The Fox Report - Round 5

[bigcarl]

rodgerfox wrote:
After that, their rucks dominated Blake and we lost full control of the game.

the goals dried up a bit in the second half and king being off the ground was one of the reasons. another was that we missed having a second big marking target in the forward line like kosi.

that said, i'm not overly concerned. the game was well virtually won unless port launched a comeback with a flurry of quick goals. then we would have had to extract the digit.

but i do think we need to be vigilant and wary of areas that have been a problem in the past.

that includes ruck dominance (king and gardiner in tandem have been a revelation there this season) and forward structure (many reliable avenues to goal and no over-reliance on any one player).

gwilt played a passable game as a defensive forward. i like him, but to me he still doesn't impact enough on the scoreboard.

we can count on extreme defensive pressure from this team, but the goals have to keep coming and that is where i'm always wary that we will fall into old habits.

it is one of the areas where we cannot afford to slacken off if we want to go all the way

[yipper]

[
We belted them. Nuff said.

Yep. That's it. We took Gardi off so yep, Port started to actually gain some ruck ascendancy - smashed?? hardly!! And so what, would've stopped it if necessary by bringing Gardi back on. So, what is with the obsession with this Clayton's ruck "dominance" - you know the dominance you have when the game is all over and the other team have finished wiping the floor with you!!

[elvis lives]

Nice report RF, much appreciated. Always appreciate people having a genuine crack at some analysis of the team and their performances, regardless of whether I agree with it.

Shame you are one of an ever dwindling few. It would appear most people these days prefer to just sit back and throw stones rather than contribute anything meaningful.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

What's interesting about this round of ignore the OP and just have a go at RF is that it appears the bits of the OP that could have been interpreted as baiting (he did an entire section on his concerns about Lyon and barely anyone took issue) have been overlooked in favour of a strange defense of Blake's rucking?

I actually am one of the few who think Blake's ruckwork gets underrated. Sure, he didn't look great as a tagger. As the loose man in defense he was found out. But back when he was rucking, he generally did good things around the ground, broke even in the hitouts with all but the best, and was a positive factor... IIRC, there was even a purple patch in '08 where Blake into the ruck tended to go along with the Saints going on a scoring spree.

However, Friday night was certainly a display of what an upgrade a fit Gardiner/King combo is over any combo involving Blake. With King off, Blake got smashed. The game was dusted, and we still won the quarters, but Brogan/Lade have had their way with Blake before, and were doing so again. If there was any doubt of the assett that 2 genuine ruckmen who are capable around the ground (and Gardiner's been flat out good around the ground) have provided the Saints, I believe Friday night should have put those to rest.

I would have been expecting the site's ruckfans to be pointing out the difference between Gardiner putting the ball down Hayes throat compared to Blake struggling to be in the contest against Brogan...

But RodgerFox says it, and look what happens...

[gottaluvit]

Couldn't agree more with RF. We were smashed in the ruck in the second half. First half I thought Gardy was second only to Hayes as our most influential player.

[yipper]

What's interesting about this round of ignore the OP and just have a go at RF is that it appears the bits of the OP that could have been interpreted as baiting (he did an entire section on his concerns about Lyon and barely anyone took issue) have been overlooked in favour of a strange defense of Blake's rucking?

I actually am one of the few who think Blake's ruckwork gets underrated. Sure, he didn't look great as a tagger. As the loose man in defense he was found out. But back when he was rucking, he generally did good things around the ground, broke even in the hitouts with all but the best, and was a positive factor... IIRC, there was even a purple patch in '08 where Blake into the ruck tended to go along with the Saints going on a scoring spree.

However, Friday night was certainly a display of what an upgrade a fit Gardiner/King combo is over any combo involving Blake. With King off, Blake got smashed. The game was dusted, and we still won the quarters, but Brogan/Lade have had their way with Blake before, and were doing so again. If there was any doubt of the assett that 2 genuine ruckmen who are capable around the ground (and Gardiner's been flat out good around the ground) have provided the Saints, I believe Friday night should have put those to rest.

