A Pessimistic View of 2011

[bergholt]

I'm in a pessimistic place at the moment, so here's my predictions for 2011. I'm interested in opinions on why this will not happen.

Best 25 Unchanged

We've got through two seasons and three grand finals with essentially the same group of players. No-one's really banging down the door to get into the side. No ready made players have been signed. And our coach is conservative on playing kids. So I can't see the first-choice side changing much in the year to come. It'll be something like this:

B: Baker, Dawson, Blake
HB: Gwilt, Fisher, Gilbert
C: Montagna, Dal Santo, Goddard
HF: McQualter, Riewoldt, Peake
F: Schneider, Koschitzke, Milne
R: Gardiner, Hayes, Jones
IC from McEvoy, Ray, Eddy, Gram, Dempster, Clarke, Geary

(Yes, this might be complicated by the sub thing, but I honestly have no idea how that will pan out.)

Not Too Many Injuries

Our medical staff tend to be pretty good at keeping players on the park. Sometimes, like with Kosi or Gram, it seems like they might have them out there injured too often, but the fact remains that the first-team players don't miss heaps with injury. This season there were major injures to Riewoldt and Clarke; minor ones to Gram, King, Dempster, Dawson, Eddy; but generally most of the players get on the park most of the time.

So I reckon there'll be a couple of unpredictable major injuries, but on the whole most of the best 25 will be fit most of the time.

Therefore, Kids Barely Sighted

Thanks to Roo's injury, and a bit more pragmatic player management towards the end of the season, we saw a little of some kids this year. Steven, Heyne, Stanley, Lynch, Miles all played games starting from 0 or 1; and McEvoy, Geary, Armitage and Eddy all played starting from 25 or fewer.

However, only McEvoy and Geary had decent runs in the side. Given all of the above, I don't really expect that lack of opportunity to change significantly next year. My pessimistic predictions are, then, for those outside the best 25:

Steven: 12 games (up to a total of 21)
Armitage: 10 games (up to 38)
Stanley: 10 games (up to 17)
Miles: 6 games (up to 8)
Simpkin: 5 games (up to 5)
Lynch: 3 games (up to 4)
Smith: 3 games (up to 3)
Heyne: 2 games (up to 5)
Winmar: 1 game (up to 1)
the rest: 0 games

If this is the case, it'll leave our list for 2012 looking bad. McEvoy, Geary and Eddy will mostly have slipped up and over 50 games, so between 10 and 50 games we'll only have Armitage, Stanley and Steven.

Considering that your main improvement comes from those players who get to about 50 games, for 2011 we should get a bump from McEvoy, Geary and Eddy - but if it eventuates as I expect then we're not in a good place at all for 2012 and years after that. If Armo plays 10 or fewer next year then I'd expect him to leave; so then our only kids at a good stage of their development would be Stanley and Steven, and both would be still only around 20 games.

To put this in context, at the start of this year we had seven players between 10 and 50; including improvers in McEvoy, Geary and Gwilt. (Maybe also include Dawson depending on your personal position on him.)

Results Disappointing

Overall, if this is the case, I'd expect our results to be disappointing. Hayes, Gardiner, Milne, Baker and Blake will all be well and truly over 30. Fisher, Koschitzke and Riewoldt are all closing fast on that mark. Most of our players will have peaked. The list young enough to still improve includes Schneider, Goddard, Clarke, Ray, Gwilt, Gilbert; but none of those are likely to have a quantum leap like Gwilt did this year.

The only players I can see jumping up a level or two are Miles, Armitage, Geary, McEvoy or Steven. The rest are just too far away - Stanley's stlll barely 20 and at his height is unlkely to peak until 24-25.

So overall, I think the team will be no better than this year, and probably a touch worse as age starts to bite. (A lot depends on who are the victims of the major injuries, of course - and on how much the game changes with the sub rule.) We're certainly not getting any quicker, and it seems that a lot of teams will be following Collingwood by getting pace in. Gold Coast, with all their kids and Ablett, Harbrow, Brennan and Krakouer, are likely to be a very quick side.

