Where were OUR players?

[To the top]

Yes, the loss of Gardiner upset the balance of the team, markedly, because the powers that be, mindful of Footscray's running game plan obviously, played into Footscray's hands by deeming that Koschitzke would support King in the ruck.

The real irony was that Footscray put there big ruckmen forward to pressure St Kilda, and found them marked by Raph Clarke, 10cm shorter and 20kg lighter.

And, yes, after the free to L. Fisher for Ackermanis in the back, the umpires seemed to react by paying everything Footscray's way, in the mid field at the bounces and in the forward line, including for contact that did not seem to be there. The ultimate was a free paid against King on half time when it appeared King had marked with a second grab.

But the real problem was that it was the past re-visited.

The game plan so successfully used to dismantle St Kilda, by having 3 to 4 players hanging around behind the ball and the ball being chipped between those players under no pressure except for someone arriving to notionally stand the mark - when you can see the next disposal clearly.

Then chipping short to players running into space, or finding one of the "spares" running free wide down the flank.

No accountability.

And the fault is with the mid-field players and our attacking players because the best the mid-field players did was lock the ball in and, when not giving away a free, forcing a second ball up, to lose control of the ball then. Our in tight, under pressure work is just not up to standard. We do not release, we only defend - and ultimately lose.

The Mitchell's, the Cross's and the like continually cut us up. Under the ball feeders who knock up getting possesions against us and releasing others back and around and then forward.

In attack, we are out-numbered. The opposition have 2 or 3 or 4 players by themselves, and they can then dispose to another pocket of 3 or 4 unmarked players in the centre of the ground!

You sit there and speculate "Where are their opponents?"

It looks like a training drill.

The defence can not be blamed alone, because players running at you unmarked and with no pressure on delivery makes the defender's job a nightmare.

It is the mid-field and it is the attack - firstly because the Gehrig, Milne and Reiwoldt game has been worked over by opposing teams, and is failing St Kilda massively.

The reliance on Gehrig, Milne and Riewoldt is a joke that has gone on for far, far too long.

Riewoldt tries, but needs very accurate disposal, and Gehrig and Milne, well the less said the better.

That is why we have been such a poor team after promising much in the first half of 2004, and going backwards ever since.

Relics of Lockett being St Kilda because he kicked goals - but St Kilda could not win a game of football. But we had Lockett!

So do we change the rules, and learn from the NRL before it is too late for the AFL, by the umpire bouncing the ball after (say) 3 marks being awarded after kicks of less than 30 metres by the same team - otherwise we may as well go and watch basketball, or soccer?

Because that appears the only way the (succesive and various) people who have been charged with putting a competative football team on the park representing St Kilda will ever solve the problem of St Kilda combating that style of football.

Unless we look at the fundamentals of our team, strip every player of reputation and start again with a model of the type of player required for every position on the field, including the interchange bench.

And the first question is, can Goddard, with his body size and ball handling skills turn into the "under the ruck contest" body we require to combat those who continually destroy us?

The solid body right under the contest to control and immediately feed - because Ball, for all his courage in that role does not do it, because he is too small in body.

We need to look at the way we are so comprehensively dis-mantled, and set about dis-mantling other sides in exactly the same manner.

Not by reacting as we are now (and have done for years) by zoning off with no one knowing exactly who they are responsible for.

If the view of (successive) coaching panels is that our players are so deficient they can not win one on one contests with an opponent, or pressure unrelentingly if they lose the contest as they will lose some, get rid of them and get better players who can actually beat their opponents in a contest.

Let's wipe out the reputations and start again.

Because we just are not as good as we think we are - as our results year in and year out testify.

And that appraisal should include our "icon" players, starting from the captain.

[To the top]

It is assessment time, before another season goes the way of all season's past (except for 42 years ago).

That assessment process should not be by player's commenting on others alone.

It should commence with each player on the list listing what they see themselves as bringing to the team (including off field), how they see themselves contributing to the team and appraising their indivdual performances against their benchmarks.

These assessments then go forward to the coaching and fitness panels who present the specific challenges - challenges consistent with where and how the players see themselves as contributing.

Then the players are benchmarked on a weekly basis, and the challenge re-set.

You improve by challenging yourself, and re-challenging yourself.

We seem to have players who sit back, comfortable to bask in the perceived "glory" of the so-called icon players.

Bit players who are remaining bit players - to the detriment of team performance and consistent team performance accross the field.

We have to find out if these players are good enough - and the first step is that they should evidence that they believe they are - not just 2 or 3 of them but every one of them.

[To the top]

So let's se if we can get some interest in the radical proposal.

Many years ago, when St George dominated the Rugby League competition in Sydney because of the strength of their forwards and dominance of the ball, they introduced the five tackle rule. After 5 tackles there is a turn over - now evolved to a high kick in an attempt to contest.

So, with the AFL "game" evolving as it is, and as we saw last night, with possession maintained by going backwards to unmarked players and complimenting this with "chipping" to players 10 metres away, with no contest for the ball, is it time the AFL addressed this issue by introducing a law that, after 3 kicks of less than (say) 40 metres, the ball is surrendered to the umpire (one of 3 so the policing should not be an issue) to be bounced?

