Thommo in these roles and Guerra leaving. We were never going anywhere in 2006 so the coaching moves probably wasn't a real surprise to me.


Midfield clearances and clear winners are needed to make an effective forward line.

You need to protect the ball handler to increase posession efficiency
User avatar
meher baba
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 6873
Joined: Mon 14 Aug 2006 6:49am
Location: Tasmania
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 405 times

Post: # 433103Post meher baba »

Our list has been deteriorating over a couple of seasons
(and this is partly a response to you, OWTS).

I think a lot of our discussion on this point gets overly preoccupied with fringe or backup players rather than on the core team.

Also, it isn't fair in most cases to talk about our list having deteriorated because some players have been plagued with injuries. There is perhaps a point in relation to Hamill and Gardiner, because there is severe doubt about how much of a future contribution they will make.

But it is a nonsense to try to attribute our performances in 2006 and 2007 to a "deteriorating list" without taking account of the fact that we were without Lenny, Kosi and Maguire for much of last season and have been without Max and BJ for much of this year and Sam Fisher, Riewoldt, Ball, Maguire, Harvey and others for crucial periods this year, as well as having players like Hayes struggling to get back to proper form.

Yes we have an ageing list: so do other top teams such as Sydney and Adelaide. But, perhaps more than those two teams, we also have a core of first rate players with many years left in them: Riewoldt, Kosi, Dal, Ball, Hayes, Maguire, Sam Fisher, Gram, Joey, Gilbert, BJ, etc.

As OWTS observed, we did lose Black and effectively Penny at the end of 2004, and Jones at the end of 2005. We also have had greatly reduced contributions from Gehrig, Powell, Peckett and Thommo from the beginning of 2006 and have been denied the best of Hamill, Kosi, BJ, Lenny, Maguire, Max, X and Raph by serious injury throughout much of the past two seasons.

On the other hand, since the end of 2005, we have seen Chips, Gram, Joey and more recently Fiora and Gilbert start to come into their own. And Attard has popped up as a handy player. And Kosi is having a stronger and more consistent 2007 than his previous two seasons. So there have been swings and roundabouts.

Yes, we might have made some better decisions in the draft in the past few seasons: for mine, there are still significant question marks over the decisions to recruit Watts, Gardiner, Raymond, Howard and perhaps others. (I think it is hypercritical to complain about the selection of Fiora, McQualter, Gwilt, Birss, M Clarke and Sweeney.) But, all in all, I think our list still holds up ok.

Despite a horror run with injuries, a terrible draw in 2006 and all the turmoil of having our coach sacked before the beginning of this season, our "terrible" list has managed to make the finals last year and remains in contention to make them again in 2007 with three rounds to go.


"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."
- Jonathan Swift
kalsaint
Club Player
Posts: 1941
Joined: Sat 24 Apr 2004 10:24pm
Location: Perth WA
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 19 times

Post: # 433110Post kalsaint »

No matter how look at this, I firmly believe that we have lost some midfield quality in the last 3 years and not added enough depth in this area.

Other teams Hawks, Bombers, Kangaroos, have continued to develop in this area, as alluded to in the replies to your post. These teams are doing well now.

Even Carlton has made significant inroads here (having Stevens missing most of the year). Richmond may also just be turning things around with some quality players like Foley, Delidio etc and are missing Coughlan through injury.

Isn't it interesting that teams move on and develop so much more when their key players are removed for long periods.

Unfortunately I dont think the Saints have developed the midfield sufficiently to match others and it shows now.


Midfield clearances and clear winners are needed to make an effective forward line.

You need to protect the ball handler to increase posession efficiency
To the top
SS Life Member
Posts: 3266
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2007 4:05pm
Been thanked: 390 times

Post: # 433116Post To the top »

Re-generation is what footy clubs are about - and not only footy clubs, as we are witnessing in another facet of our country currently!

There is always going to be a passing parade - and the reason for this is that the premier team is going to improve so those that did not win the premiership are going to have to improve by that amount and more.

So you keep turming - and developing players to their ability.

As a rule of thumb, you look for 3 players to announce their arrival in any one year - not necessarily from the draft but also from VFL development.

There is no sentiment.

The players we have lost for one reason or another are listed by others.

And we may well lose another batch at the end of this season, because despite hoping Harvey and Gehrig have one further productive season in them, the question is still there as it is with Thompson, Voss, Hudgden and M. Clarke.