Pessimistic Prediction

We'll finish 6th, behind Collingwood, Geelong, Western Bulldogs, Carlton and Sydney. We'll lose to Adelaide in the first final, and that'll be it for the year. Incidentally, we also will have been the first team to lose to Gold Coast, in about round 6.

Now, tell me why I'm wrong.

[plugger66]

Because apart from the Pies most other top sides havent improved. yes neither have we in terms of new players but we are coming off a top 4 position so to get passed they need to improve more than us. I do agree with your assessment on Armo. if he doesnt play at least 15 baring injury he will be delisted or traded. I disagree about. i expect him to be a full time regular this season and apart from injury should play nearly every game. You are right about the other youngsters. i like you are no where near as bullish as some others on here apart from Stanley but because of his build he is still a year away.

Saying all that I cannot see us finishing anywhere but top 4 unless they are mentally shot which is a possibility.

[kosifantutti23]

Can we see your predictions for the last two years?

[gringo]

You could put in a word for Freo as far as improvement went. They had some injury concerns at the wrong time but look a little less than a premiership side.

I have no faith that the Pies will be as good again. They have a very intensive game plan and will struggle to apply the same pressure now their bellies are full. They have off field issues and teams looking to unravel their game plan.

The Dogs should be ok they have some good talent in reserve a lot like the pies a couple of years ago. they will be forced to play a few through the retirements and may just improve.

Of the predicted improvers this year I would have Carlton and the Demons up there but a little off the top 4.

The cats could find themselves in a similar position as we did the first year we got Ross, relearning a game plan and falling away a little to reload again.

We will be ok we have a great top 10 and only need 10% improvement from the bottom of the list and we will go ok -barring catastrophe.

Gold coast will be competitive at home but won't be any real threat for 2 to 3 years.

[Gershwin]

There are some important factors that you have totally overlooked:

Ross Lyon. In Lyon we have a top coach with excellent tactical and strategic skills. The game plan will be tweaked and improved.
Stability. The majority of the players know their roles and know their team-mates. The major changes will be the assistant coaches and Seaford which I see as positives.
Commitment. There is an intensity amongst these players to be successful that I have not seen before - I credit Thomas and Riewoldt for this.
Leadership - from the coach, to the captain to the senior players we have excellent leaders.
Luck. 2010 was a bloody tough year!. Riewoldt’s injury, Lovett, etc. etc. Surely we won’t have those sorts of things to contend with again.

I see no reason why next year we will not be as competitive as we have been in the last few years. I am probably not quite so bullish about where we will be in 5 years time.
I think we will finish in the top 4 and play off in the GF. Hopefully we can win it. I still think that if Gilbert had kicked those goals he missed then we would have put scoreboard pressure on Collingwood and the game would have taken a different course. We may have ended up winning.
We will do well next year.

[Furphy]

I thought we would be on a downward spiral after the hiding we copped in the GF, in fact I was totally devastated. However I am starting to see things differently now. I believe the filth will have a hangover next year (like they did in '91) and will not be a major threat.
Geelong & Hawthorn will most likely have an average year next season after major upheavals, loss of key players, coach & substantial delistings. I really think we will be in the box seat in 2011, the only "dark horse" seems to be Carlton. They have had nearly a decade of early draft picks and they are quietly threatening to return to their old, arrogant selves.

[Dr Spaceman]

Saying all that I cannot see us finishing anywhere but top 4 unless they are mentally shot which is a possibility.

If there's a chance we're mentally shot, and I don't think we are, then you'd have to think it's a real chance that the Western Bulldogs are going to struggle to come up again.

[ChicagoSaint]

Saying all that I cannot see us finishing anywhere but top 4 unless they are mentally shot which is a possibility.

