First 4 rounds of 2004 compared to 2009

[jakestar1234567]

Is this years St kilda side as impressive so far as the 2004 St kilda was?
We thrashed Geelong, Beat Essendon, Adelaide and Richmond I think.
Compared to overrunning sydeny, beating adelaide, thrash west coast and freo.

This is the ladder of 2004 after round 4
Pos Team P W D L For Agn Max Min W D L W D L Stk Chg Pts % Pos W D L Pts %
1 St Kilda 4 4 0 0 443 (66.47) 288 (42.36) 122 94 2 0 0 2 0 0 4W - 16 153.82 16 1 0 3 4 73.97
2 Port Adelaide 4 3 0 1 518 (77.56) 391 (56.55) 171 71 2 0 0 1 0 1 1L - 12 132.48 7 2 0 2 8 107.99
3 Sydney 4 3 0 1 374 (54.50) 288 (41.42) 121 73 2 0 0 1 0 1 3W U2 12 129.86 12 1 0 3 4 94.34
4 Brisbane Lions 4 3 0 1 397 (57.55) 317 (46.41) 137 76 2 0 0 1 0 1 1L - 12 125.24 1 3 1 0 14 120.49
5 Fremantle 4 3 0 1 339 (47.57) 280 (38.52) 107 71 2 0 0 1 0 1 2W U1 12 121.07 10 2 0 2 8 92.16
6 Melbourne 4 3 0 1 426 (60.66) 353 (51.47) 135 70 2 0 0 1 0 1 3W U1 12 120.68 11 2 0 2 8 88.66
7 North Melbourne 4 3 0 1 433 (65.43) 375 (55.45) 149 70 2 0 1 1 0 0 1L D4 12 115.47 5 2 1 1 10 100.96
8 West Coast 4 2 0 2 469 (71.43) 468 (70.48) 144 79 1 0 1 1 0 1 1W U1 8 100.21 6 2 0 2 8 124.06

[The Saintsational Man]

It's better.....by far.

Great balance of attack and defence.....

Our 2004 side was just willing to have a shoot out, our 2009 side looks to stop you first, then attack.....

Great football to watch.

[Shaggy]

Majority of 2004 team were kids.

Now they are men.

Big difference.

And as a sceptic I never thought we would win a flag in 2004 even after the first 10 rounds ... I do this year.

[Sainterman]

That 2004 side was a very good one. Lets not forget that they were basically a kick away from the GF. Who knows what could have happened had they made it.

So far so good though, the intensity and tackling has been superb so far. I still think the disposal can improve a little but all the signs are there. Big test this week.

But we are only in Round 4, a long, long way to go, and the 2009 side needs to do it week in and week out to prove themselves the better of the 2 sides. They are well on track though...very happy with them right at the minute.

[kaos theory]

Majority of 2004 team were kids.

Now they are men.

Big difference.

And as a sceptic I never thought we would win a flag in 2004 even after the first 10 rounds ... I do this year

Not completely right.

We had a Maxy & Harvey closer to their prime, Hayes just coming into his prime.

We also had Aussie Jones, Penny (before his knee inury), Hamill (was mostly fit), pecket, powell, Andrew thompson, g-train, etc.

[Shaggy]

Majority of 2004 team were kids.

Now they are men.

Big difference.

And as a sceptic I never thought we would win a flag in 2004 even after the first 10 rounds ... I do this year

Not completely right.

We had a Maxy & Harvey closer to their prime, Hayes just coming into his prime.

We also had Aussie Jones, Penny (before his knee inury), Hamill (was mostly fit), pecket, powell, Andrew thompson, g-train, etc.

No problem with our mature footballers in 2004 .... they were very good.

But Roo, Kosi, Dal, Ball, BJ, Monty, X, Goose, Chips and Fish were important to the team and they were what ages ... 22 and below.

Ferg and Gwilt played finals as kids. Penny was what age ?... 22 or 23. Lenny, Blake & Milne were how old ? ... 24/25 ... same age as the core now.

That was such an immature side ... and it showed when we played Port & Brisbane in the 2nd half of the season ... IMO we were never in the hunt in 2004.

Now we are like Port and Brisbane of 2004 ... lots of finals experience and the kids are few ... Geary, Gwilt, Zac, Mini, Ray & Raph (all 3 - 5 year players) .... and they are not the cornerstone of our success.

Put your money on ... we are dead set peaking when we should be peaking and no longer playing above our age.

[bigcarl]

shaggy wrote:

No problem with our mature footballers in 2004 .... they were very good.

But Roo, Kosi, Dal, Ball, BJ, Monty, X, Goose, Chips and Fish were important to the team and they were what ages ... 22 and below.

Ferg and Gwilt played finals as kids. Penny was what age ?... 22 or 23. Lenny, Blake & Milne were how old ? ... 24/25 ... same age as the core now.

That was such an immature side ... and it showed when we played Port & Brisbane in the 2nd half of the season ... IMO we were never in the hunt in 2004.

Now we are like Port and Brisbane of 2004 ... lots of finals experience and the kids are few ... Geary, Gwilt, Zac, Mini, Ray & Raph (all 3 - 5 year players) .... and they are not the cornerstone of our success.