Given the lack of depth in our mid-field, where we still rely on Harvey, who should really be a bonus, others will be under pressure - and they start from Baker down.

Every season is a new season, and we have a structure which relies on a fully fit Ball, a fully fit Hayes, a fully fit Maguire, a fully fit Kosi, a fully fit X. Clarke, a fully fit R. Clarke and a final tilt by Max (because who else can play full back?).

Then there is Dal Santo, S. Fisher, L. Fisher (who seems to have tailed in form since the hamstring problem), Gram (who is struggling physically and has been since the Essendon clash), Riewoldt and Montagna.

We have additions in Gardiner (hopefully) and Goddard. Hamill is a query.

The only player to put a mark on the game, in terms of announcing his arrival, is Gilbert.

And we should have had 3 given the players lost and as listed elsewhere.

Yes we have the likes of Watts and Brooks who are doing what they are doing to prove they have a future, by consistently performing plus some others who are periodically in the VFL best (Gwilt, Ferguson)

Armitage and Allen are of interest, and may well evolve.


But the fundamental point is that, over the past few years we have not introduced players to replace those lost - as confirmed by only R. Clarke and Gilbert being nominated for the AFL Rookie award.

We have been lazy, relying on players we should not have relied on as first 22 selections, and ensuring these players were not put under pressure by developing and evolving youngsters.

We have been stagnating, not regenerating.

So we still rely on stellar performances from Harvey to craft our significant wins.

When we really needed someone with a couple of years in the system to take the game by the scruff of the neck and announce their arrival/s emphatically.

So we still search our list for evolving talent - because there are plenty of gaps to be filled - and especially given the ages of a couple of players we still absolutely rely on.


User avatar
saintsRrising
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 30034
Joined: Mon 15 Mar 2004 11:07am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 700 times
Been thanked: 1212 times

Post: # 433153Post saintsRrising »

meher baba wrote:
our "terrible" list has managed to make the finals last year and remains in contention to make them again in 2007 with three rounds to go.
MB...I don't anyone is saying we havea "terrible" list.

However given the picks we had avaialble the list is not as good as it could or should be.

Nobody expects drafting perfection, but the "topping up" done by the previous coach to try and snarea flag was poorly done.

However given the gifts of:
Blighlotto: Good players attracted to us by Blight
Low draft picks for several years
The double fortune of priority picks eerging in the years we finished low

We were given the making of our best list in 40 years.....and then WASTED this opportunity through shoddy use of draft picks and trading for GOPS.

No team has a perfect list.....but we have glaring deficiencies.

ALL teams must continually have new players injected into them....this should be done to improve the balance and ake up of the team.

If you lack toughness...recruit for it.
If you lack footskills...recruit for it.
If you lack pace...recruit for it.
If you lack midfielders...recruit for it.


If you have too many GOPS...then DON'T recruit more....turn the list over instead.


The reality is the previous coach though his list was good enough....the future was largely ignored (ie rookies under utilsed etc....)..immediate fixes were looked for in rejected GOPS from other clubs.

We did not pay enough respect for the future....and now that the future is here and now we are paying for this neglect ina list which is not "terrible" but which is not as good as it should be.


If you want to the best team in the competition then you may CONSTANTLY strive yo improve your list and NEVER assume that you are there.


Flying the World in comfort thanks to FF Points....
User avatar
Oh When the Saints
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 5621
Joined: Wed 29 Mar 2006 4:25pm
Location: QLD
Contact:

Post: # 433176Post Oh When the Saints »

meher baba wrote:As OWTS observed, we did lose Black and effectively Penny at the end of 2004, and Jones at the end of 2005. We also have had greatly reduced contributions from Gehrig, Powell, Peckett and Thommo from the beginning of 2006 and have been denied the best of Hamill, Kosi, BJ, Lenny, Maguire, Max, X and Raph by serious injury throughout much of the past two seasons.

On the other hand, since the end of 2005, we have seen Chips, Gram, Joey and more recently Fiora and Gilbert start to come into their own. And Attard has popped up as a handy player. And Kosi is having a stronger and more consistent 2007 than his previous two seasons. So there have been swings and roundabouts.
This is the point that I am yet to convince anyone to agree with ...

In 2004/05, we were an experienced team with a strong element of youth.

Not a youthful team with an element of experience.

Look at the names you list meher baba - 8-9 players who are effectively gone, who were all a key part of our success in 2004/05.

I agree that they have been replaced by quality in Chips/Gram/Gilbert/Joey ...

