Brand Casey v Brand St Kilda

[Dan Warna]

perhaps RL needs to instruct the reserves to play 'his' brand of football.

frankly I dont like it, but if it wins games then so be it.

we should have 1 philosophy to give RL a fair go.

i dont think its the right philosophy but if the players in casey are play Y brand and the seniors are playing X brand then it would cause confusion IMO and would be poor for drilling.

especially for the fringe players who represent casey and st kilda on a regular basis.

st kilda is one brand of football and casey play it

Im a critic of RL, dont like his style and dont like what I've seen for 2/3 of the season. however, we are not going to change coaches, we have a 'new' brand of football that the RL cheer squad describe differently on different weeks and to give RL a fair go, the saints players should be drilled in it to their core, that includes the magoos.

if casey lose that st kilda wins, so be it.

[SB10]

Was just thinking about this exact dilemma. Seen a few articles recently about a few more AFL clubs thinking of going it alone in the VFL.

Maybe it's time we bit the bullet and did our own thing.

You only have to look at Geelong and how well they're going with a stand alone reserves team. They have great depth and ready made players who know exactly what to do when they're promoted to the seniors. They have one game plan for all.

It must be fantastic for guys like Nathan Ablett, Tom Hawkins, Travis Varcoe, Matt Stokes and Mark Blake (last year), etc to be developed with a view to making an impact as soon as they make the senior team.

[st.mart]

Not sure what Banfield would have to say about that.....his team is currently sixth, and if they keep the current side together, will make the top 4....and are a shot at the flag....

why would he want to piss about with reactive slow possesion footy, when he has a fwd line of

Watts, Voss, Fraser and sometimes Brooks.....with that sort of marking power there is a need to take risks and run/carry, own the corridor, and get the ball in quickly to advantage - where they put the opposition under presssure......

Casey have at times been more attractive to watch than the saints....the contested marking of the forwards....the stoppage work of Harrison, Armitage, Thompson, McQualter, Birss and the run and carry of Geary, Eddy, Makepeace, Carmody, Garrubba and Matthews....whilst Gwilt, Ferguson, R. Clarke and Wall have backed themselves down back..

[ausfatcat]

I thought the first function of the reserves was to feed the seniors.

[st.mart]

One - they are not 'our reserves' they are a VFL senior side....they allow mucking about like that in their reserves......but their senior team is about winning games of footy for Casey.......

Two - this 'winning' aids the development of the younger players, to learn good habits, which WIN games of footy.....not attempt to stay in them...

[rexy]

Not sure what Banfield would have to say about that.....his team is currently sixth, and if they keep the current side together, will make the top 4....and are a shot at the flag....

why would he want to piss about with reactive slow possesion footy, when he has a fwd line of

Watts, Voss, Fraser and sometimes Brooks.....with that sort of marking power there is a need to take risks and run/carry, own the corridor, and get the ball in quickly to advantage - where they put the opposition under presssure......

Casey have at times been more attractive to watch than the saints....the contested marking of the forwards....the stoppage work of Harrison, Armitage, Thompson, McQualter, Birss and the run and carry of Geary, Eddy, Makepeace, Carmody, Garrubba and Matthews....whilst Gwilt, Ferguson, R. Clarke and Wall have backed themselves down back..

Exactly the way our senior team should play, I dont want to bag RL but maybe we should start playing like Casey. Only better forward line I can think of than theirs would be Reiwoldt Kosi Gherig Milne?

[Dan Warna]

well IMO while its great to see casey resurrect itself from its basket case season earlier on, but st kilda first IMO.

[Winmarvellous]

I'll be honest here, I don't know jack about the VFL structure in Vic, but why wouldn't a team look at having a stand alone reserves team. If it's fiscally viable, it could only enhance both the playing stock and the brand.

[Dan Warna]

its expensive, very few clubs do it.

also there is the core product issue.

[skeptic]

it's a finacial black hole

need to find a ground to play on

provide all those things that a game requires to play (paying various people, licensing, sponsors, additional equipment, beverages etc)

with our injury list, could you imagine the addition supp players we would have had to pay as well

[SB10]

As a Saints fan all I care about is the senior team. Seriously, I don't give a toss about Casey Scorpions. I only check the results to see how half a dozen of our players perform.

Which brings me to my next point. Surely a stand alone reserves team is the only way to genuinely develop players for the future.

Two hypothetical questions on fielding a stand alone reserves team. Interested to hear some views.

1/ If management said tomorrow in season 2008 St Kilda would field a reserves team to play out of Moorabbin (or anywhere for that matter), how many on this forum would regularly attend and support the team?

2/ To assist with the costs of going it alone, if the club said to members it would charge an additional $50 per year on top of a standard 11 home game membership, would you pay it? (includes entry to all seniors and reserves games)

[st.mart]

What would be the difference??????

