The 'Over Reliance on Roo' Thread

[rodgerfox]

Nobody stood up when it mattered most.

Nobody eh???

So the best team in history must have won by over a 100 points then???


Game I watched the Saints dominated most of it.

RF I do agree with your point (and posted so when Roo went out) that Roo's abscence will have hada positive effect in that our players have had to learn to win without him......but it is nonsense to not want to exploot Roo's ull talents when he gets back.

I also disagree with Roo being out will somehow suddently mean that other players will now be "matchwinners".

We already had "matchwinners" in our team..and who bobs up each week has little to do with Roo being in or out.

We lost.


The game was there to be won. We were in front in the final quarter - and we'd become so accustomed to resorting to 'give it to Roo' when in that situation, that we weren't able to find a Plan B when it mattered.

We choked. Badly.


No team in the history of the competition has ever lost from the position we were in.

No. Team. Ever.

[rodgerfox]

Yup... Lenny, BJ, Gram etc, all squibbed it when it mattered in the GF....

Squibbed it?

Want to elaborate on that? They're pretty strong words. I think you try to support that comment with some sort of supporting argument.

You are a pathetic troll... I dont care to elaborate anything to you.

Maybe elaborate to the rest of the forum then.

Pretty full on thing to say about guys who bleed for the club and played well on the day.

[SainterK]

Hawks "other guys" nailed ther shots...ours did not.

Skill execution was the difference.

I can't fathom how football supporters use missing goals as some form of excuse.

It's like a backman saying 'if I had have spoiled better we would have won' or a midfielder saying 'if I had have got more clearances we would have won'.

Kicking goals on the big stage is exactly what I'm talking about.

We blew it. We had 16 more Inside 50s and only 3 mor shots at goal.

No one stood up when it mattered.


The same thing had happened with regularity throughout the season 0 especially in the finals, and Roo was the one who stood up. No one else did.

On GF day when he wasn't able to, it showed.

We?

No, you were not out there busting a gut trying to win it...

[markp]

Yup... Lenny, BJ, Gram etc, all squibbed it when it mattered in the GF....

Squibbed it?

Want to elaborate on that? They're pretty strong words. I think you try to support that comment with some sort of supporting argument.

You are a pathetic troll... I dont care to elaborate anything to you.

Maybe elaborate to the rest of the forum then.

Pretty full on thing to say about guys who bleed for the club and played well on the day.

Or maybe you could bite me?

You think you are clever because you manage to 'outsmart' the mods and a few of the slower types here... but it speaks volumes about you that you would even bother, or that you would extract some sort of enjoyment from relentlessly trying to p!ss on everyones chips.

You are one sad dude.

[plugger66]

Nobody stood up when it mattered most.

Nobody eh???

So the best team in history must have won by over a 100 points then???


Game I watched the Saints dominated most of it.

RF I do agree with your point (and posted so when Roo went out) that Roo's abscence will have hada positive effect in that our players have had to learn to win without him......but it is nonsense to not want to exploot Roo's ull talents when he gets back.

I also disagree with Roo being out will somehow suddently mean that other players will now be "matchwinners".

We already had "matchwinners" in our team..and who bobs up each week has little to do with Roo being in or out.

We lost.


The game was there to be won. We were in front in the final quarter - and we'd become so accustomed to resorting to 'give it to Roo' when in that situation, that we weren't able to find a Plan B when it mattered.

We choked. Badly.


No team in the history of the competition has ever lost from the position we were in.

No. Team. Ever.

And what position was that?

[Dr Spaceman]

We lost.


The game was there to be won. We were in front in the final quarter - and we'd become so accustomed to resorting to 'give it to Roo' when in that situation, that we weren't able to find a Plan B when it mattered.

We choked. Badly.


No team in the history of the competition has ever lost from the position we were in.

No. Team. Ever.

rodger, you've been saying this for almost 9 months now.

Trouble is, you come across as someone who seems to take pride in saying it.

If you really do bleed red, white & black then perhaps try coping with the loss the same way as the majority of us have, rather than appearing to take cheap shots at our current coach.

