Ben Long. Furious
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
- Templar
- Club Player
- Posts: 431
- Joined: Mon 16 Aug 2004 11:03am
- Has thanked: 255 times
- Been thanked: 157 times
Re: Ben Long. Furious
Is it another symptom of the failing "bomb it to a pack inside 50" end play?
I saw the Saints bomb it to packs of weagles players on more than a few occasions yesterday
"Look up for god sake. Kick it to a loose fwd." I scream repeatedly as they drag me into the ward in a strait jacket.
I saw the Saints bomb it to packs of weagles players on more than a few occasions yesterday
"Look up for god sake. Kick it to a loose fwd." I scream repeatedly as they drag me into the ward in a strait jacket.
Not "Simon Templar". He was here first. Please change my username to Bumstead and if possible make me one of those very large sandwiches, thanks!
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4624
- Joined: Tue 22 Jan 2008 5:41pm
- Has thanked: 400 times
- Been thanked: 476 times
Re: Ben Long. Furious
I wasn’t thinking of that one saynta..... so that’s 3 times Members ignored him.
On that occasion I accepted him not popping it over to Long who made a clear lead into centre of goal about 35 metres out. If he didn’t hit Long, the ball would have rebounded out through the corridor very quickly as both Shuey & Ryan were in the vicinity. So I forgave Membery that time. However if Members had reacted quickly, he could have got it to Long in any sloppy manner and Long would have been away with a certain goal. Often IMHO Members is a bit too stop & prop to make his decision and the intuitive moment is lost.
- shanegrambeau
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5960
- Joined: Thu 25 Jan 2018 2:15pm
- Has thanked: 327 times
- Been thanked: 710 times
Re: Ben Long. Furious
Did anyone feel the same way as me?
I know it is just emotional and not rational, but when it looked as if Long would come on, I was pleased. Then, when Billings got up and started jogging, I was slightly flattened, thinking that Long would not come on.
He did of course come on and kick a nice goal.
I read about 'pressure acts' etc., and I don't think i know enough about football* to comment, but it does look like he is always behind the play...like there is always an oppo player between him and the ball in contested situations. Hence he gets a lot of tackles, but few first hand possessions. he is rarely first to the ball and often fumbly when so. (notwithstanding the immense pressure and speed as the ball comes in)
When he is running along the wings he looks great.
I think Billings might be cooked now. That was ominous...no idea of course, but based on the fact that he was already injury prone (hammies) and now the back is playing up. Many players recover from bad backs, but they do not retain their full repertoire of tricks or speed. Will he be able to bend down and scoop off the deck? Something Long can do.
* Just because I admit I do not have footy smarts doesn't mean I wont comment...I play the field..and some fine posters on here do the same.
I know it is just emotional and not rational, but when it looked as if Long would come on, I was pleased. Then, when Billings got up and started jogging, I was slightly flattened, thinking that Long would not come on.
He did of course come on and kick a nice goal.
I read about 'pressure acts' etc., and I don't think i know enough about football* to comment, but it does look like he is always behind the play...like there is always an oppo player between him and the ball in contested situations. Hence he gets a lot of tackles, but few first hand possessions. he is rarely first to the ball and often fumbly when so. (notwithstanding the immense pressure and speed as the ball comes in)
When he is running along the wings he looks great.
I think Billings might be cooked now. That was ominous...no idea of course, but based on the fact that he was already injury prone (hammies) and now the back is playing up. Many players recover from bad backs, but they do not retain their full repertoire of tricks or speed. Will he be able to bend down and scoop off the deck? Something Long can do.
* Just because I admit I do not have footy smarts doesn't mean I wont comment...I play the field..and some fine posters on here do the same.
You're quite brilliant Shane, yeah..terrific!
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6415
- Joined: Fri 18 Sep 2020 6:51am
- Has thanked: 854 times
- Been thanked: 1012 times
Re: Ben Long. Furious
Loose forwards is the problem, Richmond's game plan circa 2017 changed the game to get over the defensive zone and ironically to overcome their lack of tall forward marking options via the long bomb over the zone and into F50.Templar wrote: ↑Mon 25 Jul 2022 1:03pm Is it another symptom of the failing "bomb it to a pack inside 50" end play?
