Not a Good Sign?
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
- rodgerfox
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 9059
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 9:10am
- Has thanked: 425 times
- Been thanked: 327 times
Not a Good Sign?
Form slump or not, missing Roo or not, this figure from last week's match is a worry.....
St Kilda Attribute Essendon
187.5cm Height 187.3cm
87.0kg Weight 84.2kg
25yr 9mth Age 23yr 7mth
102.5 Games 61.5
We fielded a team with an average age of nearly 26!! And an average of 100 games each!!
Teams with that sort of experience advantage should be able to beat average and inexperienced teams whether missing one player or in a form slump.
This is a damning figure I think. It's the kind of figure that suggests your team doesn't have any improvement in it.
Thoughts?
St Kilda Attribute Essendon
187.5cm Height 187.3cm
87.0kg Weight 84.2kg
25yr 9mth Age 23yr 7mth
102.5 Games 61.5
We fielded a team with an average age of nearly 26!! And an average of 100 games each!!
Teams with that sort of experience advantage should be able to beat average and inexperienced teams whether missing one player or in a form slump.
This is a damning figure I think. It's the kind of figure that suggests your team doesn't have any improvement in it.
Thoughts?
- SydneySainter
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2424
- Joined: Sat 26 May 2007 6:59pm
- Has thanked: 54 times
- Been thanked: 156 times
Re: Not a Good Sign?
Agreed. We're a list on the decline, which is why of 09 Grand Final was a MUST WIN. We of all people should know that you don't always get a second chance.rodgerfox wrote:Form slump or not, missing Roo or not, this figure from last week's match is a worry.....
St Kilda Attribute Essendon
187.5cm Height 187.3cm
87.0kg Weight 84.2kg
25yr 9mth Age 23yr 7mth
102.5 Games 61.5
We fielded a team with an average age of nearly 26!! And an average of 100 games each!!
Teams with that sort of experience advantage should be able to beat average and inexperienced teams whether missing one player or in a form slump.
This is a damning figure I think. It's the kind of figure that suggests your team doesn't have any improvement in it.
Thoughts?
Bad management is bad management
In general terms I agree...it is a worry, and I am quite worried about this weekend's match against the Eagles as well....if we lose to WCE, that would be 4 losses out of five, and the 1 win was a steal....
Nonetheless, I think our recent poor patch is basically down to a lack of form, and a structural hole left by Rooey. I think if the team can find form, than the structural hole won't be as obvious or painful!
Nonetheless, I think our recent poor patch is basically down to a lack of form, and a structural hole left by Rooey. I think if the team can find form, than the structural hole won't be as obvious or painful!
- rodgerfox
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 9059
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 9:10am
- Has thanked: 425 times
- Been thanked: 327 times
But that's the worry - should a team with an average age of 26 and an average of 100 games each be so rattled by the loss of one guy?saintlee wrote:In general terms I agree...it is a worry, and I am quite worried about this weekend's match against the Eagles as well....if we lose to WCE, that would be 4 losses out of five, and the 1 win was a steal....
Nonetheless, I think our recent poor patch is basically down to a lack of form, and a structural hole left by Rooey. I think if the team can find form, than the structural hole won't be as obvious or painful!
For a team of kids I can absolutely understand it. But for us right now?
- degruch
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8948
- Joined: Mon 19 May 2008 4:29pm
- Location: Croydonia
- Has thanked: 146 times
- Been thanked: 237 times
The form loss and the structual hole are separate issues IMO. 26 shots at goal last week, that's a lot for a forwardline that supposedly doesn't work! The mids didn't seem to have too much trouble getting it there either, and if the backline had clean skills, they'd still look the goods too...all without Roo.saintlee wrote:In general terms I agree...it is a worry, and I am quite worried about this weekend's match against the Eagles as well....if we lose to WCE, that would be 4 losses out of five, and the 1 win was a steal....
Nonetheless, I think our recent poor patch is basically down to a lack of form, and a structural hole left by Rooey. I think if the team can find form, than the structural hole won't be as obvious or painful!