[saintsRrising]

Hawks "other guys" nailed ther shots...ours did not.

Skill execution was the difference.

I can't fathom how football supporters use missing goals as some form of excuse.

.

I didn't TROLL..


Ok S L O W L Y for you RF.

It is not an EXCUSE.. It is a REASON....


No one has said that bad kicking at goal is not poor football.


BUT it is the REASON why we lost.

We did not lose like your post GF posts tried to claim due to Lyon.

We did not lose due to your latest hobby-horse of being overly reliant on Roo.


We lost because of poor skill in kicking at goal.

In any game including the GF you can always drag up all sorts of incidents...but in the GF the single most important reason why the Saints did not win is that they missed easy shots on goal. Easy shots from close in on easy angles.


You keep raving on of late that the Saints need more paths to goal than Roo...well in the GF we had them.

There was absolutely no shortage of St Kilda players having shots on goal, and easy shots at that.......but being a troll you keeping banging on about Roo. The gameplan on the day achieved enough St Kilda players in good goal scoring positions.

FACT is there were 11 St Kilda players who scored a goal or behind.

Geelong only had 7.

That is correct the Saints had 4 more players than the Cats who scored.

Your over-reliance on Roo in the GF theory is just utter rubbish.


And as to goal kicking skill...REMEMBER that Hawkins kicked a point that the umpire gave as a goal. Without that slice of luck at a crucial stage of the game the Cats might never have gotten back into the game.

[bob__71]

Yup... Lenny, BJ, Gram etc, all squibbed it when it mattered in the GF....

Squibbed it?

Want to elaborate on that? They're pretty strong words. I think you try to support that comment with some sort of supporting argument.

You are a pathetic troll... I dont care to elaborate anything to you.

Maybe elaborate to the rest of the forum then.

Pretty full on thing to say about guys who bleed for the club and played well on the day.

Rodger I strongly disagree with your stance in this thread, and I think it sheds a poor light on your character.

[Leo.J]

Kids actually use this forum...

While they are probably more mature than some on here, they don't need to be subjected to sort of rubbish.

[Leo.J]

We lost.


The game was there to be won. We were in front in the final quarter - and we'd become so accustomed to resorting to 'give it to Roo' when in that situation, that we weren't able to find a Plan B when it mattered.

We choked. Badly.


No team in the history of the competition has ever lost from the position we were in.

No. Team. Ever.

Geelong came pretty close in 2008.

[Thinline]

Hawks "other guys" nailed ther shots...ours did not.

Skill execution was the difference.

I can't fathom how football supporters use missing goals as some form of excuse.

.

I didn't TROLL..


Ok S L O W L Y for you RF.

It is not an EXCUSE.. It is a REASON....


No one has said that bad kicking at goal is not poor football.


BUT it is the REASON why we lost.

We did not lose like your post GF posts tried to claim due to Lyon.

We did not lose due to your latest hobby-horse of being overly reliant on Roo.


We lost because of poor skill in kicking at goal.

In any game including the GF you can always drag up all sorts of incidents...but in the GF the single most important reason why the Saints did not win is that they missed easy shots on goal. Easy shots from close in on easy angles.


You keep raving on of late that the Saints need more paths to goal than Roo...well in the GF we had them.

There was absolutely no shortage of St Kilda players having shots on goal, and easy shots at that.......but being a troll you keeping banging on about Roo. The gameplan on the day achieved enough St Kilda players in good goal scoring positions.

FACT is there were 11 St Kilda players who scored a goal or behind.

Geelong only had 7.

That is correct the Saints had 4 more players than the Cats who scored.

Your over-reliance on Roo in the GF theory is just utter rubbish.


And as to goal kicking skill...REMEMBER that Hawkins kicked a point that the umpire gave as a goal. Without that slice of luck at a crucial stage of the game the Cats might never have gotten back into the game.

Ha! I love a compelling and iunbeatable argument!

Nice one.

Thread shoulda been locked after this post.

