Well Said Mark Stevens! As I have said before WE WON!!!!

[R. Harvey 3 votes!]

This article by Mark Stevens from the Herald is perfectly put.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/o ... 6090940732

"What would those grumbling, battle-fatigued St Kilda supporters prefer? An exciting last-quarter six-goal-to-eight shootout, and a resulting loss, or a dour win to stay in the race for the finals?

The AFL is not purely entertainment or theatre, it is far more important than that.

The four points is all that counts - and that has been built over generations of tribal loyalty and rivalry.

Memo sad-sack Saints fans: Get over yourselves. Go and see a romantic comedy if you can't stand the heat of battle, and the fact that it isn't always nice on the eye."

[gringo]

Damn straight, and I thought the guy was an inbred twat. Folk law has taken over from sanity, apparently we would all be better off dumping our established players and playing a team of kids. It doesn't matter that half of them are unavailable or not ready, getting 120 point thrashings will man the bitches up and fast track our future.

[Dr Spaceman]

Yep

[philtee]

+ 1. As he says "Aesthetics are irrelevant".

[SaintPav]

I read the article and thought that maybe he is being droll?

[Dr Spaceman]

I read the article and thought that maybe he is being droll?

Droll, or a troll?

[saintsRrising]

Sorry, but I am going to have to strongly disagree.

Not with the 4 points being the prime focus, as it should be.

But with our tactics of the last quarter.

We almost gifted the 4 points to North, and only luck and bad kicking by North allowed us to win.

We went into the last quarter 19 points up after having pretty much dominated the whole game. We had the momentum.

Enter the last quarter and the Roo's kicked 1 goal 4...an from memory several out of the full to 0 goals , 0 behinds to only lose by 9 points. Let's be honest quite a few of those North misses were pretty easy shots.

Our tactics in the last quarter was "yesterday's football" and whenever we have played that way this year against a team that wants to play 2011 style we have been rolled for that quarter.

With constant pressing in 2011 if you try and fall back and set up play you will more often than not just turn over the ball. If the opposition is then efficient with their ball use they will kill you. North were not and so we barely escaped. The week prior against the Cats we creamed them in getting the ball....but then turned it over to them way too often, too easily, and their efficiency in quick forward entries and shots on goal then lost us the game.

That is not to say that at times you not kick backwards to set up play, but the rubbish we dished up in that last quarter:

* gave the momentum to North...and took our boot off their throat

* denied us completely any chance of scoring. With a full quarter 19 points is not a big enough a margin



So yes we won the 4 points...but please let's not kid ourselves that our last quarter tactics played any part in getting the 4 points. It is what we did in the first 3 quarters that helped us get the 4 points. What we did in the last almost lost them. If North had kicked reasonably straight they would have won.

The game has evolved.....and tactics such as we rolled out in that last quarter are easily exposed by teams up and about. Do that against the Pies, Cats etc....and you are going to lose.

[plugger66]

Sorry, but I am going to have to strongly disagree.

Not with the 4 points being the prime focus, as it should be.

But with our tactics of the last quarter.

We almost gifted the 4 points to North, and only luck and bad kicking by North allowed us to win.

We went into the last quarter 19 points up after having pretty much dominated the whole game. We had the momentum.

Enter the last quarter and the Roo's kicked 1 goal 4...an from memory several out of the full to 0 goals , 0 behinds to only lose by 9 points. Let's be honest quite a few of those North misses were pretty easy shots.

Our tactics in the last quarter was "yesterday's football" and whenever we have played that way this year against a team that wants to play 2011 style we have been rolled for that quarter.

With constant pressing in 2011 if you try and fall back and set up play you will more often than not just turn over the ball. If the opposition is then efficient with their ball use they will kill you. North were not and so we barely escaped. The week prior against the Cats we creamed them in getting the ball....but then turned it over to them way too often, too easily, and their efficiency in quick forward entries and shots on goal then lost us the game.

That is not to say that at times you not kick backwards to set up play, but the rubbish we dished up in that last quarter:

* gave the momentum to North...and took our boot off their throat

* denied us completely any chance of scoring. With a full quarter 19 points is not a big enough a margin



So yes we won the 4 points...but please let's not kid ourselves that our last quarter tactics played any part in getting the 4 points. It is what we did in the first 3 quarters that helped us get the 4 points. What we did in the last almost lost them. If North had kicked reasonably straight they would have won.