- SydneySainter
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2424
- Joined: Sat 26 May 2007 6:59pm
- Has thanked: 54 times
- Been thanked: 156 times
Well, all of the Roo critics who had him in "over-rated" basket must now look like complete turkeys. Losing Roo was not only losing the key plank in our structure, it's also like we've lost about ten players.rodgerfox wrote:But that's the worry - should a team with an average age of 26 and an average of 100 games each be so rattled by the loss of one guy?saintlee wrote:In general terms I agree...it is a worry, and I am quite worried about this weekend's match against the Eagles as well....if we lose to WCE, that would be 4 losses out of five, and the 1 win was a steal....
Nonetheless, I think our recent poor patch is basically down to a lack of form, and a structural hole left by Rooey. I think if the team can find form, than the structural hole won't be as obvious or painful!
For a team of kids I can absolutely understand it. But for us right now?
Bad management is bad management
- bigred
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 11463
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 7:39am
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 609 times
So...
Because they we had an average age that is a couple of years older....Our form, or lack thereof should not have any bearing on whether we win or lose the game?
o.O
I think you are reading just a little more into this than it deserves.
Maybe...
I would prefer we had some younger guys on the list...but I guess this is what happens when you top up and top up.
Because they we had an average age that is a couple of years older....Our form, or lack thereof should not have any bearing on whether we win or lose the game?
o.O
I think you are reading just a little more into this than it deserves.
Maybe...
I would prefer we had some younger guys on the list...but I guess this is what happens when you top up and top up.
"Now the ball is loose, it gives St. Kilda a rough chance. Black. Good handpass. Voss. Schwarze now, the defender, can run and from a long way".....
I agree. It is a worry. An experienced team like ours should be doing better to cover the loss of 1 player (albiet our best player), but utilmately I think the problem is exacerbated by a form slumprodgerfox wrote:But that's the worry - should a team with an average age of 26 and an average of 100 games each be so rattled by the loss of one guy?saintlee wrote:In general terms I agree...it is a worry, and I am quite worried about this weekend's match against the Eagles as well....if we lose to WCE, that would be 4 losses out of five, and the 1 win was a steal....
Nonetheless, I think our recent poor patch is basically down to a lack of form, and a structural hole left by Rooey. I think if the team can find form, than the structural hole won't be as obvious or painful!
For a team of kids I can absolutely understand it. But for us right now?
Last edited by saintlee on Wed 19 May 2010 2:47pm, edited 1 time in total.
26 shots should win you most games....however not coverting those shots into goals was the problem. I think those misses come down to poor form...degruch wrote:The form loss and the structual hole are separate issues IMO. 26 shots at goal last week, that's a lot for a forwardline that supposedly doesn't work! The mids didn't seem to have too much trouble getting it there either, and if the backline had clean skills, they'd still look the goods too...all without Roo.saintlee wrote:In general terms I agree...it is a worry, and I am quite worried about this weekend's match against the Eagles as well....if we lose to WCE, that would be 4 losses out of five, and the 1 win was a steal....
Nonetheless, I think our recent poor patch is basically down to a lack of form, and a structural hole left by Rooey. I think if the team can find form, than the structural hole won't be as obvious or painful!
-
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2154
- Joined: Mon 06 Aug 2007 1:53pm
- Location: SE Queensland
- Has thanked: 30 times
- Been thanked: 16 times
I thought we looked okay for parts of the game on Sunday, unlike the week before against Carlscum when we looked dreadful for the entire game.
As mentioned earlier by degruch we actually had 26 shots for goal, which says we're getting our hands on it, and close to enough to have a pot for goal, but unlike earlier in the season, our accuracy is just not there.
A game away from Victoria is just the medicine the team needs, a bit of bonding, etc. and we'll come out and pants the Eagles this weekend.
As mentioned earlier by degruch we actually had 26 shots for goal, which says we're getting our hands on it, and close to enough to have a pot for goal, but unlike earlier in the season, our accuracy is just not there.
A game away from Victoria is just the medicine the team needs, a bit of bonding, etc. and we'll come out and pants the Eagles this weekend.
- rodgerfox
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 9059
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 9:10am
- Has thanked: 425 times
- Been thanked: 327 times
But that's not entirely true.degruch wrote:That I agree with SL. Geelong has faced similar problems without Scarlett in the team, but I'm not sure if anyone is calling 'No Scarlett, No Cats'.saintlee wrote:...but utilmately I think the problem is exacerbated by a form slump
They had no Scarlett and no Corey and no Ablett and no someone else yet still belted the average teams.
