What actually happened after quarter time?
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5021
- Joined: Sun 14 Mar 2004 10:42am
- Location: Bayside
- Has thanked: 9 times
- Been thanked: 93 times
I beg to differ, I thought Charlie was very ordinary, struggled to get involved, moved slowly round the ball and failed to win contested ball enough. That's two weeks running now. With G back this week he gets dropped and Goddard comes in to play his role.vacuous space wrote:Gehrig plays deep forward; Charlie plays between the arcs. Charlie did his job on Saturday night. He took marks, used the ball well and maintained possession in a possession game. I see no reason to drop him for an extra midfield body.hAyES wrote:If all C. Gardiner is going to is take a mark every now and then, send him to the 2's and put in another midfielder for some more run. I didn't think he was very impressive at all, so when Gehrig comes back he's going to have no use.
I thought Schneider was ordinary as well, I give him the benefit of the doubt given we played Sydney.
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3465
- Joined: Fri 29 Oct 2004 1:01pm
- Has thanked: 91 times
- Been thanked: 162 times
Who is it that you're worried about if we go in tall? Most of our talls are pretty mobile including Gardiner. Carlton will have Jamison, Thornton and Waite it defence at the very least. If they want to play Thornton loose again, they're going to have to go with another tall to cover Roo/Kosi/G. Their smaller defenders aren't going to burn us for pace and agility anyway. Houlihan, possibly Scotland, maybe Grigg or Bannister will be back there. I don't see the problem with backing four 190cm players against that group. They're weak in the air and not strong on the gound. Let's expose them for it.hAyES wrote:When Gehrig comes back I think having Charlie in there as well is going to be too tall of a forward line. And yes, there is such a thing. Just because he wasn't terrible doesn't mean he deserves a spot.
Yeah nah pleasing positive
- snoopygirl
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3589
- Joined: Tue 18 May 2004 11:56am
- Location: Cranbourne East
A very close friend of mine is a Geelong supporter (one of the less obnoxious ones) & he said Charlie Gardiner will let us down in the season proper & Steven King couldn't take a mark to save himself. Noticed King drop a few easy marks during the NAB cup & on Sat. night, so I'm just hoping it's coincidence.
- GeorgeYoung27
- Club Player
- Posts: 660
- Joined: Mon 19 Apr 2004 2:54pm
- Location: on a tight angle at the South Rd end
I wasn't going off one game, I was going off the last game and the entire NAB cup.GeorgeYoung27 wrote:Remind me which game you were watching. Obviously not one with Barry Hall playing in. I'm sure the Swans will be dropping O'Laughlin, Hall and Goodes as they all played worse than Charlie.And just on Gardiner again, I've never seen someone drop so many chest marks.
- GeorgeYoung27
- Club Player
- Posts: 660
- Joined: Mon 19 Apr 2004 2:54pm
- Location: on a tight angle at the South Rd end
Well then I'm bloody glad you are not coaching the team, as you've also just started a thread attacking Raph (again). Thank goodness we haven't lost a game this season so far. Dropping Raph, Charlie etc on winning form and good contributions means we would struggle to find half a team if we were losing.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 18635
- Joined: Thu 11 Mar 2004 1:36am
- Has thanked: 1979 times
- Been thanked: 865 times
people tend to remember mistakes, especially clangers, such as raph being mowed down late in the last quarter when he thought he was in the clear.
... or for that matter schneider being embarrassingly mowed down by barry hall after not heeding the umpire's call to play on.
it probably went unnoticed by a few but just a couple of minutes later raphael took a terrific contested mark which probably stopped a sydney goal.
schneider also had his chance to make amends but managed only a point.
no-one is calling for his head.
i say cut the kid some slack and perservere with raphael. i thought that for a kid with only 30-odd games under his belt he performed admirably.
... or for that matter schneider being embarrassingly mowed down by barry hall after not heeding the umpire's call to play on.
it probably went unnoticed by a few but just a couple of minutes later raphael took a terrific contested mark which probably stopped a sydney goal.
schneider also had his chance to make amends but managed only a point.
no-one is calling for his head.
i say cut the kid some slack and perservere with raphael. i thought that for a kid with only 30-odd games under his belt he performed admirably.
If they play crap and there's nobody to replace them, then fine. But there are players like Gehrig, Goddard and Maguire to come back in and to me, those are two that should be dropped. With the depth that we have this year even if players are playing well (for them) they could be dropped. Anybody can do the role that Raph has been given and do it a hell of a lot better.GeorgeYoung27 wrote:Well then I'm bloody glad you are not coaching the team, as you've also just started a thread attacking Raph (again). Thank goodness we haven't lost a game this season so far. Dropping Raph, Charlie etc on winning form and good contributions means we would struggle to find half a team if we were losing.
