Don't Write Us Off

[satchmo]

opinion=0
action=1

[saintbrat]

an alternate view from one in the age

St Kilda, too, should be factored into serious finals talk despite having lost Goddard. The Saints under Scott Watters have spruced up their game style with a more attacking bent, but also, importantly, expanded their repertoire of key contributors, reducing some of the load on Nick Riewoldt, Lenny Hayes and co.

The Saints' 12 wins and very healthy percentage would have been good enough to get them into the eight in any of the five previous seasons to 2012. It may well be again this year, too.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Logic suggests, too, that the young turks at Gold Coast and Greater Western Sydney should be thrashed less often and competitive more often. All of which would lend itself to a top-eight traffic jam the likes of which even Melbourne's CBD at peak hour has seldom seen.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/e ... z2H8vm1WgK

[BigMart]

It was posted in 2010 that our recruiting periods between 2008/9 and lack of player development in the 2009-2011 period would ultimately cost us long term.... One eye on on the prize and one on the future is a must, we had Two eyes firmly on the prize and disregarded the future this was pointed out back the....and confirmed by SW when he explained their were significant holes in the list that had to be addressed.... But as usual, the same flogs on here went bananas at perceived criticism of the club?!

The holes on the list (both positional and age/experience in profile) were attempted tone fixed by drafting a number of 21 yo to make up for the dearth of players in that age group.

2008/9 recruiting periods were disastrous!! Both in player retention and recruiting...

Is it realised that we have lost the #1 and #2 draft picks from the 2001/2002 drafts to rival clubs in recent years..... One is excusable, two is poor management....


But only now can that be expressed.....

[joffaboy]

It was posted in 2010 that our recruiting periods between 2008/9 and lack of player development in the 2009-2011 period would ultimately cost us long term.... One eye on on the prize and one on the future is a must, we had Two eyes firmly on the prize and disregarded the future this was pointed out back the....and confirmed by SW when he explained their were significant holes in the list that had to be addressed.... But as usual, the same flogs on here went bananas at perceived criticism of the club?!

The holes on the list (both positional and age/experience in profile) were attempted tone fixed by drafting a number of 21 yo to make up for the dearth of players in that age group.

2008/9 recruiting periods were disastrous!! Both in player retention and recruiting...

Is it realised that we have lost the #1 and #2 draft picks from the 2001/2002 drafts to rival clubs in recent years..... One is excusable, two is poor management....


But only now can that be expressed.....

More 20/20 vidion from the king of hindsight

[plugger66]

It was posted in 2010 that our recruiting periods between 2008/9 and lack of player development in the 2009-2011 period would ultimately cost us long term.... One eye on on the prize and one on the future is a must, we had Two eyes firmly on the prize and disregarded the future this was pointed out back the....and confirmed by SW when he explained their were significant holes in the list that had to be addressed.... But as usual, the same flogs on here went bananas at perceived criticism of the club?!

The holes on the list (both positional and age/experience in profile) were attempted tone fixed by drafting a number of 21 yo to make up for the dearth of players in that age group.

2008/9 recruiting periods were disastrous!! Both in player retention and recruiting...

Is it realised that we have lost the #1 and #2 draft picks from the 2001/2002 drafts to rival clubs in recent years..... One is excusable, two is poor management....


But only now can that be expressed.....

Talking of flogging. Anyway back to the topic. One poster pointed out our recruits were no good because there wasnt a photo. Now if that is how we should or shouldnt recruit then you are right but the only way to confirm that way on recruiting is to look at players from other clubs that were recruited to see if they have photos. The good thing is if that is how we should recruit we should save hundreds of thousands of dollars a year on staff.

And the person who in 2010 posted that player development in 2011 will hurt us should be able to tell us our finishing position this year because I gather that person has a time machine.

[AnythingsPossibleSaints]

Obviously I am going to argue that there is a fair bit of difference between where we are at now. and where Sydney were in 2010.

If that is so why is it that Sydney dropped all the way to 12th with a % of 90 in 2009, compared to us dropping just to 9th with a % of 120odd in 2012?