If there's a chance we're mentally shot, and I don't think we are, then you'd have to think it's a real chance that the Western Bulldogs are going to struggle to come up again.

now that guy smiley is gone they will improve.

[GrumpyOne]

Now, tell me why I'm wrong.

Can't see where you are much wrong Bergie.

Except that I think that Saints Footy will see us in 4th place at the end of the season, but then dropping out of the finals in straight sets.

[Animal Enclosure]

I'm one of those that are bullish about the young guys.

There's some real talent amongst those that you have mentioned & I am confident that a number of them will emerge as regular senior players.

12 months ago Collingwood's young blokes were in a similar situation to ours currently are. The only difference is that they had a few more senior games under their belts. Reid, McCaffer & Wellingham had huge question marks over whether they would make it at all. Brown was a bit more advanced and had shown some very good signs. Beams and Sidebottom had played a few good games in their first year & showed a bit (just like Jack Steven has done for us).

As I posted in another thread the roles that our young guys play are the ones that we all identify as our weak spots.

I don't see any reason why a number of our young guys can't come on in 2011 & make St Kilda more dynamic, quick and skilful than the 2010 model.

[evertonfc]

Fair, reasonable and well-argued OP.

[SainterK]

I'm not going to buy into the 'he just won't play the kids' vibe to the point that he willingly punishes our chance at success, people seem to overlook the fact that most of the kids were injured or struggling with recurring injuries both grand finals. I am obviously more bullish about our depth than most, because it obviously helps when your depth is in good health.

This is going to sound silly given the record of our backline in recent times, but I am more confident about our defence now that the past couple of years. Yes I realise that it was the best defence in 2009, but much of that had to do with the zone.

However now, individually our backmen are blossoming, which is so encouraging. The abilty of guys like Gwilt, Dawson and Dempster (all who polled extremely well in our B&F during the finals series) to win their one on one contests, is just so important to us gearing towards a more attacking gameplan. I just don't feel like Ross needs to go to the same kind of lengths to push numbers back to protect them being one out anymore, and I am not sure I would of said that previously.

Did he have the luxury of opening up the game more prior to this maturity in our backline, well personally I don't think so.

You just can't click your fingers and say lets be more attacking, you have to do so safe in the knowledge that our backline can handle it. I thought the game against Richmond later in the year was a great example of Ross letting go of the reigns to see what happened. We certainly found ourselves capable of kicking a winning score, but I thought Richmond were always in the game. Admittedly I thoroughly enjoyed the 'shootout' style of game, but I never relaxed in the knowledge that we were going to win through much of it.

Oh, IMO of course.

[SainterK]

I'm one of those that are bullish about the young guys.

Ha, I just posted the same

[R. Harvey 3 votes!]

I'm one of those that are bullish about the young guys.

There's some real talent amongst those that you have mentioned & I am confident that a number of them will emerge as regular senior players.

12 months ago Collingwood's young blokes were in a similar situation to ours currently are. The only difference is that they had a few more senior games under their belts. Reid, McCaffer & Wellingham had huge question marks over whether they would make it at all. Brown was a bit more advanced and had shown some very good signs. Beams and Sidebottom had played a few good games in their first year & showed a bit (just like Jack Steven has done for us).

As I posted in another thread the roles that our young guys play are the ones that we all identify as our weak spots.

I don't see any reason why a number of our young guys can't come on in 2011 & make St Kilda more dynamic, quick and skilful than the 2010 model.

You are kidding yourselves. Get real about this. We have no decent young players. I love the saints and am passionate, but get real. If they were any good they would have been pushing the hacks in the team that were taking there spots. No one is beating the door down. Jack Steven had the ball fall into this hands against Geelong and a couple of lucky goals skidded through. We have to get serious, we have got the most out of the players we have and we are simply not good enough. We will be making up the numbers when Melbourne come good next year with Carlton and Fremantle, then GC and GWS will come along and we will have a nice time holding up the ladder again. Be realistic we just aren't good enough...simple as that! People look through rose coloured glasses on this site and can't see reality how everyone else does!