The game has evolved.....and tactics such as we rolled out in that last quarter are easily exposed by teams up and about. Do that against the Pies, Cats etc....and you are going to lose.

Have you thought that it wasnt the coaches idea to play like that. I would have thought it is more lack of confidence by the players than the coaches instructions afterall we didnt score from the 13 minute mark of the third quarter. Surely the coach didnt send out the runner half way through the third and say lets defend at all costs and dont worry about scoring. So if he didnt say that and we couldnt score in the third well maybe he didnt say that at three quarter time either but lack of confidence kicked in and we just struggled to go forward. Also North may have actually played better after half time.

[saintsRrising]

Have you thought that it wasnt the coaches idea to play like that. I would have thought it is more lack of confidence by the players than the coaches instructions .

While one theory...to me there was a marked difference in how the players played and set up.

In the last quarter there was completed reluctance to kick to any contested situations, and the desire to play on quickly changed.

IMO this was too marked to be only by the players.


However back to the OP and article. With EITHER your theory or mine....if we play like that we are going to lose to good teams ...and there was nothing in the last quarter to be lauded by the journo or the OP, IMO.

[saint-stu]

I 100% agree with saintsRrising.

I couldn't care less about the entertainment, I was happy with this approach in 2009 when it was so successful for us.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work anymore. It was particularly obvious against Collingwood. We were right with them up to the quarter/half? time break, and with a few minutes to go, held the ball up, kicked it around, and Collongwood pounced!

It was the same against the Roos, but they are obviously no where near as good as Collingwood at causing turn overs and scoring from turn overs.

The worst part of the Roos match is we didn't seem to do it with a few minutes to go, as we normally do. It seemed to be as soon as we took possession at the start of the 4th quarter, held the ball up, and played that style for the rest of the game.

I have seen some on here claim that the Roos were gaining momentum and we were on the back foot, but I saw it the other way around. We gave them momentum with that style.

I'm not sure if it was an instruction or it was fatigue or just a mistake, but I don't think that approach works anymore.

But anyway, of course I'd take the win!

[plugger66]

Have you thought that it wasnt the coaches idea to play like that. I would have thought it is more lack of confidence by the players than the coaches instructions .

While one theory...to me there was a marked difference in how the players played and set up.

In the last quarter there was completed reluctance to kick to any contested situations, and the desire to play on quickly changed.

IMO this was too marked to be only by the players.


However back to the OP and article. With EITHER your theory or mine....if we play like that we are going to lose to good teams ...and there was nothing in the last quarter to be lauded by the journo or the OP, IMO.

I agree if we play like that we will lose to good teams and also bad ones. It isnt the way to play the game now but that is what confidence does. Surely RL is smart enough to realise that will not win many games either but through lack ability or confidence we play that way.

[saint-stu]

IMO this was too marked to be only by the players.

Yep. To me the giveaway is when they hold the ball in the air. When they're in that attacking mode, you almost never see it. It's play on at (almost) every opportunity.

[Dr Spaceman]

The game has evolved.....and tactics such as we rolled out in that last quarter are easily exposed by teams up and about.  Do that against the Pies, Cats etc....and you are going to lose.

How we played in the last quarter won't be good enough against the really top teams. That's a given.

But we were playing North on the 3rd of July after a bye and it was good enough to get us home on that particular occasion.

Ross and a few players suggested it was the intention to attack the scoreboard in the last quarter but things just didn't work out. The players were pretty stuffed, and contrary to the troll on here, it was a pretty gutsy effort.

We're not going to try the same tactics every week regardless of the opposition or the circumstances.

[SainterK]

Goldstein was dominating the ruck for the last, any attack was no longer going to be set up by a Dal, Peake or a Steven, it was going to have to be set up from defence.

That is why Dal highlighted in his presser that we needed more run, Gram was playing a lock down role. That is why Raph looked so good when he came on, he gave the boys that link up that appeared to be missing.

That last quarter (IMO) should see someone else sub this week.

[saintsRrising]

Ross and a few players suggested it was the intention to attack the scoreboard in the last quarter but things just didn't work out. .

Let's be serious.

One example. Roo marks the ball between HF and wing. What does he do? Kicks it deep into our backline.


Now if that was a once off I could give your statement some credence. However the tone of the last quarter was if in doubt......hold onto the ball and stop play....and then having taken an Ice Age kick it backwards.

Intent was not to attack. Now whether that was the players being mentally shot, or a change in tactics I don't know....but it was clearly different that earlier in the game....and again back on the OP and the article it is a quarter not be lauded, but was one rather where we "Got out of jail".