In those poor trade perriods for Sydney they trade for an AA in Richards and also got Mattner. In our poor period we have got Ray and Stanley so they are ahead. They also got 3 pretty experienced AFL players in Mumford, McGlynn and Kennedy who even though they hadnt set the world alight they were AFL ready to go. We have got Lee, TDL, Hickey and Roberton who in hindsight may work out or could end up like Polo and Peake.

It is true Sydney had gotten Richards and Mattner (neither of whom were close to AA at the time, I would suggest) in the 4 years leading up to 2009 (they also got Nick Smith in a rookie draft), and you say that we "got Ray and Stanley so they are ahead", but what about Siposs, Saad, Simpkin, Milera, Newnes, etc, from last year and 2010, who all came to our club in the 4 years leading up to 2012?

It is Richards, Mattner, Smith, Hannebery, Jesse White and Bird v Ray, Stanley, Siposs, Saad, Simpkin, Milera, Newnes, Dunell, Markworth, Wilkes, Minchington, etc and if you compare where our 11 are now with the Sydney six as they were 3 years ago, I don't think there would be much in it at all. Of course theirs looks to be better now, because they have 3 years more development and experience in them, but if you were to compare our 11 or more in 3 years time with Sydney's 6 at the point they are now, it may be close again and we could very easily be in front. It all depends on how our 11 develop.

And I aint suggesting the Melbourne way or any way actually. I am just giving reasons why I think we wont improve this year unless we basically fluke the Sydney recruiting. And for us to improve the likes of Lee, Roberton and TDL have to have a huge impact as the Sydney players did in 2010. We would also need Steven, Armo, Simpkin and one or two others to become top 5-7 players this year.

As I suggested, we don't have to "fluke the Sydney recruiting", because, as I said, they didn't give up much to get the likes of Mumford, Kennedy and McGlynn, so they were genuine "flukes" becaue it's not often that you get someone who turns out really good when you don't give up much to get them, but we did have to give up a significant amount for the likes of Lee and Hickey, so it won't be a "fluke" if they end up good because by giving up so much for them it is pretty much expected that they will be very good. There is also a hell of a difference between the likes of Lee and Hickey and Peake and Polo, because again, we gave up almost nothing to get Peake and Polo, because no-one really rated them, but we again did have to give up a lot to get Lee and Hickey because not only we, but other clubs really rated them (resulting in us having to give up more to get them than if no-one else was interested in them).

Im not sure how i can discuss the last paragraph but it is very one sided. kennedy and Mumford and even McGlynn are flukes but the players we wanted are not. Strange that flukes get offered a hell of a lot more 3 years ago than the players we got now even though wages have gone up. No matter which eye you open their players had better credentials than the players we have got. That doesnt mean it wont work out for us. We could have the next Plugger or the next Cox or we could have the next Gamble or the next Ackland. Your argument would suggest no one wanted Ball but if you put a silly price on your head then that will happen and the club who really wants you gets you. I would suggest that certainly happened with Mumford and Kennedy. Doesnt mean they were unwanted.

That's probably fair enough with Mumford, but aren't we likewise paying Hickey a fair slice of coin, on top of having to give up a higher pick to get him? Given how much we are most likely paying him and how much we gave up in terms of draft picks to get him, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect or be confident that we will get something pretty good in return. And by the looks of it Kennedy and McGlynn were hardly setting the world on fire at Hawthorn when they were traded.

Kennedy played 3 games when he was 20 there and 10 at 21 and averaged 19 disposals per game that year (2009) and from how it was reported in the media he left there because it didn't look like he was going to get much game time any time soon and that Hawthorn were happy to let him go, for more opportunities, IIFC and because they wanted the picks to get Burgoyne. Sydney have a pretty good rep for fair trading I think and yet only gave up some semi-junkish picks in 39, 46 and 70 for both Kennedy and McGlynn, so I dare say they weren't widely expected to be anywhere near as good as they have been, especially Kennedy, who alone would be worth a top 10 pick now at least.

Again, we gave up a fairly high pick to get Lee, so I don't think it's unreasonable to expect or be confident that we will get something pretty damn good in return for him as well. The only others around the same age as Lee from the state leagues who have previously commanded such high picks in recent times are Lewis Jetta (pick 13), Harry Taylor (pick 17), Isaac Smith (pick 19) and Hayden Ballantyne (pick 21), as far as I'm aware and all have done well to very well so far at AFL level. I see nothing to suggest that Lee won't do just as well as some of them, given his exposed form so far and physical attributes, etc.