[rodgerfox]

Hawks "other guys" nailed ther shots...ours did not.

Skill execution was the difference.

I can't fathom how football supporters use missing goals as some form of excuse.

.

I didn't TROLL..


Ok S L O W L Y for you RF.

It is not an EXCUSE.. It is a REASON....


No one has said that bad kicking at goal is not poor football.


BUT it is the REASON why we lost.

We did not lose like your post GF posts tried to claim due to Lyon.

We did not lose due to your latest hobby-horse of being overly reliant on Roo.


We lost because of poor skill in kicking at goal.

In any game including the GF you can always drag up all sorts of incidents...but in the GF the single most important reason why the Saints did not win is that they missed easy shots on goal. Easy shots from close in on easy angles.


You keep raving on of late that the Saints need more paths to goal than Roo...well in the GF we had them.

There was absolutely no shortage of St Kilda players having shots on goal, and easy shots at that.......but being a troll you keeping banging on about Roo. The gameplan on the day achieved enough St Kilda players in good goal scoring positions.

FACT is there were 11 St Kilda players who scored a goal or behind.

Geelong only had 7.

That is correct the Saints had 4 more players than the Cats who scored.

Your over-reliance on Roo in the GF theory is just utter rubbish.


And as to goal kicking skill...REMEMBER that Hawkins kicked a point that the umpire gave as a goal. Without that slice of luck at a crucial stage of the game the Cats might never have gotten back into the game.

Ha! I love a compelling and iunbeatable argument!

Nice one.

Thread shoulda been locked after this post.

It supports my argument completely.


When the responsible was put onto others to ice the game - they failed. We didn't have anyone capable of winning that match.

When we were forced to introduce other ways to win the match - we failed. Guys choked.
We went Inside 50 16 times more than Geelong! 16!!!

And we only managed 3 more shots on goal.

We relied on Roo throughout the finals and the season proper to seal the deal in these situations.

He wasn't able on GF day, and we didn't have anyone else to step up.


Lyon realised this and rolled the dice in the last quarter by directing the team to 'bomb it in long' as a last ditched effort (like he did in both finals)
to call upon our only matchwinner.


SrR has highlighted this perfectly. When we did go to other players, we failed.

The problem with SrR is that clearly he is highly offended at the slightest suggestion that Lyon erred. In jumping to his defence, he's supported my argument completely.

[SainterK]

Hawks "other guys" nailed ther shots...ours did not.

Skill execution was the difference.

I can't fathom how football supporters use missing goals as some form of excuse.

.

I didn't TROLL..


Ok S L O W L Y for you RF.

It is not an EXCUSE.. It is a REASON....


No one has said that bad kicking at goal is not poor football.


BUT it is the REASON why we lost.

We did not lose like your post GF posts tried to claim due to Lyon.

We did not lose due to your latest hobby-horse of being overly reliant on Roo.


We lost because of poor skill in kicking at goal.

In any game including the GF you can always drag up all sorts of incidents...but in the GF the single most important reason why the Saints did not win is that they missed easy shots on goal. Easy shots from close in on easy angles.


You keep raving on of late that the Saints need more paths to goal than Roo...well in the GF we had them.

There was absolutely no shortage of St Kilda players having shots on goal, and easy shots at that.......but being a troll you keeping banging on about Roo. The gameplan on the day achieved enough St Kilda players in good goal scoring positions.

FACT is there were 11 St Kilda players who scored a goal or behind.

Geelong only had 7.

That is correct the Saints had 4 more players than the Cats who scored.

Your over-reliance on Roo in the GF theory is just utter rubbish.


And as to goal kicking skill...REMEMBER that Hawkins kicked a point that the umpire gave as a goal. Without that slice of luck at a crucial stage of the game the Cats might never have gotten back into the game.

Ha! I love a compelling and iunbeatable argument!

Nice one.

Thread shoulda been locked after this post.

It supports my argument completely.


When the responsible was put onto others to ice the game - they failed. We didn't have anyone capable of winning that match.

When we were forced to introduce other ways to win the match - we failed. Guys choked.
We went Inside 50 16 times more than Geelong! 16!!!