But these guys who have come through are YOUNG and INEXPERIENCED.

We lost blokes who were hardened veterans - Thommo, Frankie, Powell, Penny, Jones, Black, Hamill - and have replaced them with kids.

Look at those names.

All players with a bucketload of ability who delivered when it counted.


As a result, the attention and pressure has been shifted to the group that were selected in 2000/01 ... Riewoldt, Kosi et. al.


IMO these guys simply aren't ready yet ... most of them are only around the 100 game mark.


We are a far younger and more inexperienced team in 2007 than we were in 2004.

Our average games is significantly lower, and the number of players with 150+ games experience has been halved.


You simply cannot replace the experience and ability of 8-9 blokes in the space of two years.

Some posters believe you can and think that Thomas should have drafted players x, y and z along with rookies.


But that is a simplistic and coloured view IMO.


The fact is that we have lost half our side of 2004/05.

Now their replacements are equal in ability in most cases - but not in experience and development.


That will come with time.


Our list is fine - it's just a young group.


Younger than 2004 and 2005.


We are in a transition period at the moment whilst the players who were youngsters in '04/'05 step up to the plate. Once they hit the age of 26/27, we will be raring to go for the flag.


You can't lose Penny, Powell, Black, Jones, Hamill, Thompson and Peckett (all hardened veterans) and expect blokes with half their experience and development to step up immediately.



You have named 6 guys in your post meher baba who have stepped up as replacements.

But all have less than 100 games experience, and are younger than 25.

Can they really be expected to carry the load of 50% of the team the way those hardened players of 28/29/30 years old did in 2004 and 2005?


IMO no.


I don't believe our list is fundamentally flawed. I believe it is too young and immature to play good football.


That is why it is crucial we keep drafting, because once Rooey, Ball, Joey, Dal, Kosi, Goose, Chips etc. all hit age 26/27 with 150 games experience, we are going to need to give them the same number of talented youngsters underneath as our 04/05 group had ...


They should only play AFL games now when it's raining. Slow games of footy are so much better to watch.
To the top
SS Life Member
Posts: 3266
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2007 4:05pm
Been thanked: 390 times

Post: # 433281Post To the top »

To expand on the previous post, the structure we have as a given is :-



Gilbert xxxxxx L. Fisher
S. Fisher Maguire Gram
Riewoldt Goddard Hayes
X. Clarke Koschitzke xxxxxxx
Montagna xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxx Dal Santo Ball
R. Clarke xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx

These are the players who would get a game with most, if not all, of the other teams in the competition given fitness and form.

You could slot Watts in at Full-forward, you could slot Brooks in as a ruck/forward, you could slot Gardiner in as leading the rucks and you could slot in Armitage as a developing mid-fielder.

So can Allen be groomed as a full back?

Missing therefore are an oportunistic forward with an "off-hands" ability and with pace to create and harass and some mid-fielders with ability to substitute for our premier mid-fielders without too much being lost - and with potential to take the next step to quality, starting 18 status.

We are not too far short, but we are short because in the last couple of years only R. Clarke and Gilbert have stood up sufficiently to win Rising Star nominations.


User avatar
saintsRrising
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 30034
Joined: Mon 15 Mar 2004 11:07am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 700 times
Been thanked: 1212 times

Post: # 433290Post saintsRrising »

both Clarke brothers have question marks over them still....


Flying the World in comfort thanks to FF Points....
Teflon
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 22580
Joined: Sat 13 Mar 2004 11:44pm
Has thanked: 693 times
Been thanked: 1626 times

Post: # 433409Post Teflon »

Good discussion and pleasing to finally see the penny drop with some posters - we are NOT St Kilda circa 2004.

I like reading "oh but our core is as good" ...our "core" has been pretty good for some time.......its our bottom end for class thats struggled and we now have a midfield that lets face it only sees Montagna as regularly stepping upto have an influence on games........surprise surprise....hes the only one from Dal, Ball, Harvs, lenny with any dash/run carry. Yes the others have aged/had injury...but thats hows shes playing out right now to me.


“Yeah….nah””
User avatar
meher baba
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 6873
Joined: Mon 14 Aug 2006 6:49am
Location: Tasmania
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 405 times

Post: # 433450Post meher baba »

I must say it's pleasing to see the rationality of this thread continuing. But I suspect I am about to test the limits of some people's goodwill with my final attempt at an analytical essay.

The changes to our playing style in 2007 are what we need (after time for adjustment) to take us to the next level

I will try very hard not to make this a GT vs RL discussion.