Granted they'd be in danger in finals or in a GF without these guys - but not completely and utterly lost against poor opposition.
- degruch
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8948
- Joined: Mon 19 May 2008 4:29pm
- Location: Croydonia
- Has thanked: 146 times
- Been thanked: 237 times
It coincided with their form slump last year. First they rested him (and others), then he was out injured for 3-4 (?) weeks, during which they lost several games, and narrowly won some (Freo at Subi by one point, another by 2 points).rodgerfox wrote:But that's not entirely true.degruch wrote:That I agree with SL. Geelong has faced similar problems without Scarlett in the team, but I'm not sure if anyone is calling 'No Scarlett, No Cats'.saintlee wrote:...but utilmately I think the problem is exacerbated by a form slump
They had no Scarlett and no Corey and no Ablett and no someone else yet still belted the average teams.
Granted they'd be in danger in finals or in a GF without these guys - but not completely and utterly lost against poor opposition.
It's true they missed several big players (Stevie J for a lot) over the same period, much the same as we have lost Fisher, Kosi and Gram over the same period. Not entirely without comparison.
- rodgerfox
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 9059
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 9:10am
- Has thanked: 425 times
- Been thanked: 327 times
??degruch wrote:It coincided with their form slump last year. First they rested him (and others), then he was out injured for 3-4 (?) weeks, during which they lost several games, and narrowly won some (Freo at Subi by one point, another by 2 points).rodgerfox wrote:But that's not entirely true.degruch wrote:That I agree with SL. Geelong has faced similar problems without Scarlett in the team, but I'm not sure if anyone is calling 'No Scarlett, No Cats'.saintlee wrote:...but utilmately I think the problem is exacerbated by a form slump
They had no Scarlett and no Corey and no Ablett and no someone else yet still belted the average teams.
Granted they'd be in danger in finals or in a GF without these guys - but not completely and utterly lost against poor opposition.
It's true they missed several big players (Stevie J for a lot) over the same period, much the same as we have lost Fisher, Kosi and Gram over the same period. Not entirely without comparison.
Firstly, they missed Chapman, Ottens, Scarlett, Johnson and others for quite a few games and only lost 4 games for the season.
Against us and the following week against the Lions when they took their ressies up - and against Carlton and the Bulldogs.
The only real bad game was the loss against Carlton.
They are a case in point. They may have had a 'slump' but still were highly competitive.
- degruch
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8948
- Joined: Mon 19 May 2008 4:29pm
- Location: Croydonia
- Has thanked: 146 times
- Been thanked: 237 times
Johnson and Ottens were missing against us, we were missing Max and King. They 'rested' key players against the Lions, then gradually brought them back. They looked very fragile in defense, only just scraped over the line a few times.rodgerfox wrote:??degruch wrote:It coincided with their form slump last year. First they rested him (and others), then he was out injured for 3-4 (?) weeks, during which they lost several games, and narrowly won some (Freo at Subi by one point, another by 2 points).rodgerfox wrote:But that's not entirely true.degruch wrote:That I agree with SL. Geelong has faced similar problems without Scarlett in the team, but I'm not sure if anyone is calling 'No Scarlett, No Cats'.saintlee wrote:...but utilmately I think the problem is exacerbated by a form slump
They had no Scarlett and no Corey and no Ablett and no someone else yet still belted the average teams.
Granted they'd be in danger in finals or in a GF without these guys - but not completely and utterly lost against poor opposition.
It's true they missed several big players (Stevie J for a lot) over the same period, much the same as we have lost Fisher, Kosi and Gram over the same period. Not entirely without comparison.
Firstly, they missed Chapman, Ottens, Scarlett, Johnson and others for quite a few games and only lost 4 games for the season.
Against us and the following week against the Lions when they took their ressies up - and against Carlton and the Bulldogs.
The only real bad game was the loss against Carlton.
They are a case in point. They may have had a 'slump' but still were highly competitive.
By whatever, you can find numbers to prove anything you like, we're not travelling well at the moment, but neither were the Cats last year and early this year. Good teams come back, we have another chance this weekend...although nothing at Subi is easy, the home crowd seems to frighten the umpires if nothing else.
