17 fit players?

Solar · Post: # 753124Post **Solar** » Sun 07 Jun 2009 12:26am

I will pay the two chaps who were knocked out, hellI will pay the guy that looks like sale thomas.....

but wells coul still run... get over it ball had that complaint for 2-3 years! and campbell was listed as "sore"

laidley, piss off, your boys were soft and got beaten....

hate that spin of "we only had 17 fit players".....

ace · Post: # 753126Post **ace** » Sun 07 Jun 2009 12:27am

Rubbish.
They had 3 fully fit umpires playing for them.
That makes 20 minimum.

saint3d · Post: # 753137Post **saint3d** » Sun 07 Jun 2009 12:35am

Don't take it personally. Laidley was just trying to keep his job. You can't blame him for spinning it that way, especially after North was in front for the first half.

saintly_safes · Sun 07 Jun 2009 1:06am

Thought he was quite pathetic actually.Comented on the King incident & when asked if he saw it said he didnt.Then he said he didnt want to risk a player that could have played so they played with 17 men. No wonder they are planning to get rid of him

plugger66 · Post: # 753170Post **plugger66** » Sun 07 Jun 2009 1:08am

What are you guys on. They had 2 injured before half time and finished with 17. If we had that many injuries whan we were 4 goals down we lose the game. It is that simple. If anyone thinks it didnt have an effect you do not understand footy today.

SainterK · Post: # 753193Post **SainterK** » Sun 07 Jun 2009 1:32am

You lose, and get told its a super effort and to forget the half when you didn't play well???

saintly_safes · Sun 07 Jun 2009 1:39am

plugger66 wrote:What are you guys on. They had 2 injured before half time and finished with 17. If we had that many injuries whan we were 4 goals down we lose the game. It is that simple. If anyone thinks it didnt have an effect you do not understand footy today.

Fact is they didnt have to play with 17 & the coach admitted it.They put the cue in the rack & the rest is history, saints by 46 & if you dont agree read the paper tomorrow.

python · Post: # 753198Post **python** » Sun 07 Jun 2009 1:41am

yeah wed probably lose with 17 guys on the field, but i know wed kick more than 4 goals in three quarters

plugger66 · Post: # 753199Post **plugger66** » Sun 07 Jun 2009 1:42am

saintly_safes wrote:
plugger66 wrote:What are you guys on. They had 2 injured before half time and finished with 17. If we had that many injuries whan we were 4 goals down we lose the game. It is that simple. If anyone thinks it didnt have an effect you do not understand footy today.
Fact is they didnt have to play with 17 & the coach admitted it.They put the cue in the rack & the rest is history, saints by 46 & if you dont agree read the paper tomorrow.

And if you dont think interchanges dont have an effect then you dont understand footy. I think we probably would have won without the injuries but it would have been very close. Saints by 46 is an arrogant comment and hopefully the players realise where we were at today.

saintly_safes · Sun 07 Jun 2009 2:06am

plugger66 wrote:
saintly_safes wrote:
plugger66 wrote:What are you guys on. They had 2 injured before half time and finished with 17. If we had that many injuries whan we were 4 goals down we lose the game. It is that simple. If anyone thinks it didnt have an effect you do not understand footy today.
Fact is they didnt have to play with 17 & the coach admitted it.They put the cue in the rack & the rest is history, saints by 46 & if you dont agree read the paper tomorrow.
And if you dont think interchanges dont have an effect then you dont understand footy. I think we probably would have won without the injuries but it would have been very close. Saints by 46 is an arrogant comment and hopefully the players realise where we were at today.

Afl is a tough game you can get injured.Ive had enough of Laidley pushing the sympathy barrow neither lone one of our own supporters .I think i know a bit about the game & "durr" of course rotations will hurt you but thats footy . If it was us in the same situation do you think they would be bleeding for us ? I doubt it but thats imo only.

plugger66 · Post: # 753220Post **plugger66** » Sun 07 Jun 2009 2:10am

saintly_safes wrote:
plugger66 wrote:
saintly_safes wrote:
plugger66 wrote:What are you guys on. They had 2 injured before half time and finished with 17. If we had that many injuries whan we were 4 goals down we lose the game. It is that simple. If anyone thinks it didnt have an effect you do not understand footy today.
Fact is they didnt have to play with 17 & the coach admitted it.They put the cue in the rack & the rest is history, saints by 46 & if you dont agree read the paper tomorrow.
And if you dont think interchanges dont have an effect then you dont understand footy. I think we probably would have won without the injuries but it would have been very close. Saints by 46 is an arrogant comment and hopefully the players realise where we were at today.
Afl is a tough game you can get injured.Ive had enough of Laidley pushing the sympathy barrow neither lone one of our own supporters .I think i know a bit about the game & "durr" of course rotations will hurt you but thats footy . If it was us in the same situation do you think they would be bleeding for us ? I doubt it but thats imo only.

No one is bleeding for them he is just stating the bleeding obvious. Us in the same situation tday half way through the second quarter probably loses. It is that simple.

Beej · Post: # 753223Post **Beej** » Sun 07 Jun 2009 2:16am

I have it on extremely good authority that the bloke who looks like Dale Thomas (Sam Wright) went to his hairdresser with a photo of Dale Thomas and asked to have his hair cut and coloured just like his.

