Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
Mr Magic wrote:I pretty much agree with you on this one Teffers.
My Ali vs Foreman analogy may have been a little wide of the mark - what I was trying to say is that there appears to be a belief within the coaching panel and players that they can 'hold on' whilst the opposition is attacking in the knowledge that we're going to at some stage cut loose ourselves, and 'we're fitter then them'!
Yeah I think thats right and a good thing, as you pointed out, that Ross has bought us.
Must say this is a good thread - this question has had me stuffed for some time. In 2007 I could write it off as "coach/players still learning"......I dont think we can do that this year. Its got to gel. I actually believe its the right path its all about implementing conisistently for mine now. At least fitness wise we are runnijg games out........I wonder what combining the defence/offensive approach with superior fitness now wouldve meant to IMO a 2004 side in its prime and with less weak links.
My worry now is we have the plan, fitness, coach. IMO.....and only some of the cattle...(if you honestly look at our side - to me - there are still players in it that should struggle to get games in senior AFL teams at the top).
Are you saying that every "top team" player would get a game with us?
I doubt it, Teffers. It's the sum total of all parts.
I put it to you that we've had players that wouldn't get a game in top teams for the last 7 years.
Perhaps analysing a little more than I meant for Wayne.
What I am clumsily fumbling round in the back seat for is IMHO our weaker links now, as opposed to 2004/05 sides particularly, are weaker.
IMO a hard bodied Thompson/Powell/Peckett over the likes of Jones/Mqualter/Gwilt/Fiora's of recent times demonstrates in both exoerience, body and balance we have larger holes in our starting 22 and perhaps the gap between our bottom 6 and the rest has widened.
There is no way the 2004-5 sides could run out the RL game plan.
RL needs his top players to be elite endurance runners. We were much more of an explosive team back then.
Im not comparing game styles of 04/05 to now cause our side has also changed due to considerable retirements and injury. Once again, I am saying on BALANCE the weak links REGARDLESS of game styles were less in those years IMHO. The side was better balanced with age/youth.
I mean FFS we had Coleman medallist in his prime and a guy on a HFF that ran through brick walls.....its fairly straight forward.
Mr Magic wrote:I pretty much agree with you on this one Teffers.
My Ali vs Foreman analogy may have been a little wide of the mark - what I was trying to say is that there appears to be a belief within the coaching panel and players that they can 'hold on' whilst the opposition is attacking in the knowledge that we're going to at some stage cut loose ourselves, and 'we're fitter then them'!
Yeah I think thats right and a good thing, as you pointed out, that Ross has bought us.
Must say this is a good thread - this question has had me stuffed for some time. In 2007 I could write it off as "coach/players still learning"......I dont think we can do that this year. Its got to gel. I actually believe its the right path its all about implementing conisistently for mine now. At least fitness wise we are runnijg games out........I wonder what combining the defence/offensive approach with superior fitness now wouldve meant to IMO a 2004 side in its prime and with less weak links.
My worry now is we have the plan, fitness, coach. IMO.....and only some of the cattle...(if you honestly look at our side - to me - there are still players in it that should struggle to get games in senior AFL teams at the top).
Are you saying that every "top team" player would get a game with us?
I doubt it, Teffers. It's the sum total of all parts.
I put it to you that we've had players that wouldn't get a game in top teams for the last 7 years.
Perhaps analysing a little more than I meant for Wayne.
What I am clumsily fumbling round in the back seat for is IMHO our weaker links now, as opposed to 2004/05 sides particularly, are weaker.
IMO a hard bodied Thompson/Powell/Peckett over the likes of Jones/Mqualter/Gwilt/Fiora's of recent times demonstrates in both exoerience, body and balance we have larger holes in our starting 22 and perhaps the gap between our bottom 6 and the rest has widened.
There is no way the 2004-5 sides could run out the RL game plan.
RL needs his top players to be elite endurance runners. We were much more of an explosive team back then.
Im not comparing game styles of 04/05 to now cause our side has also changed due to considerable retirements and injury. Once again, I am saying on BALANCE the weak links REGARDLESS of game styles were less in those years IMHO. The side was better balanced with age/youth.
I mean FFS we had Coleman medallist in his prime and a guy on a HFF that ran through brick walls.....its fairly straight forward.
Is it that straight forward?
IMO RL finished GT, Vossy, Hamill and Kosi all at the same time with his game plan.
He is slowly changing with Kosi but the rest were gone very quickly. Explosive players don't really fit the current Saints.
PJ wrote:I have a theory that it may be in the kinds of languages coming from the coaches.
The more you tell people not to allow the opposition to get a break from the outset the more players tighten up.
St.Kilda can look a little overly conscious of what they are doing early in the game.
Their running game seems to only kick in once they stop to regroup and are probably told to take a few risks/back themselves.
It could be more psychological than mechanical IMO that is.
Thats how I see it to.
Weve become consicous about a good start and panick if we get a few kicked against us. It isnt till we take some risks in second half we break shackles, gain confidence. It has to be mental....it looks that way watching it.....and I was shouting that out the other night ad nauseum (i switched between "its mental" to "Im mental" to "Im spartacus".....made the game bearable)
I think it's a fair question though not one appropriately directed to this game. I think it was a s*** game, pure and simple, and Brisbane was not able or interested in matching up properly on Goddard or Fisher; that's all that happened.
As for the question generally... I don't know. If the question is do they play too tight to start most games, I'd say yes.
As to why, it's either game plan or f*** up somewhere along the line, that gets resolved at half time.
If it's f*** up they need - and should be able to - fix it.
If it's game plan I think it's flawed and unwise. It is possible RL views the side as not being as capable of big scores as the big 5 (Gee, Haw, NM, Foot, Coll), so by taking half the game out of the equation as far as scoring goes, he figures STK benefits more than the opposition from that strategy.
That would be my guess - trying to bring the game down to STK standard by reducing scoring opportunities... just like teams used to bring the game down to scrappy because it was only on that basis they could win; they same way STK used to flood Moorabbin, make it a low-scoring mudheap so as to minimise losses.
It's possible RL feels that unless he has basically a full strength side he needs to aim to be fairly defensive.
these are guesses.
I don't know.
It's a fantastic question - worthy of debate, and it'd be great to hear RL offer an answer to it.
NoMore wrote:Now i know that alot of people on here probably find my posts negative and repetitive but if someone can seriously answer this it would be great.
I have followed footy for my whole life. I love it. I love the aggression of the old days and i enjoy the tactics of the game now. It is one of the things that draws me to watch gridiron. But i don't understant St Kilda.
Why did we on saturday night and for most of last year play and incredibly defensive game for the first 2 quarters. You would almost say we were trying not to lose by to much. Then when all seemed lost we think hang on to win this game you have to actually go out and kick goals. So we start playing on and running and attacking.
I am not trying to be negative here i just don't understand the mindset of this.
Oh one more thing. Do we get better in the second half or do the other teams slack off?
Lets see, in 2005, we played attacking footy, then we started playing defensive.
Now lets ask ourselves, what changed? Thats right we got a new coach!!!
