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

[bigcarl]

very happy tho

me too. do you still think raph's a dud?

[barks4eva]

The IP's are literally miles apart skeptic, so unless b4e can teleport himself,

I can, I swear, I'm in your heads as we speak

[barks4eva]

does anyone else suspect that teflon and barks are the same person???

Not sure myself.....I had you down as Dal Santo Gal but then I realised she actually watched the game and had a grasp on it...

MYTHBUSTER!

no that's, > GOLD

[mbogo]

Barks was pretty chuffed at the game, Thomas and I saw him - even though Rix was out - if Teflon posted to a game-day thread they cannot be the same person, unless B4E has an Internet wireless CPU embedded in the brain - but then again that is entirely possible.
BTW I do not see Rix getting back in - not after yesterday.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

I saw 3 big differences that led to the game looking very different - and a reduction of flooding was NOT one of them...

1/ When Freo had the ball, they didn't chip with it in their back half looking for the loose players exposed as the Saints moved back. Instead, they handballed a lot to try and set up their run, which meant the pressure exerted by the players moving back caused turnovers and contests instead of slowing the game down. They also weren't nearly as effective in chipping around in their half forward line, kicking to contests inside 50 where we had numbers.

When they did move it quickly down field, our backs did an excellent job of standing up, making sure that Pavlich generally kicked from around 50m. Tarrant had some closer opportunities, but was his usual woeful self accuracy wise.

2/ When the Saints had the ball, their kicking was much more accurate. When they were patient, they hit targets. Often you'd see all the players on the ground flooded into a single wing, but the Saints did an excellent job of forcing the man up contests either by going back the the corridor (and the run through the middle was fantastic) and then creating space at hitting their tagerts/

3/ Any game plan looks better when the team is winning contests and kicking accurately. Accurate kicking ticked the scoreboard along and foreced Freo to play into the Saints hands. A big game from the G train made things look much more positive.

There are a number of things an opposition team can do to nullify the '07 Saints, and Freo failed in these areas... given the way West Coast play, next week should at least be interesting as well.

[Teflon]

I agree that Thomas' stubborness probably cost him his job. And it nearly cost Mark Thompson his too. But he yielded to the wishes of his board and allowed a football manager to help out. Interesting to see where the Cats are now with the stability of a constant senior coach.

Isnt that the whole point?

Bomber Thompson licked his wounds, recognised he was not able to manage the many hats Cook and others at the club said he was managing - it was affetcing his coaching. So whats he do? Agrees with the Board for the footballmanager position, the club sought some outside leadership help *(which they rave about) and hiows Bomber coaching now???????........while Grant Thomas insists nup hes still the man to do the lot - dumb move Grant.

No one said the Board made their decision on game plan - you introduced that aspect to the discussion not me - its pretty clear to me the Board had numerous elements of the footy dept they wanted change with - the coach being one after he wouldnt budge.

[Life Long Saint]

Isnt that the whole point?

Bomber Thompson licked his wounds, recognised he was not able to manage the many hats Cook and others at the club said he was managing - it was affetcing his coaching. So whats he do? Agrees with the Board for the footballmanager position, the club sought some outside leadership help *(which they rave about) and hiows Bomber coaching now???????........while Grant Thomas insists nup hes still the man to do the lot - dumb move Grant.

No one said the Board made their decision on game plan - you introduced that aspect to the discussion not me - its pretty clear to me the Board had numerous elements of the footy dept they wanted change with - the coach being one after he wouldnt budge.

Yep! We're in vehement agreement! Very little to do with on-field performance...ergo...why did we need a dramatic change to our style?

[firthy]

Yep wasn't it great to watch St Kilda come back to replace St Sydney

[Teflon]

Isnt that the whole point?

Bomber Thompson licked his wounds, recognised he was not able to manage the many hats Cook and others at the club said he was managing - it was affetcing his coaching. So whats he do? Agrees with the Board for the footballmanager position, the club sought some outside leadership help *(which they rave about) and hiows Bomber coaching now???????........while Grant Thomas insists nup hes still the man to do the lot - dumb move Grant.