I would have been expecting the site's ruckfans to be pointing out the difference between Gardiner putting the ball down Hayes throat compared to Blake struggling to be in the contest against Brogan...

But RodgerFox says it, and look what happens...

I dont know about anyone else - but my question concerning this is so?? Why was it a concern - it is statting the bleeding obvious when you refer to the fact that when key players go down injured, you will not produce the same results. This is not an issue just with St Killda I would've thought. It was merely exaggerated by our own decision to take the other ruckman off as well - why?? Cos we were home hosed that's why. If the game was in the balance - then Gardner would have stayed on - and this whole point becomes mute. As Gardner clearly had their measure all nite. If Ablett had to go off the ground against Brisbane, what would have happened? The exact same thing I imagine. Every team relies on their cream to produce high level results, lose one of the stars and the results will drop accordingly. To be so concerned about how we were "smashed" after King went down is to ignore how the game was being played - we had them done and dusted at that stage. So we took the other bloke off and threw the job to Blake - who got treated as usual by Brogan and Lade. So? Why should this be a concern for anyone. The fact is it meant nothing to the reasult - and we still actually outscored them anyway. So what is the big deal. I would have jumped in with anyone else posting that. However, they didn't - only Rodg did. What's the big deal Rodg??

[BAM! (shhhh)]

...
However, Friday night was certainly a display of what an upgrade a fit Gardiner/King combo is over any combo involving Blake. With King off, Blake got smashed.
...

I dont know about anyone else - but my question concerning this is so??

Would have thought it a relatively important outcome of the game that an important player ended up going out injured - will King be back for the Bulldogs? If not, how Blake fared in King's place has impact, as it may happen again. If King's not back, then to put a Tim Lane esque overly dramatic spin on it - that loss may be the most important single thing that happened after quarter time.

But that question aside, my point was actually that from a long OP, of all the lines for the "I'm only posting to have a go at Rodger" crew to go for, that seemed an odd one.

Anyway, back to our regularly scheduled RF vs the world.

[rodgerfox]

What's the big deal Rodg??

I didn't think I made it a big deal at all.

It was one comment in amongst about 30 that I made about the game.


However, to answer your question - the main concern is that it showed a reliance on our ruckmen. The issue with that is that King and Gardiner have never really managed to stay on the park over their careers.

The reason they weren't picked up by other clubs is that they have a history of getting hurt and spending more time in the stands than on the ground.

If that happens, then we may be in strife.

[Sobraz]

The reason they weren't picked up by other clubs is that they have a history of getting hurt and spending more time in the stands than on the ground.

If that happens, then we may be in strife.

Enjoy your reports Rodge, and the 'debate' they create...

But I dont agree with the above quote, regarding why they weren't "picked up"...

King was traded to us, after playing in a successful GF side... Geelong discarded him as they thought their back-ups in Blake et al would progress better than they have...

Purely speculating, but with Ottens out, I'd bet the Geelong coaching staff would prefer to have King still wearing the hoops right now over the current set up...

Secondly, Gardiner wasnt overlooked by other clubs purely cos of his injuries... most were worried about his off field reputation more than his of field abilities...

This has thankfully worked in our favour...

[yipper]

What's the big deal Rodg??

I didn't think I made it a big deal at all.

It was one comment in amongst about 30 that I made about the game.


However, to answer your question - the main concern is that it showed a reliance on our ruckmen. The issue with that is that King and Gardiner have never really managed to stay on the park over their careers.

The reason they weren't picked up by other clubs is that they have a history of getting hurt and spending more time in the stands than on the ground.

If that happens, then we may be in strife.

Could be, Possibly be, maybe!! However, if King doesn't come up in time for next week - then RL will have the benefit of chosing another player i.e young McEvoy who played very well for the 2nd successive week in the magoos. He will also have Kosi back and can, and has in the past, thrown him into the ruck. Blake struggled against the Power ruckman no doubt - but would he be that bad against the Doggies? Has done well in the ruck for us over the years as we all know. I am also quite sure that any of the other major players in this year's race for the flag will not want to lose any key players either - as the same concerns should be levelled at them. It is an obvious scenariou where if we lose our ruck men we will struggle - so to will the Doggies, Carlton, the Hawks and if Blake goes down then I imagine Geelong will start to struggle as well. Gardi and King have been injury prone - but are still very good players and well worth the effort to look after them and retain them on our list. They are going alright at present - and hopefully we can keep them out on the park all year. Our structure is the key to our performance as it is with all our rivals. Hopefully we will not need to tamper with it very often.

