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

User avatar
Solar
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 8144
Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 12:43pm

Post: # 434190Post Solar »

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
The quality of our football in 2007 is a long way down on where we were in 2006.

How about the fact that we should have got 2 points for the draw in tassie (according to the AFL's own rules). We would have made the top 4 and who knows, we might not have lost 5 players in the first week of the finals.

We can all play what if's barks.....

anyway back on the last myth, I'm not too sure, I think lyon has a certain TYPE of player he likes for his game plan and has not found it at Stkilda yet. He came in late and therefore has not put his stamp on this list yet. I think we will be able to better look at the game plan half way through next year.


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
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: # 434391Post meher baba »

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
I don't think you have been reading my posts carefully enough, B4E.

The main argument of this thread was to point out that, all in all, we have neither gone backwards or forwards since 2004. I don't even agree that we have particularly gone backwards during 2007. We are still, bar injuries and some bad luck, a top 4 side: as we were in 2004 and 2005.

I guess it can also be argued we haven't improved enough since 2004 to match the likes of the Eagles and the Swans and perhaps (but let's wait for the finals) the Cats and secure a flag. But, we've had a lot of bad luck and injuries in 2006 and 2007, so it's a bit hard to judge.

The sky isn't falling under Lyon, and it wasn't under GT in 2006. We are still one of the top teams, and will be for a number of years to come IMO.


"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: # 434662Post Oh When the Saints »

In response to your comments re: the gameplan meher baba ... you said in another thread that none of the Lyon supporters have responded.

I don't disagree with how you have described it.

All I agree with is the fact that, when executed properly with confidence and a fit 22, it works.

It has worked for a team that looks like playing off in at least it's third straight Preliminary final.


I don't like aspects of it ... I would much prefer that we were exciting, long kicking and high-scoring ... but after 3 years of not winning a premiership with an open and attacking gameplan, I'm prepared to back something different ... which has worked and seemingly continues to work.


The problem is that you lose 2 years in the transition ... could the club afford to lose this two years? IMO no.


But that's history.


I back the gameplan now because what we tried previously didn't get us to a flag ... maybe this will.


They should only play AFL games now when it's raining. Slow games of footy are so much better to watch.
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: # 434675Post meher baba »

Oh When the Saints wrote:In response to your comments re: the gameplan meher baba ... you said in another thread that none of the Lyon supporters have responded.

I don't disagree with how you have described it.

All I agree with is the fact that, when executed properly with confidence and a fit 22, it works.

It has worked for a team that looks like playing off in at least it's third straight Preliminary final.
As will, I strongly suspect, the WCE, and they don't play anything like that way.

The Swans' style of play is dour, disciplined, tough and has not even the slightest trace of fair play about it (lots of diving to suggest illegal hits, endless screaming at the umpires for holding the ball, etc.) It works well in attracting fans in Sydney who are (a) used to the relatively dour games of rugby union and rugby league and (b) largely unknowledgable about AFL but happy that their team is winning. It also works well with the rather talentless but athletic and hard working list that the Swans currently have.

Applied to the Sainters, it's like watching Brazil try to play soccer like Italy or Spain. It goes against the grain and will drive the fans away in the short-term.

Does that matter if it wins us a premiership? Probably not.

Willi it win us a premiership? Obviously nobody knows for sure. Perhaps it will.

But, as I have said in previous posts, we can never expect to get the same sort of run from the umpires that Sydney gets in front of their loud and ignorant fans (our fans couldn't bring themselves to call for the sorts of free kicks that the Sydney fans regularly scream for). If we keep it up for a number of seasons, we can expect to get a bath in the media (who are already showing signs of becoming sick of Lyon) and probably from the AFL as a surrogate for Sydney (whom they dare not attack because they want to expand their market north of the Murray).

If we do win a premiership playing the way the Swans play, we will become an object of hate among journalists and fans the way that the Bulldogs did in Sydney rugby league when they won premierships with an extraordinarily dour style under Phil Gould in the 1980s.

So, increasingly, I feel that the Lyon style might turn out to be against the best interests of the club in the long term. But I live in hope that, as he gains in confidence as a coach, he will learn to tone it down a bit and allow the players a bit more freedom to display their attacking skills.


"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."
- Jonathan Swift
User avatar
Dan Warna
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 12846
Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:56am
Location: melbourne

Post: # 434677Post Dan Warna »

Oh When the Saints wrote:what owts sed.
how much of our previous losses were due to injuries to key players at key times?

Sydney and WCE were able to win on the back of having their star gun players fit and available at Finals times during the year. Sydney were bemoaning the loss of kennealy and hall as critical, wce were basically missing 4 players, kerr, cousins, Judd (inj) embley at various times and that coincided with a massive form dump.

st kilda went in minus powell, hayes and maguire, 3 of our top 10 players, also several players were injuried in the finals.

and yet we are told injuries are not an excuse. would the strategy have worked with 20/22 availabe for the whole season in 2006? we will never know.

he now has a full list to choose from minus hamill and goddard from our best 22 and Gardiner who is effectively a risk player having had little input for 4 seasons.