Put your money on ... we are dead set peaking when we should be peaking and no longer playing above our age.[/

correct weight. we need the luck with injuries that we didn't have then and a few other things to go right. we're a better chance than most.

[Teflon]

Majority of 2004 team were kids.

Now they are men.

Big difference.

And as a sceptic I never thought we would win a flag in 2004 even after the first 10 rounds ... I do this year

Not completely right.

We had a Maxy & Harvey closer to their prime, Hayes just coming into his prime.

We also had Aussie Jones, Penny (before his knee inury), Hamill (was mostly fit), pecket, powell, Andrew thompson, g-train, etc.

Bret Voss?

well said Kaos - the mature age players at 2004 were at their peak complemented by a talented batch of largely high draft picks in kids. The balance was better IMO.

To say 'after the event' that we were never a show in 04 is rubbish - Port didnt think that AT HOME till Gehrig kicked his 100th...

[Shaggy]

Majority of 2004 team were kids.

Now they are men.

Big difference.

And as a sceptic I never thought we would win a flag in 2004 even after the first 10 rounds ... I do this year

Not completely right.

We had a Maxy & Harvey closer to their prime, Hayes just coming into his prime.

We also had Aussie Jones, Penny (before his knee inury), Hamill (was mostly fit), pecket, powell, Andrew thompson, g-train, etc.

Bret Voss?

well said Kaos - the mature age players at 2004 were at their peak complemented by a talented batch of largely high draft picks in kids. The balance was better IMO.

To say 'after the event' that we were never a show in 04 is rubbish - Port didnt think that AT HOME till Gehrig kicked his 100th...

Are the mature players of 2004 better than 2009?

I doubt it Tef.

Sorry ... am I stalking

[saintsRrising]

I am not sure about the majority of our team in 2004 being kids.

We had a healthy core of players from our 97 team still running around for a start...plus other post 97 GF players such as Hayes..not a kid in 2004.



Then add experienced additions from other clubs such as GTrain, Hamill, Voss, Powell who by 2004 were in their fourth year for the Saints...

Plus other younger players such as the non-kids Heath Black who was 25.. Knobel 24....

Everitt and Hall would have been in their prime if not traded away...


But yes Lyon has done a great job since his arrival in adding experience and depth to the list.....all without the benefit of early picks (to either use or trade away).

[remboy]

The boy Harvey was only 33 in 2004.
We also had GT back then

[saintspremiers]

Unlike 2004, we have:

(1) Professional injury/fitness management team

(2) A coach that is flexible and adaptable to change (read: GT struggled in 04 when the uber-flood was employed against us in the latter half of the season).

(3) Not as many supporters will pump up players/coach/admins tyres this year as in 04/05 as we have been burnt twice already!

[bergholt]

But Roo, Kosi, Dal, Ball, BJ, Monty, X, Goose, Chips and Fish were important to the team and they were what ages ... 22 and below.

i think joey, fish and chips hadn't broken into the side yet, but you're basically right.

2004:

Ball: 25 games
Dal Santo: 25 games
Riewoldt: 25 games
Goddard: 24 games
Clarke X: 19 games
Koschitzke: 17 games
Maguire: 17 games
Montagna: 9 games
Fisher S: 7 games
Fisher L: 5 games

[BAM! (shhhh)]

It's better.....by far.

Great balance of attack and defence.....

Our 2004 side was just willing to have a shoot out, our 2009 side looks to stop you first, then attack.....

Great football to watch.

2009 side has a way to go to match the '04 performance at this stage. 4-0 is nice, but that's all it is.

the 2004 side wasn't just offense. As well as being 2nd in total offense, they were 6th in defense, and one of the best clearance teams in the comp. One of the hallmarks of the 2004 edition was how hard it was to execute a kick in against the 6 man zone, forcing the ball out wide and out of bounds. The back 6 of 2004 (which did include Leigh Fisher until he got hurt, but did not include Sam) played for each other and took a great number of scalps... it's only recently that we've seen guys throwing themselves backward into marking contests (Gilbo, Raph) in the manner that Maguire, Voss and (L) Fisher used to do regularly - at times supported by Kosi (who in the oprning part of '04 was used in a farestopper kind of role, put him where the heat was and watch us take over!)

In 2005 they improved to 1st in offense and 4th in defense.

It's a fallacy that the Thomas coached teams weren't good defensively. They weren't as defensively minded, true, but until midseason 2008 we didn't really start seeing that pay dividends (2007 we were 7th, and 2008 we were 5th, which really didn't ofset our offensive downturn. Ironically, our best defensive season of the decade was 2006 - 3rd), and they've really had to learn the shift to playing attack from a defensive setup as opposed to playing all out attack and relying on the back 6 to stop the rebound.

With stronger bodies (the '04 team really relied on a few guys to bring the mongrel), and a plan that suits todays football, I believe we're the best placed we've been since '04 and '05...

however, there's a lot still to prove - and if they're at that level, it's only relevant so long as they exceed the results those 2 teams brought.

