We are in big trouble make no mistake IMO. Its really nothing to do with being 6 up and going down by 6 really. Its irrelevant when you have a overall look at the gameplan and how we move the ball. Add to this our shite ability to kick goals.
To me, Essendon look far superior to us and should beat us easily on current form. The Eagles/Swans game plan of success of 05/06 is DEAD DEAD DEAD people. It simply has to change,because the game has changed.
Id be alot more optimistic if we had kicked decent scores and moved the ball properly and be 0 from 3 at the moment.
How are you feeling about 2008 now?
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
-
iwantmeseats
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3303
- Joined: Tue 23 May 2006 6:14pm
- Location: East Oakleigh
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 40 times
-
meher baba
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7223
- Joined: Mon 14 Aug 2006 6:49am
- Location: Tasmania
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 516 times
The NAB cup was irrelevant: except for the fact that we saw some players go round in that comp - Armo, Eddy, Steven - who surely couldn't go any worse than some of those we have seen in the first three rounds of the season proper.
Round 1 against the Swans we were lucky to scrape through. Both teams played crap football and we got a few more lucky breaks than them.
Round 2 against the abysmal Blues we took much longer than we should have to get on top.
Round 3 against the Dogs we didn't even start all that brilliantly: they got 4 (I think) posters in the first half and we got a couple of 50/50 frees in our forward 50. It could have been much closer at quarter time.
And then, of course, we went right down the tube once Eade introduced the unfair tactic of man on man contests and moving the ball quickly into the forward 50: really, the AFL should look at outlawing this blight on the game, which can sometimes lead to teams scoring more than 100 points in a match!!
We are not going well at all. Yet we have almost all of our players fit, we have already gotten rid of the bottom or oldest 40 per cent of our list that played under GT. We have two genuine ruckmen.
So what's the excuse? Why do we look a mere shadow of what we even were in 2006?
There are three conceivable explanations.
1. Leg speed: the game has moved to a point at which all players, especially midfielders, have to be super quick. Apart from ruckmen, height no longer matters. Thanks to poor recruiting in the past, we have too many talls and not enough quicks.
2. We are actually much better than we were in 2006, and simply needed a loss against the Dogs (who, I must remind you all, didn't even get close to the top 8 last year) to make us focus as we should and are about to unleash a brand of football the likes of which has never been seen before.
3. We have an inexperienced, unconfident, inflexible and not particularly intelligent coach who has been unyielding in his attempts to mould the team to his pre-existing game plan (aka known as the Sydney Mogadon plan) and has basically failed because (a) we do not have the same types of players as the Swans and (b) we don't play a high proportion of our games on the SCG.
Take your pick. I reckon 3, but others see it differently. Time will tell.
Round 1 against the Swans we were lucky to scrape through. Both teams played crap football and we got a few more lucky breaks than them.
Round 2 against the abysmal Blues we took much longer than we should have to get on top.
Round 3 against the Dogs we didn't even start all that brilliantly: they got 4 (I think) posters in the first half and we got a couple of 50/50 frees in our forward 50. It could have been much closer at quarter time.
And then, of course, we went right down the tube once Eade introduced the unfair tactic of man on man contests and moving the ball quickly into the forward 50: really, the AFL should look at outlawing this blight on the game, which can sometimes lead to teams scoring more than 100 points in a match!!
We are not going well at all. Yet we have almost all of our players fit, we have already gotten rid of the bottom or oldest 40 per cent of our list that played under GT. We have two genuine ruckmen.
So what's the excuse? Why do we look a mere shadow of what we even were in 2006?
There are three conceivable explanations.
1. Leg speed: the game has moved to a point at which all players, especially midfielders, have to be super quick. Apart from ruckmen, height no longer matters. Thanks to poor recruiting in the past, we have too many talls and not enough quicks.
2. We are actually much better than we were in 2006, and simply needed a loss against the Dogs (who, I must remind you all, didn't even get close to the top 8 last year) to make us focus as we should and are about to unleash a brand of football the likes of which has never been seen before.
3. We have an inexperienced, unconfident, inflexible and not particularly intelligent coach who has been unyielding in his attempts to mould the team to his pre-existing game plan (aka known as the Sydney Mogadon plan) and has basically failed because (a) we do not have the same types of players as the Swans and (b) we don't play a high proportion of our games on the SCG.
Take your pick. I reckon 3, but others see it differently. Time will tell.
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."
- Jonathan Swift
- Jonathan Swift
-
terry smith rules
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 2537
- Joined: Mon 27 Jun 2005 1:27pm
- Location: Abiding
- Has thanked: 172 times
- Been thanked: 384 times
not sure about all this worry about leg speed
the bulldogs have many quick players so that was always going to be a worry
however the player who really put us to the sword in the contests was the slowest player on the field s.west.
the fact that he was able to get the ball out to the quicker players made us look slow.
the same happens for us when ball or harvey can get the ball to a joey or fiora on the busrt, then we look quick
I think it should be remembered that yes the nab cup counts for nothing , however friday was the seventh game for us, and it is difficult for any team to win 7 in a row
fqf
the bulldogs have many quick players so that was always going to be a worry
however the player who really put us to the sword in the contests was the slowest player on the field s.west.
the fact that he was able to get the ball out to the quicker players made us look slow.
the same happens for us when ball or harvey can get the ball to a joey or fiora on the busrt, then we look quick
I think it should be remembered that yes the nab cup counts for nothing , however friday was the seventh game for us, and it is difficult for any team to win 7 in a row
fqf
-
barks4eva
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10748
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:39pm
- Has thanked: 190 times
- Been thanked: 92 times
Thanks ever so much for narrowing it down, everyone please disregard any other possible factor, the luminary has spoken.mebabble wrote: There are three conceivable explanations.