No one said the Board made their decision on game plan - you introduced that aspect to the discussion not me - its pretty clear to me the Board had numerous elements of the footy dept they wanted change with - the coach being one after he wouldnt budge.

Yep! We're in vehement agreement! Very little to do with on-field performance...ergo...why did we need a dramatic change to our style?

Its interesting isnt it? The players this year have talked about there not actually being a great deal of difference in Thomas/Lyon game plans - IMHO the difference we are seeing is a playing group still coming to terms with subtle changes to the way we have played - in short more accountability and less bombing going fwd which I am incredibly thankful for.

We kicked 19 goals on the weekend - I do not believe Lyon decided to change game plan for the last 3 games...to me we had to get some defensive aspects into our game - we were killed whenm shut down so often last year......it will take time yet but IMO we will end up with a side who can both attack and score quickly and also pick its way through an opposition hell bent of flooding and a defensive game plan.

[saintspremiers]

look, without being too negative, Freo were crap.....no ruckman, a one man forward line (Pavlova) and no idea how to slow a game down.

The moment X.Clarke ran down the guts at full speed to bang it inside 50 really showed up how different a game plan against us Freo had compared to most other sides this year.....normally THEY don't allow us space by chipping in our forward line and slowing it up.

I think against the Weagles it will be back to the grindstone again for us, with a huge struggle to score for both sides.

[Teflon]

look, without being too negative, Freo were crap.....no ruckman, a one man forward line (Pavlova) and no idea how to slow a game down.

The moment X.Clarke ran down the guts at full speed to bang it inside 50 really showed up how different a game plan against us Freo had compared to most other sides this year.....normally THEY don't allow us space by chipping in our forward line and slowing it up.

I think against the Weagles it will be back to the grindstone again for us, with a huge struggle to score for both sides.

Possibly and thats something those who bank everything on game plan underestimate - opposition have a dramatic effect on how we set up and can play.

[Life Long Saint]

look, without being too negative, Freo were crap.....no ruckman, a one man forward line (Pavlova) and no idea how to slow a game down.

The moment X.Clarke ran down the guts at full speed to bang it inside 50 really showed up how different a game plan against us Freo had compared to most other sides this year.....normally THEY don't allow us space by chipping in our forward line and slowing it up.

I think against the Weagles it will be back to the grindstone again for us, with a huge struggle to score for both sides.

Possibly and thats something those who bank everything on game plan underestimate - opposition have a dramatic effect on how we set up and can play.

As long as we continue to take risks and try to make something happen. If we go back to the chip-chip game when the pressure comes then we are done for.

[saintsRrising]

looked like the 2004-2005 game plan to me.

There are two main parts to our game plan....how we play when we have the ball....and VERY importantly how we play when the opposition have it.

The way we stopped Freo often when they had the ball...was NEVER part of what we did in 2004/2005.

whatever it was it worked a treat. i agree with you Life Long Saint about our willingness to take risks.

it has been largely absent this season and has cost us bigtime

YES..and that is exactly what RL has been saying in his press conferences...that he wanted our players to take more risks and be more direct than they were....


People WRONGLY assume that the poor plan was DUE to the game plan...rather than being due more to take of confidence and poor execution...and i would guess lack of familarity with the new aspects of the gameplan so that plyers where having to THINK about what tey were doing rather than just doing it instictively.


We are probably now starting to see the players becoming instinctive again...

[saintsRrising]

... thought i'd jumped in a time machine and travelled back to 2004-2005 the way we played today.

If we did not flood...what was GTrain doing in the middle.....and Roo on the HBF.....etc etc..???????

We still flooded....

[The_Dud]

very happy tho

me too. do you still think raph's a dud?

he still has dud-ish qualities

[Dan Warna]

... thought i'd jumped in a time machine and travelled back to 2004-2005 the way we played today.

If we did not flood...what was GTrain doing in the middle.....and Roo on the HBF.....etc etc..???????

