Actually, I think you did.
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
Thats it?JeffDunne wrote:Should of saved yourself the time Teffers and simply posted "I blame Grant Thomas".
Actually, I think you did.
Did I miss something?Teflon wrote:Thats it?JeffDunne wrote:Should of saved yourself the time Teffers and simply posted "I blame Grant Thomas".
Actually, I think you did.
According to the coach we "sat" with the same game plan, the same "fundamentals", the same "strategy" as we had in Rd 1 yet by the hand of god only!! somehow started winning games in the second half of the year....let me guess....those games (according to you) we were losing out of the coaches box we all of a sudden started to win cause the coach got magically better????????????bigcarl wrote:where did we sit for the season as a whole?Oh When the Saints wrote:From Rounds 11-22, we were #3 in the AFL in this statistic. In 2006, we were around #8-9 in this statistic..bigcarl wrote: they were best for converting inside 50s into goals; we were among the worst.
Im convinced this is actually written on your birth certificate......but the answer is...yes......yes you did......and who has the time to "school" Jeffery over, and over and over again.....JeffDunne wrote:Did I miss something?Teflon wrote:Thats it?JeffDunne wrote:Should of saved yourself the time Teffers and simply posted "I blame Grant Thomas".
Actually, I think you did.
Bingo Tezza - throw in Jeffery and youve got the daily double for stupidity - Mischa gives you the trifecta.....tezza1 wrote:I like the way dodg compares the 2004 list to the 2007 and implies same personal but inferior performance.................must be the coach.
Thats because a lot of the list were not capable of 2004 like performance whether it was chronic injury ala hammill and Ball, best football behind them ala gehrig , or plain not on the field ala Goose or Goddard. or even recovering from major injury like Lenny...................
Quite contrary to popular belief...the idea that one sees perfectly well when ones head is kept firmly on ones shoulders is perfectly normal.....JeffDunne wrote:Quite an amazing feat given where your head is usually positioned.Teflon wrote:Yes but I can still see....
i genuinely hope you're right and that RL is the man to take us to the holy grail. i want to believe that he is, but you'll forgive me for not being convinced on the evidence of 2007.Oh When the Saints wrote:I felt we got the balance right between attack and defence in the second half of 2007.
But we fell over the line in some games? All fitness. Fitness. Fitness.
Fitness and nothing else IMO.
Around 14th I believe. I took heart out of the improvement in that stat, which I mainly put down to injuries and a playing group still adapting to exactly what the coach wanted.bigcarl wrote:where did we sit for the season as a whole? i'm guessing it wasn't good.Oh When the Saints wrote:From Rounds 11-22, we were #3 in the AFL in this statistic. In 2006, we were around #8-9 in this statistic.bigcarl wrote: they were best for converting inside 50s into goals; we were among the worst.
Perfectly reasonable. At the end of the day the scoreboard doesn't lie, and the scoreboard doesn't have a premiership next to RL yet.bigcarl wrote:i genuinely hope you're right and that RL is the man to take us to the holy grail. but forgive me for not being convinced yet on the results i've seen so far.Oh When the Saints wrote:I felt we got the balance right between attack and defence in the second half of 2007.
But we fell over the line in some games? All fitness. Fitness. Fitness.
Fitness and nothing else IMO.
Fair enough Carl only 1 result really matters in the end and Grant never got that either so we'll see what Ross conjures...but I do have you top of my list of doubters for holy grail day.....bigcarl wrote:i genuinely hope you're right and that RL is the man to take us to the holy grail. but forgive me for not being convinced yet on the results i've seen so far.Oh When the Saints wrote:I felt we got the balance right between attack and defence in the second half of 2007.
But we fell over the line in some games? All fitness. Fitness. Fitness.
Fitness and nothing else IMO.
i think ross will benefit from working under new leadership in 2008.Teflon wrote:Fair enough Carl only 1 result really matters in the end and Grant never got that either so we'll see what Ross conjures...but I do have you top of my list of doubters for holy grail day.....bigcarl wrote:i genuinely hope you're right and that RL is the man to take us to the holy grail. but forgive me for not being convinced yet on the results i've seen so far.Oh When the Saints wrote:I felt we got the balance right between attack and defence in the second half of 2007.
But we fell over the line in some games? All fitness. Fitness. Fitness.
Fitness and nothing else IMO.
bigcarl wrote:they also had 5 guys who kicked 30 or more goals for the season; we had three. they were best for converting inside 50s into goals; we were among the worst.Quixote wrote:Note the way in which RL describes the Geelong brand of play... he thought they "competed well" (A), "tackled strongly" (B) and were "clean/efficient" (C).
what RL is talking about above is fundamentals. i'm talking about gameplan and structure. they are different.
our gameplan in 2007 was lousy and cost us games. as i've said countless times in other threads we need more consistent and reliable avenues to goal and it starts by having guys who can kick goals within kicking distance
btw. you're right that footy is a simple game ... if you don't outscore your opponent you won't win.
Worth noting though, that these 3 fundamentals have been 'the' fundamentals of the club for the past 5 years.Quixote wrote:Ok...
In the interview, RL clearly states his three fundamental objectives for the team -
A) Win the contested ball
B) Tackle strongly
C) Use the ball well
These are very logical stipulations. If we could perform these three fundamentals to a high quality week-in week-out, we would be a very good football team.
Oh dear.Teflon wrote:This is the same "best list" you told us all for weeks was a nonsense?........this is worse hypocrisy than our rotational cpataincy policy developing leaders yet the job is merely a coin toss - which is Dodg? best list or a convenient argument when Jeff pandering?rodgerfox wrote: We went from having the 'best list in the AFL' and finishing 4th, 4th and 6th (% off 4th again) to missing the 8 by 2 wins and suddenly having gaping holes in our list.
Hamill didn't play in the finals of 2005. Ball was cactus for the second half of 2005 and couldn't run in the finals. Roo played the year with a bad shoulder.tezza1 wrote:I like the way dodg compares the 2004 list to the 2007 and implies same personal but inferior performance.................must be the coach.
Thats because a lot of the list were not capable of 2004 like performance whether it was chronic injury ala hammill and Ball, best football behind them ala gehrig , or plain not on the field ala Goose or Goddard. or even recovering from major injury like Lenny...................
This to me, summarises my view on everything over the past 3-4 years. I'm often misquoted or misinterpreted, so I'll lay it out again....joffaboy wrote:To be fair to RodgerFox, he has consistanty pooh poohed the best list in the comp myth for many years.
I cant think I remember him saying it once.
I would like to hear from RodgerFox on his other pet theory regarding last season which is injuries. I seem to recall that we had a plethora of injuries for the whole of the first half of the season. This must have something to do with performance and the three "fundamentals" of
A) Win the contested ball
B) Tackle strongly
C) Use the ball well
being inferior to the three previous years.
However I do feel that it is just not a simplistic blame the current, previous coach.