- Con Gorozidis
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 23532
- Joined: Thu 19 Jun 2008 4:04pm
- Has thanked: 100 times
- Been thanked: 78 times
ud be hard pressed to find a saints fan in this galaxy who reckoned roo was over-rated. in my experience the only people that called him over rated were people who watched 1 saints game per year max.SydneySainter wrote:.rodgerfox wrote:But that's the worry - should a team with an average age of 26 and an average of 100 games each be so rattled by the loss of one guy?saintlee wrote:In general terms I agree...it is a worry, and I am quite worried about this weekend's match against the Eagles as well....if we lose to WCE, that would be 4 losses out of five, and the 1 win was a steal....
Nonetheless, I think our recent poor patch is basically down to a lack of form, and a structural hole left by Rooey. I think if the team can find form, than the structural hole won't be as obvious or painful!
For a team of kids I can absolutely understand it. But for us right now?
Well, all of the Roo critics who had him in "over-rated" basket must now look like complete turkeys. Losing Roo was not only losing the key plank in our structure, it's also like we've lost about ten players.
lets face it. our ability to fast track youngsters has been crap and our trading has been average at best. so we are certainly not a team on the rise thats for sure
Re: Not a Good Sign?
It was an upset.rodgerfox wrote:Form slump or not, missing Roo or not, this figure from last week's match is a worry.....
St Kilda Attribute Essendon
187.5cm Height 187.3cm
87.0kg Weight 84.2kg
25yr 9mth Age 23yr 7mth
102.5 Games 61.5
We fielded a team with an average age of nearly 26!! And an average of 100 games each!!
Teams with that sort of experience advantage should be able to beat average and inexperienced teams whether missing one player or in a form slump.
This is a damning figure I think. It's the kind of figure that suggests your team doesn't have any improvement in it.
Thoughts?
Are you going to pull out the stats for when Geelong lost to Carlton two years in a row or when Geelong lost to Collingwood?
What about us beating the Crows at AAMI in 2005?
The Tigers beating the Crows in that basketball style match a few years ago?
Rodger there are plenty of example not just including the ones aforementioned of younger teams beating older teams. It happens.
The Saintsfan Cometh
- Dr Spaceman
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 14102
- Joined: Thu 24 Sep 2009 11:07pm
- Location: Newtown Institute of Saintology
- Has thanked: 104 times
- Been thanked: 62 times
Re: Not a Good Sign?
Especially when the younger team adopts a "nothing to lose" attitude to the game.Saintsfan wrote:Rodger there are plenty of example not just including the ones aforementioned of younger teams beating older teams. It happens.
I think essendon and Carlton beat us because they were the better team on the day. I don't consider them poor opposition, I just dont like them.rodgerfox wrote:But that's not entirely true.degruch wrote:That I agree with SL. Geelong has faced similar problems without Scarlett in the team, but I'm not sure if anyone is calling 'No Scarlett, No Cats'.saintlee wrote:...but utilmately I think the problem is exacerbated by a form slump
They had no Scarlett and no Corey and no Ablett and no someone else yet still belted the average teams.
Granted they'd be in danger in finals or in a GF without these guys - but not completely and utterly lost against poor opposition.
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3122
- Joined: Sun 27 Mar 2005 8:29pm
- Has thanked: 9 times
- Been thanked: 70 times
We've lost Roo, and it's hurting us.
But imo Grammy is hurting us too, but with both of them out it really hurts.
Grammy was 2nd in the comp for inside 50's last year having 5.7 a game, and Rooey despite being down the list he contributed on average 3.8 a game.
This year between them they were averaging 8.
So looking at this we'll go and take the best forward and the player who has the most forward 50 entries out of the top 5 clubs and we'll just imagine how they'd be fairing.
Cloke and Beams
Mooney and Chapman
Hill and Pavlich
Hall and Griffen
Judd and O'halphin
Goodes and Okeefe
There might be a few more form slumps if these guys were out for extended periods.
But imo Grammy is hurting us too, but with both of them out it really hurts.
Grammy was 2nd in the comp for inside 50's last year having 5.7 a game, and Rooey despite being down the list he contributed on average 3.8 a game.
This year between them they were averaging 8.
So looking at this we'll go and take the best forward and the player who has the most forward 50 entries out of the top 5 clubs and we'll just imagine how they'd be fairing.
Cloke and Beams
Mooney and Chapman
Hill and Pavlich
Hall and Griffen
Judd and O'halphin
Goodes and Okeefe
There might be a few more form slumps if these guys were out for extended periods.