How Ironic. The 'changing game'.

[groupie1]

it could be argue that STK reverted to type in the second half of last year - more emphasis on attack and scoring, less on being able to control the tempo of the game.

And we were the second best performing team behind Geelong during that time.

I think the argument STK needs to revert to a more attacking style is strong - the better teams are now doing exactly that.

It's possible RL doesn't think these guys have the skills or bodies for it - and he may be right.

What concerns me more is intent - when you choose Blake and Fisher to run around the midfield, you will give away pace and an attacking mindset because you diminish the ball winning capability of the midfield, when you should be going with Armo and probably CJ (and yes, I know, Baker being out needs to be considered - the question is, will we see Fisher, Fiora, Blake out when Baker is available? I hope so.)

RL doesn't seem to be preapred to pick the best team; more worried about accounting for oposition dangermen, dampening oposition forward movement - there are degrees and degrees... game plan being attacking or defensive, both should be implemented in degrees, and the coaching staff wants to be prepared to adjust either way.

We do actually have the cattle - they're stuck in Cranbourne

[Hard at it]

I for one think that getting rid of GT was the correct decision at the time. Was the appointment of RL the right one?
With the game style he has us playing one would suggest not. I think RL has tried to make us alot more accountable but he has tried to turn us into another Sydney and that is disappointing. The problem with playing the slow Sydney style football is that you need to have alot of players with great footskills, because you are constantly kicking into a forward line with up to 30 players in it, therefore you need to have precision with your kicking. Therein lies the biggest problem we have IMO. From yesterdays team off the top of my head i would say Ball, Dempster, Jones, Blake, Max, Gram, L.Fisher and Gilbert are all questionable by foot and there may be some i have missed, but that is already way too many to be successful. [/quote]

[Mr Magic]

We are only worried about St.Kilda winning flags here champ.

Sure, but on topic, do you see any irony in the fact that the 'successful' game style we're seeing in 2008 is pretty much what we gave away 2 years ago because it was considered 'out of date' and not 'modern' enough?

Patience is a wonderful attribute to have. And one that the St.Kilda Footy Club is not well known for.

I only hope that we keep our nerve with Ross Lyon.

Ah!, the 'penny drops'.

Thisthread is just a clever oblique slap at the previous Board for sacking GT.

How many times have we seen thr rodgerfox 'get over it' post?

Maybe you should practice what you preach?

Huh?

GT's been mentioned a few times in this thread - but not by me.

Now you're being 'cute' feigning innocence - you know very well that many times when your 'baiting' posts are called for what thet are - anti RB / pro GT shots, you respond with the 'get over it' response.

Very clever to 'lob the grenade' and then claim innocence' when the intended bunfight erupts.

It's really sad because you often have very incisive comments that are worthwhile reading when you forget about playing 'petty games' to further you vitriolic anti RB stance.

[saintsRrising]

Game plan...Cat's vs Saints....had probably nothing to to with the result.


The difference was the skill and poise of the players.


The Cats players when there was a goal to be kicked....kicked them.

Yes they had 11 goal kickers..the Saints only 6.

BUT the Saints had 10, yes TEN players that kicked a point, and 14 who kicked a point and or a goal. 14!!!

The Cats had only had 11...so we actually had MORE players having shots at goal than the Cats.

On goalkicking aprt from accuracy lack of penetration in our kicking hurt badly...we must have had 4 or 5 shots touched on the line.....most from close range shots.

The Saints had 29 scores to the Cats 31, but the margin was 42 points!!!!!


The Saints field kicking was poor too.

How many times did you see a Saints forward having to stop and prop due to poor delivery whereas Cat forwards ran full pelt at the ball with accurate passes finding their outstretched hands??????


Those berating the Saints game plan are completely oblivious to the fact that the Saints had ample forward entries and shots at goal. There were ample scoring opportunties.

But for sloppy kicks the Saints would have had more goals, should have had more goals....and the cats should have less goals from way too many turnovers by the Saints.