I saw the Saints bomb it to packs of weagles players on more than a few occasions yesterday
"Look up for god sake. Kick it to a loose fwd." I scream repeatedly as they drag me into the ward in a strait jacket.
Knuckle Heads on here carry on like Richo and Ratts designed the long bomb exclusively for the Saints game plan.
Loose forwards has been a myth for over 5 years now and as I say from since about circa 2017 and also the introduction of 2 way running. And so now we evolve to the need for at least 2 tall forwards, and not necessarily to mark but to drop the ball to the foreground and then let the forward press and forward defensive profile swarm in and do its thing. It's also to get within 30m of goal to raise the scoring percentages from a stoppage or contested ground ball.
The tweaks to Geelongs game plan seems to be taking us back to the future with a midfield trying to win the corridor and then spread the defence on the F50 entry which is often still via a long bomb but the kicker now has two tall forwards to choose from WHO are spreading to different locations and the profile of the swarm chooses the obvious location to swarm.
We are predictable which is why we are failing because we don't have the extra tall forward and it gets worse if our forward defensive effort and 2 way running is poor which ours has been.
In short loose forwards are hard to find in the modern game but recent rule changes are helping especially late in games when fatigue kicks in and the game opens up but when the tall guys might have a better chance at a mark. AND all teams exploit the long bomb as part of thier game plan, it's not something we are doing accidentally. We just don't have 2 key tall forwards and enough skill and class to execute the long bomb set play....see Geelong for the perfect example. Also see Dogs who are now looking much better with Bruce back...much better.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5410
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 10:29am
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 47 times
Re: Ben Long. Furious
Templar wrote: ↑Mon 25 Jul 2022 10:42am3rd in the Saints tackle count after coming on at quarter time.
Had west coast players ducking for cover and all totally legal.
Nailed a shot on goal from distance.
And last week Long's intensity as emergency sub with short amount of game time was in stark contrast to the rest of the team.
But the haters want him dropped for someone with more elegance and finess. Maybe he should go to Geelong where most of them play like with that level
of damaging intensity.
We can trade him for a sleek looking outside posession gatherer.
and if half our team also only had 5 possessions per game, Saints would not win a game.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12063
- Joined: Thu 04 Jul 2019 8:53pm
- Has thanked: 5 times
- Been thanked: 2603 times
Re: Ben Long. Furious
As a HHF
A serviceable game is 15 possessions and 3-4 tackles
Obviously he defended well
But his offensive game is poor, to touch the ball 5 times in three quarters is extremely low output
He need to find the pill more!
A serviceable game is 15 possessions and 3-4 tackles
Obviously he defended well
But his offensive game is poor, to touch the ball 5 times in three quarters is extremely low output
He need to find the pill more!
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 538
- Joined: Sun 27 May 2018 9:49pm
- Has thanked: 110 times
- Been thanked: 128 times
Re: Ben Long. Furious
You’re having a lend here.Templar wrote: ↑Mon 25 Jul 2022 10:13amSo look at stats and drop Long and Battle? Bring in two player from the magoos that had higher numbers under the D column. Got it.Annoyedsaint wrote: ↑Sun 24 Jul 2022 11:23pm Five possessions lol
It’s not even a duscussion.
Wouldn’t get a game in Geelong’s reserves with 5 possessions.
He’s 24 years old.
Seriously, how much more do you wait??
He’s in delisted territory given he cannot find the ball and doesn’t kick any goals
If you think Long getting 5 possessions and a few tackles in a game (consistently) is acceptable then you clearly don’t want to play finals any time soon.
Battle in that role is fine, but again if you want to rise up the ladder, that position should also be a 12-18 possession game that can be damaging. Being just a stopper doesn’t cut it. Look at Tom Stewart. Same size, can run, mark, intercept.
Do you actually want to win a flag one day?