[plugger66]

I'm one of those that are bullish about the young guys.

There's some real talent amongst those that you have mentioned & I am confident that a number of them will emerge as regular senior players.

12 months ago Collingwood's young blokes were in a similar situation to ours currently are. The only difference is that they had a few more senior games under their belts. Reid, McCaffer & Wellingham had huge question marks over whether they would make it at all. Brown was a bit more advanced and had shown some very good signs. Beams and Sidebottom had played a few good games in their first year & showed a bit (just like Jack Steven has done for us).

As I posted in another thread the roles that our young guys play are the ones that we all identify as our weak spots.

I don't see any reason why a number of our young guys can't come on in 2011 & make St Kilda more dynamic, quick and skilful than the 2010 model.

You are kidding yourselves. Get real about this. We have no decent young players. I love the saints and am passionate, but get real. If they were any good they would have been pushing the hacks in the team that were taking there spots. No one is beating the door down. Jack Steven had the ball fall into this hands against Geelong and a couple of lucky goals skidded through. We have to get serious, we have got the most out of the players we have and we are simply not good enough. We will be making up the numbers when Melbourne come good next year with Carlton and Fremantle, then GC and GWS will come along and we will have a nice time holding up the ladder again. Be realistic we just aren't good enough...simple as that! People look through rose coloured glasses on this site and can't see reality how everyone else does!

No one on here would ever suggest i look through rose coloured glasses but your post is negative for no apparent reason that we lost a GF by one point. Forget the second game and we were one point off winning the first. Would you post that about any other side that has come so close to winning the GF. I doubt it. I have previously said apart from jack and youngsters may not be much good and forgetting Stanley because of age, but we still have a great side. Not many will go backwards because of age so i cant see why we wouldnt hold our position. Melbourne are a year away at least and Carlton just havent got good enough players. freo, I agree will be dangerous but i cannot see us losing top 4 which then gives you a chance.

The only dangers for us are in our head and injuries of which we have had hardly any in the last 2 years.

Having said that i will totally agree with your post in 2 years because we will then be on a rebuilding mission.

[InkerSaint]

Thanks to Roo's injury, and a bit more pragmatic player management towards the end of the season, we saw a little of some kids this year. Steven, Heyne, Stanley, Lynch, Miles all played games starting from 0 or 1; and McEvoy, Geary, Armitage and Eddy all played starting from 25 or fewer.

However, only McEvoy and Geary had decent runs in the side. Given all of the above, I don't really expect that lack of opportunity to change significantly next year. My pessimistic predictions are, then, for those outside the best 25:

Steven: 12 games (up to a total of 21)
Armitage: 10 games (up to 38)
Stanley: 10 games (up to 17)
Miles: 6 games (up to 8)
Simpkin: 5 games (up to 5)
Lynch: 3 games (up to 4)
Smith: 3 games (up to 3)
Heyne: 2 games (up to 5)
Winmar: 1 game (up to 1)
the rest: 0 games

If this is the case, it'll leave our list for 2012 looking bad. McEvoy, Geary and Eddy will mostly have slipped up and over 50 games, so between 10 and 50 games we'll only have Armitage, Stanley and Steven.

Considering that your main improvement comes from those players who get to about 50 games, for 2011 we should get a bump from McEvoy, Geary and Eddy - but if it eventuates as I expect then we're not in a good place at all for 2012 and years after that. If Armo plays 10 or fewer next year then I'd expect him to leave; so then our only kids at a good stage of their development would be Stanley and Steven, and both would be still only around 20 games.

To put this in context, at the start of this year we had seven players between 10 and 50; including improvers in McEvoy, Geary and Gwilt. (Maybe also include Dawson depending on your personal position on him.)