RL has as good a selection of players to choose from, and further our reserves are winning and thus form from those 'beneatch' is pressing, or should be, v2, thompson, mini, gwilt,brooks amongst others are doing well.


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

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

Post: # 434678Post Oh When the Saints »

Dan Warna wrote:how much of our previous losses were due to injuries to key players at key times?

Sydney and WCE were able to win on the back of having their star gun players fit and available at Finals times during the year. Sydney were bemoaning the loss of kennealy and hall as critical, wce were basically missing 4 players, kerr, cousins, Judd (inj) embley at various times and that coincided with a massive form dump.
I totally agree.

No doubt that if the Swans had even had 1 or 2 key injuries, they would never have succeded like they did.

Ditto West Coast, although their depth is better than the Swans.

A part of that is good management (with soft tissue injuries) and a part of that is just luck (you can't prevent broken legs, fractured skulls etc.)
meher baba wrote:So, increasingly, I feel that the Lyon style might turn out to be against the best interests of the club in the long term. But I live in hope that, as he gains in confidence as a coach, he will learn to tone it down a bit and allow the players a bit more freedom to display their attacking skills.
I hope so too meher baba ... that is why the upcoming pre-season will be interesting, because Lyon will have the opportunity to do exactly what he wants with the playing group.

The 12 rounds of 2008 are the most critical part of his coaching career IMO.

With regard to the other stuff you said ...

I don't mind if we're hated ... it's better than everyone just feeling sorry for our lack of success !! :wink:

And we couldn't get a worse go with the umps than we did when GT was coach ... (because AD hated him).


They should only play AFL games now when it's raining. Slow games of footy are so much better to watch.
User avatar
BAM! (shhhh)
SS Hall of Fame
Posts: 2134
Joined: Thu 24 May 2007 5:23pm
Location: The little voice inside your head

Post: # 434683Post BAM! (shhhh) »

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
Well, speaking of pots and kettles...

For the record, the Saints being involved in 5 one goal games was the most in the AFL last year. While statistically significant, it would not be considered a surprising result for a team to finish on that number of 1 goal decisions given the results of the rest of the league.

The Saints had a winning % of 64, so from 5 games, they won exactly what one would expect, finished where one would expect, and wouldn't be able to make a statistical argument that the Saints "belonged" either outside the 8 or in the top 4 based on the 1 goal decisions.

Those with agendas should interpret and spin the above howsoever they may choose.


"Everything comes to he who hustles while he waits"
- Henry Ford
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: # 434684Post meher baba »

Oh When the Saints wrote:And we couldn't get a worse go with the umps than we did when GT was coach ... (because AD hated him).
I know it was just a throwaway line, but I want to address it.

Perhaps I'm naive, but I generally don't believe in conspiracies such as the "whispers in the sky" stuff. The AFL may have had, and may still have, individual umpires who were corrupt in some way, but I don't believe that AD could decree that the umps would give us a bath in a particular game and, lo, it happens.

The problem we currently have in AFL is that the umpires are not properly managed in a whole range of ways, and their on-field performance suffers accordingly.

First of all, they are having to deal with rule changes ever year. This is a ludicrous situation: if I were in charge of the AFL, I would get rid of the new "hands in the back" rule and then abolish the rules committee and have a permanent moratorium on rules changes. Every five years or so there would be a comprehensive review of the entire rulebook by a one-off panel which is abolished when it finishes its work. (The point is, if you have a permanent rules committee, you can expect it regularly to recommend changes to the rules in order to justify its existence: "the devil creates work for idle hands to do".)

Secondly, the umps are clearly under some sort of instructions to create an "open, fast-moving game" which involves coming down like a ton of bricks on even the faintest suggestion of "holding the ball": leading to ridiculous decisions every week. These sorts of instructions should be revoked. The umpires should be told to call it as they see it, with an emphasis on the words "as they see it": that is, only award free kicks when they are absolutely sure, otherwise it's play on.

Thirdly, the tendency for the umpiring to unfairly favour the home team, especially non-Victorian teams, ought to be a massive embarassment to the umpires and those who manage them, and should be stamped out by concerted action: in particular, by umpires being dropped from AFL games for blatant cases of favouritism. Also, as I believe takes place in many soccer competitions around the world, having every umpire registered as an official supporter of a particular team and then never being allowed to umpire any matches involving that team.