And we only managed 3 more shots on goal.

We relied on Roo throughout the finals and the season proper to seal the deal in these situations.

He wasn't able on GF day, and we didn't have anyone else to step up.


Lyon realised this and rolled the dice in the last quarter by directing the team to 'bomb it in long' as a last ditched effort (like he did in both finals)
to call upon our only matchwinner.


SrR has highlighted this perfectly. When we did go to other players, we failed.

The problem with SrR is that clearly he is highly offended at the slightest suggestion that Lyon erred. In jumping to his defence, he's supported my argument completely.

Can you please stop saying choked, please

[bob__71]

Hawks "other guys" nailed ther shots...ours did not.

Skill execution was the difference.

I can't fathom how football supporters use missing goals as some form of excuse.

.

I didn't TROLL..


Ok S L O W L Y for you RF.

It is not an EXCUSE.. It is a REASON....


No one has said that bad kicking at goal is not poor football.


BUT it is the REASON why we lost.

We did not lose like your post GF posts tried to claim due to Lyon.

We did not lose due to your latest hobby-horse of being overly reliant on Roo.


We lost because of poor skill in kicking at goal.

In any game including the GF you can always drag up all sorts of incidents...but in the GF the single most important reason why the Saints did not win is that they missed easy shots on goal. Easy shots from close in on easy angles.


You keep raving on of late that the Saints need more paths to goal than Roo...well in the GF we had them.

There was absolutely no shortage of St Kilda players having shots on goal, and easy shots at that.......but being a troll you keeping banging on about Roo. The gameplan on the day achieved enough St Kilda players in good goal scoring positions.

FACT is there were 11 St Kilda players who scored a goal or behind.

Geelong only had 7.

That is correct the Saints had 4 more players than the Cats who scored.

Your over-reliance on Roo in the GF theory is just utter rubbish.


And as to goal kicking skill...REMEMBER that Hawkins kicked a point that the umpire gave as a goal. Without that slice of luck at a crucial stage of the game the Cats might never have gotten back into the game.

Ha! I love a compelling and iunbeatable argument!

Nice one.

Thread shoulda been locked after this post.

It supports my argument completely.


When the responsible was put onto others to ice the game - they failed. We didn't have anyone capable of winning that match.

When we were forced to introduce other ways to win the match - we failed. Guys choked.
We went Inside 50 16 times more than Geelong! 16!!!

And we only managed 3 more shots on goal.

We relied on Roo throughout the finals and the season proper to seal the deal in these situations.

He wasn't able on GF day, and we didn't have anyone else to step up.


Lyon realised this and rolled the dice in the last quarter by directing the team to 'bomb it in long' as a last ditched effort (like he did in both finals)
to call upon our only matchwinner.


SrR has highlighted this perfectly. When we did go to other players, we failed.

The problem with SrR is that clearly he is highly offended at the slightest suggestion that Lyon erred. In jumping to his defence, he's supported my argument completely.

I take it you have never been unsucessful at anything Rodger. I would say in your attempt to argue your point you have FAILED.

You say we went back to plan A "Bomb it long to Roo" well Rodger how was that ever plan A usually reiwoldt isnt playing deep....so we hardly ever play bomb long too Roo....Maybe it had something to do with our best forward being injured....but who cares....you would argue with a tree for fun.

[SainterK]

We went Inside 50 16 times more than Geelong! 16!!!

And we only managed 3 more shots on goal.

You live and learn, you give yourself every opporunity to get to the GF again, and you set about righting the wrong.

In 2008, Geelong went inside 50 19 more times than Hawthorn! 19!!!

They had 9 more shots on goal, and still lost.

They won the following year.

[rodgerfox]

We went Inside 50 16 times more than Geelong! 16!!!

And we only managed 3 more shots on goal.

You live and learn, you give yourself every opporunity to get to the GF again, and you set about righting the wrong.

In 2008, Geelong went inside 50 19 more times than Hawthorn! 19!!!

