Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
A thousand things, you say? Futility indeed.rodgerfox wrote:I think predicting ladder positions (based on what I've talked about throughout this thread) is the biggest exercise in futility that you could possibly find.
I think it's fair to say we will finish in the bottom 8 of the comp, and most likely not the bottom 4.
Which exact ladder position though, will depend on a thousand things.
So Hawthorn are no better than Geelong in 08?I think you can.
Finishing above a team, does not mean you are a better than them.
Not least of all beating them. But yes you can spin on about "other factors"'Every other factor' is exactly what should be discussed. We are not better than Collingwood because we finished above them. We are better than them for 'other factors'.
You're introducing other factors that are irrelevant to the finish and not a part of what happened in 08. As for Jack I could quote several other incidents that happened to St.Kilda players that could have changed what happened as well - so what.Getting it happening isn't enough. What if every team gets it happening? Then what? It comes down to many other factors. What if you 'get it happening' but the fixture has you playing your last 4 games interstate? As opposed to another team who 'gets it happening' yet plays their last 4 games at the G?
What if you 'get it happening' but your best player does his knee?
We finished 4th, as opposed to as low as 9th because Jack Riewoldt's right leg couldn't kick 50m after 120 minutes of footy, and because some other Richmond bloke hit the post from 25m out.
I don't believe I've ever mentioned that the ladder is a bible - it is one indicator, one group of statistics - a starting point for discussion to occur.There's no way we were 'clearly' better than what was below.
If the ladder is the bible, then we were only about 3 or 4 goals better than those below us. Only 1 goal better than Adelaide!
If Ramanaskus slotted that goal under no pressure in the last quarter of the last game, we wouldn't have finished 4th.
It's almost like a photo finish in horse racing. The horse that wins gets the chocolates. The one that gets beaten by a whisker doesn't.
However when assessing the form for the next race, to look solely at the fact that one of them has a 1 next to it's name, and the other has a 2 - is crazy. There are many factors involved.
One of them may have had more weight. One of them may have travelled 3 wide the whole way. etc. etc.
The footy is the same.
IMOThe act of speaking out for the purpose of hearing onself speak.
Posturing...speaking to people that don't really care what you say one way or another since you're speaking solely to front yourself as "someone in charge".
Speech or written communication that is generally pointless except to cast favorable light upon the speaker or author as if the message were a pronouncement from on high.
Usually full of s***.
There's a funny Halloween episode of the Simpsons where all the giant advertising slogans and characters come to life and rampage the city.PJ wrote:IMOThe act of speaking out for the purpose of hearing onself speak.
Posturing...speaking to people that don't really care what you say one way or another since you're speaking solely to front yourself as "someone in charge".
Speech or written communication that is generally pointless except to cast favorable light upon the speaker or author as if the message were a pronouncement from on high.
Usually full of s***.
Aaaah... another day - another new friend made, eh Rodge?rodgerfox wrote:There's a funny Halloween episode of the Simpsons where all the giant advertising slogans and characters come to life and rampage the city.PJ wrote:IMOThe act of speaking out for the purpose of hearing onself speak.
Posturing...speaking to people that don't really care what you say one way or another since you're speaking solely to front yourself as "someone in charge".
Speech or written communication that is generally pointless except to cast favorable light upon the speaker or author as if the message were a pronouncement from on high.
Usually full of s***.
In the end, the way they stop them is the way stop any form of advertisiting - just don't look. If you stop looking at ads, they become irrelevant and they go away.
It's precisely the same as 'posturing' basedon the definition you've posted above.
The line that reads "speaking to people that don't really care what you say one way or another" is apt, and a touch funny.
The reality is, that if people don't care - they won't respond. If they really don't care, they won't even read.
The fact that hack journos like Patrick Smith and internet forum pests exist, is testament to this.
People do care. Otherwise they wouldn't react.
If people stopped reacting, they would go away.
Jeebus. I won't be bloody happy if you're right. Unless there were some very, very, extremely good reasons. I reckon there is a heap of (proven - they've done it before) improvement in quite a few players who have been at the club for years and at least some general improvement in some who've been around 1-3 years.rodgerfox wrote:I think it's fair to say we will finish in the bottom 8 of the comp, and most likely not the bottom 4.
My fear is that our stars aren't that good after all. And that Thomas was simlpy able to get them to perform above themselves - and Lyon isn't.Saints43 wrote:Jeebus. I won't be bloody happy if you're right. Unless there were some very, very, extremely good reasons. I reckon there is a heap of (proven - they've done it before) improvement in quite a few players who have been at the club for years and at least some general improvement in some who've been around 1-3 years.rodgerfox wrote:I think it's fair to say we will finish in the bottom 8 of the comp, and most likely not the bottom 4.
If our hopes for Misson's work are only half right we will see improvement through continuity alone.
Actually, many objective observers totally agree with you..rodgerfox wrote:Saints43 wrote:Jeebus. I won't be bloody happy if you're right. Unless there were some very, very, extremely good reasons. I reckon there is a heap of (proven - they've done it before) improvement in quite a few players who have been at the club for years and at least some general improvement in some who've been around 1-3 years.rodgerfox wrote:I think it's fair to say we will finish in the bottom 8 of the comp, and most likely not the bottom 4.
If our hopes for Misson's work are only half right we will see improvement through continuity alone.
