Conceding 120 points at home

[evertonfc]

...probably indicates why we're 5-5.

To me - and this might just be me - but conceding so many points isn't really an acceptable defensive performance. It shows that this number is what we're willing to concede. Doing so, in my opinion, will result in us losing many games of footy.

Richmond came into this game with the weight of the world on their shoulders yet still found a way to blast an AK-47 through our defence. Is it just because Sam Fisher was missing? I cringe at the thought we are so reliant on him.

Warning bells went off for me the moment we let Sydney kick a score against us - even though we were in front.

I'm all for attacking, and believe it is the way forward, but why have we decided to open our defence and invite the opposition to score freely against us?

I can only speak from my perspective, and perhaps I am wrong, but a solid defence should be the cornerstone of a team. From that, you also build a solid midfield and a dynamic attack. It feels a little like we have the last two sorted but the first one is missing. That seems odd given the previous few years. Surely losing Zac has had little impact; perhaps Fisher a little more.

I dare say it probably reflects why we are 5-5, despite an amazing draw to this point.

[OneEyedSainter77]

Good post to an extent.

But I don't think the conceding high scores is something we are willing to do.

I think it's just a case of trying to take the game on.

I'm actually really confident of us taking on Essendon now because that's the style they play that always kills us!!

Now I know we can play that style of footy.

I'm gutted by the loss and am not proud of losing by only eight points.

But I am heartened by our spirit and endeavour.

We gave it a crack and came up short against who I thought was not a better team but it turns out, they were tonight.

[Austinnn]

I would rather watch the footy we played tonight than the Saints of last year, that's for damn sure.

[Teflon]

...probably indicates why we're 5-5.

To me - and this might just be me - but conceding so many points isn't really an acceptable defensive performance. It shows that this number is what we're willing to concede. Doing so, in my opinion, will result in us losing many games of footy.

Richmond came into this game with the weight of the world on their shoulders yet still found a way to blast an AK-47 through our defence. Is it just because Sam Fisher was missing? I cringe at the thought we are so reliant on him.

Warning bells went off for me the moment we let Sydney kick a score against us - even though we were in front.

I'm all for attacking, and believe it is the way forward, but why have we decided to open our defence and invite the opposition to score freely against us?

I can only speak from my perspective, and perhaps I am wrong, but a solid defence should be the cornerstone of a team. From that, you also build a solid midfield and a dynamic attack. It feels a little like we have the last two sorted but the first one is missing. That seems odd given the previous few years. Surely losing Zac has had little impact; perhaps Fisher a little more.

I dare say it probably reflects why we are 5-5, despite an amazing draw to this point.

Hasnt our defence been one of the best so far this year for pts conceded?

If we go into games and get smashed out of the middle early and put our defence under enormous pressure - is the problem really our defence....or midfield?

Hayes, Dal, Steven all got pantsed for mine tonight - no midfield talk?? Can that be all cause of Maric....Armo did ok?

I do think late in the game defensively our structure broke - they got blokes clear out the back to easily and Nah Haas was left to loose. That said, No Fisher, Blakes in the ruck (when he did well on Riewoldt), Gwilt is running in quick sand, Newnes looked startled and Gilbert's bi polar ...so there are mitigating circumstances.

Your point has merit in 1 respect - opening us up to attack will mean we lose more IMO....already Etihad is starting to not become the defensive fortress it was....

[evertonfc]

If we go into games and get smashed out of the middle early and put our defence under enormous pressure - is the problem really our defence....or midfield?

Fair shout. Just get the feeling that I didn't mind last year/previous years if we lost the clearance, our back six would invariably mop it up.

That confidence is shot to pieces. Restoring Fisher will help but he's still more of a runner than a KPP.

Feels like we're a bit short in a proper CHB and FB.

Again, maybe it's me, but I feel like we're flooded with runners defenders rather than blokes capable of holding down key defensive posts and executing basic defensive techniques, like correct body position, reading the flight of the incoming ball and spoiling correctly.

A priority at trade time, IMO.

[SydneySainter]

51 of those points came from one goal kicker. Our defense having two kids, a knee reco and another who is WELL overdue for a VFL spell, doesn't help.

[skeptic]

I think the absince of Clarke, Fisher and Gwilt has counted... plus no Ben to drop into the hole

it's one area we can hope for improvement

[Scollop]

...probably indicates why we're 5-5.

Surely losing Zac has had little impact; perhaps Fisher a little more.

Totally agree with the comment re losing Zac...but re Fisher...What? Just a little?...I'd say perhaps a FRICKEN CONTAINERLOAD more

[SainterK]

Teflon is right

Maric gave their mids silver service tonight, our defence had little chance.

Even under Ross the gates burst open v Richmond, because they are a team that like and can bust them open.

[dcstkfc]

Few players who probably lack the defensive nous instilled under Lyon. We're playing much more free-flowing footy now as well, opening ourselves up to be hurt on the way back. Not as many men behind the ball, and without Fisher and McEvoy, the quality of men behind the ball isn't as good

[SainterK]

Thought we also missed Geary tonight...

Would probably have got Nahas or Edwards?

Seemed like a lot of head highs because we had tallish defenders on smalls.

[dcstkfc]

Thought we also missed Geary tonight...

Would probably have got Nahas or Edwards?

Seemed like a lot of head highs because we had tallish defenders on smalls.

Not a bad point at all

[saintspremiers]

I would rather watch the footy we played tonight than the Saints of last year, that's for damn sure.

Agree.

Losing 60 points to 51 leaves you bitter and twisted having been bored and losing 150 minutes of your life.

