the power of Bakes

[saintbrat]

as ever on the alert for snippets of Saints news or info.

last evenings news had an interview with Marc Murphy- Blues young Gun
queried on Judds arrival etc and during his reply

he said he was looking forward to getting ideas on how to beat players who toweled him up during 2007- Baker and Bowden

Juddy may not have much to offer when from memory Bakes has kept him quiet the last few meetings-

[Armoooo]

They rarely ever play each other, he always seems to get suspended just before we played them...

[|Andy|]

and then they showed footage of bakes punching murphy in the sides whilst waiting for the ball to be bounced or something. pretty rat act. wasnt impressed with it.

[Eastern]

and then they showed footage of bakes punching murphy in the sides whilst waiting for the ball to be bounced or something. pretty rat act. wasnt impressed with it.

Whatever it takes !!

[Armoooo]

I'd have to disagree, I'm all with playing hard but still playing within the rules...
I don't want to win by dirty tactics...

[|Andy|]

I'd have to disagree, I'm all with playing hard but still playing within the rules...
I don't want to win by dirty tactics...

hear hear.
e.g, West Coast 06 premiership.

[Saints Premiers 2008]

I'd have to disagree, I'm all with playing hard but still playing within the rules...
I don't want to win by dirty tactics...

hear hear.
e.g, West Coast 06 premiership.

i really dont care...

something that made us so formidible was our agressive nature in 2004...we had heaps of player gone for week long holidays but it was worth it big time...we could match it with the big boys both through our skills and when the rough stuff came on (apart from the qf against brisbane in brisbane...we were overawed in our first final in a long time)

[Armoooo]

I'd have to disagree, I'm all with playing hard but still playing within the rules...
I don't want to win by dirty tactics...

hear hear.
e.g, West Coast 06 premiership.

i really dont care...

something that made us so formidible was our agressive nature in 2004...we had heaps of player gone for week long holidays but it was worth it big time...we could match it with the big boys both through our skills and when the rough stuff came on (apart from the qf against brisbane in brisbane...we were overawed in our first final in a long time)

I believe you can be rough without having to get suspended, instead of hitting players off the ball I would rather see ferocious tackles and harder hip and shoulders....
IMO a win gotten through cheating is not worth it...

P.S. Nice username

[Saints Premiers 2008]

I'd have to disagree, I'm all with playing hard but still playing within the rules...
I don't want to win by dirty tactics...

hear hear.
e.g, West Coast 06 premiership.

i really dont care...

something that made us so formidible was our agressive nature in 2004...we had heaps of player gone for week long holidays but it was worth it big time...we could match it with the big boys both through our skills and when the rough stuff came on (apart from the qf against brisbane in brisbane...we were overawed in our first final in a long time)

I believe you can be rough without having to get suspended, instead of hitting players off the ball I would rather see ferocious tackles and harder hip and shoulders....
IMO a win gotten through cheating is not worth it...

P.S. Nice username

everyone is pointing out out...thank you for alluding everyone to it once again hehehe

in essence a team is going to have players getting suspended if they go hard at the ball continuously...look at the lions in their golden period...

the eagles arent exactly soft either

im comfortable with it

[Armoooo]

Oh yeah, I have no problem if a player goes in hard and accidentally goes a bit high and cops a suspension, but if players are going out with orders to hurt the player off the ball, I wouldn't be ok with that...

[The_Dud]

my grandma hits harder than what Bakes did to Murphey

[Armoooo]

my grandma hits harder than what Bakes did to Murphey

I can't comment because I haven't seen it so I tried not to refer to any specific examples, but I was just stating how I feel about playing dirty...

[The_Dud]

my grandma hits harder than what Bakes did to Murphey

I can't comment because I haven't seen it so I tried not to refer to any specific examples, but I was just stating how I feel about playing dirty...

yeah i know, it was more of just a general comment

[Huzzad]

Not a big fan of playing dirty either *cough Barry Hall's Lovetap *cough* whether it is us or them, though for some reason watching Bakes hitting people is kinda fun...except for the suspension part.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

I'd have to disagree, I'm all with playing hard but still playing within the rules...
I don't want to win by dirty tactics...

hear hear.
e.g, West Coast 06 premiership.

i really dont care...

something that made us so formidible was our agressive nature in 2004...we had heaps of player gone for week long holidays but it was worth it big time...we could match it with the big boys both through our skills and when the rough stuff came on (apart from the qf against brisbane in brisbane...we were overawed in our first final in a long time)

Reading on here about the missed op in 2004, I sometimes think people remember a different team to the bunch of kids that actually took the field. While I wouldn't go as far as saying they were soft or fragile, the 2k4 Saints definately weren't tough... they relied very heavily on Hammill to be the enforcer and fly the flag. Obviously there were a few that could look after themselves, but a lot of the players we really realied on (Dal, Ball, Riewoldt) weren't nearly as strong as they are now. Other players that could take care of themselves (Jones, Hayes, Harvey) without protection certainly couldn't protect anyone else. In defense Goose would fly the flag, and Penny never took a backwards step, and you'd get yap out of guys like Milne, Bakes and Black... but I doubt we intimidated anyone with physical aggression (other than Hammill) all year long.

As I recall toughness was always a concern with that team. It wasn't an achilles heal or anything, but certainly wasn't a strength.

We can't write off the final v Brisbane as experience either - it was a carbon copy of what happened the week before. As opposed to the game at T Dome, that was Brisbane firing, full strength, and tough - and who only just ran out of gas in the GF vs a very good Port Adelaide team.

Frankly, while IMO it was the best opportunity the GT Saints had in hindsight, at the time if the Saints had managed to pinch the '04 premiership, it would have seemed a bonus. '04 was a statement to themselves as much as anyone... the skill was there, the mental fortitude wasn't. Ironically these days, a lot of the players remaind from that team now seem to have the fortitude, there just isn't the same class about the team as a whole.

[rodgerfox]

I'd have to disagree, I'm all with playing hard but still playing within the rules...
I don't want to win by dirty tactics...

What rule did he break?

[riccardo]

I'd have to disagree, I'm all with playing hard but still playing within the rules...
I don't want to win by dirty tactics...

hear hear.
e.g, West Coast 06 premiership.

I doubt the Eagles care how they won the Flag. They have it, we don't.

FWIW, I'd be happy to win if all 15 other sides players came down with Avian Flu and had to be quarrentined, so we won by default.

[HarveysDeciple]

Agree with the comments on aggression.

During the first 10 rounds of 2004 when we were playing probably our best football, we were having 1 or 2 players reported every week.

[Saints Premiers 2008]

Agree with the comments on aggression.

During the first 10 rounds of 2004 when we were playing probably our best football, we were having 1 or 2 players reported every week.

in my opinion that is okay...i remember kosi got done twice (one for a silly kneeing charge but it was there), bakes punched out tivendale, sammy got done once for something and i think so did lenny

all good with me