They had 9 more shots on goal, and still lost.

They won the following year.

19 more Inside 50s for 9 more shots at goal is a massive choke.

16 more Inside 50s for only 3 more shots at goal is a choke - but shows a far bigger issue with the ability to convert Inside 50s to scores.
This issue was due to Roo not being able to do it for us, and no one else being able to step up.


As I keep saying, him getting injured is a blessing. Guys with the ability to be matchwinners have suddenly found the trigger to convert the ability into results.

And, the coaches have been forced to find other ways to score.


As long as we relied on Roo to the point that we did, we were going to be massive sitting ducks again this year.

[saintsRrising]

Hawks "other guys" nailed ther shots...ours did not.

Skill execution was the difference.

I can't fathom how football supporters use missing goals as some form of excuse.

.

I didn't TROLL..


Ok S L O W L Y for you RF.

It is not an EXCUSE.. It is a REASON....


No one has said that bad kicking at goal is not poor football.


BUT it is the REASON why we lost.

We did not lose like your post GF posts tried to claim due to Lyon.

We did not lose due to your latest hobby-horse of being overly reliant on Roo.


We lost because of poor skill in kicking at goal.

In any game including the GF you can always drag up all sorts of incidents...but in the GF the single most important reason why the Saints did not win is that they missed easy shots on goal. Easy shots from close in on easy angles.


You keep raving on of late that the Saints need more paths to goal than Roo...well in the GF we had them.

There was absolutely no shortage of St Kilda players having shots on goal, and easy shots at that.......but being a troll you keeping banging on about Roo. The gameplan on the day achieved enough St Kilda players in good goal scoring positions.

FACT is there were 11 St Kilda players who scored a goal or behind.

Geelong only had 7.

That is correct the Saints had 4 more players than the Cats who scored.

Your over-reliance on Roo in the GF theory is just utter rubbish.


And as to goal kicking skill...REMEMBER that Hawkins kicked a point that the umpire gave as a goal. Without that slice of luck at a crucial stage of the game the Cats might never have gotten back into the game.

Ha! I love a compelling and iunbeatable argument!

Nice one.

Thread shoulda been locked after this post.

It supports my argument completely.


When the responsible was put onto others to ice the game - they failed. We didn't have anyone capable of winning that match.

When we were forced to introduce other ways to win the match - we failed. Guys choked.
We went Inside 50 16 times more than Geelong! 16!!!

And we only managed 3 more shots on goal.

We relied on Roo throughout the finals and the season proper to seal the deal in these situations.

He wasn't able on GF day, and we didn't have anyone else to step up.


Lyon realised this and rolled the dice in the last quarter by directing the team to 'bomb it in long' as a last ditched effort (like he did in both finals)
to call upon our only matchwinner.


SrR has highlighted this perfectly. When we did go to other players, we failed.

The problem with SrR is that clearly he is highly offended at the slightest suggestion that Lyon erred. In jumping to his defence, he's supported my argument completely.

What utter rubbish......and LOL how you now try and squirm your way from that we look for Roo too much (remember after the GF how you banged on and on how we supposedly kicked it long to Roo too often.....)....to now that our over reliance on Roo is that it makes the other players bad shots on goal.

Pure deflection and rubbish...and not your eralier arguments at all.

RF 101 when he has failed with the argument...ups the personal attackes...deflects..and in a post or two trots out the LIAR line...
All standrad fare for RF.


It does not prove your argument that we were too reliant on Roo in the GF. That is clearly rubbish as I have shown. You also ignore that Roo has in games had the "yips" as well.

That a number of players missed easy goals has nothing to do with Roo in any way shape or form...and everything to do with the mental demons of the players themselves. Whether it was the pressure or the over-excitement who knows...but it had nothing to do with being over reliant on Roo. That is just garbage.

You love disrespecting your supposed team....the one that you said that you would not buy a Club Membership for.

It clearly delights to you to lable "your" team as chokers.

As usual RF you cannot stick to an argument....you squirm and change and deny your own original points.