- meher baba
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7220
- Joined: Mon 14 Aug 2006 6:49am
- Location: Tasmania
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 516 times
Agree totally with Raph, but Charlie's problem is that I didn't notice him do one constructive thing all night!! At least Schneider kicked a goal.bigcarl wrote:people tend to remember mistakes, especially clangers, such as raph being mowed down late in the last quarter when he thought he was in the clear.
... or for that matter schneider being embarrassingly mowed down by barry hall after not heeding the umpire's call to play on.
it probably went unnoticed by a few but just a couple of minutes later raphael took a terrific contested mark which probably stopped a sydney goal.
schneider also had his chance to make amends but managed only a point.
no-one is calling for his head.
i say cut the kid some slack and perservere with raphael. i thought that for a kid with only 30-odd games under his belt he performed admirably.
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."
- Jonathan Swift
- Jonathan Swift
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4642
- Joined: Thu 22 Sep 2005 11:17am
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 4 times
meher baba wrote:Major problems included the lack of impact made by C Gardiner and A Schneider moving into attack and the fact that Kosi couldn't hit a barn door from 10 paces. This left the Swans with a pretty easy job: keep Riewoldt as far from the goal sticks as possible and thereby keep our most reliable avenue to goal bottled up.
Apart from Riewoldt, and Kosi's ability to mark the ball but then fluff the kick, the only player who made any significant impact inside the forward 50 was Milne.
Gehrig must come back. C Gardiner must go to the Scorps. Kosi should be put in the role of a roving player: which is where he makes the most impact (ruckman or otherwise). Schneider should be put on notice: Armo or Birss would easily have been better value on Saturday night.
And Dal and Joey must be given the chance to move forward of the centre square for some of the game.
I'm not disagreeing with anything you've written....just amazes me that with Roo and Kosi, crumber by Milne and Schneider we need another big forward (G) to be able to secure a path to goal. Surely we should be able to kick a winning score with those 2 up forward?
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4320
- Joined: Fri 15 Sep 2006 10:35am
- Location: earth
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 1442 times
The Swans blocked the zone between our defensive 50 and the centre of the ground, eliminating our options to run the ball out of defense. They also had a player guarding our attacking 50 line, so our guys were reluctant to kick to CHF to a contested situation. Their defenders also worked hard at blocking our key forwards from moving up the ground at the appropriate time.
This meant that we had to chip the ball 20 metres at a time to the wing. That gave the Swans ample to employ a second flood in our forward 50.
Those people who were hard on us for not moving the ball quicker are a bit unfair. They're pretty hard tactics to overcome. Perhaps our guys should have slowed it down a bit , and huddled and blocked to allow team mates to move into a clear space to receive a kick. We expended an unbelievable amount of energy, and a positive is that we didn't crumble inder the pressure in the final quarter.
This meant that we had to chip the ball 20 metres at a time to the wing. That gave the Swans ample to employ a second flood in our forward 50.
Those people who were hard on us for not moving the ball quicker are a bit unfair. They're pretty hard tactics to overcome. Perhaps our guys should have slowed it down a bit , and huddled and blocked to allow team mates to move into a clear space to receive a kick. We expended an unbelievable amount of energy, and a positive is that we didn't crumble inder the pressure in the final quarter.
- yipper
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3967
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 8:18am
- Location: Gippsland
- Been thanked: 10 times
Exactly. And we were fit enough to hang on this time!!cwrcyn wrote:The Swans blocked the zone between our defensive 50 and the centre of the ground, eliminating our options to run the ball out of defense. They also had a player guarding our attacking 50 line, so our guys were reluctant to kick to CHF to a contested situation. Their defenders also worked hard at blocking our key forwards from moving up the ground at the appropriate time.
This meant that we had to chip the ball 20 metres at a time to the wing. That gave the Swans ample to employ a second flood in our forward 50.
Those people who were hard on us for not moving the ball quicker are a bit unfair. They're pretty hard tactics to overcome. Perhaps our guys should have slowed it down a bit , and huddled and blocked to allow team mates to move into a clear space to receive a kick. We expended an unbelievable amount of energy, and a positive is that we didn't crumble inder the pressure in the final quarter.
I want to stand for something. I'm a loyal person and I think at the end of my career it will be great to look back and know that I'm a St Kilda person for life.
- Nick Riewoldt. May 19th 2009.
- Nick Riewoldt. May 19th 2009.
