It is quite simple RF. I explained the expectation. I am sorry if it is a bit complex for you. I see you are negative toward the game you only watched on TV from another thread so I suppose I wouldn't get anything positive from you.rodgerfox wrote: Why would there be that expectation? It's a praccy match. Conversely, where Harvey was going at about 70% last night (as he always does pre-season) the Saints' new players and young guys would be going at 110% - they want a spot.
Oh and you can only go at 100% not 110%.
joffaboy wrote: It was expected that Richmond would want to hit the ground running in 2008 after their dreadful 2007 and the Saints would struggle against a more cohesive senior team.
rodgerfox wrote:Who expected it?
The punter and the bookies.
Started well and then spoiled by injury in the season proper. Got beaten in a quagmire in Cairns in the pre seasonrodgerfox wrote:I'd imagine the Saints had a lot more to prove in terms of 2007 than anyone in the comp.
Why is it worth noting? They nearly had a full team in, much more experienced than our team last night.rodgerfox wrote:It's worth noting too, that in fairness to Richmond they aren't overly experienced anyway.
Thanks Sherlock. Who is taking it seriously? We are discussing Richmond and the fact that they were woeful. Aren't we allowed to discuss a game?rodgerfox wrote:It happens every year. February flag favourites pop up, and wooden spoon favourties pop up.
It amazes me how obtuse you are. Nobody is proclaiming anything except for the mouths on radio who are all predicting St.Kilda for a top fourrodgerfox wrote:It still amazes me that anyone still correlates the NAB Cup with the real stuff.
Oh please tell us when you deem it allowable to discuss a game that you didn't even turn up to.
Would be terrible to be optimistic wouldn't it?