BRAVO, give the man a boner, finally you post something relevant.1. Leg speed: the game has moved to a point at which all players, especially midfielders, have to be super quick. Thanks to poor recruiting in the past, we have too many talls and not enough quicks.
Firstly thankyou for reminding us all and secondly for feeling that you must, it is greatly appreciated.2. We are actually much better than we were in 2006, and simply needed a loss against the Dogs (who, I must remind you all, didn't even get close to the top 8 last year) to make us focus as we should and are about to unleash a brand of football the likes of which has never been seen before.
As we all know teams just remain the same from one year to the next so thankyou for pointing out that the bulldogs didn't manage to make the top 8 last year, your point is extremely relevant.
Oh hang on Geelong didn't make the 8 in 2006 and won the premiership in 2007, now I'm confused.
or just perhaps it's more a case of we have a flagettating know nothing flog, definitely not intelligent who is unyielding in the absolute crap, drivel and babble that he regurgitates (aka as the novacaine man ) because (a) he has no idea and wouldn't get the drum even with a brass band up him and (b) a high proportion of his posts are all about his continued love affair with GT and Bundy, not too dissimilar to the attention a collingwood supporter pays to an inflatable.3. We have an inexperienced, unconfident, inflexible and not particularly intelligent coach who has been unyielding in his attempts to mould the team to his pre-existing game plan (aka known as the Sydney Mogadon plan) and has basically failed because (a) we do not have the same types of players as the Swans and (b) we don't play a high proportion of our games on the SCG.
Exhibit A
FAIR DINKUMmebabble wrote:Does Ross Lyon read this forum?
If I had my way, he'd have plenty more time to do so.
Greg Westaway - if you read this - here is what I think you should do.
Give "Rossy" a chance to at least give a creditable performance against the Cats: eg, a close loss (a win is almost unimaginable ATM). If he manages this, then he needs to deliver a win - nothing less - against the Bombers.
If he fails in this, and we end up 2-3, I think that Westaway should seek out Matt Rendell wherever he is and beg him to come back and take over. Lyon and his gumby henchmen would be sacked as a job lot and Rendell allowed to bring in his own assistants.
DO THE MATHS AND THE SQUARES ARE ALL ROOTED.
-
meher baba
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7223
- Joined: Mon 14 Aug 2006 6:49am
- Location: Tasmania
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 516 times
Open message to the mods
I just wanted to drop a line to let you know that I don't find B4E's Tourette's syndrome-style rants against me to be the slightest bit offensive: after all, neither of us has ever met the other (as far as I know) and have no idea who each other might be.
Also, he is kind of amusing, albeit extremely repetitive.
Nevertheless, I do rather think that you might need to give him a warning or two or even a suspension in order to uphold the integrity of your new rules: given the way some other posters have been suspended for what seem to me to have been relatively minor transgressions.
BTW, B4E: if you are looking for some new slang terms for masturbation, you should check out the Dinkum Dictionary (available in most public libraries). My recollection is that it has literally dozens: including my all time favourite, "having an orgy with Madam Palm and her five daughters".
It also has hundreds of slang terms for vomiting, if you'd like to vary your basic theme for a while.
All the best
MB
I just wanted to drop a line to let you know that I don't find B4E's Tourette's syndrome-style rants against me to be the slightest bit offensive: after all, neither of us has ever met the other (as far as I know) and have no idea who each other might be.
Also, he is kind of amusing, albeit extremely repetitive.
Nevertheless, I do rather think that you might need to give him a warning or two or even a suspension in order to uphold the integrity of your new rules: given the way some other posters have been suspended for what seem to me to have been relatively minor transgressions.
BTW, B4E: if you are looking for some new slang terms for masturbation, you should check out the Dinkum Dictionary (available in most public libraries). My recollection is that it has literally dozens: including my all time favourite, "having an orgy with Madam Palm and her five daughters".
It also has hundreds of slang terms for vomiting, if you'd like to vary your basic theme for a while.
All the best
MB
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."
- Jonathan Swift
- Jonathan Swift
-
congorozides
- Club Player
- Posts: 1129
- Joined: Thu 16 Sep 2004 5:32pm
- Has thanked: 18 times
- Been thanked: 30 times
There were some worrying signs. I was at the game and i think its not panic stations yet. funnily enough the reason i feel that is because we were beaten so comprehensively. which sounds silly i know.
but there is no point pointing the figure at individulas JUST yet.
every contest after quarter time had one extra dog player at the contest - whether we had it or they had it - and every loose ball - a dog was in and under and first in. basically they wanted it more - and they played awesome.
the dogs owned the corridor. dal and montagna were playing very very wide and getting their kicks very very wide. . so saints need to lift all over the ground. we need more numbers. and we need heads over ball and more guys prepared to run their guts out in the coridor. if we start doing that and we still lose - then i will hit the panic button too.
i was very impressed by the dogs though. that josh hill kid. where the hell did he come from? i tell you what. hes already a ten times better player than raph will ever be.
but there is no point pointing the figure at individulas JUST yet.
every contest after quarter time had one extra dog player at the contest - whether we had it or they had it - and every loose ball - a dog was in and under and first in. basically they wanted it more - and they played awesome.
the dogs owned the corridor. dal and montagna were playing very very wide and getting their kicks very very wide. . so saints need to lift all over the ground. we need more numbers. and we need heads over ball and more guys prepared to run their guts out in the coridor. if we start doing that and we still lose - then i will hit the panic button too.
i was very impressed by the dogs though. that josh hill kid. where the hell did he come from? i tell you what. hes already a ten times better player than raph will ever be.