The harsh reality at present is pure and simply that the Cats players execute far better than the sloppy Saints.

[rodgerfox]

We are only worried about St.Kilda winning flags here champ.

Sure, but on topic, do you see any irony in the fact that the 'successful' game style we're seeing in 2008 is pretty much what we gave away 2 years ago because it was considered 'out of date' and not 'modern' enough?

Patience is a wonderful attribute to have. And one that the St.Kilda Footy Club is not well known for.

I only hope that we keep our nerve with Ross Lyon.

Ah!, the 'penny drops'.

Thisthread is just a clever oblique slap at the previous Board for sacking GT.

How many times have we seen thr rodgerfox 'get over it' post?

Maybe you should practice what you preach?

Huh?

GT's been mentioned a few times in this thread - but not by me.

Now you're being 'cute' feigning innocence - you know very well that many times when your 'baiting' posts are called for what thet are - anti RB / pro GT shots, you respond with the 'get over it' response.

Very clever to 'lob the grenade' and then claim innocence' when the intended bunfight erupts.

It's really sad because you often have very incisive comments that are worthwhile reading when you forget about playing 'petty games' to further you vitriolic anti RB stance.

Maybe you should re-read the thread??

[Quixote]

If you are looking for defining moments, try the 2005 prelim, to be precise, Adam Schnieders running goal half way through the last.

We tried the game-plan, if you'd call it that, and it turned out we didn't have the legs or courage to carry it out.

You do recall who we were missing that night don't you?

And of who was actually playing, how many of them carrying injuries?

Yet we still hung on until 20 mins to go.

The 'game plan' certainly was not the issue that night.

This is a response to any and all of your posts today and in general.



You are a massive FLOG.



I actually find your s***-stirring quite amusing, but to anyone above the level of spastic it is oh so transparent.



Keep it up though - you're good for a laugh.

[kaos theory]

Rodger you are wrong.....you are creating a delusion

Teams have different 'styles' of play, and they set their style to fit their strengths & weaknesses, then on match day they apply certain tactics & match ups to try to beat a particular opponent.

Our style back in 04 & 05 was based on the brisbane model. Agressive approach to win the contested ball, a FEW hadballs to open up the play & options, then kick long to big, dominate forwards....

It relied on a strong, skillful midfield with great decsion-making, but not so much of pure pace, supported by powerful marking forwards...

That is NOT how geelong and the hawks play. Both these teams use much more 'run, share & carry' style of play (based a little off the west cost model). They use far more handballs per kick, and run much more in waves of players, mostly down the corridor. These teams today have levels of overall pace which is greater than what we had in 04 & 05.

We hit a brick wall with our style when teams worked out how to bottle up the game and beat us. e.g Sydney 04, which broke the streak.

After that, other teams gradually worked us out and, while we could keep smashing the bottom teams, we struggled against the better teams that could flood back and clog our play, these were the sydney style teams and the pacy 'run & carry' style teams.



So please stop trying to re-wrtie history.....

[Quixote]

Rodger you are wrong.....you are creating a delusion

Teams have different 'styles' of play, and they set their style to fit their strengths & weaknesses, then on match day they apply certain tactics & match ups to try to beat a particular opponent.

Our style back in 04 & 05 was based on the brisbane model. Agressive approach to win the contested ball, a FEW hadballs to open up the play & options, then kick long to big, dominate forwards....

It relied on a strong, skillful midfield with great decsion-making, but not so much of pure pace, supported by powerful marking forwards...

That is NOT how geelong and the hawks play. Both these teams use much more 'run, share & carry' style of play (based a little off the west cost model). They use far more handballs per kick, and run much more in waves of players, mostly down the corridor. These teams today have levels of overall pace which is greater than what we had in 04 & 05.

We hit a brick wall with our style when teams worked out how to bottle up the game and beat us. e.g Sydney 04, which broke the streak.

After that, other teams gradually worked us out and, while we could keep smashing the bottom teams, we struggled against the better teams that could flood back and clog our play, these were the sydney style teams and the pacy 'run & carry' style teams.