Last night you say bummer we lost but what a great spectacle.

[hungry for a premiership]

evertonfc wrote:

To me - and this might just be me - but conceding so many points isn't really an acceptable defensive performance. It shows that this number is what we're willing to concede. Doing so, in my opinion, will result in us losing many games of footy.

I'm certain Scott Watters agrees with you!

In the post-match presser he spoke of the overall poor defensive performance of the team as a whole and how this is still a work in progress....

How many points the team concedes is not so much reliant on the perssonell of the back-six as it is on the team defensive structures as a whole. Under Lyon, maximum attention was given to defense, minimum to attack.

Under Watters, more attention is given to attack, but Watters himself says his gameplan is built on a foundation of defense and he himself was the backline coach at collingwood. He is more attack than Lyon, but he is still more defense than attack, and he conceded last night that our defense was our biggest deficiency.


What's happened is, after five years of playing under Lyon, this year the players have finally been given liscence to take the game on, and so they've blown out too far to the attacking side, and we are now far, far more efficient, dangerous, functional and unpredictable in attack, but our defense has gone from being an impregnable fortress to a vulnerable shanty-town that gets caught with it's pants down at least a couple of times a game.

What we're going to see from Scott Watters' team between now and the end of the year, and probably onto next year as well until optimum balance is achieved in probably 2014 or 2015, is the attacking side of our game stay pretty much the same, and even be slightly reigned in, to accommodate for the strong team defense that doesn't leak big scores and doesn't get caught with its pants down.

[Leo.J]

Fatigue and personel are the cause of that scoreline imo.

And both are relatively out of our control.

3 six day breaks in sucession are going to make it harder to apply and maintain our press, and make it harder to execute skills effectively.

Bring back our 2 ruckmen, and 2 of our back 6 and it would make a massive difference. IMO it would have changed last nights result.

[fingers]

I think the absince of Clarke, Fisher and Gwilt has counted... plus no Ben to drop into the hole

it's one area we can hope for improvement

I think you're right. Fisher drops back and maybe helps to keep Jack to 4 instead of a ridiculous 8 - and we are good to go. Simpkin doing a fantastic job but still learning.

[Superstar]

...probably indicates why we're 5-5.

Surely losing Zac has had little impact; perhaps Fisher a little more.

Totally agree with the comment re losing Zac...but re Fisher...What? Just a little?...I'd say perhaps a FRICKEN CONTAINERLOAD more

And it doesnt help that Blake and Gilbert were playing in the ruck. Both because it hurts the defence and they got touched up it the ruck. But you can only pick a team from whose available. The defence looked very shakey under the quick high ball, but I think that's got asich to do with personnel as set ups/match ups/structures.

[evertonfc]

evertonfc wrote:

To me - and this might just be me - but conceding so many points isn't really an acceptable defensive performance. It shows that this number is what we're willing to concede. Doing so, in my opinion, will result in us losing many games of footy.

I'm certain Scott Watters agrees with you!

In the post-match presser he spoke of the overall poor defensive performance of the team as a whole and how this is still a work in progress....

Good. I'm reluctant to have a crack at Watters as I think he's doing a good job and has good intentions. This shows he's aware of our frailties, too.

[kaos theory]

Fatigue and personel are the cause of that scoreline imo.

And both are relatively out of our control.

3 six day breaks in sucession are going to make it harder to apply and maintain our press, and make it harder to execute skills effectively.

Bring back our 2 ruckmen, and 2 of our back 6 and it would make a massive difference. IMO it would have changed last nights result.

Agreed, this was my biggest concern going into this match:

- No specialist ruck (Macca)
- Loss of a key versatile pacey big man (Stanley)
- Loss of our best backman (fisher) and best lockdown small defensive player this year (Geary)
- AND 3 X 6 day break games (with trip to Perth)

Given that, I'd say we can play a lot better. Tigers are on a roll now, but I'd be very confident we could take them down if we meet again later in the yr

[The Craw]

Take Maric out of the Tigers side and do you think it would have made a difference ...... bloody oath.

Having McEvoy and Stanley out..... Blake and Gilbert Rucking was always going to leave the backline exposed. Add Geary being out of the mix and really, 8 point loss = good effort for mine.

[Leo.J]

Fatigue and personel are the cause of that scoreline imo.

And both are relatively out of our control.

3 six day breaks in sucession are going to make it harder to apply and maintain our press, and make it harder to execute skills effectively.

Bring back our 2 ruckmen, and 2 of our back 6 and it would make a massive difference. IMO it would have changed last nights result.

Agreed, this was my biggest concern going into this match:

- No specialist ruck (Macca)
- Loss of a key versatile pacey big man (Stanley)
- Loss of our best backman (fisher) and best lockdown small defensive player this year (Geary)
- AND 3 X 6 day break games (with trip to Perth)

Given that, I'd say we can play a lot better. Tigers are on a roll now, but I'd be very confident we could take them down if we meet again later in the yr

I agree I can't see the Tigers improving too much on last night this year, yet I can see us having a bigger upside this year.

[SainterK]

....and I agree with both of you.

Just make it to the bye, and Saints can improve, and improve significantly.

McEvoy, Stanley, Geary, Fisher and you'd have to say Schneider.

Strange to hear Hardwick was trying to slow the game down as well, wouldn't of picked that

[matrix]

Surely losing Zac has had little impact; perhaps Fisher a little more.

perhaps fisher a little more than little impact????

LOL

fisher is prob the best player in the league at playing his position
i reckon it might have had more than a 'bit more of a little impact'

and one bloke kicked 50 points