Then Australian Rules Football may stand a chance of returning to the game it was - where players actually spent the majority of the game time contesting the possesion of the ball against an opponent.

Teams will then be obliged to maintain a structure so that they have forward targets - and support players - they can kick to over reasonable distances (say 40 metres) and the days of all players back will be a thing of the past.

Rugby League did it to save their code, and it is time the AFL acted to save their code - a code which is currently borrowing far to heavily on other codes and is losing its unique identity.

[Saintschampions08]

So let's se if we can get some interest in the radical proposal.

Many years ago, when St George dominated the Rugby League competition in Sydney because of the strength of their forwards and dominance of the ball, they introduced the five tackle rule. After 5 tackles there is a turn over - now evolved to a high kick in an attempt to contest.

So, with the AFL "game" evolving as it is, and as we saw last night, with possession maintained by going backwards to unmarked players and complimenting this with "chipping" to players 10 metres away, with no contest for the ball, is it time the AFL addressed this issue by introducing a law that, after 3 kicks of less than (say) 40 metres, the ball is surrendered to the umpire (one of 3 so the policing should not be an issue) to be bounced?

Then Australian Rules Football may stand a chance of returning to the game it was - where players actually spent the majority of the game time contesting the possesion of the ball against an opponent.

Teams will then be obliged to maintain a structure so that they have forward targets - and support players - they can kick to over reasonable distances (say 40 metres) and the days of all players back will be a thing of the past.

Rugby League did it to save their code, and it is time the AFL acted to save their code - a code which is currently borrowing far to heavily on other codes and is losing its unique identity.

The umpires don't even get 50m for 50m penalties, let alone them remembering how many kicks they've kicked, and how many have been under 40m.

[plugger66]

So let's se if we can get some interest in the radical proposal.

Many years ago, when St George dominated the Rugby League competition in Sydney because of the strength of their forwards and dominance of the ball, they introduced the five tackle rule. After 5 tackles there is a turn over - now evolved to a high kick in an attempt to contest.

So, with the AFL "game" evolving as it is, and as we saw last night, with possession maintained by going backwards to unmarked players and complimenting this with "chipping" to players 10 metres away, with no contest for the ball, is it time the AFL addressed this issue by introducing a law that, after 3 kicks of less than (say) 40 metres, the ball is surrendered to the umpire (one of 3 so the policing should not be an issue) to be bounced?

Then Australian Rules Football may stand a chance of returning to the game it was - where players actually spent the majority of the game time contesting the possesion of the ball against an opponent.

Teams will then be obliged to maintain a structure so that they have forward targets - and support players - they can kick to over reasonable distances (say 40 metres) and the days of all players back will be a thing of the past.

Rugby League did it to save their code, and it is time the AFL acted to save their code - a code which is currently borrowing far to heavily on other codes and is losing its unique identity.

April fools day was on the 1st.

[steph]

seriously, we're here to discuss the issues with the saints, not some rubbish idea of changing the game to become more like rugby. yes the umpiring was not the greatest, but before we start looking at the issues the afl has, lets look in our own backyard and realise that we were severely beaten last night, and that our star-studded midfield was exposed big time.

stop makin excuses for our pathetic performance last night. its not the rules. its us.

[To the top]

The issue of the abilities of the St Kilda FC are laid out, coming on top of a drop in finishing positions in each of the last few years culminating in finishing 9th last year.

The wins over Sydney and Carlton were far from impressive and replicated the wins achieved last year in terms of performance.

Carlton cut us up in the first 20 minutes last week, badly.

And now Footscray, playing the same type of game, have cut us up this week for 3 quarters.

And they just add to the list who have beaten us by playing that style of footy over the past X number of years.

The other issue, and the way these sides play highlight it, is are spectators satisfied going along to watch a game of what is essentially "keepings off" and, if so, for how long?

Last night there were said to be 38,000 spectators, on a Friday night at Docklands. No other game in competition.

So the stadium was 75% full for a Round 3 match between two unbeaten teams - and if you adjust for those Medallion Club members who did not attend and did not off-load their tickets, probably well under 70% full.

Plus, Footscray seemed to have the bulk of the spectator support.

So what does that tell us?

Yes, it is about St Kilda but it is also about the type of football the AFL is delivering to the paying spectator.

It is Australian Rules Football, not a hybrid game between zone defence basketball (where they have the Shot Clock) and soccer.

Rugby took a look and concluded that the product was not what people wanted to see (despite St George being a magnificent team) - and they have not looked back from a code that used to attract a couple of thousand to a surburban oval venue to a National competition attracting 20,000 plus spectators to a game, even in Melbourne!

I am just speculating that it is time the AFL sat back and took a look at the product - and I am not the only one doing this - it is in the media daily including now by reference to the use of the interchange bench.

So perhaps the answer is to model on the Rugby League 5 tackle rule in respect to chip kicking to retain possesion for as much of the game as you can. Then you do not have to look at restricting or increasing Interchange bench rotations.

Even if St Kilda could succesfully play that "brand" of football, it is still a matter for serious debate at the AFL.

[joffaboy]

It was a four tackle rule introduced later increased to 6.

[Saintschampions08]

Or you could look at it like this:

The #13 team played the #9 team from last year. The lowest scoring team played the 2nd worst defensive team. 38,000 people isn't too bad