Let's take a trip down memory lane...

[OneEyedSainter77]

Only have to go back three years to 2005.

We were kicking scores like this:

23.13.151, 27.14.176, 29.12.186.

We were winning by margins like this:

80, 65, 88, 139.

We were ravaged by injury and THAT cost us a flag. 2005 was OUR year and injuries robbed us of it. Call it whinging, its the truth.

My point.... This is what we are capable of. So why the hell can't we attempt this? Ditch the safe-keepings gameplan and go all out attack. f*** defense. Its our achilles heel and it is meaningless. I don't care if we concede 104 points a game if we score 140.

Play like the way we are and we'll be kicking scores like:

8.15.63, 11.7.73, 9.9.63, 18.19.127 (on a good day)

and winning by margns like:
1, 6, 19, 33, 45 (on a good day)

[ausfatcat]

It's a very different side now than what it was back then.

[rodgerfox]

I don't care if we concede 104 points a game if we score 140.

We only conceded 81 points on average in 05.

Defending and being accountable wasn't a big concern.

[bigcarl]

Defending and being accountable wasn't a big concern.

that's because they were too busy attacking and kicking goals

[hAyES]

With each game that passes, the more I seem to be taking a trip down memory lane. The scores we kicked back then were unbelievable.

[spert]

No premiership so it means nothing.

[Animal Enclosure]

Kick straight & those scores are attainable. Waste chances, let opposition sides back into games & the end scoreline suffers.

[meher baba]

No premiership so it means nothing.

I keep reading posters on this forum saying this sort of stuff, but I beg to differ.

Basically, we didn't win a premiership in 149 years out of the 150 years of AFL history so far. But we had many magnificent teams who played their guts out in some of those years. Those teams made finals and even GFs and yet, by the assessment of many on here, they were failures, as were their coaches and their star players.

I just don't buy this assessment of AFL, or any other sport for that matter. IMO, success in sport is about being the best that you can be: it's not about winning at all costs.

Barry Hall has a GF medal, while Harves, Stewie Loewe, Burkey, Tony Lockett, Aussie Jones, Nicky Winmar, G-Train, Lenny Hayes and many others who have played with Bazza at the Sainters don't.

But I consider all of those other players to be winners and Bazza as being one of life's great losers. I know many of you don't agree with me, but there it is.

[Hard at it]

No premiership so it means nothing.

Correct. I cant remember us winning anything for making prelims.
Success is the team that wins the flag, that is all

[Iceman234]

Similar thread to this by Rodgerfox today.

But be careful criticising or looking like an agenda-hugging supporter of anyone who ever coached the Saints or currently does because you'll be sledged.

As supporters we have to just cop it and not question anything - just go with the flow, tread lightly and stealthily, and don't question.....

We are true Saints supporters, we are happy to accept mediocrity.

[The_Dud]

by the time the club relaises the gameplan is crap and finally do something about it, it will be too late

at this rate the next few years are gonna be wasted being a mediocre team....

[saintsRrising]

Only have to go back three years to 2005.

We were kicking scores like this:

23.13.151, 27.14.176, 29.12.186.

We were winning by margins like this:

80, 65, 88, 139.

Has it occurred to you that the scores you referred to the Saints were kicking accurately?????

How does your game plan theory explain how so many Saints missed easy shots at goal against the cats????

[plugger66]

Only have to go back three years to 2005.

We were kicking scores like this:

23.13.151, 27.14.176, 29.12.186.

We were winning by margins like this:

80, 65, 88, 139.

Has it occurred to you that the scores you referred to the Saints were kicking accurately?????

How does your game plan theory explain how so many Saints missed easy shots at goal against the cats????

IMO it is GT fault we now kick inaccurately.

[Shaggy]

Only have to go back three years to 2005.

We were kicking scores like this:

23.13.151, 27.14.176, 29.12.186.

We were winning by margins like this:

80, 65, 88, 139.

Has it occurred to you that the scores you referred to the Saints were kicking accurately?????

How does your game plan theory explain how so many Saints missed easy shots at goal against the cats????

IMO it is GT fault we now kick inaccurately.

We really were a very good/happy team 2005. Very stiff not to have the flag.

[markinUSA]

We've had some of the greatest players ever to don footy boots - Harves is a classic example, but Plugger's days with the Saints bring tears to the eyes, and those lucky enough to see Ian Stewart play still refer to him in awe. And then there's the Doc... enough said. But if you look at our long list of Brownlow winners (we've had more than about 13 other clubs), you can tell that many of our players have been stars. I guess it's a thing that people often talk about on this forum... the gap between our best and our west has often been to great.

And closer to the topic of this discussion - personally, I prefer to watch high scoring games. It seems more 'fun' as a spectator. And as for accepting mediocracy, I remember watching the Saints play the Cats in our first finals match in many years. It was a great game, high scoring, and we lost. Garry Ablett king hit Nathan Burke behind play, probably costing us the match. I remember the standing ovation our players got. It just reminded me that come rain or shine, we love our boys.

[kalsaint]

It's a very different side now than what it was back then.

Oh so true and consider a few games rules that have changed.

1 Ruck duels - no longer allowed to attack the person with knee. Cox is now a sensational ruckman. He was easy beaten previously when certain tactics were applied.