Fourthly, consideration should be given to going back to only 2 field umpires and restricting each one to one half of the field. I believe that a lot of the trouble we have at the moment comes from the umpires further away from the action wanting to show that they caught something that the others missed. Perhaps the umpires could talk to each other (and to the goal and boundary officials) via mikes in order to alert each other to blatant fouls committed behind the ball. But the decision whether or not to award a free kick should always be in the hands of only one man. A further benefit of having only two umpires per game would be that it would raise the overall standard.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the use of players' names and nicknames by the umps should be stamped out completely. The teams have different coloured uniforms and the players have numbers on their jerseys for a reason. Umpires should only ever use these: "free kick to number 44 red", "number 35 blue to the blood bin", "number 22 red was holding on", etc. (And, as for the sort of rubbish that Goldspink comes up with: he can be told that if he wants to be funny on television, he can go to an open session at a comedy club and work his way onto the Comedy Channel from there.)

If all of these changes were implemented, we might see an umpiring unit that stops looking like a stupid rabble and beings to look even vaguely professional.


"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."
- Jonathan Swift
User avatar
Dan Warna
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 12846
Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:56am
Location: melbourne

Post: # 434687Post Dan Warna »

Oh When the Saints wrote: And we couldn't get a worse go with the umps than we did when GT was coach ... (because AD hated him).
AD is an example of poor management.

he verbally expressed his dissapointment when essendon beat Sydney at the first AFL game at telstra stadium. for an impartial administrator to be that blatant set of a poor tone.

the defence of hall on maguire was so blatant it was staggering.

the massive error policy administration with regard to Freo salary cap cheating was another example of one rule of clubs opposed to you and another for those that vote with you. Carlton for right or wrong was an agitating force for club rights in the AFL. Freo voted with the board on everything.

And Dimwit finds new ways of handing extra millions to north, lets be honest, North haven't been financially viable for several years without the extra millions they get on an annual basis.

while everyone hates carlton, the comparative treatment carlton, footscray and melbourne have received compared to North is ridiculous.

the dogs, north and melbourne cannot vote against the commission because they are financially beholded to them.

under RB and BW as financial managers st kilda has become to some degree independant of the AFL for financial handouts above the distributions.

his penny pinching and head in the sand attitude to the drugs issue is completely laughable. 500 tests, for 700 players in an annual basis is a complete joke. Add that to the fact they have a 3 strikes and your out issue, and reputedly they have already detected some 30 odd players 13 of them at one club, is a remarkable joke on the prevalence, given they dont even test for a swag of them.

Dimwit has approached the saints on a number of occassions questioning some of our sponsorship deals and yet both macdonald and hungry jacks, schweppes and coca cola sponsor the AFL.

dimwit is a sickness endemic of the AFL. as long as revenues are high and the theatre goers attend who the hell cares about the state of football, who cares of racism is rampant, sexism is rampant, drug abuse is rampant, the $$ are coming in and his power base and wage is going up and north are still alive.


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

SHUT UP KRIME!
plugger66
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 50626
Joined: Mon 26 Feb 2007 8:15pm
Location: oakleigh

Post: # 434775Post plugger66 »

Dan Warna wrote:
Oh When the Saints wrote: And we couldn't get a worse go with the umps than we did when GT was coach ... (because AD hated him).
AD is an example of poor management.

he verbally expressed his dissapointment when essendon beat Sydney at the first AFL game at telstra stadium. for an impartial administrator to be that blatant set of a poor tone.

the defence of hall on maguire was so blatant it was staggering.

the massive error policy administration with regard to Freo salary cap cheating was another example of one rule of clubs opposed to you and another for those that vote with you. Carlton for right or wrong was an agitating force for club rights in the AFL. Freo voted with the board on everything.

And Dimwit finds new ways of handing extra millions to north, lets be honest, North haven't been financially viable for several years without the extra millions they get on an annual basis.

while everyone hates carlton, the comparative treatment carlton, footscray and melbourne have received compared to North is ridiculous.

the dogs, north and melbourne cannot vote against the commission because they are financially beholded to them.

under RB and BW as financial managers st kilda has become to some degree independant of the AFL for financial handouts above the distributions.

his penny pinching and head in the sand attitude to the drugs issue is completely laughable. 500 tests, for 700 players in an annual basis is a complete joke. Add that to the fact they have a 3 strikes and your out issue, and reputedly they have already detected some 30 odd players 13 of them at one club, is a remarkable joke on the prevalence, given they dont even test for a swag of them.

Dimwit has approached the saints on a number of occassions questioning some of our sponsorship deals and yet both macdonald and hungry jacks, schweppes and coca cola sponsor the AFL.

dimwit is a sickness endemic of the AFL. as long as revenues are high and the theatre goers attend who the hell cares about the state of football, who cares of racism is rampant, sexism is rampant, drug abuse is rampant, the $$ are coming in and his power base and wage is going up and north are still alive.

I know most peple will disagree with me but I think the AFL admisistration have done a great job. Still got 16 clubs most making a profit, record TV deal and they are trying to stamp out other issues. Imnagine if there was as many people covering footy 10 years ago as there is know you can imangine all the outside footy issues.


Post Reply