[AnythingsPossibleSaints]

Great post AnythingsPossible.
Love the passion and I like the reasoning.

i agree i am enjoying the posts from AnythingsPossible they are able to have a debate without the need to turn it into petty name calling ... something very rare for these parts

Agree.......... I've become a real 'groupie' of AnthingsPossibleSaints. Always devour his posts with interest.

I notice his style makes some previously name calling posters and those simply fishing to bait others, they respond in a more reserved manner if they differ to APS opinions, as they realise they will look complete goose if they resort to replying to his posts with emotive claptrap, so it makes them present their views more objectively, which is good for all.

Thanks for lifting the level of analysis APS

You're all welcome and thanks for the support. I often wonder if anyone even reads some of my long posts, so it's good to see that some of them are appreciated by some of you.

[The Linton Street Flash]

Firstly I doubt a reporter would change their mind on a player because the club were furious because I doubt the club would even bother contacting the writer but I do know a couple of people in recruiting so I could find out if I could be bothered which I cant.

Doubt is not good enough and I didn't say that he would change his mind just because a club were furious with him, I suggested that it might have actually prompted him to do a bit of research (if he has any journalistic integrity, perhaps) because it sounds like he just heard about the deal and tweeted something, without doing much research into it, but then changed his tune once he dug a bit deeper and found out what some of those who really know what they are talking about think of him. As for the club getting in touch with him, all it takes is having someone in or close to the club who is on Twitter tweeting him back about it to put forward a case as to why it was a good deal, to perhaps get him to look into it a bit more, or else a quick phone call.

Don't forget that he also removed what he initially said about Spencer White and his wrist injury in his online article on the night of the draft and that might have also been at the request of the club. It's hard to see why that would have been removed otherwise.

Now you want to compare us to Sydney and to me the important years of trading were in the late 2000's because those players will now be coming into their prime.

I went through the drafts, trades, rookies and rookie elevation in 2008 and 2009 and in the time we have got Stanley and Ray and that is it I believe. Happy to be shown to be wrong. In that time the Swans have got Johnston, Hannebery, Pyke, Smith, Shaw, Mumford, McGlynn, Kennedy, Rohan, Jetta and reid. I think all bar one played in the 2012 premiership time. Now this doesnt mean the players we got in the last 2 years cant be as good, but it does mean we are a good 2 to 3 years from coming good again even if our players are as good. My point stands, 2 to 3 years of crap recruiting puts us miles behind the Swans. I think all we can do is read and weep about those pathetic recruiting years.

Bloody hell, why is it that I have to explain so many replies I do to you after you've completely misread or misunderstood what I have said in one of my posts? Do you do it on purpose, or what?

I'm not saying that we are now where Sydney are now, I'm saying that we are now where Sydney were between the 2009 and 2010 seasons. The similarities are extraordinary. In fact we are probably ahead of where they were at that point, because we had a better season in 2012 than they did in 2009 and we've actually had a good drafting period under our belts (2011, IMO), whereas most of their good drafting/trading didn't start until that 2009 trade/draft period (when they got all of Mumford, McGlynn, Kennedy, Rohan, Jetta and Reid- and BTW, that Johnston you named is not the one who played in the GF for them, the one you named has been delisted). Yet they were able to rise from 12th to 5th the following year (2010), which you are claiming we "can't do" next year, despite the fact that we've had a similarly aggressive trading period this offseason, to go with some good trades and picks last year and there being so many other similarities.

I'm extremely well aware of how good their drafting and trading was in 2009, that off-field period at the end of 2009 is what has been widely credited with helping them to turn things around since, but my point was that PRIOR TO that time (as in, the start of trade week in 2009) their list was in pretty much the exact sort of state, if not worse, than ours was when trade week started this year.

The similarities:

-Sydney had played finals for years leading up to 2009, but missed the finals that year for the first time in years. We had played finals for years leading up to 2012, but missed the finals for the first time in years.