2 The role of taggers became tough when you were no longer able to scrag players as done previously.

3 The newer hank in the back rule that applies to forwards but not backmen.

Point 2 was a strong point for the SAINTS OF 2004-2005. Now this is a penalty for us. Bakes gets easily suspended. Oppo mid field get cheap possession and run.

Point 1 provided strength to some teams (Brisbane, Eagles, Port). Teams with smaller unning rucks were penalised. Particularly Melbourne's Jeff White.

Game rules that are changes by madcap AFL administrators have a lot to answer for as they have offset recruitment strategy by some clubs significantly. Fremantle has been effected here most, Saints are 2nd, Brisbane is probably the third side most effected and Adelaide 4th.
Benefactors are Port, Geelong, Bulllies, Eagles all where strong running midfielders are present.
Thats my opinion and I'm sticking to it. Changing rules sicken me.

[kalsaint]

It's a very different side now than what it was back then.

Oh so true and consider a few games rules that have changed.

1 Ruck duels - no longer allowed to attack the person with knee. Cox is now a sensational ruckman. He was easy beaten previously when certain tactics were applied.

2 The role of taggers became tough when you were no longer able to scrag players as done previously.

3 The newer hank in the back rule that applies to forwards but not backmen.

Point 2 was a strong point for the SAINTS OF 2004-2005. Now this is a penalty for us. Bakes gets easily suspended. Oppo mid field get cheap possession and run.

Point 1 provided strength to some teams (Brisbane, Eagles, Port). Teams with smaller unning rucks were penalised. Particularly Melbourne's Jeff White.

Game rules that are changes by madcap AFL administrators have a lot to answer for as they have offset recruitment strategy by some clubs significantly. Fremantle has been effected here most, Saints are 2nd, Brisbane is probably the third side most effected and Adelaide 4th.
Benefactors are Port, Geelong, Bulllies, Eagles all where strong running midfielders are present.
Thats my opinion and I'm sticking to it. Changing rules sicken me.

Add in the comments by Wallace on Fremantle below.
Wallace said the match committee clearly had a different plan to Fremantle’s for playing Subiaco Oval ‘s vast expanses.

"We chose a running side, and we just structured up what we thought was the right way to go, playing on a big ground. I must say, I walked out during the pre-match warm-up and was quite surprised how big their side is. It's a massive, massive, massive team."

They developed their side based on the rules when Brisbane was the team to beat.

[Spinner]

Only have to go back three years to 2005.

We were kicking scores like this:

23.13.151, 27.14.176, 29.12.186.

We were winning by margins like this:

80, 65, 88, 139.

We were ravaged by injury and THAT cost us a flag. 2005 was OUR year and injuries robbed us of it. Call it whinging, its the truth.

My point.... This is what we are capable of. So why the hell can't we attempt this? Ditch the safe-keepings gameplan and go all out attack. f*** defense. Its our achilles heel and it is meaningless. I don't care if we concede 104 points a game if we score 140.

Play like the way we are and we'll be kicking scores like:

8.15.63, 11.7.73, 9.9.63, 18.19.127 (on a good day)

and winning by margns like:
1, 6, 19, 33, 45 (on a good day)

It is like we dont even attempt to score that much.

Its so risky playing the Sydney way. You dont win by much but you dont lose by much. I mean, the Swans were only 4 points clear off a premiership. I certainly dont want to win one playing a season like that.

[OneEyedSainter77]

I'm sorry everyone. I'm just so frustrated. My point is 2005 was a wonderful eyar to watch us play. We backed ourselves more, we went for everything and we kicked a lot straighter. This was three years ago. How could we change so much in so little time.

All the people that are saying "The gameplan is fine, the gamplan is fine..." say what you will. If it gets four points, yes its fine. if it doesn't. No it's not.

I am not basing this solely on the geelong game. I am basing this on many games. About everry game last year we were winnign or in a winning position and rather than go for the jugular, we decide to try and preserve the lead. I HATE THAT! We are NOT GOOD ENOUGH to attempt and pull this off. Four times in the last nine rounds, this cost us a win. West Coast, Sydney, Bulldogs and Collingwood.

We are NOT FIT enough to attempt this gameplan. It doesn't work for us. It NEVER WILL work for us.

I was frsutrated when I made this post because it isn't as entertaining anymore. Its still entertaining because I love the saints, but I'd rather we tried to take our opponents on in a shootout.

I don't even know what I'm saying anymore. I'm just tired and frustrated, I just want to see us improve.

If our accuracy and overall disposal and hardness can improve, we can become a better team, but we are showing signs of weakening as opposed to strengthening.

Blah.

[bozza1980]

2005 was a good year, going into Prelim Final night we were premiership favourites and the world looked our oyster.

Funny how we started 2005 ordinary and were written off, funny that we lost to Freo in Round 21 and were written off as no good. I understand that we didn't win the comp but we were 30 mins off a Grand Final berth, surrendering it too one of the most dominant quarters of football I have seen in a big game.

I maybe delusional but I have to believe that the way we played in the 1st quarter of the Bullies game is the way we want to play footy.

If we play like that, hard, straight, fast we will be hard to beat. Unfortunately we have played like the other 3 quarter for most of the season so far.