Our twos players + up to a dozen supp players (which we have to pay for, and are not really STK players)....sounds like what we currently have at Casey..why would we pay money for Ground/Coaches/Facilities/Staff....in the VFL when Casey do it for us.....Why can't players develop at Casey - are they playing with a different shaped ball??????

I have jumped on Casey because the SAINTS are aligned with them....no other reason.....and the saints players have also (finally) jumped on and the team is reaping the rewards...

[SB10]

What would be the difference??????

Our twos players + up to a dozen supp players (which we have to pay for, and are not really STK players)....sounds like what we currently have at Casey..why would we pay money for Ground/Coaches/Facilities/Staff....in the VFL when Casey do it for us.....Why can't players develop at Casey - are they playing with a different shaped ball??????

I have jumped on Casey because the SAINTS are aligned with them....no other reason.....and the saints players have also (finally) jumped on and the team is reaping the rewards...

Massive difference St Mart!

1/ For starters the St Kilda listed players hardly ever play together. Split between Casey firsts and seconds.

2/ There's obviously different game plans for both sides (regardless of which one you prefer). They might as well be playing with a different shaped ball.

3/ How much influence would Ross Lyon have on Banfield's team (none I would suggest)

3/ There would be absolutely no experimentation with players to see what positions best suit individuals

4/ Players are often played out of position

5/ St Kilda listed players train separately to Scorps teammates. How can that be good?

6/ Where's the team morale (do they really care about winning and losing)

I could go on and on..........only need to look at Geelong as a case study for the benefits.

IMO cost is the only issue.

[st.mart]

1/ only the recently injured, or under-developed play in the two's (which helps them, due to the intensity of the game)....

2/ Game is still built around two things - winning the ball/disposing the ball well.....players develop as they mature...

3/ That would be a positive......which saints are better players under Lyon....Attard (could just be development/opportunity - or the style suits hi).....Fiora (needed to learn accountibilitry).....Montagna (opportunity in the midfield/natural progression)........not too many more....if the seconds were about development, would you like them to develop the way the senior team has in 08....

4/ why is there no experimentation.......Geary moved into defence (never played there) Armo has played centre fwd (came to the club as a Centre back) Wall has moved back and fwd....Eddy has played as a run with and loose man.....McQualter as a fwd pocket....etc......the only player who has suffered at Casey, due to being Pigeon holed is Ferguson.

5/ incorrect - they train together, once the squad is named.......and development players complete some pre-season with the scorps...

6/ their win against Geelong was the most spirited effort I have seen in a long while - led by the Saints players.......who now want to lead at Casey, rather than be shitty about being there...

7/ Geelongs success can be attributed to a deep squad, a great injury list......solid communty & financial support......No other elite competition in the area - therefore players are willing to supp.....and A GROUND....they train seperately....the VFL and AFL squads.....have different sponsors.....and Geelong see themselves as a VFL senior side...not a reserves side..

[meher baba]

Really good s**t-stirring, tongue in cheek opening post Dan.

I'm disappointed that nobody picked up the bait: I guess either because they didn't get your point, or else through choice because they wanted to post something serious about Casey.

Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that i appreciated it.

[spert]

Geelong have a VFL team made up of very good VFL standard players including Geelong AFL players. There's not many of those who are top AFL players though. As they have had a dream run with a lack of serious injuries, both the Geelong AFL and VFL have been able to settle as teams and as a result have success. If Geelong had suddenly lost Ablett, Ling, Bartel and Scarlett for much of the season, I suspect their list to call on wouldn't fill the boots of those they had to replace and you would have seen a big slip down the ladder in both Geelong AFL and VFL. The fact of the matter is a good balanced team can win as has happened to Casey recently -good players across most parts of the ground, while an unbalanced team like the Saints seniors is struggling to kick a decent score, with a good defence, an erratic midfield and an out-of-form forward line. For StK, the progress of some Sainters in the Scorps now will be part of RLs plans for 2008 and beyond.

[Dan Warna]

Really good s**t-stirring, tongue in cheek opening post Dan.

I'm disappointed that nobody picked up the bait: I guess either because they didn't get your point, or else through choice because they wanted to post something serious about Casey.

Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that i appreciated it.

my original thoughts were along the lines of the complaint it was taking so long to 'learn' the new style of football.

Also a player can be good in one mode and not another.

logic would dictate that v2, mcqualter, brooks and andrew thompson should be elevated and be played in the HFF, midfield ruck and centre...

and yet when they are elevated they are not given game time or played off the pine.

B4E complained that rix can't get hitouts if he's on the bench, well the same can be said of the others.