-Sydney had had several years of very poor drafting (see below) leading up to the 2009 season. We had had several years of very poor drafting leading up to the 2012 period (although I believe we had a much better one in 2011 than they had in 2008).

-Sydney had Hall, Jolly and O'Laughlin leave at the end of 2009 and had Kirk in his final year the next year. We have had Goddard and Gram leave at the end of 2012 and there is a likelihood that our version of Kirk, Lenny, may be in his last year next season (as may Milne, making it 4 each).

-Sydney went on an aggressive recruiting period and landed a couple of cheap trades that have turned out really well when no-one expected much from them, in trade week in 2009 and drafted really well. We went on a very aggressive trade week in 2012 and landed a couple who were much more expensive, who could very easily end up very good, in trade week of 2012 and believe that we've done well with several of our draft picks in both the 2011 and 2012 drafts.

-On the back of all that Sydney very unexpectedly turned their slide around in 2010 and rose from 12th to 5th, when most probably expected them to fall lower than 12th. ?????? What will we do in 2013????

This is where I'm saying that, like Sydney in 2010, we can also rise, in 2013. If it was possible for Sydney to go from 12th to 5th, from 2009 to 2010, when almost everyone expected them to slide further, when there were so many similarities to where we were at the end of 2012, then it is likewise possible for us to rise from 9th in 2012 to something higher, in 2013. This is my point.

I wasn't suggesting that we were now what Sydney are now, I am suggesting that we are now where Sydney were in the 2009/ 2010 offseason and that if our trades and drafting in the past couple of years turn out to be even close to what Sydney did in 2009 alone, that we could find ourselves in the sort of position Sydney were this year, in say 2015, when Roo will be the age Goodes was this year and Dal and Joey and Chips will be the sort of age Jude Bolton and Ryan O'Keefe were this year. They might not still be around, but on the other hand they might and we might be there in 2014 actually, because we had a better draft/trade period in 2011 than they did in 2008, so we may be able to get there one year "earlier" than they did (it took them 3 years- from 2009 to 2012, we may be able to do it in two, as we are coming from a higher base). We also have the added advantage now of being able to use free agency to top up when anyone retires, which Sydney did not have access to in the 2009-2012 years between that great trade/draft period and them dropping out of the finals in 2009 and their flag.


Just back on Sydney's drafting prior to that 2009 season I was referring to, I went back and had a look at who they picked up in the national drafts from 2005- 2008 (4 drafts) and here is the list of everyone they took in the national drafts in that time (this is the 4 years leading up to the 2009 season I keep referring to):

2005

Matthew Laidlaw 51
Kristin Thornton 54
Ryan Brabozon 59

2006

Daniel O'Keefe 15
Daniel Currie 49
Paul Faulks 65
Jesse White 79

2007

Pat Veszpremi 11
Brett Meredith 26
Craig Bird 59

2008

Lewis Johnstone 12
Daniel Hannebery 30
Campbell Heath 61


And everyone thinks our drafting in the 2008-2010 period was bad! As I said earlier, that Lewis Johnstone is not the Johnston that played for them in the GF, he is now clogging up Adelaide's list, so as far as I'm aware the only ones they took in a national draft in those 4 years that are still on their list are Hannebery, Bird and White (who they don't play). I had a brief look at who they took in the rookie drafts in that period and they looked to be just as bad.

All of this was in response to this post of yours, just in case you're wondering:

I will say it again and again. You cannot lose basically 3 years of recruiting and have stars who are getting older and still hope to climb the ladder. Comparing us to Sydney is only relevent if they had 3 years in the late 2000's when they basically got not one star player. Pretty sure in that time that got 2-4 star players depending on your view of what a star is.

Yes you can and Sydney did it in 2010.

At the end of the 2009 season they had dropped out of the finals for the first time in years, coming 12th with a % of 90, lost Barry Hall, Darren Jolly and MIchael O'Laughlin and had Kirk going into his last season and in the 4 years prior to that time they had done some of the worst drafting in history, so had almost no decent "youth" and yet were able to turn it all around and rise all the way to 5th the following season, against most expectations. They are proof that it can be done.

