A possible reason for our frustration re GF's

[BigMart]

How did running on the ground feel......was it really worthwhile, what was the point, what does it actually achieve......

I was at home and yelling at the tv......"get off the f***ing ground" we are on top....

In the mean time port gathered in a huddle, regained their composure...

And history remembers we lost

Pitch invasion.........stupidity and pointless.....although, in this case it did cause something.....a momentum swing

[Mr Magic]

My memory may be failing me,
But,
Didn't Brent Guerra have an opportunity to kick the winning goal in the dying secnds and just wasn't able to get his boot to it?

Also, didn't the 'pitch invasion' happen in the first quarter?
What happened over the next 3 quarters?

I'm not a subscriber to the 'pitch invasion cost us the game' theory.

[plugger66]

My memory may be failing me,
But,
Didn't Brent Guerra have an opportunity to kick the winning goal in the dying secnds and just wasn't able to get his boot to it?

Also, didn't the 'pitch invasion' happen in the first quarter?
What happened over the next 3 quarters?

I'm not a subscriber to the 'pitch invasion cost us the game' theory.

I was at the game and it may not have cost us the game because as you say it was 15 minutes into the game. I will say one thing though, it certainly didnt help and why those people ran out in beyond me. It was and still be a case of Saints people loving individuals more than the team. That is one thing GT had right even if people didnt like his coaching. And yes Guerra had a real chance with 10 seconds to go.

[Mr Magic]

My memory may be failing me,
But,
Didn't Brent Guerra have an opportunity to kick the winning goal in the dying secnds and just wasn't able to get his boot to it?

Also, didn't the 'pitch invasion' happen in the first quarter?
What happened over the next 3 quarters?

I'm not a subscriber to the 'pitch invasion cost us the game' theory.

I was at the game and it may not have cost us the game because as you say it was 15 minutes into the game. I will say one thing though, it certainly didnt help and why those people ran out in beyond me. It was and still be a case of Saints people loving individuals more than the team. That is one thing GT had right even if people didnt like his coaching. And yes Guerra had a real chance with 10 seconds to go.

Did it (running on the ground) have more effect on the result than any contentious umpiring decisions during the night?

Or any player mistakes on the night?

I find it interesting that something that occured 3 quarters before the end of the game can be described definitively as 'costing' us the game.
(unlike an unjustified late free kick that allows the opposition to kick the winning score)

Surely something that happens so early in the game (like running on the field that night) can be negated/rectified over the course of the next 3 quarters?

I would argue that Gary Ablett 'taking out' both Burke and Grant before half-time in the Elimination Final was much more significant to the end result than this 'running on the ground' was.

[plugger66]

My memory may be failing me,
But,
Didn't Brent Guerra have an opportunity to kick the winning goal in the dying secnds and just wasn't able to get his boot to it?

Also, didn't the 'pitch invasion' happen in the first quarter?
What happened over the next 3 quarters?

I'm not a subscriber to the 'pitch invasion cost us the game' theory.

I was at the game and it may not have cost us the game because as you say it was 15 minutes into the game. I will say one thing though, it certainly didnt help and why those people ran out in beyond me. It was and still be a case of Saints people loving individuals more than the team. That is one thing GT had right even if people didnt like his coaching. And yes Guerra had a real chance with 10 seconds to go.

Did it (running on the ground) have more effect on the result than any contentious umpiring decisions during the night?

Or any player mistakes on the night?

I find it interesting that something that occured 3 quarters before the end of the game can be described definitively as 'costing' us the game.
(unlike an unjustified late free kick that allows the opposition to kick the winning score)

Surely something that happens so early in the game (like running on the field that night) can be negated/rectified over the course of the next 3 quarters?

I would argue that Gary Ablett 'taking out' both Burke and Grant before half-time in the Elimination Final was much more significant to the end result than this 'running on the ground' was.

That maybe so but our supporters had control of what they did. The Ablett and any umpiring decision is out of our control. It was stupid especially when we had a huge run on. I wouldnt have a clue if it cost us the game but like I said it didnt help and was completely unnecessary.

