Why was Michael Gardiner not selected?
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
Why was Michael Gardiner not selected?
Hawthorn, yes they did out play us and were far more superior at the clearences than us. However, whenever we kicked the ball into our 50 there was simply no targets which allowed them to rebound with ease.
If Gardiner was slected it would have allowed us to rotate King and Gardiner through the ruck allowing Kosi to stay up forward and give us a marking option. Also in recent weeks it has been said Gardiner has been in great form in the VFL.
Hawthorn's weakness was there defence going in with one star tall in Croad and Gilham a developing defender. The Saints should have exploited this weakness by leaving Kosi down there with Riewoldt.
However this could not been done without the selection of Gardiner, who at times would have been able to push forward himself and provide another marking option.
The selection of Fiora was essentially pointless.
If Gardiner was slected it would have allowed us to rotate King and Gardiner through the ruck allowing Kosi to stay up forward and give us a marking option. Also in recent weeks it has been said Gardiner has been in great form in the VFL.
Hawthorn's weakness was there defence going in with one star tall in Croad and Gilham a developing defender. The Saints should have exploited this weakness by leaving Kosi down there with Riewoldt.
However this could not been done without the selection of Gardiner, who at times would have been able to push forward himself and provide another marking option.
The selection of Fiora was essentially pointless.
- Scoop
- Club Player
- Posts: 807
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 10:29pm
- Location: On a New Street Corner
- Has thanked: 519 times
- Been thanked: 43 times
Re: Why was Michael Gardiner not selected?
Agree wholeheartedly.azza12 wrote:Hawthorn, yes they did out play us and were far more superior at the clearences than us. However, whenever we kicked the ball into our 50 there was simply no targets which allowed them to rebound with ease.
If Gardiner was slected it would have allowed us to rotate King and Gardiner through the ruck allowing Kosi to stay up forward and give us a marking option. Also in recent weeks it has been said Gardiner has been in great form in the VFL.
Hawthorn's weakness was there defence going in with one star tall in Croad and Gilham a developing defender. The Saints should have exploited this weakness by leaving Kosi down there with Riewoldt.
However this could not been done without the selection of Gardiner, who at times would have been able to push forward himself and provide another marking option.
The selection of Fiora was essentially pointless.
I would have had M Gards and Birss in for Ball and Eddy......still not sure why he continues to get a game??? Certainly tries hard and has a dip, but at this stage of his career, gives us nothing.
Extra! Extra! Read all about it......no I don't want to read about it anymore!!!
Re: Why was Michael Gardiner not selected?
Ball didnt play and I love the hindsight. Mg isnt anywhere near fir enough for an AFL final. Did you see X last game?Scoop wrote:Agree wholeheartedly.azza12 wrote:Hawthorn, yes they did out play us and were far more superior at the clearences than us. However, whenever we kicked the ball into our 50 there was simply no targets which allowed them to rebound with ease.
If Gardiner was slected it would have allowed us to rotate King and Gardiner through the ruck allowing Kosi to stay up forward and give us a marking option. Also in recent weeks it has been said Gardiner has been in great form in the VFL.
Hawthorn's weakness was there defence going in with one star tall in Croad and Gilham a developing defender. The Saints should have exploited this weakness by leaving Kosi down there with Riewoldt.
However this could not been done without the selection of Gardiner, who at times would have been able to push forward himself and provide another marking option.
The selection of Fiora was essentially pointless.
I would have had M Gards and Birss in for Ball and Eddy......still not sure why he continues to get a game??? Certainly tries hard and has a dip, but at this stage of his career, gives us nothing.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 82
- Joined: Sat 17 May 2008 6:27pm
Re: Why was Michael Gardiner not selected?
After reading that comment, I feel like I want to screamazza12 wrote: However this could not been done without the selection of Gardiner, who at times would have been able to push forward himself and provide another marking option.
For the last time, Gardiner is not a forward, even in the makeshift variety. Did you see the 2005 grandfinal? Did you see his efforts against Beau Wilkes in the Eagles game earlier this year?
He can ruck, he can ruck reasonably well, but he cant do anything else. He cant run around the ground to make a contest and he cant sit in a forward line and provide a marking target while he rests.
When are some people going to accept that all he is ever going to be able to do is a bit of ruckwork, nothing else. His time is over, we have Steven King rucking well too and we are not going to see Gardiner play too much more football if King is fit.