[saintly]

...
However, Friday night was certainly a display of what an upgrade a fit Gardiner/King combo is over any combo involving Blake. With King off, Blake got smashed.
...

I dont know about anyone else - but my question concerning this is so??

Would have thought it a relatively important outcome of the game that an important player ended up going out injured - will King be back for the Bulldogs? If not, how Blake fared in King's place has impact, as it may happen again. If King's not back, then to put a Tim Lane esque overly dramatic spin on it - that loss may be the most important single thing that happened after quarter time.

But that question aside, my point was actually that from a long OP, of all the lines for the "I'm only posting to have a go at Rodger" crew to go for, that seemed an odd one.

Anyway, back to our regularly scheduled RF vs the world.

if king is not back. who says we won't pick th enxt available ruckman - Mc Evoy.

any teams important players goes off influences then what happens. its lucky we even had balke to come in and ruck at all. Most clubs don't have 2 ruckmen plus some sort of back up

[SainterK]

Join the club, or should I say clubs?

Brisbane, Geelong, Essendon....all without their ruckman.

Not to mention the lists who don't have anyone that would qualify as a "dominant" ruckman.

[rodgerfox]

I'd actually be surprised if McEvoy was put in the ruck against Minson and Hudson.

They're pretty fierce dudes, and I have little doubt they'd beat up on a young kid.

[Thinline]

Not just trying to be argumentative RF, but IMO Minson is an undisciplined marshmallow. If McEvoy could hold his own and remain unruffled, we'd get a rain of free kicks. IMO also, Hudson is yesterday's news. I thought both of those players were really poor and dreadfully immobile on the weekend.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

...
However, Friday night was certainly a display of what an upgrade a fit Gardiner/King combo is over any combo involving Blake. With King off, Blake got smashed.
...

I dont know about anyone else - but my question concerning this is so??

Would have thought it a relatively important outcome of the game that an important player ended up going out injured - will King be back for the Bulldogs? If not, how Blake fared in King's place has impact, as it may happen again. If King's not back, then to put a Tim Lane esque overly dramatic spin on it - that loss may be the most important single thing that happened after quarter time.
...

if king is not back. who says we won't pick th enxt available ruckman - Mc Evoy.

any teams important players goes off influences then what happens. its lucky we even had balke to come in and ruck at all. Most clubs don't have 2 ruckmen plus some sort of back up

I hope we do pick McEvoy. I'd like to see him play. I don't know that McEvoy offsets the loss of King.

The dogs don't have the rucks that Port do, but with Hudson and Minson, it's not a weakness for them, and I'd rather not see Gardiner run into the ground.

[rodgerfox]

Not just trying to be argumentative RF, but IMO Minson is an undisciplined marshmallow. If McEvoy could hold his own and remain unruffled, we'd get a rain of free kicks. IMO also, Hudson is yesterday's news. I thought both of those players were really poor and dreadfully immobile on the weekend.

You're not being argumentative at all. You're simply discussing footy.

And you do make a good point. Perhaps giving a young kid a chance against two guys not in great form is ideal.

[matrix]

46 to 29 is not a smashing.
they havent even doubled it!!...that would be a smashing.

[bergholt]

I agree Blake wasn't great but I don't think even he was SMASHED. Beaten maybe but not smashed. Gardner was awesome. His tapwork for parts was sublime.

Brogan murdered Blake. It's not Blake's fault - he's not really a ruckman - but he was well and truly beaten in the second half. Gardy, on the other hand, was great in there.

[bergholt]

Good report.

I'd still like to see the defender mark the ball when he is totally in the clear.

Zac did over Tredrea, he went up with a fist and came down with the ball... brilliant.

What I like most is that every player looks as if they know what they're meant to do in virtually every circumstance... perhaps Fisher was just a little over-exuberant on one or two occasions.