Results Disappointing

Overall, if this is the case, I'd expect our results to be disappointing. Hayes, Gardiner, Milne, Baker and Blake will all be well and truly over 30. Fisher, Koschitzke and Riewoldt are all closing fast on that mark. Most of our players will have peaked. The list young enough to still improve includes Schneider, Goddard, Clarke, Ray, Gwilt, Gilbert; but none of those are likely to have a quantum leap like Gwilt did this year.

The only players I can see jumping up a level or two are Miles, Armitage, Geary, McEvoy or Steven. The rest are just too far away - Stanley's stlll barely 20 and at his height is unlkely to peak until 24-25.

So overall, I think the team will be no better than this year, and probably a touch worse as age starts to bite. (A lot depends on who are the victims of the major injuries, of course - and on how much the game changes with the sub rule.) We're certainly not getting any quicker, and it seems that a lot of teams will be following Collingwood by getting pace in. Gold Coast, with all their kids and Ablett, Harbrow, Brennan and Krakouer, are likely to be a very quick side.

Pessimistic Prediction

We'll finish 6th, behind Collingwood, Geelong, Western Bulldogs, Carlton and Sydney. We'll lose to Adelaide in the first final, and that'll be it for the year. Incidentally, we also will have been the first team to lose to Gold Coast, in about round 6.

Now, tell me why I'm wrong.

1. Lyon might give the young guys more of a run than you suggest.

"Just as we brought James Gwilt on this year, we will give more opportunities to Jack Steven, David Armitage, Rhys Stanley, Nick Heyne and Tom Simpkin," Lyon said.

2. 2010 was a horror year for the Saints, and I don't buy the argument that it had little or no effect on their performance. They are capable of a better year in 2011, age notwithstanding. The "quantum leap" they need is a decent run with less off-field distractions.

3. Collingwood will suffer the most from the new interchange rule.

4. You can't have a shakeup of the magnitude Geelong have just had and not suffer. Add to that four years of hard campaigning, they will not be able to maintain the rage.

5. Carlton have just axed or traded 11 players. For a club that have twice crashed out in the first week of finals I can't see this being the making of them as a top 4 prospect.

Saints for top four again.

[older saint]

I actually think that StKilda have been a victim of their success in the last few years in regard to young players playing. 2 seasons of 19 and 16 wins with few injuries has menat positions have been ata premium and players not willing to give up their spot as it may not come back. this has menat the young group mentioned earlier have not played and are therefore seen as slow developers or not good enough.

I think after this season RL has acknowledged the need to blood some new players. This conservative strategy however could may well be a master stroke as the new players we introduce over the next season will have match hardend bodies , not slight young kids which will play 3 games then need a break physically. This will also mean they are more likely to suceed as they have the ability physically to string games together. As McEvoy said towards the end of 2009 he was stuffed and he play 10 games that season.

We do not have the next Roo, Goddard or Hayes in the seconds however we may well have a Barlow, Sewell or Jack who may take a few extra years of seconds level football before they develop in to a top line player.

Time will tell.

[InkerSaint]

You are kidding yourselves. Get real about this. We have no decent young players. I love the saints and am passionate, but get real. If they were any good they would have been pushing the hacks in the team that were taking there spots.

Lyon's selection policy has always been "It is harder to get in than it is to stay in". Expect that rule to relax a little, Lyon has already indicated that he knows the kids need more of a run.

Jack Steven had the ball fall into this hands against Geelong and a couple of lucky goals skidded through.

Is this the same Jack Steven that outmarked Matthew Scarlett in the goalsquare?

Oooo...kay.

[SainterK]

I'm one of those that are bullish about the young guys.

There's some real talent amongst those that you have mentioned & I am confident that a number of them will emerge as regular senior players.

12 months ago Collingwood's young blokes were in a similar situation to ours currently are. The only difference is that they had a few more senior games under their belts. Reid, McCaffer & Wellingham had huge question marks over whether they would make it at all. Brown was a bit more advanced and had shown some very good signs. Beams and Sidebottom had played a few good games in their first year & showed a bit (just like Jack Steven has done for us).