We still flooded....

i thought you said a while ago we dont flood? we just play the one extra man in defence?

[saintsRrising]

i thought you said a while ago we dont flood? we just play the one extra man in defence?

How about you actually post what I said then Dan....that way I can reply??.



If you are talking about the FIRST Hawks game when their coach & many in the media came out whinging.....I said that we had extra players in our backline because the Hawks just played the 4 forwards....and we held our backline structure....so in the context of discussing THAT game and the the Hawks forward line we had not flooded it. We had just maintained our 6 backs to their 4 forwards.





If you are refering to something else...then please quote what that was and the context and I will happily reply.

[Dan Warna]

i thought you said a while ago we dont flood? we just play the one extra man in defence?

How about you actually post what I said then Dan....that way I can reply??.



If you are talking about the FIRST Hawks game when their coach & many in the media came out whinging.....I said that we had extra players in our backline because the Hawks just played the 4 forwards....and we held our backline structure....so in the context of discussing THAT game and the the Hawks forward line we had not flooded it. We had just maintained our 6 backs to their 4 forwards.





If you are refering to something else...then please quote what that was and the context and I will happily reply.

so do we flood or dont we flood?

[rodgerfox]

looked like the 2004-2005 game plan to me.

There are two main parts to our game plan....how we play when we have the ball....and VERY importantly how we play when the opposition have it.

The way we stopped Freo often when they had the ball...was NEVER part of what we did in 2004/2005.

whatever it was it worked a treat. i agree with you Life Long Saint about our willingness to take risks.

it has been largely absent this season and has cost us bigtime

YES..and that is exactly what RL has been saying in his press conferences...that he wanted our players to take more risks and be more direct than they were....


People WRONGLY assume that the poor plan was DUE to the game plan...rather than being due more to take of confidence and poor execution...and i would guess lack of familarity with the new aspects of the gameplan so that plyers where having to THINK about what tey were doing rather than just doing it instictively.


We are probably now starting to see the players becoming instinctive again...

Have you spoken to Ross Lyon and been directly told what the game plan actually is?

You seem very confused between your own view of the world and actual reality.

[Teflon]

looked like the 2004-2005 game plan to me.

There are two main parts to our game plan....how we play when we have the ball....and VERY importantly how we play when the opposition have it.

The way we stopped Freo often when they had the ball...was NEVER part of what we did in 2004/2005.

whatever it was it worked a treat. i agree with you Life Long Saint about our willingness to take risks.

it has been largely absent this season and has cost us bigtime

YES..and that is exactly what RL has been saying in his press conferences...that he wanted our players to take more risks and be more direct than they were....


People WRONGLY assume that the poor plan was DUE to the game plan...rather than being due more to take of confidence and poor execution...and i would guess lack of familarity with the new aspects of the gameplan so that plyers where having to THINK about what tey were doing rather than just doing it instictively.


We are probably now starting to see the players becoming instinctive again...

Have you spoken to Ross Lyon and been directly told what the game plan actually is?

You seem very confused between your own view of the world and actual reality.

Unlike yourself Dodgy whose very clearly in a world of fantasy....

[Otiman]

Freo allowed us to play our style of game, and our gameplan works the best against sides like the Dogs and Dockers. I'd expect to see a dockers gameplan more like our own next year under Harvey.

[saintsRrising]

so do we flood or dont we flood?

Is it not obvious Dan???...we flood at times...and we did so against Freo as we have against other teams.

[saintsRrising]

You seem very confused between your own view of the world and actual reality.

No I am not at all confused.....unlike those who seem to think that the way we played against Freo was somehow how we played in 2004 when quite clearly it was not.

[saintsRrising]

[i thought you said a while ago we dont flood? we just play the one extra man in defence?

So Dan please sttre exactly what you think I have stated in the past so that I can answer your question?

If you are stating that I have stated that we don't flood...then you are way off base.



For example I have posted pre-season that Harvey could play HF because he has the endurance to FLOOD back to support the midfield and backline.
etc
etc

etc

[Dan Warna]

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

right.