Time to get ruthless. It’s way overdue.
-
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2490
- Joined: Mon 19 Mar 2012 8:54pm
- Has thanked: 140 times
- Been thanked: 546 times
Re: Ben Long. Furious
Yeah he was 25 meters out straight in front arms waving & not an opponent with in 20m & Members was kicking from outside 50 & yeah missed
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 23208
- Joined: Sat 13 Mar 2004 11:44pm
- Has thanked: 735 times
- Been thanked: 1776 times
Re: Ben Long. Furious
Interesting isn’t it
Long gets 5 possessions but pressure’s immediately
And I’d still take that over Billing’s invisible 25….
Just proof in the modern game disposals are overrated (unless damaging)
Ask Hill - he gets half his running behind a player to receive a handball…
Long gets 5 possessions but pressure’s immediately
And I’d still take that over Billing’s invisible 25….
Just proof in the modern game disposals are overrated (unless damaging)
Ask Hill - he gets half his running behind a player to receive a handball…
“Yeah….nah””
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1824
- Joined: Thu 15 Sep 2011 5:54pm
- Has thanked: 119 times
- Been thanked: 381 times
Re: Ben Long. Furious
I thought the player waving his arms was Butler, not Long.bangaulegend wrote: ↑Mon 25 Jul 2022 10:23pmYeah he was 25 meters out straight in front arms waving & not an opponent with in 20m & Members was kicking from outside 50 & yeah missed
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 23208
- Joined: Sat 13 Mar 2004 11:44pm
- Has thanked: 735 times
- Been thanked: 1776 times
Re: Ben Long. Furious
Loose forwards you say??Vortex wrote: ↑Mon 25 Jul 2022 2:03pmLoose forwards is the problem, Richmond's game plan circa 2017 changed the game to get over the defensive zone and ironically to overcome their lack of tall forward marking options via the long bomb over the zone and into F50.Templar wrote: ↑Mon 25 Jul 2022 1:03pm Is it another symptom of the failing "bomb it to a pack inside 50" end play?
I saw the Saints bomb it to packs of weagles players on more than a few occasions yesterday
"Look up for god sake. Kick it to a loose fwd." I scream repeatedly as they drag me into the ward in a strait jacket.
Knuckle Heads on here carry on like Richo and Ratts designed the long bomb exclusively for the Saints game plan.
Loose forwards has been a myth for over 5 years now and as I say from since about circa 2017 and also the introduction of 2 way running. And so now we evolve to the need for at least 2 tall forwards, and not necessarily to mark but to drop the ball to the foreground and then let the forward press and forward defensive profile swarm in and do its thing. It's also to get within 30m of goal to raise the scoring percentages from a stoppage or contested ground ball.
The tweaks to Geelongs game plan seems to be taking us back to the future with a midfield trying to win the corridor and then spread the defence on the F50 entry which is often still via a long bomb but the kicker now has two tall forwards to choose from WHO are spreading to different locations and the profile of the swarm chooses the obvious location to swarm.
We are predictable which is why we are failing because we don't have the extra tall forward and it gets worse if our forward defensive effort and 2 way running is poor which ours has been.
In short loose forwards are hard to find in the modern game but recent rule changes are helping especially late in games when fatigue kicks in and the game opens up but when the tall guys might have a better chance at a mark. AND all teams exploit the long bomb as part of thier game plan, it's not something we are doing accidentally. We just don't have 2 key tall forwards and enough skill and class to execute the long bomb set play....see Geelong for the perfect example. Also see Dogs who are now looking much better with Bruce back...much better.
Interesting theory….I suspect loose posting…..cause what a load of bollocks
Geelong forwards lead up at the kicker
Swans too via Buddy
Carlton also shatter this myth
Sure if forwards can’t mark it they bring it to ground
But the % of entries are mixed between lead up forwards and a long kick in
We have 1 trick and everyone knows it
Ironically we have a super star forward whose power is on the lead ….