As I posted in another thread the roles that our young guys play are the ones that we all identify as our weak spots.

I don't see any reason why a number of our young guys can't come on in 2011 & make St Kilda more dynamic, quick and skilful than the 2010 model.

You are kidding yourselves. Get real about this. We have no decent young players. I love the saints and am passionate, but get real. If they were any good they would have been pushing the hacks in the team that were taking there spots. No one is beating the door down. Jack Steven had the ball fall into this hands against Geelong and a couple of lucky goals skidded through. We have to get serious, we have got the most out of the players we have and we are simply not good enough. We will be making up the numbers when Melbourne come good next year with Carlton and Fremantle, then GC and GWS will come along and we will have a nice time holding up the ladder again. Be realistic we just aren't good enough...simple as that! People look through rose coloured glasses on this site and can't see reality how everyone else does!

When there are legitimate reasons why our young guys weren't banging the door down in 2010, how is it rose coloured?

Jack Steven had OP, bit hard to beat the door down one would of thought. Armo did his knee, twice, that's some bad luck right there. I only found out after the finals, that Geary was carrying something undisclosed that prevented him getting selected late in the year. We have been told a number of times by posters on here, that Lynch had a health issue that had to be rectified. Miles reportedly struggled with injury, yet debuted late when it all came together for him.

Other guys like Stanley and McEvoy, had a fair crack at it....

Rose coloured, or just a more realistic approach than your emotional one?

I assume you watch Sandringham often RH3votes, if you are so willing to say none of our kids are any good?

[SainterK]

Oh and I find the term 'hacks' offensive, about many guys who played a part in a drawn GF with the now premiers.

Disagree with selections by all means, provide alternatives, but personally I am over people labelling guys crap, duds and hacks!

[spert]

I think that the Lyon defensive game has run its course as such and now needs modifications in order to win a premiership, it got us close, but didn't get us over the line in consecutive years. I really don't care for excuses after the event as to player carrying this that or the other injuries, as all clubs carry injuries as did the Pies. I expect to see more game time for Stanley, Steven, Miles etc, though I am a bit concerned that we have too many small to middle size, one-paced players who dont play a direct game and have average foot-skills. In an ideal world as a recruiter for the Saints, I would be looking for players with good burst speed, and a mobile full forward...and players with especially good foot-skills.

[ThePunter]

Anyone who thinks Ross Lyon is not about to change the gameplan is needlessly pessimistic.

Ross has said that change will occur.

[gringo]

If soft cocks were at the helm of this footy club we would have thrown in the towel after last year, Played the kids and sacked the coach.

We are not playing the kids like richmond and west coast because we are in contention. We got a few games into a few players without giving a free position up to anyone.

The myth that collingwood has just played kids is crap they have had guys like sidebottom and beams for a few years and while they got a few games in their first season they didn't just get a spot for nothing.

Dawes has been around for a while too just not that many senior games.

playing kids is great if your not really expecting to go close but for list management reasons you have to just give them a few games a season until they own a spot.

[plugger66]

If soft cocks were at the helm of this footy club we would have thrown in the towel after last year, Played the kids and sacked the coach.

We are not playing the kids like richmond and west coast because we are in contention. We got a few games into a few players without giving a free position up to anyone.

The myth that collingwood has just played kids is crap they have had guys like sidebottom and beams for a few years and while they got a few games in their first season they didn't just get a spot for nothing.

Dawes has been around for a while too just not that many senior games.

playing kids is great if your not really expecting to go close but for list management reasons you have to just give them a few games a season until they own a spot.

What you are saying is true but you cant then go out and say Sidebottom and beams have been there for a few years. It was boths second year I believe.

[SainterK]

Yep, Beams and Sidebottom debuted last year, I think Dawes in 2008.

Beams was pretty ordinary through the finals series though, and Dawes didn't exactly set the world on fire.