If they could do that, we can sure as s*** rise from 9th with a % of 120odd last season to a higher position next year, if some similar things go well for us next year (and we don't need anywhere near as much to go right for us as they did then, because we are coming from a stronger position this year than they were that year).

Hopefully that makes sense. We are now in a very similar position to where Sydney were in the 2010 preseason (for all the reasons listed above) and I believe we are going about our "rebuild" in a very similar way to the way they did it then. ie. not "bottoming out and playing the kids", but aiming to stay ultra-competitive and gradually integrating the "kids" into the team, once they are ready and hoping that by staying "thereabouts"/in the mix, that we might be able to grab a flag in the next few years like Sydney did this year, when they weren't necessarily the best team for the year, or the team with the most top 10 draft picks (in fact they had just 1), but were the team that made the most of their opportunities when they arose, largely thanks to how experienced and professional they were. As I keep on saying, we also have the added advantage that free agency is an option now and we are going to have huge cap space to have a big crack at that over the next couple of years, which could help us to immediately offset the loss of say Lenny and Milne.

There are no guarantees of course and just because it worked for Sydney doesn't mean it will work for us, but there are no guarantees going about it the "Melbourne way" either, as they have found out. Richmond are another team that haven't played finals for 10 years, proving that getting lots of high draft picks doesn't guarantee you anything at all. SOmetimes staying ultra-competitive and maintaining that winning habit is much more beneficial.

What a great post - well thought out and positive. Plugger66 you can keep on peddling your doom and gloom rubbish but for gawd sake at least admit that your argument, in this case, has no legs.

Well said AIP - love it!

[White Winmar]

You're all welcome and thanks for the support. I often wonder if anyone even reads some of my long posts, so it's good to see that some of them are appreciated by some of you.[/quote]
Always read your posts, APS. A small oasis of reason, insight and analysis in the desert that is the "off season". A few so-called football journalists might do well to give your posts a glance.

[bergholt]

Again, we gave up a fairly high pick to get Lee, so I don't think it's unreasonable to expect or be confident that we will get something pretty damn good in return for him as well.

A lot of what you say makes sense. This doesn't. By that logic Beau Dowler, Jarrad Oakley-Nicholls and Marcus Drum should have been stars, because their clubs rated them highly enough to pay top ten draft picks for them. But we all know that's not how it works - clubs can and do overrate players. We can hope that Lee will be good, but implying that just because we paid a lot for him that we shouldn't plan any holidays for the next ten Septembers is illogical in the extreme.

[Richter]

Some terrific analysis APS. I agree with much of what you say, but IMO Sydney are also probably a one off due to their coaching philosophy and off-field management (football and commercial) which has largely remained the same for a decade or so. From the footballing point of view that was where Roos genius lay. We on the other hand have lurched from GT to RL and now to SW - some major differences in the way those coaches set up their teams. On the other hand we do have the same core stars in Roo, Joey, Dal, Milney and Chips to provide continuity.

It really will come down, as you say, to how well the 2011/12/13 batches develop over the next 3-4 years as to whether the likes of Roo get another shot before they retire. I think that we are really keeping our fingers crossed that Scotty Watters and his development team are the real deal... at this stage that is uncertain, but IMO the signs are much better than they would have been if RL was still Head Coach.

I often compare AFL to the EPL... the big clubs ($ speaking) generally do well in each, but in the AFL the smaller clubs do have the chance of breaking through and grabbing some glory, essentially because the loyalty of the coaches and players (thanks both to the AFL culture as expressed through the salary cap, drafting rules and trading restrictions) means that core groups from smaller clubs CAN be largely kept intact without all the good players from a minnow club being poached by the big boys.

[samuraisaint]

Agree with Rohan Connolly's analysis of our chances this year - win 12 with a similar percentage to that of this year and we sneak into the eight - don't need to improve at all on 2012 results for this, just tread water and 'continue to get games into the kids.'

Let's have a look at how we will get those wins:
GWS - 1 percentage boostiong win
GC - 2 wins - with the Docklands a percentage boost
Port (in Melbourne, thank God) - 1 percentage boosting win
Bullies - 1 enormous victory
Melbourne at G - 1 3-4 goal victory
Richmond - win 1, lose 1 on basis of probability (narrow win)
Carlton - win 1, lose 1 (we have wood on them, but again probability)
North - one easy win (expect them to slide back to obscurity this year)
Brisbane at Gabba - 2 goal win again (for fifth year in a row)
Freo - 1 win, 1 loss
Swans in Wellington - win for the occasion, plus we seem to do okay against them

Apart from the Swans I reckon you could lock all those games in as wins looking at things objectively.