I have been a bit inclined to bag RL out of frustration with what we have seen earlier against the Kangaroos and again in the past three games, but I also acknowledge that Rome wasn't built in a day, and perhaps the new approach will come into its own in a less injury-ravaged 2008 or even 2009.

I also acknowledge that there is some continuing doubt over what playing style is currently being attempted at the Saints. Some say its the Swans style and that it is highly defensive, but Lyon himself appears to deny this (although I reckon he is a bit inclined to use weasel words when the subject comes up).

Anyway, to me, it looks as if we areflooding in defence, trying to get the opposition to kick to contests where they are outnumbered. When we get the ball from a turnover or a behind, we try to move it as quickly as possible up to our forward 50 and deliver to one or at most two out of Riewoldt, Gehrig and Milne, who have remained inside the 50 (I haven't noticed all 3 of them there too often except at centre bounces - but those who get to games regularly might be able to provide more details on this). Alternatively, we look to use our forwards as a decoy and find players who run out of midfield into the 50 a la O'Keeffe: Blake, X, Fiora and lately Lenny are doing a bit of this (it's a shame none of them are as good kicks for goal as O'Keeffe).

We put a lot of pressure on in terms of manning up when they are bringing the ball out of their defence, especially from a kick-in: we are much more effective at this in 2007 than in previous years (and, likewise, I think our own strategies for kicking the ball in are generally better too). But, especially once the ball gets outside their defensive 50, we attempt to corral more than go in hard for the tackle, and - the longer they have the ball and the more they move it around - the more our manning up strategy seems to evolve into a flooding approach.

These are the main aspects about the 2007 playing style that I have particularly noticed. To me - and seemingly to most commentators and other so-called "experts" - it appears to be much more tactical, chess-like and much less spontaneous and free-flowing than our style in 2004-06. It attempts to eliminate a certain amount of risk out of the game, particularly when the opposition has the ball. Far better to let them have the ball for 20-30 possessions until they kick it to a contest inside their forward 50 than to go in hard for it in the middle of the field only to find ourselves outnumbered down the back.

Leaving aside the preferences of individual coaches, there have been enough hints in public comments made by Butterss, Walls (when he was engaged), Fraser (despite his vast ignorance of AFL) and others associated with the club that this was something like the style they wanted to see introduced by the new coach, whoever he was. I sometimes suspect that our Board sees the Swans' style as being more "business like" than our previously more attacking style. They - like most posters on this forum - wanted to see more men behind the ball when we were defending, and believed that the crucial losses in which we seemed to be "overrun" by the opposition - the Swans in 2005, the Crows in the regular season in 2005 and 2006, the Dockers at Subi in 2006 and perhaps the Demons in the EF in 2006 - were due to our incautious approach to defending.

Of course, there were also other matters attributed to GT's failures as a coach such as Blake playing in the ruck, the incessant injuries to key players, the curious selections for some matches, and the rather humdrum bunch of players recruited in the 2004 and 2005 draft/trading period. And, as I have said many times (because, despite rumours to the contrary, I am no great fan of GT), Thomas brought most of his problems on himself by his arrogant refusal even to entertain criticism, particularly in relation to the issue of playing Blake as a ruckman.

But, leaving aside GT's annoying behaviour, were the changes we have seen to our playing style what we really needed to "move to the next level"?

I'm still quite sceptical about this. Yes, we were overrun in a number of games by teams that used flooding tactics , but I can also remember others in which we got on top early and the flooding teams started to go to pieces (the Swans at TD in 2005, the Crows in the finals in 2005, the Bulldogs twice in 2006, etc.) What we managed to do in these games, and what we notably didn't manage to do in the games in which we were "overrun", was to convert our opportunities in front of goal.

Because - and I'm going to stop now because this post is long enough - I reckon our major weakness in recent years - and the #1 thing that Lyon or someone needs to address - is our incredibly poor kicking at goal: surely only equalled by the WCE among the top teams (and the WCE have gotten better this year, I reckon).

If we could sort our goal kicking problems out, we could play the GT plan, the RL plan or anybody else's plan and still win more than 3/4 of all of our games.


"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."
- Jonathan Swift
User avatar
Oh When the Saints
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 5621
Joined: Wed 29 Mar 2006 4:25pm
Location: QLD
Contact:

Post: # 433720Post Oh When the Saints »

meher baba wrote: But, leaving aside GT's annoying behaviour, were the changes we have seen to our playing style what we really needed to "move to the next level"?
No.