[Mr Magic]

My memory may be failing me,
But,
Didn't Brent Guerra have an opportunity to kick the winning goal in the dying secnds and just wasn't able to get his boot to it?

Also, didn't the 'pitch invasion' happen in the first quarter?
What happened over the next 3 quarters?

I'm not a subscriber to the 'pitch invasion cost us the game' theory.

I was at the game and it may not have cost us the game because as you say it was 15 minutes into the game. I will say one thing though, it certainly didnt help and why those people ran out in beyond me. It was and still be a case of Saints people loving individuals more than the team. That is one thing GT had right even if people didnt like his coaching. And yes Guerra had a real chance with 10 seconds to go.

Did it (running on the ground) have more effect on the result than any contentious umpiring decisions during the night?

Or any player mistakes on the night?

I find it interesting that something that occured 3 quarters before the end of the game can be described definitively as 'costing' us the game.
(unlike an unjustified late free kick that allows the opposition to kick the winning score)

Surely something that happens so early in the game (like running on the field that night) can be negated/rectified over the course of the next 3 quarters?

I would argue that Gary Ablett 'taking out' both Burke and Grant before half-time in the Elimination Final was much more significant to the end result than this 'running on the ground' was.

That maybe so but our supporters had control of what they did. The Ablett and any umpiring decision is out of our control. It was stupid especially when we had a huge run on. I wouldnt have a clue if it cost us the game but like I said it didnt help and was completely unnecessary.

I don't disagree that it was a stupid act.
I was just debating how it can logically be used as the reason we definitively lost that game?

[plugger66]

My memory may be failing me,
But,
Didn't Brent Guerra have an opportunity to kick the winning goal in the dying secnds and just wasn't able to get his boot to it?

Also, didn't the 'pitch invasion' happen in the first quarter?
What happened over the next 3 quarters?

I'm not a subscriber to the 'pitch invasion cost us the game' theory.

I was at the game and it may not have cost us the game because as you say it was 15 minutes into the game. I will say one thing though, it certainly didnt help and why those people ran out in beyond me. It was and still be a case of Saints people loving individuals more than the team. That is one thing GT had right even if people didnt like his coaching. And yes Guerra had a real chance with 10 seconds to go.

Did it (running on the ground) have more effect on the result than any contentious umpiring decisions during the night?

Or any player mistakes on the night?

I find it interesting that something that occured 3 quarters before the end of the game can be described definitively as 'costing' us the game.
(unlike an unjustified late free kick that allows the opposition to kick the winning score)

Surely something that happens so early in the game (like running on the field that night) can be negated/rectified over the course of the next 3 quarters?

I would argue that Gary Ablett 'taking out' both Burke and Grant before half-time in the Elimination Final was much more significant to the end result than this 'running on the ground' was.

That maybe so but our supporters had control of what they did. The Ablett and any umpiring decision is out of our control. It was stupid especially when we had a huge run on. I wouldnt have a clue if it cost us the game but like I said it didnt help and was completely unnecessary.

I don't disagree that it was a stupid act.
I was just debating how it can logically be used as the reason we definitively lost that game?

Well it cant. the only time that could happen is if something happens in the last couple of kicks of a game and its to late to alter the result.

[Moods]

[quote="Mr Magic]

Did it (running on the ground) have more effect on the result than any contentious umpiring decisions during the night?

Or any player mistakes on the night?


[/quote]

IN a word YES. Arguing about umpiring decisions makes us feel better, and makes us feel like we have the high moral ground. The fact of the matter is our momentum was broken, and sadly all we had to blame for this was our own stupid supporters.

[Dr Spaceman]

FACT - Spectators running onto ground broke our momentum.

SPECULATION - If spectators hadn't run onto the ground we would have won.

[Mr Magic]

SPECULATION - If spectators hadn't run onto the ground we would have won.

Pretty much as I see it.

[Moccha]

My memory may be failing me,
But,
Didn't Brent Guerra have an opportunity to kick the winning goal in the dying secnds and just wasn't able to get his boot to it?

Also, didn't the 'pitch invasion' happen in the first quarter?
What happened over the next 3 quarters?