Re: Why was Michael Gardiner not selected?
Both Gardiners and X's last senior games were shockers. Who knows what the future holds for those 2, very injury prone.plugger66 wrote:Ball didnt play and I love the hindsight. Mg isnt anywhere near fir enough for an AFL final. Did you see X last game?Scoop wrote:Agree wholeheartedly.azza12 wrote:Hawthorn, yes they did out play us and were far more superior at the clearences than us. However, whenever we kicked the ball into our 50 there was simply no targets which allowed them to rebound with ease.
If Gardiner was slected it would have allowed us to rotate King and Gardiner through the ruck allowing Kosi to stay up forward and give us a marking option. Also in recent weeks it has been said Gardiner has been in great form in the VFL.
Hawthorn's weakness was there defence going in with one star tall in Croad and Gilham a developing defender. The Saints should have exploited this weakness by leaving Kosi down there with Riewoldt.
However this could not been done without the selection of Gardiner, who at times would have been able to push forward himself and provide another marking option.
The selection of Fiora was essentially pointless.
I would have had M Gards and Birss in for Ball and Eddy......still not sure why he continues to get a game??? Certainly tries hard and has a dip, but at this stage of his career, gives us nothing.
Qld Saints Supporter Group
- Scoop
- Club Player
- Posts: 807
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 10:29pm
- Location: On a New Street Corner
- Has thanked: 519 times
- Been thanked: 43 times
Re: Why was Michael Gardiner not selected?
Sorry Mr Nitpicker, I was referring to changes to the selected side.plugger66 wrote:Ball didnt play and I love the hindsight. Mg isnt anywhere near fir enough for an AFL final. Did you see X last game?Scoop wrote:Agree wholeheartedly.azza12 wrote:Hawthorn, yes they did out play us and were far more superior at the clearences than us. However, whenever we kicked the ball into our 50 there was simply no targets which allowed them to rebound with ease.
If Gardiner was slected it would have allowed us to rotate King and Gardiner through the ruck allowing Kosi to stay up forward and give us a marking option. Also in recent weeks it has been said Gardiner has been in great form in the VFL.
Hawthorn's weakness was there defence going in with one star tall in Croad and Gilham a developing defender. The Saints should have exploited this weakness by leaving Kosi down there with Riewoldt.
However this could not been done without the selection of Gardiner, who at times would have been able to push forward himself and provide another marking option.
The selection of Fiora was essentially pointless.
I would have had M Gards and Birss in for Ball and Eddy......still not sure why he continues to get a game??? Certainly tries hard and has a dip, but at this stage of his career, gives us nothing.
And this is not hindsight, as this was my preferred option before the game....obviously I didn't discuss this with you at the time....I'll make sure this oversight doesn't occur again.
And yes I did see X in in the second last game, prior to last night, (sorry for the pedantia, but you seem to thrive on this sort of thing). Gardy's role and X's are completely different, and his selection would have been for the reasons espoused by azza. But then agin you don't bother with analysis, just some sarcastic, boring, one-liner point scoring.
As others have said P66, why don't you do us all a favour and crawl back into the hole from whence you came.
Extra! Extra! Read all about it......no I don't want to read about it anymore!!!
Re: Why was Michael Gardiner not selected?
So wouldnt have played Ball if he was fit as well as playing MG. Funny.Scoop wrote:Sorry Mr Nitpicker, I was referring to changes to the selected side.plugger66 wrote:Ball didnt play and I love the hindsight. Mg isnt anywhere near fir enough for an AFL final. Did you see X last game?Scoop wrote:Agree wholeheartedly.azza12 wrote:Hawthorn, yes they did out play us and were far more superior at the clearences than us. However, whenever we kicked the ball into our 50 there was simply no targets which allowed them to rebound with ease.
If Gardiner was slected it would have allowed us to rotate King and Gardiner through the ruck allowing Kosi to stay up forward and give us a marking option. Also in recent weeks it has been said Gardiner has been in great form in the VFL.
Hawthorn's weakness was there defence going in with one star tall in Croad and Gilham a developing defender. The Saints should have exploited this weakness by leaving Kosi down there with Riewoldt.
However this could not been done without the selection of Gardiner, who at times would have been able to push forward himself and provide another marking option.
The selection of Fiora was essentially pointless.
I would have had M Gards and Birss in for Ball and Eddy......still not sure why he continues to get a game??? Certainly tries hard and has a dip, but at this stage of his career, gives us nothing.