[milney044]

Geelong were a young up and coming side just like us who claimed they were better than us. We smacked them by 10 goals. Essendon threw everything at us and tried to intimidate and out muscle us. We cruised home by 30 points. Adelaide away 2004= >Adelaide away 2009 imo and Richmond are Richmond..9th again was it?

Compared to this year we defeated Swans at TD which is always a good win, i rate the Geelong win '04 as better. We defeated Adelaide away which is huge for us, but again it rates with defeating Essendon who have had the wood against us, especially prior to 2004. Then there's the wins against Fremantle and West Coast which were huge but lets be honest, those sides are pathetic.

Overall it's pretty even, personally i rate 2004 as slightly better, maybe simply because it was exciting as we had no expectation. The big test will be this week, we win on Friday and i'll change my mind.

[saintsRrising]

The structure we now have looks pretty good...

However the next 3 weeks is going to test the quality that we have.

The only real obvious "flaw" in the structure of the team at present is the missing "third" forward.

However if our mids keep up their improvement of being regular goal-scoeers that will not matter as much.

Still the emergence of a "third" forward would make Roo and Kosi more dangerous...

[saintly]

The structure we now have looks pretty good...

However the next 3 weeks is going to test the quality that we have.

The only real obvious "flaw" in the structure of the team at present is the missing "third" forward.

However if our mids keep up their improvement of being regular goal-scoeers that will not matter as much.

Still the emergence of a "third" forward would make Roo and Kosi more dangerous...

the next three weeks. i think thats what we are all waiting on. are we good? we just don't know until we play the good teams and this will happen over the next few weeks. then we will be albe to tell.

[meher baba]

Top 22s 2004 vs 2009

In - 13: Raph, Chips, Gardi, McQualter, Gilbert, Gram, Gwilt, C Jones, King, McQualter, Joey, Ray, Schneider

Out - 13: Black, X, Gehrig, Goose, Guerra, Hamill, Harvey, A Jones, Knobel, Penny, Powell, Thommo and Voss

Of the 9 players that "retained their spots":

Improved: Blake, Goddard, Milne (slightly) Riewoldt (slightly)
About the same: Ball, Dal, Lenny, Kosi, Max

To sum up, our ruck unit is much stronger, our midfield (even with the loss of Harvey) is probably about the same in quality, our backline (with Fisher, Raph and Gilbert all fit and firing) is probably a bit stronger, but our forward line is much, much weaker with Hamill and Gehrig gone, and with Schneider no better (perhaps not quite as good) as Guerra in his 2004 form.

The good news is that our depth beyond the forward line is much better than in 2009. Two of our regular first team picks from 2004 - X and Goose - are not presently in our top 22 but are coming back from major injury and the signs are positive. Add to these Dempster, Zac and Begley at the back and Geary (who just missed out of my top 22), Armo and Eddy in the midfield and we are looking good to cover any injuries for the rest of the season.

But we certainly aren't going to find two forwards as good as Hamill and Gehrig in a hurry!! And we are so dependent on Riewoldt remaining fit!!

[Shaggy]

The structure we now have looks pretty good...

However the next 3 weeks is going to test the quality that we have.

The only real obvious "flaw" in the structure of the team at present is the missing "third" forward.

However if our mids keep up their improvement of being regular goal-scoeers that will not matter as much.

Still the emergence of a "third" forward would make Roo and Kosi more dangerous...

Like if we play BJ forward .

We have a gun we are choosing not to play forward. There are not too many who can kick 4 goals in a quarter when you pop him down there.

We have both X and Armoo to bring into the middle who are both decent AFL footballers.

IMO we have a perfectly balanced team. We are absolutely primed.

[bigcarl]

The structure we now have looks pretty good...

However the next 3 weeks is going to test the quality that we have.

The only real obvious "flaw" in the structure of the team at present is the missing "third" forward.

However if our mids keep up their improvement of being regular goal-scoeers that will not matter as much.

Still the emergence of a "third" forward would make Roo and Kosi more dangerous...

Like if we play BJ forward .

We have a gun we are choosing not to play forward. There are not too many who can kick 4 goals in a quarter when you pop him down there.

We have both X and Armoo to bring into the middle who are both decent AFL footballers.

IMO we have a perfectly balanced team. We are absolutely primed.

there's also raph to come back in who i think could be very effective in the midfield, further freeing up goddard.

i agree, shaggy, that bj is easily the best candidate, but there are others like gilbert and fisher who could play there if freed up by someone like raph or dempster or begley or goose or leigh fisher.

or even give raph, himself, a shot at that role.

it's not as if we are without options.

imo we have the resources already. it's just a matter of committing to the idea of a more potent forward line and matching our defensive excellence with ruthless forward efficiency.

gwilt, a much improved player, seems to be the current preferred option by many but to my thinking he doesn't trouble the scorers often enough.

if he starts kicking a few i'm happy to change my thinking, but i haven't seen it yet.

[jakestar1234567]

we easily have more depth then we did in 2004 i think
we have players to come in that are ready to fill in whatever position is needed
back in 2004 i believe we relyed on the 'big names' to stand up each week to win.