I'm not a subscriber to the 'pitch invasion cost us the game' theory.

I was at the game and it may not have cost us the game because as you say it was 15 minutes into the game. I will say one thing though, it certainly didnt help and why those people ran out in beyond me. It was and still be a case of Saints people loving individuals more than the team. That is one thing GT had right even if people didnt like his coaching. And yes Guerra had a real chance with 10 seconds to go.

If Guerra had his hair piece back then he would have kicked it. The fact he was so ugly was the reason he was denied.

[perfectionist]

No doubt that if the Saints supporters had not run onto the ground, the Adelaide supporters who joined them (more than half of the pitch invaders from what I saw), would have done the right thing and sat quietly in their seats and clapped the hundredth goal. The last time that a player kicked a hundred goals and the ground wasn't invaded by stupid morons was prior to 1929.

Dunno about a hair piece, but if Brent Guerra had any sort of skill on his right foot, then things might have been different, just as they may have been if Aaron Hamill had played, or of the ump didn't pay that soft free to Port which put them in front. Lotta ifs and buts. The real problem in 2004 was that we squandered 10-nil to finish third rather than top. Travelling to Brisbane first, then to Adelaide, to get to the granny, was always going to be a very tough ask. But, we almost made it. Almost.

[The Craw]

We all knew their would be a pitch invasion when the 100th goal was kicked.

I blame Gehrig....... he should have kicked a point.

[stevie]

I was annoyed the imps didn't ping cornes for a last minute deliberate out of bounds.

Even if we had've won, I'm always slightly bemused that a lot of people think we would've walked all over the lions in the gf. They would have preferred playing us to port

[spert]

We lost that prelim against PA, as the PA midfield got slightly on top in the last quarter, plus we got beaten in crucial one-on-one contests a couple of times when the ball was deep in our forward line, and that could have easily resulted in goals to us had we won the ball.

[Thinline]

We lost that prelim against PA, as the PA midfield got slightly on top in the last quarter, plus we got beaten in crucial one-on-one contests a couple of times when the ball was deep in our forward line, and that could have easily resulted in goals to us had we won the ball.

Thomas didn't have a defensive clue.

Foot to the floor or bust.

Nowadays we'd have tried to shut it down or tempo-ed.

Who knows if that would have made a difference or not.

[Johnny Member]

We lost that prelim against PA, as the PA midfield got slightly on top in the last quarter, plus we got beaten in crucial one-on-one contests a couple of times when the ball was deep in our forward line, and that could have easily resulted in goals to us had we won the ball.

Thomas didn't have a defensive clue.

Foot to the floor or bust.

Nowadays we'd have tried to shut it down or tempo-ed.

Who knows if that would have made a difference or not.

I remember it a bit differently back then.

I remember the side back then as being a defensive monster! The pressure on contests and the tackling was crazy.

Weren't we top 3 in defence (points against) for 3 years straight or something?


Someone said it above, but I don't know why people think that after Brisbane beat us by 50 points in R21, then by 80 points in the first final - that we'd somehow turn it around and beat them on GF day!

I think we were a bit young back then. We ran out of puff and couldn't sustain our pressure and tackling for a full season - especially against hardened teams like Port and Brisbane.

[Saints43]

We lost that prelim against PA, as the PA midfield got slightly on top in the last quarter, plus we got beaten in crucial one-on-one contests a couple of times when the ball was deep in our forward line, and that could have easily resulted in goals to us had we won the ball.

Thomas didn't have a defensive clue.

Foot to the floor or bust.

Nowadays we'd have tried to shut it down or tempo-ed.

Who knows if that would have made a difference or not.

I reckon he did have a defensive clue. Even in the match we are talking about in this thread. Brett Voss went to tag Chad Cornes. Can you tell me when a defensive forward had been played prior to that match?

St Kilda's percentage & goals against under GT from 2004 to 2006 (when the team was decent enough to actually coach) was pertty good I thought.

And to complain that he didn't play tempo/shut down footy in 2004 is about the same as complaining that Jeans didn't in 1971. None of the top 4 in 2004 played that type of match.