- meher baba
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7220
- Joined: Mon 14 Aug 2006 6:49am
- Location: Tasmania
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 516 times
All a bit too kind on our players and coach IMO. We have heard so much criticism about Lord Voldemort lacking a plan B, but I would have thought that the situation is even worse now: I can't see that we changed anything much at all after half-time to counter the Swans' tactics, and - as a result - we just sank further and further into the morass. We really were very lucky indeed to come away with the four points: watch the replay.yipper wrote:Exactly. And we were fit enough to hang on this time!!cwrcyn wrote:The Swans blocked the zone between our defensive 50 and the centre of the ground, eliminating our options to run the ball out of defense. They also had a player guarding our attacking 50 line, so our guys were reluctant to kick to CHF to a contested situation. Their defenders also worked hard at blocking our key forwards from moving up the ground at the appropriate time.
This meant that we had to chip the ball 20 metres at a time to the wing. That gave the Swans ample to employ a second flood in our forward 50.
Those people who were hard on us for not moving the ball quicker are a bit unfair. They're pretty hard tactics to overcome. Perhaps our guys should have slowed it down a bit , and huddled and blocked to allow team mates to move into a clear space to receive a kick. We expended an unbelievable amount of energy, and a positive is that we didn't crumble inder the pressure in the final quarter.
I'm not saying that we should have kept trying to move the ball forward quicker, but I do think that there was scope for some other tactics: including the huddling and blocking that you suggested.
How about something like putting Kosi and Riewoldt into the midfield to try to take some contested marks - particularly when the Swans were bringing the ball out of defence, and having players like X, Gilbert, Gram, Joey and Dal taking turns to go forward trying to get loose inside the forward 50 so that Kosi and Riewoldt could move the ball quickly to them?
I recall a game against the Swans long ago (perhaps it was in 1997) in which Stewie Loewe played this sort of contesting role in the midfield and it completely disrupted the Swans' tactics (which, although some people like to talk about flooding as a recent phenomenon, were more or less the same then as they are now).
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."
- Jonathan Swift
- Jonathan Swift
- yipper
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3967
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 8:18am
- Location: Gippsland
- Been thanked: 10 times
Fair enough - however, the Swans figure in these types of games almost every week. So most teams have trouble breaking the game open against these tactics. I still think we got it inside 50 enough - but just couldn't convert to save our lives. If we had of kicked 13 - 14 goals out of our 21 shots - would we be having this discussion. It is a lot easier to play against the Swans when you can start your structure and tactics from the centre bounce instead of giving them possession from the goal square every time.meher baba wrote:All a bit too kind on our players and coach IMO. We have heard so much criticism about Lord Voldemort lacking a plan B, but I would have thought that the situation is even worse now: I can't see that we changed anything much at all after half-time to counter the Swans' tactics, and - as a result - we just sank further and further into the morass. We really were very lucky indeed to come away with the four points: watch the replay.yipper wrote:Exactly. And we were fit enough to hang on this time!!cwrcyn wrote:The Swans blocked the zone between our defensive 50 and the centre of the ground, eliminating our options to run the ball out of defense. They also had a player guarding our attacking 50 line, so our guys were reluctant to kick to CHF to a contested situation. Their defenders also worked hard at blocking our key forwards from moving up the ground at the appropriate time.
This meant that we had to chip the ball 20 metres at a time to the wing. That gave the Swans ample to employ a second flood in our forward 50.
Those people who were hard on us for not moving the ball quicker are a bit unfair. They're pretty hard tactics to overcome. Perhaps our guys should have slowed it down a bit , and huddled and blocked to allow team mates to move into a clear space to receive a kick. We expended an unbelievable amount of energy, and a positive is that we didn't crumble inder the pressure in the final quarter.
I'm not saying that we should have kept trying to move the ball forward quicker, but I do think that there was scope for some other tactics: including the huddling and blocking that you suggested.
How about something like putting Kosi and Riewoldt into the midfield to try to take some contested marks - particularly when the Swans were bringing the ball out of defence, and having players like X, Gilbert, Gram, Joey and Dal taking turns to go forward trying to get loose inside the forward 50 so that Kosi and Riewoldt could move the ball quickly to them?
I recall a game against the Swans long ago (perhaps it was in 1997) in which Stewie Loewe played this sort of contesting role in the midfield and it completely disrupted the Swans' tactics (which, although some people like to talk about flooding as a recent phenomenon, were more or less the same then as they are now).
I want to stand for something. I'm a loyal person and I think at the end of my career it will be great to look back and know that I'm a St Kilda person for life.
- Nick Riewoldt. May 19th 2009.
- Nick Riewoldt. May 19th 2009.
- ctqs
- Club Player
- Posts: 1114
- Joined: Tue 20 Apr 2004 12:00am
- Has thanked: 8 times
- Been thanked: 37 times
I'd rather see them kick to a contest 40-50 metres down the line then CONTINUALLY chip it sideways looking for something to open up. I also reckon there was a distinct lack of movement up forward when the flood was on. Forwards are there to take contested marks. They have a better run with umpires now than ever, with the hands-in-the-back and chopping-the-arm rules. If we can't take a contested mark, and our crummers are not good enough to win more than they lose, then let the opposition bottle it up in our forward line. It only makes it harder for them to get it out. The more time it spends in our forward 50, the more likely we are to score.
