Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
where was the rest of our forward line? let me guess. numbers behind the ball.Miss Saints wrote: on one occasion Riewoldt had possession on the flank and if you looked into the forward 50 there were about four Swans and Kosi.
That's a valid point, but that's where we have to be smarter in playing guys up the field instead of in defence. Multiple opposition defenders standing on Kosi will not stay there if other forwards inside the 50 start leading up the ground to drag them away.Miss Saints wrote: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.
I don't recall the specific play to which Miss Saints refers, however I'd bet that it was a rebound play, so Roo led to the wing where he received the ball. Sydney defenders rushed back inside 50 to disadvantage Kosi, whether they were the backmen or not, and our forwards would have been covering the backmen who had moved up towards the centre of the ground.ctqs wrote:That's a valid point, but that's where we have to be smarter in playing guys up the field instead of in defence. Multiple opposition defenders standing on Kosi will not stay there if other forwards inside the 50 start leading up the ground to drag them away.Miss Saints wrote: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.
Also worth noting that having kicked 4.4, we continued one of what I feel is the biggest problems for the Saints, failing to make our domination count. Of the 4 misses, they should have had at least 2 more goals.rodgerfox wrote:It's worth noting that we were only 20 points in front at Q time - and we'd only kicked 4 goals.
We appeared to dominate, but as has been the case for 23 weeks - we struggled to score.
19 inside 50's in the first quarter...for 4.4BAM! (shhhh) wrote:Also worth noting that having kicked 4.4, we continued one of what I feel is the biggest problems for the Saints, failing to make our domination count. Of the 4 misses, they should have had at least 2 more goals.rodgerfox wrote:It's worth noting that we were only 20 points in front at Q time - and we'd only kicked 4 goals.
We appeared to dominate, but as has been the case for 23 weeks - we struggled to score.
Which meant that Sydney was able to tie it up by half time, and while they lifted in the 2nd quarter, they weren't as good as the Saints were in the 1st around the ground - IMO of course. However it's all about scoreboard, so either the 2nd has to concern us, or the 1st wasn't as good as it looked.
