Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
markinUSA wrote:In my opinion, Maxwell was really important to them as a third man up against Roo. When Goddard moves to our forward line, it was really hard for them to double tag both him and Roo... and when we got it forward fast, their backline really struggled. I just hope we are able to move it forward fast again.
I think we looked so good in the second half. Reducing their scoring ability so much, it reminded me of the Geelong game where they didn't score in the second half. Suggested to me that we'd worked them out.
It became, for me, more about the game plan (as much as I hate to say it) than about individuals (particularly on their side) ... though Goddard's spectacular efforts when it mattered really did make a difference.
That's why I've been insisting on a ground level player - our rucks in Blake and Kosi did well, so the ground level player (instead of McEvoy) may allow Goddard to play forward a bit longer and allow the ball to come in more quickly.
Also we need to pressure their half backs - medium sized ground level players are needed to do it .. and Goddard can be the second tall half forward/forward we need during the game... and he'd be harder to rebound away from than either a resting Kosi or Mcevoy.
So I'd prefer Geary to McEvoy.
Kosi, Goddard and Riewoldt won't be in the same forward line together - and kosi will be on the bench when McEvoy rucks - so that's why we need a ground level player.
Last edited by samoht on Wed 29 Sep 2010 12:09pm, edited 1 time in total.
If Grammie is fit -or fitter - this week, he can be the man to do the job in the fwd line.
He can mark and lead, so Maxwell and Shaw will have to be accountable.
The thing is that the delivery into the fwd line has to such that the two can't peel off and get to the contest.
markinUSA wrote:In my opinion, Maxwell was really important to them as a third man up against Roo. When Goddard moves to our forward line, it was really hard for them to double tag both him and Roo... and when we got it forward fast, their backline really struggled. I just hope we are able to move it forward fast again.
I think we looked so good in the second half. Reducing their scoring ability so much, it reminded me of the Geelong game where they didn't score in the second half. Suggested to me that we'd worked them out.
It became, for me, more about the game plan (as much as I hate to say it) than about individuals (particularly on their side) ... though Goddard's spectacular efforts when it mattered really did make a difference.
That's why I've been insisting on a ground level player - our rucks in Blake and Kosi did well, so the ground level player (instead of McEvoy) may allow Goddard to play forward a bit longer and allow the ball to come in more quickly.
Also we need to pressure their half backs - medium sized ground level players are needed to do it .. and Goddard can be the second tall half forward/forward we need during the game... and he'd be harder to rebound away from than either a resting Kosi or Mcevoy.
So I'd prefer Geary to McEvoy.
The Geary for Gardiner theory falls down, IMO, if Kosi were to get injured, particularly early on. We'd be in all sorts of sh.t then!
On that basis it has to be McEvoy, and in the unlikely event it is not, Stanley (as raw as he is).
markinUSA wrote:In my opinion, Maxwell was really important to them as a third man up against Roo. When Goddard moves to our forward line, it was really hard for them to double tag both him and Roo... and when we got it forward fast, their backline really struggled. I just hope we are able to move it forward fast again.
I think we looked so good in the second half. Reducing their scoring ability so much, it reminded me of the Geelong game where they didn't score in the second half. Suggested to me that we'd worked them out.
It became, for me, more about the game plan (as much as I hate to say it) than about individuals (particularly on their side) ... though Goddard's spectacular efforts when it mattered really did make a difference.
That's why I've been insisting on a ground level player - our rucks in Blake and Kosi did well, so the ground level player (instead of McEvoy) may allow Goddard to play forward a bit longer and allow the ball to come in more quickly.
Also we need to pressure their half backs - medium sized ground level players are needed to do it .. and Goddard can be the second tall half forward/forward we need during the game... and he'd be harder to rebound away from than either a resting Kosi or Mcevoy.
So I'd prefer Geary to McEvoy.
The Geary for Gardiner theory falls down, IMO, if Kosi were to get injured, particularly early on. We'd be in all sorts of sh.t then!
On that basis it has to be McEvoy, and in the unlikely event it is not, Stanley (as raw as he is).
We can't risk asking Blake to ruck full time.
The same theory applies to them - what if Jolly gets injured ? .. they only have one real ruck .. Blake would do well on Brown.
You can't go with what ifs ... you need a crystal ball for that.
So we need the ground level player that we had when Gardiner got injured - we don't want to lose that ground level player otherwise we are going backwards.
If we don't choose a ground level player - we are effectively playing 1 less ground level player than last week !
Do we go with a ruckman who will alternate and spend only half the time on the ground anyway - or with a ground level player who will spend 80% of the time on the ground and allow Goddard to spend 20% more time in the forward line ?