But we are instructing him to stand still 30 out while we bomb on your head
Go figure
“Yeah….nah””
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 23208
- Joined: Sat 13 Mar 2004 11:44pm
- Has thanked: 735 times
- Been thanked: 1776 times
Re: Ben Long. Furious
Was Longtakeaway wrote: ↑Mon 25 Jul 2022 10:47pmI thought the player waving his arms was Butler, not Long.bangaulegend wrote: ↑Mon 25 Jul 2022 10:23pmYeah he was 25 meters out straight in front arms waving & not an opponent with in 20m & Members was kicking from outside 50 & yeah missed
“Yeah….nah””
-
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2490
- Joined: Mon 19 Mar 2012 8:54pm
- Has thanked: 140 times
- Been thanked: 546 times
Re: Ben Long. Furious
Definitely not on the incident I was referring totakeaway wrote: ↑Mon 25 Jul 2022 10:47pmI thought the player waving his arms was Butler, not Long.bangaulegend wrote: ↑Mon 25 Jul 2022 10:23pmYeah he was 25 meters out straight in front arms waving & not an opponent with in 20m & Members was kicking from outside 50 & yeah missed
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1824
- Joined: Thu 15 Sep 2011 5:54pm
- Has thanked: 119 times
- Been thanked: 381 times
Re: Ben Long. Furious
If that was when Membrey kicked a point I reckon it was No.16.Teflon wrote: ↑Mon 25 Jul 2022 10:50pmWas Longtakeaway wrote: ↑Mon 25 Jul 2022 10:47pmI thought the player waving his arms was Butler, not Long.bangaulegend wrote: ↑Mon 25 Jul 2022 10:23pmYeah he was 25 meters out straight in front arms waving & not an opponent with in 20m & Members was kicking from outside 50 & yeah missed
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 23208
- Joined: Sat 13 Mar 2004 11:44pm
- Has thanked: 735 times
- Been thanked: 1776 times
Re: Ben Long. Furious
Couldn’t be arsed checking 5ape but I saw Long on a few occasions free and not hit uptakeaway wrote: ↑Mon 25 Jul 2022 11:03pmIf that was when Membrey kicked a point I reckon it was No.16.Teflon wrote: ↑Mon 25 Jul 2022 10:50pmWas Longtakeaway wrote: ↑Mon 25 Jul 2022 10:47pmI thought the player waving his arms was Butler, not Long.bangaulegend wrote: ↑Mon 25 Jul 2022 10:23pmYeah he was 25 meters out straight in front arms waving & not an opponent with in 20m & Members was kicking from outside 50 & yeah missed
“Yeah….nah””
- Templar
- Club Player
- Posts: 431
- Joined: Mon 16 Aug 2004 11:03am
- Has thanked: 255 times
- Been thanked: 157 times
Re: Ben Long. Furious
I thought his tackling and pressure in the past two games WAS ruthless.
But you disagree and are dropping Long for the rest of the year so
we can play finals? Who is having the lend?
For me I am tired of watching other teams like Geelong, bash, crash and throw our players around like rag dolls and reducing our interchange options. Sometimes it is like watching men playing against boys. Particularly that game against the cats last year.
I find it refreshing to have someone in the team who doesn't hesitate in giving it back. Plus in the past few weeks Longy seems to be channeling that aggression perfectly legally. Controlled aggression. That was part of his remit. Well done I say.
In what appears to be a tail between the legs like attitude from the majority of the squad since the bye you want to punish this improvement, this aggressive footy, and drop Long for who? Someone else from our long list of tough guys?
For mine I want more players like him not less. Players who will scare the bedevil out of the opposition.
Not "Simon Templar". He was here first. Please change my username to Bumstead and if possible make me one of those very large sandwiches, thanks!
