Weak selection policy AGAIN!
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
-
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2311
- Joined: Tue 10 Jul 2007 11:14am
- Location: Bentleigh East
- Has thanked: 266 times
- Been thanked: 574 times
Re: Weak selection policy AGAIN!
So Bruce goes out, isn't replaced by another tall forward.
Paddy goes out, isn't replaced by another tall forward.
Leaving Membrey as the only genuine key forward. (While Marshall is a promising young ruckman, he's not an AFL level forward)
In 2016 & 2017 we played with FOUR key forwards on 8 occasions. Riewoldt, Membrey, Bruce and McCartin. Across those eight games we won five. Those four talls collectively scored a minimum of 3 goals in each game.
2016 R9 - Beat Essendon by 46. 10 goals between them.
2016 R10 - Beat Fremantle by 34. 9 goals.
2016 R11 - Lost to Adelaide by 88. 5 goals.
2016 R14 - Beat Geelong by 3. 3 goals.
2016 R15 - Lost to Gold Coast by 40. 3 goals.
2016 R21 - Lost Sydney by 70. 4 goals.
2016 - R22 - Beat Richmond by 9. 5 goals
2017 - R3 - Beat Brisbane by 31. 5 goals.
Why the hell are we considering playing ONE key forward?!? Is our delivery inside 50 that bad that we just remove the targets?
Surely Carlisle goes forward.
Paddy goes out, isn't replaced by another tall forward.
Leaving Membrey as the only genuine key forward. (While Marshall is a promising young ruckman, he's not an AFL level forward)
In 2016 & 2017 we played with FOUR key forwards on 8 occasions. Riewoldt, Membrey, Bruce and McCartin. Across those eight games we won five. Those four talls collectively scored a minimum of 3 goals in each game.
2016 R9 - Beat Essendon by 46. 10 goals between them.
2016 R10 - Beat Fremantle by 34. 9 goals.
2016 R11 - Lost to Adelaide by 88. 5 goals.
2016 R14 - Beat Geelong by 3. 3 goals.
2016 R15 - Lost to Gold Coast by 40. 3 goals.
2016 R21 - Lost Sydney by 70. 4 goals.
2016 - R22 - Beat Richmond by 9. 5 goals
2017 - R3 - Beat Brisbane by 31. 5 goals.
Why the hell are we considering playing ONE key forward?!? Is our delivery inside 50 that bad that we just remove the targets?
Surely Carlisle goes forward.
- degruch
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8948
- Joined: Mon 19 May 2008 4:29pm
- Location: Croydonia
- Has thanked: 146 times
- Been thanked: 237 times
Re: Weak selection policy AGAIN!
I think we'll see Carlisle FWD occasionally, with the rucks resting there, Gilbert too. Acres will likely be there too...it could be unpredictable, or it could be crap...I guess we'll find out! But don't think relying on a standard forward line set up with VFL like-for-like replacements (Lonie = Long, Battle = McCartin) has much of an upside.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 9067
- Joined: Wed 29 Jun 2005 10:39pm
- Location: A distant beach
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 426 times
Re: Weak selection policy AGAIN!
Probably would have given Battle a run and left Newnes out. We need a more mobile forward line, and it would be a good game to try out as much as possible...or are we playing it safe for the finals?
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 2590
- Joined: Fri 20 Jan 2012 4:57pm
- Has thanked: 2043 times
- Been thanked: 1162 times
Re: Weak selection policy AGAIN!
The great mystery. So - given Sinclair is one of only 3 RELIABLE kicks in our team (the other two being 11 and 33 - teen draftees ... says everything FFS!) he shouldn't have even been dropped in the first place. And yet - we now go play on a big fast track where keeping possession is a non-negotiable (hardly our forte) we choose not to bring him back up after 30 touches and a goal.DJ Higgins wrote:SINCLAIR not in but Billings & Gresham stay. FFS
So yeah - more Billings and Newnes (& to a lesser extent Gresham) seems like a great plan.
F&*%ing idiot Match Committee. Again.
Go you red, black & white warriors
- parkeysainter
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 2696
- Joined: Thu 20 Jul 2017 2:59am
- Location: Brighton Beach Mansion
- Has thanked: 84 times
- Been thanked: 177 times
Re: Weak selection policy AGAIN!