[bergholt]

Apart from the Swans I reckon you could lock all those games in as wins looking at things objectively.

Nah. Freo will be very good this year, can't even lock in one against them. Carlton should be better than they were last year so we definitely can't lock in one against them. Richmond are likely to finish higher than us so there's no reason we should beat them even once. Port will be better than people think, but we should still beat them. No idea about North, I don't know any of their players. One of GC and GWS will be much better this year and will start to be a challenge. No idea how we expect to beat Sydney, they're a fair bit better than us at this point.

[SaintPav]

Agree with Rohan Connolly's analysis of our chances this year - win 12 with a similar percentage to that of this year and we sneak into the eight - don't need to improve at all on 2012 results for this, just tread water and 'continue to get games into the kids.'

Let's have a look at how we will get those wins:
GWS - 1 percentage boostiong win
GC - 2 wins - with the Docklands a percentage boost
Port (in Melbourne, thank God) - 1 percentage boosting win
Bullies - 1 enormous victory
Melbourne at G - 1 3-4 goal victory
Richmond - win 1, lose 1 on basis of probability (narrow win)
Carlton - win 1, lose 1 (we have wood on them, but again probability)
North - one easy win (expect them to slide back to obscurity this year)
Brisbane at Gabba - 2 goal win again (for fifth year in a row)
Freo - 1 win, 1 loss
Swans in Wellington - win for the occasion, plus we seem to do okay against them

Apart from the Swans I reckon you could lock all those games in as wins looking at things objectively.

I'm nervous about round one let alone all the other penciled in wins. An easy win against the Roos? I expect them to get better.

I expect Richmond, North and possibly Carlton to finish above us. Who knows, Brissie may improve as well.

I really can't see how you're being objective if you're locking ANY games in. Appreciate what you are trying to do but it's futile and only leads to disappointment.

[samuraisaint]

Not futile, just know that self belief goes a long way, and apart from a few poor seasons 2000-2002 we have been pretty consistent since 1997.

Richmond improve? Really? Don't think so. The media and their supporters have bought that T shirt too many times before.
GC and GWS to improve? Don't think so. Expect their kids to start showing signs of lose fatigue as well as more attention on them from opposition.
Carlton finish above us? Maybe, beat us twice? Don't think so. Only beaten us once in twelve years. Judd injured or out of form, they are gawn.
Brissie may improve? Yeah and I might win tatts.
Think I can mount a much better argument for us treading water than any of your points. Also - could see us knocking off West Coast over here too, based on recent results (note; I wrote results, not sophistry).

Have I even mentioned that we won 12 games this year with no backline due to injuries, with all those players back this year with a full pre season and Roo having had his first full pre season for five years yet?

[borderbarry]

I expect Brisbane to improve this year,but not make the eight.
Richmond will also improve, probab;ly finish in their old 9th position,
Carlton Essendon and North, everyone is tipping them to improve, but I am not so sure. Essendon should, but they may be counting too much on Goddard.
Collingwood recruited well and should have a good year. Likewise Hawthorn. The W.A. teams are both strong. Adelaide could be a slider. Sydney probably wont have as good a year.

[Richter]

'Objectively', we crunched Sydney this year (when they went on to win the premiership) at home and then could have pinched the away game. Perfectly reasonable to suggest that we have a fair chance at beating them on Anzac Day this year.

[SainterK]

'Objectively', we crunched Sydney this year (when they went on to win the premiership) at home and then could have pinched the away game. Perfectly reasonable to suggest that we have a fair chance at beating them on Anzac Day this year.

Competitive against the Pies as well....

I am optmistic based on the game plan appearing to 'click' towards the end of the year and against some decent opposition.

Still concerned about our ability to contain tall forward lines.

[SaintPav]

Not futile, just know that self belief goes a long way, and apart from a few poor seasons 2000-2002 we have been pretty consistent since 1997.