So please stop trying to re-wrtie history.....

[bigcarl]

Yes they had 11 goal kickers ... the Saints only 6. BUT the Saints had 10, yes 10 players that kicked a point, and 14 who kicked a point and or a goal. 14! The Cats had only had 11 ... so we actually had MORE players having shots at goal than the Cats

good stats. so how do we get our guys kicking straighter? is it just a confidence thing?

[kaos theory]

Also, people here are wrong if they think we try to play an old 'sydney style of play' (I say old, because they tend to attack more these days).

We DO NOT, repeat DO NOT try to move the ball slowly with precise kicks, and rely on flooding to cause a turnover to win possession, and take a man-on-man defensive posture in the game.

Too many people IMO are confusing poor skills & decsion-making, which result in hesitant play, therefore we APPEAR to play a 'sydney style' as a desired style...This is wrong


RL is happiest when we move the ball quickly through the corridor to leading forward, and when we apply more pressure on the other team when they have the ball, particularly on our forward line...

[Iceman234]

Great theory Kaos, but on that response supporters must be forgiven for thinking it’s the old Sydney plan.

Good to see that you know we are NOT trying the Sydney game plan, and great that you have shared it with us. Nice to know we only APPEAR to be playing it….

You say it’s based on poor skill etc. and RL prefers different. So why isn’t the message coming through?

It’s currently boring and uninteresting beyond the predictable first quarter.

[rodgerfox]

Rodger you are wrong.....you are creating a delusion

Teams have different 'styles' of play, and they set their style to fit their strengths & weaknesses, then on match day they apply certain tactics & match ups to try to beat a particular opponent.

Our style back in 04 & 05 was based on the brisbane model. Agressive approach to win the contested ball, a FEW hadballs to open up the play & options, then kick long to big, dominate forwards....

It relied on a strong, skillful midfield with great decsion-making, but not so much of pure pace, supported by powerful marking forwards...

That is NOT how geelong and the hawks play. Both these teams use much more 'run, share & carry' style of play (based a little off the west cost model). They use far more handballs per kick, and run much more in waves of players, mostly down the corridor. These teams today have levels of overall pace which is greater than what we had in 04 & 05.

We hit a brick wall with our style when teams worked out how to bottle up the game and beat us. e.g Sydney 04, which broke the streak.

After that, other teams gradually worked us out and, while we could keep smashing the bottom teams, we struggled against the better teams that could flood back and clog our play, these were the sydney style teams and the pacy 'run & carry' style teams.



So please stop trying to re-wrtie history.....

I disagree.

We had a simple style of winning contests, attacking the ball and the man with it, using the corrider and taking risks.

Sydney's style - or what was referred to as 'modern footy' was based on not losing contests, getting into an armwrestle and effectively doing an anaconda on the opposition.

Geelong have a style, as do Hawthorn, the Bulldogs and most teams currently of a very similar nature.

Whether you call it a game plan, style, tactics whatever is possibly the bone of contention.

The fundamental concepts we adhered to, as did Brisbane, West Coast, Geelong and the Bulldogs, was the same.

Funnily, the Bulldogs were bagged for this also. Too attacking.

Now, they look good. As a group, they've slowly grown into their style - and they have their best players fit and available.

One thing definately, is that we did utilise big forwards. No doubt.

However my point is more directed at the 'modern shutdown' style that everyone, including our club, seemed to think was the way of the future. As opposed to the 'attack and outscore' style that we used, along with other teams.

Now we find ourselves where modern footy is based on breaking lines again, kicking long, fiercely attacking contests with the intent of actually winning then, and kicking big scores etc.

I find it ironic.

[Trunch]

The defining moment of the 04-05 game plan was when any side placed a loose man down back and started to "flood". It became common knowledge St.Kilda could not cope with this tactic. We did not have a plan B.