[spert]

We lost that prelim against PA, as the PA midfield got slightly on top in the last quarter, plus we got beaten in crucial one-on-one contests a couple of times when the ball was deep in our forward line, and that could have easily resulted in goals to us had we won the ball.

Thomas didn't have a defensive clue.

Foot to the floor or bust.

Nowadays we'd have tried to shut it down or tempo-ed.

Who knows if that would have made a difference or not.

I reckon he did have a defensive clue. Even in the match we are talking about in this thread. Brett Voss went to tag Chad Cornes. Can you tell me when a defensive forward had been played prior to that match?

St Kilda's percentage & goals against under GT from 2004 to 2006 (when the team was decent enough to actually coach) was pertty good I thought.

And to complain that he didn't play tempo/shut down footy in 2004 is about the same as complaining that Jeans didn't in 1971. None of the top 4 in 2004 played that type of match.

I seem to remember the backline in 2004 played a more attacking game off half back, moving the ball quickly into attack rather than the slow and deliberate (and predictable) defensive thrust which makes it much harder for our forwards to get into space due to the opposition defence having time to set themselves while the ball is slowly and methodically coming out of the backline. Both methods work Ok, but we will never kick big scores regularly under RL's method.

[Saints43]

Oh, and the knobheads who ran onto the ground in 2004 definitely cost us a grand final berth.

[Thinline]

We lost that prelim against PA, as the PA midfield got slightly on top in the last quarter, plus we got beaten in crucial one-on-one contests a couple of times when the ball was deep in our forward line, and that could have easily resulted in goals to us had we won the ball.

Thomas didn't have a defensive clue.

Foot to the floor or bust.

Nowadays we'd have tried to shut it down or tempo-ed.

Who knows if that would have made a difference or not.

I reckon he did have a defensive clue. Even in the match we are talking about in this thread. Brett Voss went to tag Chad Cornes. Can you tell me when a defensive forward had been played prior to that match?

St Kilda's percentage & goals against under GT from 2004 to 2006 (when the team was decent enough to actually coach) was pertty good I thought.

And to complain that he didn't play tempo/shut down footy in 2004 is about the same as complaining that Jeans didn't in 1971. None of the top 4 in 2004 played that type of match.

Of course. I was a bit clumsy in the way I worded my point.

Put it this way, if GT was coaching us nowadays, I suspect we'd have a more balanced approach and perhaps more than 'beat your man and run forward' philosophy.

But it's a silly hypothetical indulgence on my part. Don't get too wound up!

[saint66au]

could have had about 3 or 4 as well if we didn't have all the injuries in 2004/05

And let's not forget those so-called fans who thought that indulging theit chilidh wish to run around in front of the telly cameras after Gehrig kicked his 100th in 2004 was more important than winning a premiership

them's pple i will never forgive...or forget.....

you cant blame that for the loss.
if i was there that night i would of run to the middle of th oval before the ball even hit frasers boot. and most of us would of done the same at the time.
we lost because we didnt score as many goals and behinds as port, no other excuse.

Didnt Nick R or someone make a video that was played pregame on the scoreboard..asking people NOT to run onto the ground??

So you...as a member of the Cheersquad, an official arm of the CLub. admit you blatantly ignored a request from the Club, instead of perhaps trying to set an example?

**shakes head in amazement**

[saintdooley]

could have had about 3 or 4 as well if we didn't have all the injuries in 2004/05

And let's not forget those so-called fans who thought that indulging theit chilidh wish to run around in front of the telly cameras after Gehrig kicked his 100th in 2004 was more important than winning a premiership

them's pple i will never forgive...or forget.....

you cant blame that for the loss.
if i was there that night i would of run to the middle of th oval before the ball even hit frasers boot. and most of us would of done the same at the time.
we lost because we didnt score as many goals and behinds as port, no other excuse.

Didnt Nick R or someone make a video that was played pregame on the scoreboard..asking people NOT to run onto the ground??

So you...as a member of the Cheersquad, an official arm of the CLub. admit you blatantly ignored a request from the Club, instead of perhaps trying to set an example?

**shakes head in amazement**

read my post again mate. i never said i was there.