Newnes was in our best last week v the Dees and he was. Reported in match reports from different outlets also so as if they would drop him.
Rice hasn't done enough at Sandy to warrant a game yet. Battle ditto. Tom Lamb who plays FF and CHF would get a game before him if he was on the Saints list. That is just reality.
Rice hasn't done enough at Sandy to warrant a game yet. Battle ditto. Tom Lamb who plays FF and CHF would get a game before him if he was on the Saints list. That is just reality.
Try to be a rainbow in someone's cloud
In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death, taxes and the St Kilda FC
In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death, taxes and the St Kilda FC
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 11543
- Joined: Sun 11 Sep 2011 2:26pm
- Has thanked: 3518 times
- Been thanked: 2464 times
Re: Weak selection policy AGAIN!
You are now on ignore. Have looked over your content and style over the last couple of weekstakeaway wrote:Agree. The only one demanding selection in the ones was Phillips, and he is in. Battle certainly hasn't, not ready yet. Sinclair unlucky.
Acres had to come in. Don't see any problems. Bringing players in who have not really earnt it just for the sake of change will not achieve anything.
I have a feeling you and parkeysainter are the same poster
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 9067
- Joined: Wed 29 Jun 2005 10:39pm
- Location: A distant beach
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 426 times
Re: Weak selection policy AGAIN!
Newnes? Jeez our standard must be low, or I was at a different match.parkeysainter wrote:Newnes was in our best last week v the Dees and he was. Reported in match reports from different outlets also so as if they would drop him.
Rice hasn't done enough at Sandy to warrant a game yet. Battle ditto. Tom Lamb who plays FF and CHF would get a game before him if he was on the Saints list. That is just reality.
- degruch
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8948
- Joined: Mon 19 May 2008 4:29pm
- Location: Croydonia
- Has thanked: 146 times
- Been thanked: 237 times
Re: Weak selection policy AGAIN!
AFL site. Must admit, there were a few I'd put before him though...and we were pretty crap.spert wrote:Newnes? Jeez our standard must be low, or I was at a different match.parkeysainter wrote:Newnes was in our best last week v the Dees and he was. Reported in match reports from different outlets also so as if they would drop him.
Rice hasn't done enough at Sandy to warrant a game yet. Battle ditto. Tom Lamb who plays FF and CHF would get a game before him if he was on the Saints list. That is just reality.
I guess his lame efforts have been widely publicised in the media lately, and we know at his best he's very good, so he gets the chance to respond. Not too many get that chance, so I hope to hell he makes the best of it.
- parkeysainter
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 2696
- Joined: Thu 20 Jul 2017 2:59am
- Location: Brighton Beach Mansion
- Has thanked: 84 times
- Been thanked: 177 times
Re: Weak selection policy AGAIN!
I am not takeaway. I have morals and self respect and don't pose as a double poster on here. I don't have time for that crap in my busy life even if I wanted to. BFUSA the admin can verify it.Scollop wrote:You are now on ignore. Have looked over your content and style over the last couple of weekstakeaway wrote:Agree. The only one demanding selection in the ones was Phillips, and he is in. Battle certainly hasn't, not ready yet. Sinclair unlucky.
Acres had to come in. Don't see any problems. Bringing players in who have not really earnt it just for the sake of change will not achieve anything.
I have a feeling you and parkeysainter are the same poster
Takeaway seems like a good poster though. He/she uses logic and sound judgement and is not an emotive knee jerker.
Try to be a rainbow in someone's cloud
In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death, taxes and the St Kilda FC
In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death, taxes and the St Kilda FC
- parkeysainter
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 2696
- Joined: Thu 20 Jul 2017 2:59am
- Location: Brighton Beach Mansion
- Has thanked: 84 times
- Been thanked: 177 times
Re: Weak selection policy AGAIN!
Well, he was in the best.spert wrote:Newnes? Jeez our standard must be low, or I was at a different match.parkeysainter wrote:Newnes was in our best last week v the Dees and he was. Reported in match reports from different outlets also so as if they would drop him.
Rice hasn't done enough at Sandy to warrant a game yet. Battle ditto. Tom Lamb who plays FF and CHF would get a game before him if he was on the Saints list. That is just reality.