[rodgerfox]

It does not prove your argument that we were too reliant on Roo in the GF. That is clearly rubbish as I have shown.

Thata number of players missed easy goals has nothing to do with Roo in any way shape or form...and everything to do with the mentals demons of the players themselves. Whether it was the pressure or the over-excitement who knows...but it had nothing to do with being over reliant on Roo. That is just garbage.

Ummm, who is the guy that won both finals off his own boot by kicking important goals and kicking them when the pressure was on and when it mattered??

Roo.

Who stepped up in his absence on GF to do this?

No one.

We relied on Roo to do this for us most of the year - particularly during September. It worked fine leading up to the GF when he was healthy, but when Lyon needed to play that card in the GF it failed.

Why?

Because we were reliant on Roo. We have been for a long time.


You've proven my point completely.

[saintsRrising]

Your point was supposedly that we were over reliant on Roo.

We are reliant on him.

We are reliant on all players as per their talent and ability.

You claimed we were over reliant on him in the GF. We were not.

Now you claim that due to Roo...that our other players kick behinds = joke!!!!!!!!!!!!

[rodgerfox]

You point was supposedly that we were over reliant on Roo.

We are reliant on him.

We are reliant on all players as per their talent and ability.

You claimed we were over reliant on him in the GF. We were not.

Now you claim that due to TRoo...that our other players kick behinds = joke!!!!!!!!!!!!

If Roo doesn't play well, if Roo doesn't play the role of 'matchwinner', if Roo doesn't convert Inside 50s into goals - we don't beat anyone of note.

We wouldn't win finals, and we lost a GF.


That means, even to the slowest individual, that we rely on him.


To generate 16 more Inside 50s, and to be only able to convert that into 3 more scoring shots with Roo being beaten and not being able to carry us - makes it an unhealthy reliance.




You're wrong yet again SrR. Walk away before you dig yourself a deeper hole.
If you walked away when you were first proven wrong, you wouldn't get yourself into these embarrassing situations.

You've got to learn to know when you're cooked man.

[saintsRrising]

You've proven my point completely.

No, I have proven whata fraud you are.

Any coach seeks to make the most of his players, and moreso his best players.


Your point was that we over do it..and I showed how in the GF that we actually had 11 players who had shots on goal.

Now you slip and slide and try and claim that their misses were because we weree over-reliant on Roo = crap.

Mini running in and missing a dead easy goal has squat to do with Roo.

[saintsRrising]

[You're wrong yet again SrR. Walk away before you dig yourself a deeper hole.
If you walked away when you were first proven wrong, you wouldn't get yourself into these embarrassing situations.

You've got to learn to know when you're cooked man.

I knew you had lost the argument as soon as you started to up the jibes and insults.

When do you star with the cries of Liar?

You are so, so predictable.

[saintsRrising]

If Roo doesn't play well, if Roo doesn't play the role of 'matchwinner', if Roo doesn't convert Inside 50s into goals - we don't beat anyone of note.

.

Missed last weekends game did we?

[Dr Spaceman]

Does anyone agree? Have we made a major mistake by putting all our eggs in one basket?

Why do you keep going on about this Rodg?

Nine months now.

You usually buy into some other discussion with your "over reliance on Nick" point of view but this time, perhaps due to impatience, you’ve decided to kick another thread off yourself. One must ask; what is the point?

And if so, can we fix it this year before it's too late?

How???

You’re never going to get the kind of agreement from posters that you seek. But even if you did, what then? Do we then march on Lyon’s office and demand he changes his game plan?

Do we try to convince the Board to sack Lyon and install yourself as coach?

Once again I ask the question – what is the point of your incessant pleas to accept your argument? Where is it going? Are you simply on an ego trip to prove you can change other peoples opinions?

What is it???

[saintsRrising]

That means, even to the slowest individual, that we rely on him.


.

Oh....more backsliding and repositioning I see..

Now it is just that we rely on him...not that we are over-reliant.


We rely on all our players that take to the field...and more so with a gameplan so reliant on zones. A player or two not doing their part and the zone is opened up for exploitation.