that's more like it ... end of the flood?

[saintsRrising]

so we do flood but only when you think we flood? and we didn't flood against the hawks?

right.

Should I w r i t e s l o w l y so that you can undertstand..

If the hawks game we had SIX backmen to their FOUR forwards....and in talking about THIS situation it was not flooding. ie the TWO extra Saints were ALREADY there...comprehend??????



IF you have some other comment you think I made then I suggest you put up or shut up.

[Dan Warna]

so we do flood but only when you think we flood? and we didn't flood against the hawks?

right.

Should I w r i t e s l o w l y so that you can undertstand..

If the hawks game we had SIX backmen to their FOUR forwards....and in talking about THIS situation it was not flooding. ie the TWO extra Saints were ALREADY there...comprehend??????



IF you have some other comment you think I made then I suggest you put up or shut up.

just clarify what you are saying that is all

[saintsRrising]

No problems then...

[Dan Warna]

No problems then...

doesn't mean i agree with you

[saintsRrising]

No problems then...

doesn't mean i agree with you

Well that is what forums are for.....to put things up and discuss and debate (in the true sense of the word)...to air different opions etc...

No fun in a mutual admiration society.

[Dan Warna]

No problems then...

doesn't mean i agree with you

Well that is what forums are for.....to put things up and discuss and debate (in the true sense of the word)...to air different opions etc...

No fun in a mutual admiration society.

i dunno, I kind of like it that everyone admires me

[Washedup]

I feel for you SRr, its extremely hard to explain things to Dan, he doesn't seem to grasp things as quick as most and you generally have to make the same point at least a dozen times before it sinks in. One can only hope his learning of the game improves with time

[Dan Warna]

I feel for you SRr, its extremely hard to explain things to Dan, he doesn't seem to grasp things as quick as most and you generally have to make the same point at least a dozen times before it sinks in. One can only hope his learning of the game improves with time

perhaps he can explain it to all the journalists, football comenentators and other fans who thought we flooded against hawthorn in the early rounds as well, and why when all our players were within 5 metres of the D50 for vast portions of the game that isn't the flood

[BAM! (shhhh)]

I feel for you SRr, its extremely hard to explain things to Dan, he doesn't seem to grasp things as quick as most and you generally have to make the same point at least a dozen times before it sinks in. One can only hope his learning of the game improves with time

perhaps he can explain it to all the journalists, football comenentators and other fans who thought we flooded against hawthorn in the early rounds as well, and why when all our players were within 5 metres of the D50 for vast portions of the game that isn't the flood

What amazed me about that game was that the Saints were roasted for flooding as if they'd solely caused it, when the balance of flooding was as far as I could count, far a result of the Hawks gameplan even more than ours...

but, since it's being debated, let me quantify what I mean by that:

Defensive: I think a lot of people get confused and think it's the defensive side of centre that the Saints are accused of flooding. The Saints kept all 6 backs inside 50, and moved teir on ballers inside the arc as well. Non of the wingers and forwards came inside defensive 50, but when you've got 10 players as opposed to 7 or 8, while technically nobody is out of position, that's still 18 players in one arc, and in a low scoring game, to those who aren't there to admire tactics and gamesmanship, it can fairly be called a flood.

Offensive: This is where the Saints are accused of flooding, and where I think it's a bit unfair - as well as their onballers, the Hawks wingers were going back inside defensive 50 (which is I believe where some draw the line as being the beginning of a flood)... and when the Saints would try and even the odds with numbers, that meant that there were up to 24 players (2/3s of those on the ground) in one 50 meter arc... now typically, a couple of saints at least would start or lead out of that arc as we chipped it around, but nontheless, that's flooding in anyones book.

It astounded me after getting home and seeing on 7's extreme delay Mitchell's comment that Clarkson wanted the goals to be like a soccer match, and that "Clarko would be happy" that the media decided to pin it on Lyon - but clearly, when both teams are moving the ball slowly and numbers are congesting the destination, that's going to be viewed as flooding. Whatever the technical definitions may be.

For mine, when the onballers start getting shifted to space instead of following the ball, it's as good as flooding - for all a lot of teams on ball brigades are a product of position on field as much as anything, it's a rebound tactic.

That game was a flood fest, even if both coaches can make a technical case they didn't flood. (Can't you just imagine the thrill the footy fans will get when lawyers start giving the post-game press conferences!)

The media view has nothing to do with it (not everyone had the same view), and neither does the majority view, which is oft driven by the media view (how many times have we all heard someone in the crowd at the footy spouting the latest Robert Walls as if it was their own incisive insight?)... I'm sure everyone here is capable of making up their own mind.

[saintsRrising]

I feel for you SRr, its extremely hard to explain things to Dan, he doesn't seem to grasp things as quick as most and you generally have to make the same point at least a dozen times before it sinks in. One can only hope his learning of the game improves with time

perhaps he can explain it to all the journalists, football comenentators and other fans who thought we flooded against hawthorn in the early rounds as well, and why when all our players were within 5 metres of the D50 for vast portions of the game that isn't the flood

Dan..

On the Hawks game...have a read of Bam's post above.

If you cannot still understand...then there is little hope for you.






Now as to YOUR claim that I have said that the Saints don't flood....it is RUBBISH that I have posted that the Saints don't flood at times under RL. You are either just trolling in posting that I say we don't flood......or are having a brain fade.

[Dan Warna]

oh I have no doubt the hawks flooded. they did change after about 1/2 time to keep one or two players in front of the ball, to cut of st kilda's cheap kicks and cut down on our possessions and the scored a couple of times from that.

even on saturday Freo flooded a few times as did we but far less.

I did notice however that for all but maybe 5 minutes of the game we had someone in the F50, even if it was milne or v2.

Also I noticed and have noticed that probably since max's return we have had players leave their man more to attack the ball, instead of blocking the man first.

sure you get hurt on teh rebound, but when we have numbers at the ball, by and large we win the ball and drive it forward giving ourselves an opportunity to attack.

ball, lenny, milne and v2 also showed great attack on the ball.

when one or two players do it, it leaves us exposed, if enough of your team mates do it, and you run in packs you create opportunities for yourself.

also we passed to risky options, players under pressure, players with more than 1 player on them.

and while sometimes it did rebound, often it cfreated opportunities for us.

when we did turn the ball over it was again by and large in their D50, giving us an opportunity to set up in defence.

when we turtle, we turn the ball over in teh midfield or just outside our D50, giving htem an opportunity to reload.