-
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2490
- Joined: Mon 19 Mar 2012 8:54pm
- Has thanked: 140 times
- Been thanked: 546 times
Re: Ben Long. Furious
I couldn't see his number as he was looking straight at Membrey & in the incident I'm referring to it was Long but maybe you saw something different & if that's what you saw well I'm happy to leave it at thatTeflon wrote: ↑Mon 25 Jul 2022 11:05pmCouldn’t be arsed checking 5ape but I saw Long on a few occasions free and not hit uptakeaway wrote: ↑Mon 25 Jul 2022 11:03pmIf that was when Membrey kicked a point I reckon it was No.16.Teflon wrote: ↑Mon 25 Jul 2022 10:50pmWas Longtakeaway wrote: ↑Mon 25 Jul 2022 10:47pmI thought the player waving his arms was Butler, not Long.bangaulegend wrote: ↑Mon 25 Jul 2022 10:23pmYeah he was 25 meters out straight in front arms waving & not an opponent with in 20m & Members was kicking from outside 50 & yeah missed
![Wink :wink:](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 538
- Joined: Sun 27 May 2018 9:49pm
- Has thanked: 110 times
- Been thanked: 128 times
Re: Ben Long. Furious
Ok then, find better players that can have 25-30 possessions then that play like Long.Templar wrote: ↑Mon 25 Jul 2022 11:32pmI thought his tackling and pressure in the past two games WAS ruthless.
But you disagree and are dropping Long for the rest of the year so
we can play finals? Who is having the lend?
For me I am tired of watching other teams like Geelong, bash, crash and throw our players around like rag dolls and reducing our interchange options. Sometimes it is like watching men playing against boys. Particularly that game against the cats last year.
I find it refreshing to have someone in the team who doesn't hesitate in giving it back. Plus in the past few weeks Longy seems to be channeling that aggression perfectly legally. Controlled aggression. That was part of his remit. Well done I say.
In what appears to be a tail between the legs like attitude from the majority of the squad since the bye you want to punish this improvement, this aggressive footy, and drop Long for who? Someone else from our long list of tough guys?
For mine I want more players like him not less. Players who will scare the bedevil out of the opposition.
Point being we will always miss finals with these players in the side with current output. Fact.
We always have these half forward sink hole players.
Long
Billings
Kent
In the past:
Weller
Minchington
They are crap!!! Draft a dumpy kid that can rack them up for once.
Playing with 3-4 every week that offer nothing offensively = cannot possibly win on a regular basis
- Templar
- Club Player
- Posts: 431
- Joined: Mon 16 Aug 2004 11:03am
- Has thanked: 255 times
- Been thanked: 157 times
Re: Ben Long. Furious
So you aren't dropping him this week. Cool.
Not "Simon Templar". He was here first. Please change my username to Bumstead and if possible make me one of those very large sandwiches, thanks!
- Templar
- Club Player
- Posts: 431
- Joined: Mon 16 Aug 2004 11:03am
- Has thanked: 255 times
- Been thanked: 157 times
Re: Ben Long. Furious
If the opposition defensive tactic is to crowd Max King with two or three defenders (which seems to happen more often than not) then doesn't that create an opportunity as it leaves two Saints players unmarked. Isn't that basic math?Vortex wrote: ↑Mon 25 Jul 2022 2:03pmLoose forwards is the problem, Richmond's game plan circa 2017 changed the game to get over the defensive zone and ironically to overcome their lack of tall forward marking options via the long bomb over the zone and into F50.Templar wrote: ↑Mon 25 Jul 2022 1:03pm Is it another symptom of the failing "bomb it to a pack inside 50" end play?
I saw the Saints bomb it to packs of weagles players on more than a few occasions yesterday
"Look up for god sake. Kick it to a loose fwd." I scream repeatedly as they drag me into the ward in a strait jacket.
Knuckle Heads on here carry on like Richo and Ratts designed the long bomb exclusively for the Saints game plan.
Loose forwards has been a myth for over 5 years now and as I say from since about circa 2017 and also the introduction of 2 way running. And so now we evolve to the need for at least 2 tall forwards, and not necessarily to mark but to drop the ball to the foreground and then let the forward press and forward defensive profile swarm in and do its thing. It's also to get within 30m of goal to raise the scoring percentages from a stoppage or contested ground ball.