Try to be a rainbow in someone's cloud
In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death, taxes and the St Kilda FC
In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death, taxes and the St Kilda FC
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1824
- Joined: Thu 15 Sep 2011 5:54pm
- Has thanked: 119 times
- Been thanked: 381 times
Re: Weak selection policy AGAIN!
Scollop wrote:You are now on ignore. Have looked over your content and style over the last couple of weekstakeaway wrote:Agree. The only one demanding selection in the ones was Phillips, and he is in. Battle certainly hasn't, not ready yet. Sinclair unlucky.
Acres had to come in. Don't see any problems. Bringing players in who have not really earnt it just for the sake of change will not achieve anything.
I have a feeling you and parkeysainter are the same poster
Put on ignore by Scollop. Now I know my posts make sense.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 23010
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 3:53pm
- Has thanked: 8902 times
- Been thanked: 3883 times
Re: Weak selection policy AGAIN!
Think this weeks team is slightly better than last weeks. Maybe a bit down in goal scoring potential but picks up more than it loses in possession gathering.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 635
- Joined: Sat 20 Apr 2013 10:51pm
- Has thanked: 28 times
- Been thanked: 125 times
Re: Weak selection policy AGAIN!
Keep telling yourself that.takeaway wrote:Scollop wrote:You are now on ignore. Have looked over your content and style over the last couple of weekstakeaway wrote:Agree. The only one demanding selection in the ones was Phillips, and he is in. Battle certainly hasn't, not ready yet. Sinclair unlucky.
Acres had to come in. Don't see any problems. Bringing players in who have not really earnt it just for the sake of change will not achieve anything.
I have a feeling you and parkeysainter are the same poster
Put on ignore by Scollop. Now I know my posts make sense.
Regardless of who is or is not banging the door down at Sandy, several players in the seniors do not deserve the same gift of games.
How does this not make sense to people??
The definition of insanity is...........
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 635
- Joined: Sat 20 Apr 2013 10:51pm
- Has thanked: 28 times
- Been thanked: 125 times
Re: Weak selection policy AGAIN!
Our team selection (ie; 2 forced changes only) suggests we are tracking along just nicely. Am I missing something?
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 11543
- Joined: Sun 11 Sep 2011 2:26pm
- Has thanked: 3518 times
- Been thanked: 2464 times
Re: Weak selection policy AGAIN!
As Brick Top would say; Get your tongue out of his ....parkeysainter wrote:
Takeaway seems like a good poster though. He/she uses logic and sound judgement and is not an emotive knee jerker.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1867
- Joined: Fri 28 Oct 2016 11:59pm
- Has thanked: 54 times
- Been thanked: 269 times
Re: Weak selection policy AGAIN!
What does Sinclair have to do to get re-selected and what does Billings and Gresham have to do to get dropped? I have no problem with certain players "banging on the door" for selection staying in Sandy until they are actually ready. Battle has already played and wasn't great/big enough and Rice and Goddard are not good. Maybe later in the year
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1824
- Joined: Thu 15 Sep 2011 5:54pm
- Has thanked: 119 times
- Been thanked: 381 times
Re: Weak selection policy AGAIN!
portosaint wrote:Keep telling yourself that.takeaway wrote:Scollop wrote:You are now on ignore. Have looked over your content and style over the last couple of weekstakeaway wrote:Agree. The only one demanding selection in the ones was Phillips, and he is in. Battle certainly hasn't, not ready yet. Sinclair unlucky.
Acres had to come in. Don't see any problems. Bringing players in who have not really earnt it just for the sake of change will not achieve anything.
I have a feeling you and parkeysainter are the same poster
Put on ignore by Scollop. Now I know my posts make sense.
Regardless of who is or is not banging the door down at Sandy, several players in the seniors do not deserve the same gift of games.
How does this not make sense to people??
The definition of insanity is...........
Which players in the seniors are you talking about? Granted quite a few are not in form, but are still a better chance to impact future games than those who are doing nothing much at Sandy. Common sense.
- parkeysainter
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 2696
- Joined: Thu 20 Jul 2017 2:59am
- Location: Brighton Beach Mansion
- Has thanked: 84 times
- Been thanked: 177 times
Re: Weak selection policy AGAIN!