[bigcarl]

Sorry, but I am going to have to strongly disagree.

Not with the 4 points being the prime focus, as it should be.

But with our tactics of the last quarter.

We almost gifted the 4 points to North, and only luck and bad kicking by North allowed us to win.

We went into the last quarter 19 points up after having pretty much dominated the whole game. We had the momentum.

Enter the last quarter and the Roo's kicked 1 goal 4...an from memory several out of the full to 0 goals , 0 behinds to only lose by 9 points. Let's be honest quite a few of those North misses were pretty easy shots.

Our tactics in the last quarter was "yesterday's football" and whenever we have played that way this year against a team that wants to play 2011 style we have been rolled for that quarter.

With constant pressing in 2011 if you try and fall back and set up play you will more often than not just turn over the ball. If the opposition is then efficient with their ball use they will kill you. North were not and so we barely escaped. The week prior against the Cats we creamed them in getting the ball....but then turned it over to them way too often, too easily, and their efficiency in quick forward entries and shots on goal then lost us the game.

That is not to say that at times you not kick backwards to set up play, but the rubbish we dished up in that last quarter:

* gave the momentum to North...and took our boot off their throat

* denied us completely any chance of scoring. With a full quarter 19 points is not a big enough a margin



So yes we won the 4 points...but please let's not kid ourselves that our last quarter tactics played any part in getting the 4 points. It is what we did in the first 3 quarters that helped us get the 4 points. What we did in the last almost lost them. If North had kicked reasonably straight they would have won.

The game has evolved.....and tactics such as we rolled out in that last quarter are easily exposed by teams up and about. Do that against the Pies, Cats etc....and you are going to lose.

Agree. We can do better. Have to learn to put teams away and get due reward on the scoreboard for dominating general play. But as Stevens says, better to win ugly than not win.

[Saint Bev]

A lot possibly would not agree with this. Like most, I guess I would like the best of both worlds. I think it is important to note, that this is the first time since Ross Lyon has been coach that we had a quarter where we didn't score. One thing is though, I do believe we would be different with Gardi and Koz in the side. We have really missed these guys this year. Their return would take alot of pressure of Roo who has had no one to back him up this season. A very pleasing sign from last weeks game was the return of form to our backline, they were magnificant.

[stinger]

"Nothing would be sweeter than a four-goal-to-three win in a Grand Final, with Zac Dawson dribbling the match-winning goal through off his shin in the last minutes, so be it.

Ugly has never looked so pretty."



...that would be nice....

[saint-stu]

A very pleasing sign from last weeks game was the return of form to our backline, they were magnificant.

Also Nick's form. His leading and marking was fantastic.

[jays]

very true would you prefer if we lost?

[mr six o'clock]

A win is a win !
I went to allot of games in the 80's when we were good for 3/4 , then got run over in the last, If you look in the record books for e.g. 1982 ; 4 wins 18 losses , there's no postscript that says " they could have won 12 games if they played better in the last quarter ".
So in a years time hardly anyone will remember the game ,let alone the last quarter , it will only be marked down as a win !!!!!

[AnythingsPossibleSaints]

Sorry, but I am going to have to strongly disagree.

Not with the 4 points being the prime focus, as it should be.

But with our tactics of the last quarter.

We almost gifted the 4 points to North, and only luck and bad kicking by North allowed us to win.

We went into the last quarter 19 points up after having pretty much dominated the whole game. We had the momentum.

Enter the last quarter and the Roo's kicked 1 goal 4...an from memory several out of the full to 0 goals , 0 behinds to only lose by 9 points. Let's be honest quite a few of those North misses were pretty easy shots.

Our tactics in the last quarter was "yesterday's football" and whenever we have played that way this year against a team that wants to play 2011 style we have been rolled for that quarter.

With constant pressing in 2011 if you try and fall back and set up play you will more often than not just turn over the ball. If the opposition is then efficient with their ball use they will kill you. North were not and so we barely escaped. The week prior against the Cats we creamed them in getting the ball....but then turned it over to them way too often, too easily, and their efficiency in quick forward entries and shots on goal then lost us the game.

That is not to say that at times you not kick backwards to set up play, but the rubbish we dished up in that last quarter:

* gave the momentum to North...and took our boot off their throat

* denied us completely any chance of scoring. With a full quarter 19 points is not a big enough a margin



So yes we won the 4 points...but please let's not kid ourselves that our last quarter tactics played any part in getting the 4 points. It is what we did in the first 3 quarters that helped us get the 4 points. What we did in the last almost lost them. If North had kicked reasonably straight they would have won.