The tweaks to Geelongs game plan seems to be taking us back to the future with a midfield trying to win the corridor and then spread the defence on the F50 entry which is often still via a long bomb but the kicker now has two tall forwards to choose from WHO are spreading to different locations and the profile of the swarm chooses the obvious location to swarm.
We are predictable which is why we are failing because we don't have the extra tall forward and it gets worse if our forward defensive effort and 2 way running is poor which ours has been.
In short loose forwards are hard to find in the modern game but recent rule changes are helping especially late in games when fatigue kicks in and the game opens up but when the tall guys might have a better chance at a mark. AND all teams exploit the long bomb as part of thier game plan, it's not something we are doing accidentally. We just don't have 2 key tall forwards and enough skill and class to execute the long bomb set play....see Geelong for the perfect example. Also see Dogs who are now looking much better with Bruce back...much better.
Yet we continue to bomb to the 3 on 1 rather than look for these unmarked players. Worse still is when these unmarkwd players join the Max pack and congest things further.
Happy to be called clueless, but it seems fairly logical to me as both teams have 18 players on the field and when King is getting triple tagged that must create opportunity. But we don't appear to be cognisant of this nor do we look for them.
If I had to summarise our current fwd strategy in four words it would be Jack In The Pack. Or in two words: Dumb Footy.
Not "Simon Templar". He was here first. Please change my username to Bumstead and if possible make me one of those very large sandwiches, thanks!
- The Fireman
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 13241
- Joined: Mon 08 Mar 2004 11:54pm
- Has thanked: 644 times
- Been thanked: 1907 times
Re: Ben Long. Furious
Spot on templar
I think most realise this yet it doesn’t appear to play out on the field
Is it simply a lack of skill and awareness of our mids ? Or lack of direction from the coach or the pressure,,,actual or perceived..from opposition?
Frustrating
I think most realise this yet it doesn’t appear to play out on the field
Is it simply a lack of skill and awareness of our mids ? Or lack of direction from the coach or the pressure,,,actual or perceived..from opposition?
Frustrating
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6415
- Joined: Fri 18 Sep 2020 6:51am
- Has thanked: 854 times
- Been thanked: 1012 times
Re: Ben Long. Furious
Its not a static set up from the 90s. Our forward defensive pressure is 17th or 18th. The loose forwards you refer to could be having a smoke up the ground for all we know and couldn't be stuffed running back or were just completely caught out of position becaue they refuse to play the 2 way running game and get around those 2 or 3 loose defenders who decidesld not to have a smoke and run back with Max who was not having a smoke and was running back hard.Templar wrote: ↑Tue 26 Jul 2022 7:21amIf the opposition defensive tactic is to crowd Max King with two or three defenders (which seems to happen more often than not) then doesn't that create an opportunity as it leaves two Saints players unmarked. Isn't that basic math?Vortex wrote: ↑Mon 25 Jul 2022 2:03pmLoose forwards is the problem, Richmond's game plan circa 2017 changed the game to get over the defensive zone and ironically to overcome their lack of tall forward marking options via the long bomb over the zone and into F50.Templar wrote: ↑Mon 25 Jul 2022 1:03pm Is it another symptom of the failing "bomb it to a pack inside 50" end play?
I saw the Saints bomb it to packs of weagles players on more than a few occasions yesterday
"Look up for god sake. Kick it to a loose fwd." I scream repeatedly as they drag me into the ward in a strait jacket.
Knuckle Heads on here carry on like Richo and Ratts designed the long bomb exclusively for the Saints game plan.
Loose forwards has been a myth for over 5 years now and as I say from since about circa 2017 and also the introduction of 2 way running. And so now we evolve to the need for at least 2 tall forwards, and not necessarily to mark but to drop the ball to the foreground and then let the forward press and forward defensive profile swarm in and do its thing. It's also to get within 30m of goal to raise the scoring percentages from a stoppage or contested ground ball.
The tweaks to Geelongs game plan seems to be taking us back to the future with a midfield trying to win the corridor and then spread the defence on the F50 entry which is often still via a long bomb but the kicker now has two tall forwards to choose from WHO are spreading to different locations and the profile of the swarm chooses the obvious location to swarm.