Fundamentally, I believe GT has the right football philosophy.

Sometimes he struggled with matchups and the tactics of the opposition coach, but I believe he was flexible, and altered his gameplan slightly in the second half of 2006 to include a more defensive element.

GT's playing style was fine.


And in 2004 and 2005 he had the cattle to implement it with as much success as you can have without winning a flag.


But in 2006 and 2007, he would have struggled a bit more to implement his philosophy, because our team is younger and less hardened, and his gameplan required an element of your team to be hardened and experienced.


Really, I don't fudamentally disagree with anything you have said in your last post meher baba ...

BUT ...

We are going to go down this track of a more defensive philosophy for the next two and a bit years, so I figured I may as well embrace it now and defend it until it becomes plainly obvious that it doesn't work :wink:


They should only play AFL games now when it's raining. Slow games of footy are so much better to watch.
User avatar
Otiman
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 7892
Joined: Thu 28 Jul 2005 11:09pm
Location: Elsewhere
Has thanked: 131 times
Been thanked: 476 times

Post: # 433725Post Otiman »

The average post length in this thread is too high. Just chipping in to reduce it a little!


User avatar
barks4eva
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 10748
Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:39pm
Has thanked: 190 times
Been thanked: 92 times

Post: # 433747Post barks4eva »

meher baba wrote:
We were robbed by the worst display of umpiring in recent years (even worse than last night) in the game against Port at AAMI.

We were robbed of two points by the AFL. (I know we didn't "deserve" the draw against Freo, but we achieved it under the rules of the AFL. We didn't "deserve" the loss against Port either.) If we had not been robbed of these 6 points we would have finished 3rd and played the Crows in Adelaide in the first final once again: just as we did in 2005.
We won THREE games by less than a goal

We beat Sydney by two points, allegedly a goal umpiring error incorrectly awarded a goal to Rix, were Sydney robbed?

We only beat Port the second time after Daniel Motlop missed a goal directly in front 20 metres out after the siren

Against Essendon in the wet Jason Johnson (who incidently Thomas wanted to trade Milne for :roll: ) missed a goal from 15 metres out directly in front which would have given Essendon a 15 point lead late in the game, he missed we stayed alive and eventually won by 3 points

Conversely if we'd lost those three games, we would not have even made the 8 last year

but you chose to ignore that because it didn't suit your agenda, did it?


FAIR DINKUM

The quality of our football in 2006 was a long way down on where we were in 2005


DO THE MATHS AND THE SQUARES ARE ALL ROOTED.
User avatar
Dan Warna
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 12846
Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:56am
Location: melbourne

Post: # 433751Post Dan Warna »

injuries are part of any season.

hai 2 u


Bewaire krime, da krimson bolt is comeing to yure nayborhood to smach krime

SHUT UP KRIME!
Teflon
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 22580
Joined: Sat 13 Mar 2004 11:44pm
Has thanked: 693 times
Been thanked: 1626 times

Post: # 433838Post Teflon »

barks4eva wrote:
meher baba wrote:
We were robbed by the worst display of umpiring in recent years (even worse than last night) in the game against Port at AAMI.

We were robbed of two points by the AFL. (I know we didn't "deserve" the draw against Freo, but we achieved it under the rules of the AFL. We didn't "deserve" the loss against Port either.) If we had not been robbed of these 6 points we would have finished 3rd and played the Crows in Adelaide in the first final once again: just as we did in 2005.
We won THREE games by less than a goal

We beat Sydney by two points, allegedly a goal umpiring error incorrectly awarded a goal to Rix, were Sydney robbed?

We only beat Port the second time after Daniel Motlop missed a goal directly in front 20 metres out after the siren

Against Essendon in the wet Jason Johnson (who incidently Thomas wanted to trade Milne for :roll: ) missed a goal from 15 metres out directly in front which would have given Essendon a 15 point lead late in the game, he missed we stayed alive and eventually won by 3 points

Conversely if we'd lost those three games, we would not have even made the 8 last year

but you chose to ignore that because it didn't suit your agenda, did it?


FAIR DINKUM

The quality of our football in 2006 was a long way down on where we were in 2005
Really good post.

Amazing what drives us to paper over cracks when it suits.

We were sliding last year and we may slide some more before we turn over a few that lets face it....we aint gonna win a flag with.

Enough of St Kilda settling for individual brilliance or a great "fab 4"....we need a strong team...


“Yeah….nah””
Post Reply