I think it depends on where they are on the ground. Fisher's big fists came inside defensive 50, when the percentage option is to punch because any error leads to a goal. Zaccy's big mark was on the wing, surrounded by players of both sides, so he had a bit of leeway if anything went awry.

[barks4eva]

A word on Ross Lyon.....

One thing you do get from Lyon, as a supporter, is confidence that he's done his homework.
It's pleasing to know that he'll have worked out Higgins. He'll have planned a counter for Gilbee, and he'll be prepared for Johnson.

In case no one has noticed, I've been critical of Lyon over the past 2 years for the following things....

1. The ability to get our good players to play well.
2. To get some form of system from the team.
3. Recruitment.

The first 2 were disastrous. I don't think anyone can argue with that.

Disastrous? Where did we finish in 2008?

Now to give Lyon FULL credit over two years of hard yakka the context is that he inherited a team chock full of downhill skiers. There were quitea few talented players....but committed 4 quarters players were in the minority.

While we had some 4 quarters players like Lenny and Banger...they were in the minority.

And whenever the opposition had control of the ball the team had little idea of how to play defensively.

1. Lyon has been steadily working on it..but many players by their own admission were not taking head. Just have another listen to Roo's speech at our at the B+F a bit back.

Have listen to Ball and others this year all talking about how since Dal was dropped last year how the penny with them (not Lyon) has dropped and how THEY now understand that selection is based on commitment and delivered work-ethic rather than reputation.


2. Lyon from his first day on the job has been striving to change the way we play. this was obvious to those that could understand his vision.....whereas the others pulled out their hair and cried "chipolotto".

3. Recruitment??

A negative under Lyon....surely you jest?????

About the only negative was taking Howard...by and large every else has been excellent to bloody amazing...

Picking up Schneider, Dempster, M Gardiner, Birss, King and Charlie for their combined draft price is just about the "deal of the Century"....

The strike rate with rookies that our DEVELOPED has in such a short period been outstandingly good...
Armitage has perhaps beena touch slow to come on...but is only a second year player.

So all in all recruiting under Lyon has been better than excellent........and that is even without the fact that he removed Milne from the trade table...and "thank Lyon for that".


Lastly on recruiting under Lyon. List management has been superb with virtually every structural weakness having been addressed both in the immediate and with a stream of players coming on tap over the next few years.

HF is about the only bare area..and even there Lynch is now lookinga very likely success!!!!

But wow, have they been addressed and fixed!

Our good players, so far, have been very good. And consistent for 5 weeks.

And as a unit, we appear completely and utterly as one.

That is a massive credit to Lyon, the Board and Pres for publicly supporting him, and to the assistants.


.

Support,,,yes they have supported him as they understood what Lyon was striving to achieve.

Welcome to the Bandwagon Rodge..glad to see you jumping on board after all is obvious.

Others of us have been on board solidly since day one.

Everything sRs said, except you forgot to add Ray and Dawson to the list of handy pickups and an increasing amount of likely kids, Armitage, Allen, Steven, Lynch etc...


but the real point anyway is that poor recruiting, drafting, underdeveloping the full list under the watch of the last guy in charge of the entire football department for almost 5 years sent our playing stocks into decline,

this is what Lyon inherited,

thankfully Milne is is still a St Kilda player and the right guy got the flick,

and we have Michael Gardiner in the ruck to also thank Lyon for, last guy wasn't going to touch him,

to all the doubting Thomas, Thomas love doll flogs who thought Lyon was a dinosaur, dud and dingbat all rolled into one, if premature ejaculation was a crime you would all be locked up,

It was obvious from day one that Lyon was the Real McCoy!

It was very obvious to anyone with a clue our list under the last guy had been neglected!

It's also obvious to anyone who knows anything at all about football that we have recruited brilliantly in the last two years!

dodgy can you change your nic to rodgersnail?

and I'll be wearing a stinky t-shirt for 12 months straight.

Yes but I'd be more interested in finding out what you would do differently!

[rodgerfox]

dodgy can you change your nic to rodgersnail?

It's not my nic, it's my name.