Whatever. He/she posts well and makes sense. Unlike you Mr Potato Cake.Scollop wrote:As Brick Top would say; Get your tongue out of his ....parkeysainter wrote:
Takeaway seems like a good poster though. He/she uses logic and sound judgement and is not an emotive knee jerker.
Try to be a rainbow in someone's cloud
In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death, taxes and the St Kilda FC
In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death, taxes and the St Kilda FC
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 635
- Joined: Sat 20 Apr 2013 10:51pm
- Has thanked: 28 times
- Been thanked: 125 times
Re: Weak selection policy AGAIN!
Common sense isn't very common these days.takeaway wrote:portosaint wrote:Keep telling yourself that.takeaway wrote:Scollop wrote:You are now on ignore. Have looked over your content and style over the last couple of weekstakeaway wrote:Agree. The only one demanding selection in the ones was Phillips, and he is in. Battle certainly hasn't, not ready yet. Sinclair unlucky.
Acres had to come in. Don't see any problems. Bringing players in who have not really earnt it just for the sake of change will not achieve anything.
I have a feeling you and parkeysainter are the same poster
Put on ignore by Scollop. Now I know my posts make sense.
Regardless of who is or is not banging the door down at Sandy, several players in the seniors do not deserve the same gift of games.
How does this not make sense to people??
The definition of insanity is...........
Which players in the seniors are you talking about? Granted quite a few are not in form, but are still a better chance to impact future games than those who are doing nothing much at Sandy. Common sense.
Look where it is getting the St Kilda FC.
Once again, the definition of insanity is........
Finish the sentence.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1824
- Joined: Thu 15 Sep 2011 5:54pm
- Has thanked: 119 times
- Been thanked: 381 times
Re: Weak selection policy AGAIN!
If you mean the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, that statement is rubbish and has nothing to do with the true definition. Best for you to check factsportosaint wrote:Common sense isn't very common these days.takeaway wrote:portosaint wrote:Keep telling yourself that.takeaway wrote:Scollop wrote:You are now on ignore. Have looked over your content and style over the last couple of weekstakeaway wrote:Agree. The only one demanding selection in the ones was Phillips, and he is in. Battle certainly hasn't, not ready yet. Sinclair unlucky.
Acres had to come in. Don't see any problems. Bringing players in who have not really earnt it just for the sake of change will not achieve anything.
I have a feeling you and parkeysainter are the same poster
Put on ignore by Scollop. Now I know my posts make sense.
Regardless of who is or is not banging the door down at Sandy, several players in the seniors do not deserve the same gift of games.
How does this not make sense to people??
The definition of insanity is...........
Which players in the seniors are you talking about? Granted quite a few are not in form, but are still a better chance to impact future games than those who are doing nothing much at Sandy. Common sense.
Look where it is getting the St Kilda FC.
Once again, the definition of insanity is........
Finish the sentence.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 635
- Joined: Sat 20 Apr 2013 10:51pm
- Has thanked: 28 times
- Been thanked: 125 times
- asiu
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10313
- Joined: Thu 08 Apr 2010 8:11pm
- Has thanked: 1327 times
- Been thanked: 932 times
Re: Weak selection policy AGAIN!
is this betterer , takeaway"Perseverance is a strong, valuable quality.
Perseveration is a troubling issue needing clinical attention.
Don't let a quaint saying blur this distinction."
![Image](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_iUpoNBZyaBc/R0zVk-1LCZI/AAAAAAAAAg0/9eeT7D6cnaA/s320/compass-blu-265x220.gif)
.name the ways , thought manipulates the State of Presence away.
.tipara waranta kani nina-tu.
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3353
- Joined: Wed 12 Sep 2007 5:30pm
- Has thanked: 169 times
- Been thanked: 516 times
Re: Weak selection policy AGAIN!
Concern is AR said today that Newness and Billings out of form but have done some good things for us in the past few years. Past few years earns you credits for 2 weeks at best , we would have to be up to 4 or 5 for some of these guys.
I hope 11 pm Saturday night i am eating humble pie and in the words of the fonz "i was WRRRRRRR " , but i doubt it.
I hope 11 pm Saturday night i am eating humble pie and in the words of the fonz "i was WRRRRRRR " , but i doubt it.