We are predictable which is why we are failing because we don't have the extra tall forward and it gets worse if our forward defensive effort and 2 way running is poor which ours has been.
In short loose forwards are hard to find in the modern game but recent rule changes are helping especially late in games when fatigue kicks in and the game opens up but when the tall guys might have a better chance at a mark. AND all teams exploit the long bomb as part of thier game plan, it's not something we are doing accidentally. We just don't have 2 key tall forwards and enough skill and class to execute the long bomb set play....see Geelong for the perfect example. Also see Dogs who are now looking much better with Bruce back...much better.
Yet we continue to bomb to the 3 on 1 rather than look for these unmarked players. Worse still is when these unmarkwd players join the Max pack and congest things further.
Happy to be called clueless, but it seems fairly logical to me as both teams have 18 players on the field and when King is getting triple tagged that must create opportunity. But we don't appear to be cognisant of this nor do we look for them.
If I had to summarise our current fwd strategy in four words it would be Jack In The Pack. Or in two words: Dumb Footy.
The "loose forards" are loose, just loose in the wrong part of the ground. It's why just about all our small forwards and flankers gave all been dropped this year.
- shanegrambeau
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5960
- Joined: Thu 25 Jan 2018 2:15pm
- Has thanked: 327 times
- Been thanked: 710 times
Re: Ben Long. Furious
Teflon wrote: ↑Mon 25 Jul 2022 10:50pmGeelong have Mitch Duncan...
He delivers into forward 50 so nicely, the forwards are ready and race forward without a thought...they know they will get it lace out.
When we have Ross, Gresh, Jones and Crouch ...it is anyone's guess. It makes sense for a contested bomb as long as the numbers are in our favour...and they are often not.
Mighty Max is a contested freak, but he can't beat four on his own..
Recruit Duncan!
You're quite brilliant Shane, yeah..terrific!
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 23010
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 3:53pm
- Has thanked: 8902 times
- Been thanked: 3883 times
Re: Ben Long. Furious
Excellent post. Weagles also ragged dolled a few of our players. We need to toughen up.Templar wrote: ↑Mon 25 Jul 2022 11:32pmI thought his tackling and pressure in the past two games WAS ruthless.
But you disagree and are dropping Long for the rest of the year so
we can play finals? Who is having the lend?
For me I am tired of watching other teams like Geelong, bash, crash and throw our players around like rag dolls and reducing our interchange options. Sometimes it is like watching men playing against boys. Particularly that game against the cats last year.
I find it refreshing to have someone in the team who doesn't hesitate in giving it back. Plus in the past few weeks Longy seems to be channeling that aggression perfectly legally. Controlled aggression. That was part of his remit. Well done I say.
In what appears to be a tail between the legs like attitude from the majority of the squad since the bye you want to punish this improvement, this aggressive footy, and drop Long for who? Someone else from our long list of tough guys?
For mine I want more players like him not less. Players who will scare the bedevil out of the opposition.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12063
- Joined: Thu 04 Jul 2019 8:53pm
- Has thanked: 5 times
- Been thanked: 2603 times
Re: Ben Long. Furious
Sorry to bust your bubble
Few if any, if they reach that level are scared on a footy ground
To be drafted, you need to be a star junior or state league player
Doesn’t happen if you’re scared
A 181cm 79kg Ben Long aint scaring many/any AFL players
He might pressure them, he might lay a big tackle or two - but that happens in footy
Does David McKay scare anyone? Because he put Hunter Clark in hospital - nope - not even Hunter
Few if any, if they reach that level are scared on a footy ground
To be drafted, you need to be a star junior or state league player
Doesn’t happen if you’re scared
A 181cm 79kg Ben Long aint scaring many/any AFL players
He might pressure them, he might lay a big tackle or two - but that happens in footy
Does David McKay scare anyone? Because he put Hunter Clark in hospital - nope - not even Hunter