[rodgerfox]

The defining moment of the 04-05 game plan was when any side placed a loose man down back and started to "flood". It became common knowledge St.Kilda could not cope with this tactic. We did not have a plan B.

Without wanting to go over old ground, we won 16, 14 and 14 games with the worst injury list in the comp for 3 straight years. Plus we had a terrible draw.

It wasn't simply a case of if we we're flooded we lost. We won plenty of games when we were flooded against.

[Quixote]

The defining moment of the 04-05 game plan was when any side placed a loose man down back and started to "flood". It became common knowledge St.Kilda could not cope with this tactic. We did not have a plan B.

Without wanting to go over old ground, we won 16, 14 and 14 games with the worst injury list in the comp for 3 straight years. Plus we had a terrible draw.

It wasn't simply a case of if we we're flooded we lost. We won plenty of games when we were flooded against.

[saintsRrising]

The defining moment of the 04-05 game plan was when any side placed a loose man down back and started to "flood". It became common knowledge St.Kilda could not cope with this tactic. We did not have a plan B.

Without wanting to go over old ground, we won 16, 14 and 14 games with the worst injury list in the comp for 3 straight years. Plus we had a terrible draw.

It wasn't simply a case of if we we're flooded we lost. We won plenty of games when we were flooded against.

and post Bonnie Doon when GT switched to flooding etc the Saints win loss ratio improved.

[St.Kenny]

A very well presneted lucid argument Rodgerfox which is really intimidating many an anti GT faction. Lest we forget the reasons we brought in Lyon was to become tacticully more proficient. Seems some people forgot what we were good at in the first place.

[barks4eva]

Seems some people forgot what we were good at in the first place.

Well it certainly wasn't recruiting

[Shaggy]

Rodger you are wrong.....you are creating a delusion

Teams have different 'styles' of play, and they set their style to fit their strengths & weaknesses, then on match day they apply certain tactics & match ups to try to beat a particular opponent.

Our style back in 04 & 05 was based on the brisbane model. Agressive approach to win the contested ball, a FEW hadballs to open up the play & options, then kick long to big, dominate forwards....

It relied on a strong, skillful midfield with great decsion-making, but not so much of pure pace, supported by powerful marking forwards...

That is NOT how geelong and the hawks play. Both these teams use much more 'run, share & carry' style of play (based a little off the west cost model). They use far more handballs per kick, and run much more in waves of players, mostly down the corridor. These teams today have levels of overall pace which is greater than what we had in 04 & 05.

We hit a brick wall with our style when teams worked out how to bottle up the game and beat us. e.g Sydney 04, which broke the streak.

After that, other teams gradually worked us out and, while we could keep smashing the bottom teams, we struggled against the better teams that could flood back and clog our play, these were the sydney style teams and the pacy 'run & carry' style teams.



So please stop trying to re-wrtie history.....

Brick wall with game style?

In 2004 we got smashed by Brisbane and Port in later half of season when they realised we were a serious threat. Nonetheless we were still only a longer Guera foot from a grand final with a very immature side similar to Hawks last year.

In 2005 we were (IMO) the best side. We lost 3 players against Fremantle, 1 further player each of the next 2 games and a further 3 players after beating Adelaide. We still nearly stuck it up the swans after leading the majority of the match.

In 2006 we were crap (but far better than we are in 2008). GT gave the players the lightest pre-season ever (to over come injuries) which back fired because we were never prepared for the year. We still won 8 out of our last 11 H&A games carrying Hamill, X, Kosi & Raph none of whom had played footy or done a pre-season earlier.

Nonetheless we had Melbourne done for dinner up until losing 4 players by half time.

I really don't see the brick wall ... mistakes yes ... bad luck yes ... but fundamentally I think we really were on track. Most sides take a min 3+ years finals experience with their core group to snag a flag.

RL/administration have done a great job so far this year. We don't have injuries and yet we have had a big pre-season to get our players up there with other team's fitness. GT failed in this regard and it cost us (IMO) a premiership.Thats what we missed from 2004 to 2006. We were IMO the best when fit and on the park but unfortunately it didn't happen when it counted.