Richmond improve? Really? Don't think so. The media and their supporters have bought that T shirt too many times before.
GC and GWS to improve? Don't think so. Expect their kids to start showing signs of lose fatigue as well as more attention on them from opposition.
Carlton finish above us? Maybe, beat us twice? Don't think so. Only beaten us once in twelve years. Judd injured or out of form, they are gawn.
Brissie may improve? Yeah and I might win tatts.
Think I can mount a much better argument for us treading water than any of your points. Also - could see us knocking off West Coast over here too, based on recent results (note; I wrote results, not sophistry).

Have I even mentioned that we won 12 games this year with no backline due to injuries, with all those players back this year with a full pre season and Roo having had his first full pre season for five years yet?

I forgot about Essendon who lost all momentum and had a horrid run with injuries.

When did I say that GWS would improve? GC should improve which wouldn't be hard and they could beat us in round one where upsets happen regularly. Doesn't mean they will finish above us on the ladder.

Apart from Fisher for about 5 weeks last year, who else was out of the backline? We have lost BJ and Gram though. We actually had a reasonable run with injuries.

If you have self belief good for you but I can't see how penciling in wins for games in the future and wishful thinking means you have a stronger argument.

[samuraisaint]

'Objectively', we crunched Sydney this year (when they went on to win the premiership) at home and then could have pinched the away game. Perfectly reasonable to suggest that we have a fair chance at beating them on Anzac Day this year.

Competitive against the Pies as well....

I am optmistic based on the game plan appearing to 'click' towards the end of the year and against some decent opposition.

Still concerned about our ability to contain tall forward lines.

Both of these

Should have drawn with Pies - umps gave incorrect free against us in front of Filth social club, and yes, could have done the Swannies on their own dung heap.

Expect to hold our own with our injured backline from last year back on the paddock.
Love your work

[plugger66]

'Objectively', we crunched Sydney this year (when they went on to win the premiership) at home and then could have pinched the away game. Perfectly reasonable to suggest that we have a fair chance at beating them on Anzac Day this year.

Competitive against the Pies as well....

I am optmistic based on the game plan appearing to 'click' towards the end of the year and against some decent opposition.

Still concerned about our ability to contain tall forward lines.

Both of these

Should have drawn with Pies - umps gave incorrect free against us in front of Filth social club, and yes, could have done the Swannies on their own dung heap.

Expect to hold our own with our injured backline from last year back on the paddock.
Love your work

If you are going to use injuries as to why we will improve then we probably wont. We had a great run with injuries. We have lost BJ and Gram. the only way we can improve is our second, third and fourth year players improving improving a lot as well as Steven, Armo and ben improving again and maybe Lee being better than Kosi. Richmond will improve because they have 4 or 5 young up and coming star players. Carlton and essendon should improve if you use the first half of last year. They may go backwards if you take notice of the second half but unlike us they both had real injury concerns.

[samuraisaint]

No, injuries to key defenders, Fisher and Gwilt, as well as Macca hurt us, but we still won 12 games and had a superior % compared to most teams. I didn't say we should improve. I said we shall maintain the status quo in 2013 as we have a developing group of younger players gaining experience at senior level. Please check my previous posts. I said we will win 12 games, with some huge wins, combined with other games that we should be able to win narrowly - same as last year. The difference being that most years this would be enough to make the eight, last year it was not. I pointed to those players returning as being a positive, as well as Roo having a ful preseason for once, that's all. It is not the eighties anymore, and St Kilda has been a lot more professional in it's approach since Lockett left us mid-nineties. It enabled the club to focus on the team on field combining well rather than a handful of stars turning it on in enough games that we win three-seven games a year, which is what a lot of posters here think is still the norm at St Kilda. It is not. Letting Goddard go instead of being held to ransom is evidence of this. Why anybody would think that teams like Carlton and Richmond, Brisbane (Fitzroy) etc are going to start beating us again like they did in 1986 is being illogical in my opinion and ignoring St Kilda's on field results over the past 15 years.