And this is not hindsight, as this was my preferred option before the game....obviously I didn't discuss this with you at the time....I'll make sure this oversight doesn't occur again.
And yes I did see X in in the second last game, prior to last night, (sorry for the pedantia, but you seem to thrive on this sort of thing). Gardy's role and X's are completely different, and his selection would have been for the reasons espoused by azza. But then agin you don't bother with analysis, just some sarcastic, boring, one-liner point scoring.
As others have said P66, why don't you do us all a favour and crawl back into the hole from whence you came.
- Scoop
- Club Player
- Posts: 807
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 10:29pm
- Location: On a New Street Corner
- Has thanked: 519 times
- Been thanked: 43 times
Re: Why was Michael Gardiner not selected?
There you go again P66.plugger66 wrote:
So wouldnt have played Ball if he was fit as well as playing MG. Funny.
Maybe I knew Ball wasn't going to play...!!!!?????
Extra! Extra! Read all about it......no I don't want to read about it anymore!!!
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 82
- Joined: Sat 17 May 2008 6:27pm
Re: Why was Michael Gardiner not selected?
It is funny isnt it? Everyone knows you dont play unfit players in an preliminary final if you can help it. Unfit can mean a variety of things to, injured or just lacking match fitness.plugger66 wrote:So wouldnt have played Ball if he was fit as well as playing MG. Funny.Scoop wrote:Sorry Mr Nitpicker, I was referring to changes to the selected side.plugger66 wrote:Ball didnt play and I love the hindsight. Mg isnt anywhere near fir enough for an AFL final. Did you see X last game?Scoop wrote:Agree wholeheartedly.azza12 wrote:Hawthorn, yes they did out play us and were far more superior at the clearences than us. However, whenever we kicked the ball into our 50 there was simply no targets which allowed them to rebound with ease.
If Gardiner was slected it would have allowed us to rotate King and Gardiner through the ruck allowing Kosi to stay up forward and give us a marking option. Also in recent weeks it has been said Gardiner has been in great form in the VFL.
Hawthorn's weakness was there defence going in with one star tall in Croad and Gilham a developing defender. The Saints should have exploited this weakness by leaving Kosi down there with Riewoldt.
However this could not been done without the selection of Gardiner, who at times would have been able to push forward himself and provide another marking option.
The selection of Fiora was essentially pointless.
I would have had M Gards and Birss in for Ball and Eddy......still not sure why he continues to get a game??? Certainly tries hard and has a dip, but at this stage of his career, gives us nothing.
And this is not hindsight, as this was my preferred option before the game....obviously I didn't discuss this with you at the time....I'll make sure this oversight doesn't occur again.
And yes I did see X in in the second last game, prior to last night, (sorry for the pedantia, but you seem to thrive on this sort of thing). Gardy's role and X's are completely different, and his selection would have been for the reasons espoused by azza. But then agin you don't bother with analysis, just some sarcastic, boring, one-liner point scoring.
As others have said P66, why don't you do us all a favour and crawl back into the hole from whence you came.
Re: Why was Michael Gardiner not selected?
Then why even include him in the changes you would have made? Anyway doesnt matter as no changes were going to help us beat the Hawks. They have won 19 for the year and we have won 14 with one more game. That is the true gap.Scoop wrote:There you go again P66.plugger66 wrote:
So wouldnt have played Ball if he was fit as well as playing MG. Funny.
Maybe I knew Ball wasn't going to play...!!!!?????
- Scoop
- Club Player
- Posts: 807
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 10:29pm
- Location: On a New Street Corner
- Has thanked: 519 times
- Been thanked: 43 times
Re: Why was Michael Gardiner not selected?
Ever heard of flogging a dead horse P66?plugger66 wrote:Then why even include him in the changes you would have made? Anyway doesnt matter as no changes were going to help us beat the Hawks. They have won 19 for the year and we have won 14 with one more game. That is the true gap.Scoop wrote:There you go again P66.plugger66 wrote:
So wouldnt have played Ball if he was fit as well as playing MG. Funny.
Maybe I knew Ball wasn't going to play...!!!!?????
However, being the fair-minded person that I am, your last 3 sentences are probably a true reflection of the situation....not to mention their 15 day break against our 7.
Extra! Extra! Read all about it......no I don't want to read about it anymore!!!