As for Raph Clarke, my concern is he only has one pace and seems to second guess himself, making him seem slow in mind.
As for Raph Clarke, my concern is he only has one pace and seems to second guess himself, making him seem slow in mind.
Still waiting for closure ... if you get my drift.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 18635
- Joined: Thu 11 Mar 2004 1:36am
- Has thanked: 1979 times
- Been thanked: 865 times
absolutely. that is the whole reason why kosi is playing forward. because he can and will take contested marks. pump it down there for christ's sake!ctqs wrote:I'd rather see them kick to a contest 40-50 metres down the line then CONTINUALLY chip it sideways looking for something to open up.
if he or fraser or roo can't hold it then that is what the crumbers are for.
there seems to be some reluctance to kick to a contest.
perhaps it is a coaching directive and if so it is counter-productive as it allows our opponents too much time to get numbers back.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1357
- Joined: Wed 07 Apr 2004 8:42pm
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3303
- Joined: Tue 23 May 2006 6:14pm
- Location: East Oakleigh
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 40 times
Totally agree with both these posts. Take some risks, how about a bit of DARING? Can anyone say Geelong?bigcarl wrote:absolutely. that is the whole reason why kosi is playing forward. because he can and will take contested marks. pump it down there for christ's sake!ctqs wrote:I'd rather see them kick to a contest 40-50 metres down the line then CONTINUALLY chip it sideways looking for something to open up.
if he or fraser or roo can't hold it then that is what the crumbers are for.
there seems to be some reluctance to kick to a contest.
perhaps it is a coaching directive and if so it is counter-productive as it allows our opponents too much time to get numbers back.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 18635
- Joined: Thu 11 Mar 2004 1:36am
- Has thanked: 1979 times
- Been thanked: 865 times
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1941
- Joined: Sat 24 Apr 2004 10:24pm
- Location: Perth WA
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 19 times
Me too. Man on man is accountable footy.Winmarvellous wrote:I don't quite understand this man on man concept. If we kept our players in their normal postions, and they went man on man, how come the flood was on. For this to occur, our blokes would have to be flooding also. Man on man football is accountable footy, the way it should be played, is it not? One man for each man out there, backs sticking to forwards and forwards trying to shake defenders? If not, please enlighten me, as I'm confused by this man on man talk.
The thing that bugs me is why everyone seems to think Sydney is the onlt team that can do this to extremes. Collingwood generally beat Shitney comfortably and play the same game style in segments then move the ball quickly to minimise the efficiency of thye flood. They have forwards who can mark the ball and kick goals and because of this they generally win.
Whay cant the Saints do this? Collingwood, like St Kilda dont have a super fast midfield but still achieve this game style to beat the Sydney tactic.
Midfield clearances and clear winners are needed to make an effective forward line.
You need to protect the ball handler to increase posession efficiency
You need to protect the ball handler to increase posession efficiency
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Wed 19 Mar 2008 10:39pm
- Location: Hawthorn
Sydney tactics
It's way too simple to say we want the ball pumped in to a contest instead of chipping around to loose men outside 50. You don't see it watching on TV, but at the Dome on Saturday night on one occasion Riewoldt had possession on the flank and if you looked into the forward 50 there were about four Swans and Kosi - he is a great contested mark, but all it takes is for Richards to block his run, Barry takes an easy mark, handballs to Mattner and they are off - and we are all shaking our heads. The pumping it long theory only works if you get the ball down there quick, which is what we were doing in the first 15 minutes (it helps if we win the ball straight out of the centre). Gram having a bad night really hurt us because he takes the opposition on every time. IMO Sydney clamped down to avoid getting blown out of the water and we weren't brave enough to keep attacking.
Good point about them tackling each other to force ball-ups too. And the most boundary throw-ins I've seen in a match. I wish there was something the AFL could do about that.
And re: Charlie Gardiner, the tall forward line won't be a problem with Fraser because Charlie won't be down there. His role is a lead-up half-forward who starts around the 50 and leads to the wing so Rooey isn't our only go-to man up there. This is now one of the most important positions in footy.
Good point about them tackling each other to force ball-ups too. And the most boundary throw-ins I've seen in a match. I wish there was something the AFL could do about that.
And re: Charlie Gardiner, the tall forward line won't be a problem with Fraser because Charlie won't be down there. His role is a lead-up half-forward who starts around the 50 and leads to the wing so Rooey isn't our only go-to man up there. This is now one of the most important positions in footy.