[plugger66]

No, injuries to key defenders, Fisher and Gwilt, as well as Macca hurt us, but we still won 12 games and had a superior % compared to most teams. I didn't say we should improve. I said we shall maintain the status quo in 2013 as we have a developing group of younger players gaining experience at senior level. Please check my previous posts. I said we will win 12 games, with some huge wins, combined with other games that we should be able to win narrowly - same as last year. The difference being that most years this would be enough to make the eight, last year it was not. I pointed to those players returning as being a positive, as well as Roo having a ful preseason for once, that's all. It is not the eighties anymore, and St Kilda has been a lot more professional in it's approach since Lockett left us mid-nineties. It enabled the club to focus on the team on field combining well rather than a handful of stars turning it on in enough games that we win three-seven games a year, which is what a lot of posters here think is still the norm at St Kilda. It is not. Letting Goddard go instead of being held to ransom is evidence of this. Why anybody thinks that teams like Carlton and Richmond, Brisbane (Fitzroy) etc are going to start beating us again like they did in 1986 is illogical to me.

I dont get that last sentence at all. Who suggested that? I cant find it anywhere. We had bugger all injuries. As I said Carlton and Essendon had a hell of a lot more. We will get injuries this year and I would rapped if it was only as many as last year. I have no idea about Roo having a full pre season. I thought he basically did bugger all until xmas because of a knee operation. Nothing wrong with letting BJ go. I certainly agree totally with it but unlike some here I think we will miss him a lot and Gram a fair bit as well. They played basically the whole season and I doubt 2 players that come in for them will be good enough for the whole season or certainly not to their standard.

[samuraisaint]

A lot of people here have suggested that those teams may (read:should) improve. Why? Because a couple of media hacks suggest it to be so. Judd goes down, Carlton go down. Richmond have lost to Gold Coast twice and were lucky to draw with Port (in Melbourne) in round 22. I won't even discuss Brisbane except to say that unless there is another forced merger they are looking at very ordinary times ahead, especially financially. My point is that just because St Kilda has a tragic history pre-1997, this doesn't mean that we will start to struggle again now.
I do however agree with you on one point, Steven, Armo and Ben are going to be excellent players. Why? Because they have turned it on in some very big games against excellent opposition in finals and in crucial matches. You name one occasion when Richmond's "4 or 5 up and coming young stars" have actually done this and I will be the first to admit I have been wrong.

One other point - I seem to remember us making finals in 2005 and 2006 when we had very long injury lists, something that Carlton and Essendon were unable to do obviously.

[plugger66]

A lot of people here have suggested that those teams may (read:should) improve. Why? Because a couple of media hacks suggest it to be so. Judd goes down, Carlton go down. Richmond have lost to Gold Coast twice and were lucky to draw with Port (in Melbourne) in round 22. I won't even discuss Brisbane except to say that unless there is another forced merger they are looking at very ordinary times ahead, especially financially. My point is that just because St Kilda has a tragic history pre-1997, this doesn't mean that we will start to struggle again now.
I do however agree with you on one point, Steven, Armo and Ben are going to be excellent players. Why? Because they have turned it on in some very big games against excellent opposition in finals and in crucial matches. You name one occasion when Richmond's "4 or 5 up and coming young stars" have actually done this and I will be the first to admit I have been wrong.

One other point - I seem to remember us making finals in 2005 and 2006 when we had very long injury lists, something that Carlton and Essendon were unable to do obviously.

I dont get this media hack rubbish. They are paid for opinions and they give it. It seems most are media hacks because most will have the Tigers, Blues and Essendon ahead of us. Who knows who is right but it doesnt make them media hacks. What it does do is make a sensible discussion, sensible. Carlton have more than Judd for a start and why would he get injured anyway? I dont get your Richmond comment at all. They only lost to GC once. Surely we dont go back 2 years to prove a point and they drew with PA. No idea what that means. We lost to PA. As for Brisbane have no idea why you mention financially when we are talking who is better. I think we will be better than them this year but their younger players are going well. And I never said Armo, Steven and Ben will be excellent players, I said they have to continue to improve and I think a couple of them can. As for naming Richmonds 4 or 5 young players that played well in crucial matches well beating Sydney by 30 points and the Hawks by 70 suggests they would have done ok and they also beat us. And have no idea what last paragraph has to do with anything relevant either this year or last year.