My other fear, and one that I believe pretty much factual, is that Reiwoldt completely carried us last year.
When he started slowly, so did we. When he started winning games off his own boot, we started winning.
The second half of the year, I believe, was pretty much solely due to Riewoldt.
That's a very dangerous position to be in.
Don't agree with this.plugger66 wrote:As I have said before the only way we can improve is 2nd and 3rd year players and every side will think the same at this time of year. Lets just hope ours improve more than most.
Absolutely agree with this...Richter wrote:Now we have around a dozen players who should be peaking in their careers all at the same time - with a couple of older players in King, Lenny and Max, and a little bit of youth e.g. Gilbert, Armitage. Players such as Ball, NDS, Goddard, Roo, Kosi, Sam Fish, Clarkesx2, Gram, Maguire should be all at their prime at the same time.
that's fairly fanciful...played well in spite of him....some people will never understand this game lolInkerSaint wrote:Absolutely agree with this...Richter wrote:Now we have around a dozen players who should be peaking in their careers all at the same time - with a couple of older players in King, Lenny and Max, and a little bit of youth e.g. Gilbert, Armitage. Players such as Ball, NDS, Goddard, Roo, Kosi, Sam Fish, Clarkesx2, Gram, Maguire should be all at their prime at the same time.
As for Thomas vs. Lyon (must we go there?), if you bother to compare CV's I think it far more likely that Thomas is the hack - not Lyon. And that the '04 team performed well in spite of him.
totally agree with this. These are the years that make those years from 99 - 03 worth it. Those drafted from 2000 - '05 are in their prime in the next 2-5 years. No excuses!Richter wrote:Don't agree with this.plugger66 wrote:As I have said before the only way we can improve is 2nd and 3rd year players and every side will think the same at this time of year. Lets just hope ours improve more than most.
We are in a great position over the next 2-3 years simply because we have our core group - those from the 2000-2 drafts maturing at the same time.
The problem with the 2004-5 team was that whilst there was a good blend of youth and experience there was no solid core group that was mature at the same time. It was a mix of experienced players like RH, Thompson, Peckett who were coming to the end of their careers and youth like Riewoldt, Ball, Dal who were near the beginning of theirs. Realistically who was at the zenith point in their careers? Probably G train, Lenny and Max - Aaron Hammill not being injured might have been enough to get us over the line... but you see my point.
Now we have around a dozen players who should be peaking in their careers all at the same time - with a couple of older players in King, Lenny and Max, and a little bit of youth e.g. Gilbert, Armitage. Players such as Ball, NDS, Goddard, Roo, Kosi, Sam Fish, Clarkesx2, Gram, Maguire should be all at their prime at the same time.
Most of those players you mentioned have been at their prime for 2-3 years and we havent improved in that time. As I said improvement must come from the younger group.Richter wrote:Don't agree with this.plugger66 wrote:As I have said before the only way we can improve is 2nd and 3rd year players and every side will think the same at this time of year. Lets just hope ours improve more than most.
We are in a great position over the next 2-3 years simply because we have our core group - those from the 2000-2 drafts maturing at the same time.
The problem with the 2004-5 team was that whilst there was a good blend of youth and experience there was no solid core group that was mature at the same time. It was a mix of experienced players like RH, Thompson, Peckett who were coming to the end of their careers and youth like Riewoldt, Ball, Dal who were near the beginning of theirs. Realistically who was at the zenith point in their careers? Probably G train, Lenny and Max - Aaron Hammill not being injured might have been enough to get us over the line... but you see my point.
Now we have around a dozen players who should be peaking in their careers all at the same time - with a couple of older players in King, Lenny and Max, and a little bit of youth e.g. Gilbert, Armitage. Players such as Ball, NDS, Goddard, Roo, Kosi, Sam Fish, Clarkesx2, Gram, Maguire should be all at their prime at the same time.
Uh, let me see, the Footy Operations Manager who appointed himself as coach, with probably the least experience of any of his peers, now ex-coach with probably the least auspicious CV of any of his peers... did I miss something?HarveysDeciple wrote:that's fairly fanciful...played well in spite of him....some people will never understand this game lol
not sure about the least auspicious CV of his peers......to be honest.InkerSaint wrote:Uh, let me see, the Footy Operations Manager who appointed himself as coach, with probably the least experience of any of his peers, now ex-coach with probably the least auspicious CV of any of his peers... did I miss something?HarveysDeciple wrote:that's fairly fanciful...played well in spite of him....some people will never understand this game lol
Well..if they arent that good..they arent stars are they???My fear is that our stars aren't that good after all. And that Thomas was simlpy able to get them to perform above themselves - and Lyon isn't.
saint66au wrote:Well..if they arent that good..they arent stars are they???My fear is that our stars aren't that good after all. And that Thomas was simlpy able to get them to perform above themselves - and Lyon isn't.
I can see now why it took you so long to answer Rodg...you were trying to work out a way to discredit RL and pump up GT..well you did it..nice work
Whilst 99.999999999999% of the football world think our depth is our main achilles heel, you've decided that RL cant get Roo, Hayes, Dal, Milne, Ball and Chipper to play good enough footy to get us back where we were in the GT-era of 2004-5. Well with the exception of Dal (RL has coached a fit Luke Ball for 20mins, until he caught the pointy end of Matthew Whelan's elbow) that is bollocks, in my most considered opinion.