The bulk of the players are still playing to day and now should be at their peak. We should really now be better than anytime since 2004 (As the cats have done). On the contrary we are ordinary.

The only brick wall I see is RL's game plan. RL has done great with injuries ... just very poorly onfield.

[tezza1]

it certainly wasnt recruiting or picking our best team.......

We should have won a flag but we perservered with footballers past their use by date , the likes of powell and peckett..............

Guerra kept getting a game even when he didnt get the ball...........

The thing about Geelong is they kept turning over players..........

WE DIDNT ..............they kept recruiting young players and playing them...

We recruited the hasbeens like matty clarke or tried to persevere with people like Blake in the ruck............

And I see similar things with this coaching regime.........keep persisting with players who are not up to it........the fioras , gehrigs , blakes ect ...

Lets be honest ...........We cannot win a Premiership playing these players!!

[BAM! (shhhh)]

Game plan...Cat's vs Saints....had probably nothing to to with the result.


The difference was the skill and poise of the players.


The Cats players when there was a goal to be kicked....kicked them.

Skill, yes, poise, yes, excecution, definately. Gameplan had nothing to do with it? No surprise i suppose, but I beg to differ.

We actually were terrific at the clearances, one of the players big falldowns against the dogs. However, when we lost the clearance, it resulted in an inside 50 and often a shot at goal. Specifically, we don't have much of an answer when the ball gets thumped clear at the ruck. When we turned over the ball, it would result in an inside 50 and often a shot at goal.

Two weeks straight the Saints have been carved up on the rebound. Even when winning clearances the flow of the ball is much easier one way than the other. These are things that ought be addressed through planning, because they're elements of the oppositions plan. Deal with the rebound while playing like that, and St. Kilda will fare very well.

Credit to the Cats, they throw everything at you on the rebound, or any time the get the ball actually. They do it cleanly, they do it skillfully, and it works. If it hadn't been my team's turn to look B-grade next to them, I have no doubt I would have enjoyed the display.

[barks4eva]

And I see similar things with this coaching regime.........keep persisting with players who are not up to it........the fioras , gehrigs , blakes ect ...

Lets be honest ...........We cannot win a Premiership playing these players!!

Agree, I'm getting a bit worried about team selection and structure

Blake is a waste of a space as is Fiora

Gehrig better turn the switch on or show him the door

Gram is NOT a defender, FAIR DINKUM play him on the wing



Give Ferguson an opportunity on the HFF

Play Armitage and give him a decent go, afterall we invested a first round draft pick in him



This week I'd bring IN

M. Gardiner
Schnieder
Ferguson
Armitage


OUT
Harvey inj
Blake
Fiora
Dempster

Tell Gehrig he has one more week to something or he's dropped


and if Birss comes in ahead of Armitage I will go fair dinkum ballistic


Birss is also a waste of space, would be like shuffling deck chairs on the titanic

[joffaboy]

Gram is fast.

Sam Fisher is quick.

X Clarke is very fast.

Milne is quick.

Max is extremely quick.

Dal is fast.

Schneider has zip.


We're not slow.

We just play slow.

OH

MY

GOD

We are close to the slowest team in the League, and you come up with this.

Breathtaking

[Shaggy]

Gram is fast.

Sam Fisher is quick.

X Clarke is very fast.

Milne is quick.

Max is extremely quick.

Dal is fast.

Schneider has zip.


We're not slow.

We just play slow.

OH

MY

GOD

We are close to the slowest team in the League, and you come up with this.

Breathtaking

Actually I believe we are one if not the most athletic team in the comp ... definitely not fastest/long distance individually ... but we have awesome athletes with multiple skills.

[saint66au]

Quixote..argue your point without name-calling ok??

Just on the pace thing...I think we are both slow AND play slow..

Blokes with a bit of toe like Grammy and X are very rarely given license to use it. Seen them numerous time just running on the spot waiting for an uncontested possesion to present itself