'Squeezing life out of spectacle' St Kilda's a borefest...

[Ajer]

We definitely play a very boring brand of football. We're getting worse and worse to watch each week, but our game plan is extremely effective and is the main reason we have won 27 of our last 31 games (or whatever the stats is).

It may be real boring, but id rather this than us losing like the bad old days. If we're winning, then who cares what opposition fans think

[degruch]

No-one complained about it being boring last year. The press are just disappointed we won't die.

We will be eternally despised by them no matter what...a premiership won't change it. We're St Kilda, we do things differently, the rest just don't get it.

[Ajer]

No-one complained about it being boring last year. The press are just disappointed we won't die.

We will be eternally despised by them no matter what...a premiership won't change it. We're St Kilda, we do things differently, the rest just don't get it.

Yes they did.

I copped crap from opposition fans all year cause saints played "boring footy". While i agreed with some of it, i almost had the last laugh when we nearly won the GF.

The spotlight is on us more this year because we're always involved in low scoring, defensive games, more so than last year.

[degruch]

No-one complained about it being boring last year. The press are just disappointed we won't die.

We will be eternally despised by them no matter what...a premiership won't change it. We're St Kilda, we do things differently, the rest just don't get it.

Yes they did.

I copped crap from opposition fans all year cause saints played "boring footy". While i agreed with some of it, i almost had the last laugh when we nearly won the GF.

The spotlight is on us more this year because we're always involved in low scoring, defensive games, more so than last year.

Nah mate...find me an article. I don't care what your friends thought, I'm talking the media.

[SainterK]

I know I shouldn't let it bug me, but this kind of press is starting to get me all cross.

I just don't understand their angle, is because of the 'ugly brand of footy' or is it because St Kilda continues to make them look foolish?

what?

the angle is that it was a boring, nasty game to watch. that's it. i was there and have since watched it again, and i can only agree. it was a horrible game of football.

if we'd ended the game on fifty points and not got the win - like last week - this place would be in meltdown. we sneaked the result so everyone's happy. but let's not kid ourselves that it was at all enjoyable. (except the last ten minutes.)

that said, we're missing two of our four most attacking players in riewoldt and gram, so it's not suprising this is our style. but it won't work every week.

Totally agree. It was a shocking game to be at (except the last 15 minutes, when we finally decided it might be a good idea to be a bit positive and attacking) and I also just watched the replay and it was a snooze-fest. I ended up reading the paper through a lot of it, as it was so dreadful and boring to watch. It was like watching a Melbourne v Richmond game from last year, or something like that, but with more tackles.
I can totally see where those who don't follow either us, or the Dogs, are coming from. I expect most would have switched off before half time. Life is far too short to watch rubbish like that, especially if your side isn't involved. Soccer would almost be more exciting.
Those who say it's "not our fault" need to realise that the Dogs only went backwards and sideways because we had pushed pretty much our whole team into their forward half, so we "started it". You can bet they wouldn't have played that way if we hadn't done that.
The figures also back up the fact that we're responsible. As stated in the article, last night was the only game in the 10 years of footy at Etihad where the combined total of points for the two teams was less than 100. There was also a game where only 100 was scored, a game where 110 was scored and a game where 112 was scored. Guess who played in all of those games?
Now I'm not suggesting there isn't a time and place for everything, but I don't believe we need to be this negative. You'd think we were a team of "battlers", who'd just lost their only two good players (Roo and Gram). We're not. Last night we had Lenny Hayes, Brendan Goddard, Nick Dal Santo, Leigh Montagna, Justin Koschitzke, Sam Fisher, Sam Gilbert and Stephen Milne, who are all either "elite", or capable of playing elite footy and the rest were plenty capable. That's many more than most teams, yet we played for most of the game (and basically all last week) as though we were one of the bottom ranked teams who can only win by playing ultra-negative. We're not.
We got what we deserved last week and again for 3 quarters last night and would have probably been smashed if the Dogs had kicked straight early in the game, when they were eclipsing us all over the ground. They kept us in it early, and then handed it to us on a platter, late, when they came to a grinding halt.
We were very lucky, and I sure as hell hope we don't keep playing that way, as it's not necessary for us to win (and in fact we weren't winning playing that way for 3.5 quarters and didn't win last week) and it's certainly not good for the game.

I actually feel a bit sad that you are embarassed about the boys gutsy win last night...

You must have a short memory, did you watch the Freo game?

Gram is super important, because without him, Goddard cannot be released up forward.

[AnythingsPossibleSaints]

Well you needn't, I'm not embarrassed about our gutsy win, it was f****** great in the end. You clearly don't get what I'm saying.
And my memory is just fine, thank you very much. How is yours?
We didn't play like this against Freo, which was a high scoring, much more positive game. Which we won well and would have won by even more if we'd not handed them their first 4 goals, keeping them in it.
Yet the two weeks since have been played completely differently, at least for the 4 quarters last week and the first 3 and a half last night.
And how did we go in that time? Last week we lost to an ordinary side who had just been beaten by 95 points the week before and last night we were smashed all over the ground for about 3 quarters, playing this way. If they'd kicked straight early, when they missed lots of very gettable goals, it most likely would have been a cakewalk for them, as we didn't look like scoring and they were cutting us to shreds. And some of you guys want this to continue? Despite the fact it clearly hasn't worked? Incredible!
We turned it around in the last quarter last night by finally playing more attacking, positive footy (because we knew we had to, being 3 goals down, with minutes to play) just like we did against Freo. The 7 and a half quarters in between we were beaten.
So we were beaten playing that way and it was truly awful to watch. That's what I don't want to continue, because I don't want to lose and I don't want to watch that rubbish.
We have plenty of ability and we have the "wood" on most sides. We need to be more positive. Balance, like with everything in life, is the key.

[aussierules0k]

[Stillwaiting]

Stuff 'em.

It was only boring if you didn't care about the result... the Dogs are equally responsible for the spectacle as they tried to beat us at our own game, and we could not let that happen!

I dont see why 'defensive' footy of this nature is so derided anyway... did folk prefer the blowout of ANZAC day?

Not every game will be worthy of owning on dvd, we are down players and have to win any way we can till they return.

So... stuff 'em!

Exactly, we did not kick a massive score, but the dogs kicked less. Stuff them all These commenators change there views daily anyway.

[I Love Peter Kiel]

Excellent post ralphsmith. Our job is not to entertain Darcy. It ia to get into a position to WIN A FLAG!