As I said in my OP, I am no fan of the shyte im seeing, but if we win a flag well done bravo.

but we either embrace it, and try and make it work or p1ss it off.

unlike some here who want us to fail so they can blame GT for 'list management issues' I want us to succeed.

i think you credit me with more cunning than I have MB.

how can v2 and thomo and brooks be so dominant in the magoos and not be elevated while birss, clint and rix who are ordinary in both be considered superior. perhaps they are not adjusting to the new strategies?

you can't just run around and do what you like on the football field.

As for team lists, well the facts present themselves, aside from injuries we were good enough to nobble hawks playing 1/3 of a game, beat wce playing 1/2 a game so the quality is definately there.

[meher baba]

i think you credit me with more cunning than I have MB.

Well, I appreciate your post just as much as a piece of unconscious irony as I did when I thought you were being deliberately satirical.

So, what you are saying is that Lyon appears to be deliberately refusing to promote the Casey players who are in the best form because they are successfully playing an aggressive, attacking and high-scoring style of football rather than the dour, floodbound nonsense that we have seen week after week from the seniors. Say no more!!

PS: I really enjoyed this comment

we have a 'new' brand of football that the RL cheer squad describe differently on different weeks

In my recent thread entitled "mythbusters" I attempted to describe the RL game plan in detail as a defensive, risk minimising, retreating style of play. None of the "cheer squad" has yet come back to tell me where I got it wrong.[/b]

[Dan Warna]

again to play devil's advocate...

(and I remember B4E linking martin (?) blakes article earlier in the year linking our style to sydneys and the success sydney achieved and how RL was going to bring this to us, and many have since said we are not playing sydney style, although why b4e linked it i dont know)

RL has said he wants us to play risk taking attacking football.

RL has also said we dont play the flood.

so perhaps players are getting confused?

as for casey, when I raised the issues around caseys atrocious form earlier in the year, we were told it doesn't matter.

sure now they are winning, it shouldn't matter either?

we either embrace this strategy (which I said in the OP i do not like watching) or we throw out RLs strategy.

you can't have half and half.

surely our skills in 06, and our inside 50s showed we were more than capable of playing attacking football, and winning games, and our skills seem to have dropped off.

now much of this has been attributed to players adjusting to a new style, if this is the issue of adjusting then surely playing one style and drilling for one style, is at odds and thus confusing the players.

however they seem to adjust to banfields easily enough ><

[meher baba]

RL has said he wants us to play risk taking attacking football.

RL has also said we dont play the flood.

It continues to (but, I suppose, shouldn't) amaze me that RL is allowed to make these statements without being challenged by the gutless media contingent that hangs around the world of AFL like a bad smell.

Watch any game St Kilda has played this year on tape - except perhaps for the early games against the Dees, Lions and Dogs - and you will see 17 or 18 players retreating behind the ball every time the opposition brings it out of their defensive 50. I can only assume that Lyon does not consider this to represent a "flood" (I guess he would argue that most of our midfielders and forwards only retreat to about 60-70 metres from goal, whereas a genuine "flood" would see them retreat inside the defensive 50: but it's a rather precious distinction!)

In terms of moving the ball quickly and taking risks, I suspect that Lyon would like to see us do what the Swans, Dogs and Crows - among others - do with the ball: lots of risky handpasses coming out of defence in order to get the ball up the ground as quickly as possible, looking for unmarked players running towards, or into, our forward 50. We certainly saw a bit of this style against the Swans, but - as we also saw - we haven't gotten very good at it yet.

It's funny that he favours this sort of rather dramatic sort of risk-taking inside our own 50 over the sorts that involve going for the ball when your opponents have it or leaving our marking forwards inside the forward 50 in the hope that we can kick the ball to them in one-on-one contests.

[/b]

[Dan Warna]

well perhaps the players are refusing to act to the strategy or getting confused, or there is an element of resistance to the lyon plan.

we have been told time and time again that sydney dont have the stars or depth of talent we have.

perhaps if there are those doing their own thing, we should trade them away for lesser players willing to play disciplined football?

the last thing you want is superstars playing their own game? the old adage there is no I in team.

looking down our list, i would say it is far superior in quality to sydney's list, across the breadth of players, and yet sydney have played in 2 GFs.

an argument can be made that WCE has a superior list based on 4 outstanding midfielders, and a gun ruckman, but their forward line and back line are limited and have been exposed.

if a reiwoldt (not saying it is a reiwoldt, but using him as an example) is not following team rules and refused to play team rules trade him for a schneider or a bolton or a couple of draft picks who WILL follow team rules.

we have RL for 2008 and possibly longer, RB wont sack him, and looking down the sacked coaches, probably most of them will be playing for their careers not st kilda, and lethal wont come to melbourne, so we persist with RL and give him a chance.

with the exception of the idiots who want us to fail so they can blame GT for poor list management we all want this team to succeed. I dont have to like RL or like the way we play as long as we win right?

and shouldn't we therefore demand that casey drill their players in our strategies and drills?