The game has evolved.....and tactics such as we rolled out in that last quarter are easily exposed by teams up and about. Do that against the Pies, Cats etc....and you are going to lose.

Agree. We can do better. Have to learn to put teams away and get due reward on the scoreboard for dominating general play.

+1
If playing that way was the only way we could play to win then fair enough, but it most certainly isn't. Whoever's idea it is to try and protect a lead (which we do pretty much every time we get a lead these days) instead of building on it, is stupid and gutless and it's shocking to watch. It's bad enough watching teams do it for a few minutes, at the end of the match, when they haven't got the guts to keep rolling the dice, but then it's ridiculous watching us try to do it for a quarter and a half, especially when we got into the strong position we were by playing in a more attacking style.
A whole lot of drivel in Stevens article, especially the part about "He has no obligation to play entertaining, attacking footy - and he simply doesn't have the line-breakers or depth of talent to go full-throttle attack." Who the f*** said we want "full-throttle attack"? Or the "six goal to eight final quarter shootout" that he mentions in the full article in the paper? All most of us want is a little bit of BALANCE BALANCE, Stevens, BALANCE. Google it, if you're not familiar with it.
Anyone with the remotest amount of wisdom knows that you won't be successful being extreme in either direction (either attack, or defence). Going all out defence is no better than going all out attack. You have to find a balance between the two, something that us not being able to find has very likely cost us a couple of flags and will continue to ultimately cost us, if it continues.
We may beat the likes of North, who were relatively ordinary last week (and who have they beaten this year anyway?) and aren't anywhere close to the likes of Geelong, Collingwood, Carlton, etc, but we've seen how the likes of Geelong and Collingwood and Hawthorn have handled our negativity so far this year. In the end they beat us convincingly. Continuing to play this way we're just dying a slow, unnecessary death.
As for Stevens saying "get over it" and "winning's all that matters", has it not occurred to his pea-brain that perhaps some of us have a high enough level of self-esteem etc, that we don't actually need a team we like to follow to kick a higher score than some other team to feel good, or be happy in life? Some of us just mostly like to watch footy, in particular a certain team and it's not the end of our world if that team doesn't kick a higher score than some other team. It's just the icing on the cake, but if the rest of the cake sucks balls, there are still going to be much better cakes to eat. I mean, at the end of the day, this is not Vietnam, or Gallippoli and they're not out there curing cancer, or anything like that. They're playing sport and sport is supposed to be fun. So please speak for yourself Stevens. And you're not better than anyone who doesn't think "winning" is the be-all and end all. If you think you are, you are the one who needs to "get over yourself".
I also dare say you're not in the habit of going out of your way and paying your hard-earned money (especially at a time when things are tight) for something you no longer enjoy. If we want to feel we're just giving away our money and a bunch of our valuable time and energy, I dare say there are far better causes than football clubs, as much as we may like them.

[AnythingsPossibleSaints]

Have you thought that it wasnt the coaches idea to play like that. I would have thought it is more lack of confidence by the players than the coaches instructions .

While one theory...to me there was a marked difference in how the players played and set up.

In the last quarter there was completed reluctance to kick to any contested situations, and the desire to play on quickly changed.

IMO this was too marked to be only by the players.


However back to the OP and article. With EITHER your theory or mine....if we play like that we are going to lose to good teams ...and there was nothing in the last quarter to be lauded by the journo or the OP, IMO.

I agree if we play like that we will lose to good teams and also bad ones. It isnt the way to play the game now but that is what confidence does. Surely RL is smart enough to realise that will not win many games either but through lack ability or confidence we play that way.

The problem with all that is that this is not even remotely close to the first time we've done this. Just about every time we've gotten out to about a 3-5 goal lead in the past 18 months or so we slam the brakes on and go all negative. Not sure who's idea it is, but it makes no sense.
And how can us playing that way be due to "lack of ability" when we had the ability to get on the roll that put us in the strong position to begin with? Do they suddenly lose their ability half way through the third?

[GrumpyOne]

There is no better thing for self-esteem in footy than winning a grand final, no difference how unattractive you play on the way there. Just ask Sydney.

[Hallalj#3]

I read the article and thought that maybe he is being droll?

Droll, or a troll?

haha give up Saintpav.. Embarassing your mum..