Winmarvellous · Sun 07 Jun 2009 2:22am

Get over it. We won. Why not conserve those who can play, rather risk them for the night. Cue in the rack...seee you next week

saintly_safes · Sun 07 Jun 2009 2:25am

plugger66 wrote:
saintly_safes wrote:
plugger66 wrote:
saintly_safes wrote:
plugger66 wrote:What are you guys on. They had 2 injured before half time and finished with 17. If we had that many injuries whan we were 4 goals down we lose the game. It is that simple. If anyone thinks it didnt have an effect you do not understand footy today.
Fact is they didnt have to play with 17 & the coach admitted it.They put the cue in the rack & the rest is history, saints by 46 & if you dont agree read the paper tomorrow.
And if you dont think interchanges dont have an effect then you dont understand footy. I think we probably would have won without the injuries but it would have been very close. Saints by 46 is an arrogant comment and hopefully the players realise where we were at today.
Afl is a tough game you can get injured.Ive had enough of Laidley pushing the sympathy barrow neither lone one of our own supporters .I think i know a bit about the game & "durr" of course rotations will hurt you but thats footy . If it was us in the same situation do you think they would be bleeding for us ? I doubt it but thats imo only.
No one is bleeding for them he is just stating the bleeding obvious. Us in the same situation tday half way through the second quarter probably loses. It is that simple.

OK we dont agree on this issue, lets move on & you can beleive what you want & I'll be celebrating our 11 straight win with positive memories. Next week might be a different story so lets just enjoy the moment for what it is

ace · Post: # 753269Post **ace** » Sun 07 Jun 2009 8:39am

North's injury list was one short, it should had included :

Laidley (unemployed)

kaos theory · Sun 07 Jun 2009 9:06am

plugger66 wrote:What are you guys on. They had 2 injured before half time and finished with 17. If we had that many injuries whan we were 4 goals down we lose the game. It is that simple. If anyone thinks it didnt have an effect you do not understand footy today.

That's BS.

Ladliey was spinning so hard that wallace would have been embarrassed.

Firstly, they went down 2 players after the momentum of the game had already turned. But power also came back on later in the game. Secondly, they lost another player with about 10 minutes to go at the end of the game, when it was all done & dusted. That's 20 to 21 available players till late into the game.

They had a few players with cramps & some sorness towards the end of the game (when it was all over) as well, but that would be expected with less rotations.

Yes, losing 2 players does have an effect on the game for your rotations and intensity. But to claim, or imply that they had 17 players available from half time is BS.

derby Street · Sun 07 Jun 2009 9:08am

plugger66 wrote:What are you guys on. They had 2 injured before half time and finished with 17. If we had that many injuries whan we were 4 goals down we lose the game. It is that simple. If anyone thinks it didnt have an effect you do not understand footy today.

A pretty long bow to say 2 before half time - I think Warren was that close to half time he was given an orange

As for some of the others every side has players who are sore - some play through it - others can't.

perfectionist · Sun 07 Jun 2009 9:43am

Two men down at half time is difficult to cover, as we have found out over the years. They played 17 only in the last couple of minutes and chose to have one less on the forward line. We kicked one goal during this time.

In reality, it was unlikely that that were going to win the game after half time anyway even with a fit 22. They played really well in the first half with hardly any skill errors by foot or by hand, much like Melbourne last week. But this one on one style, that teams have adopted to restrict our back running, comes at a cost - goals to Kosi and Nick because unless a midfielder or ruckman can get back (which they sometimes did) or we take too long to move the ball forward and the flood can be deployed, they will beat their man one on one more often than not. In Kosi's case it's by flying with an unimpeded run and in Nick's case it's by running and leaping.

remboy · Post: # 753487Post **remboy** » Sun 07 Jun 2009 2:23pm

BOO HOO!
Injuries cost us the flag in 1997, the final against Melbourne in 06, ruined our 2001 & 02 seasons and we got no sympathy. Injuries happen, deal with it. We won, they lost.

fingers · Post: # 753489Post **fingers** » Sun 07 Jun 2009 2:25pm

Dear North - don't come out mouthing off, pushing and shoving and trying to "rough them up" if you haven't got the football or the fitness base to back it up.

suss · Post: # 753500Post **suss** » Sun 07 Jun 2009 2:48pm

It's fair enough to say you lost the game because you didn't have 18 fit players but why couldn't he put an injured bloke on, to stand in the goal square, and at least take one of our players out of the action?

We did it in the 06 prelim against Melbourne...everyone knew Harvs had done his hammy but was put back on just to make up the numbers.

Not sure whether he was trying to prove a point or save his skin or save face but it was puzzling...

joffaboy · Post: # 753501Post **joffaboy** » Sun 07 Jun 2009 2:51pm

fingers wrote:Dear North - don't come out mouthing off, pushing and shoving and trying to "rough them up" if you haven't got the football or the fitness base to back it up.

Or the body size or heart.

SaintDebi · Post: # 753513Post **SaintDebi** » Sun 07 Jun 2009 3:03pm

Lets face it, Laidley needs to justify his position at the club.
Injuries are part of the game. All teams have been in that unfortunate position at some point. Of course it must affect the outcome to a degree, but there's no point sooking about it. The collision between Raph and Warren could easily have gone the other way with Raph bearing the brunt and going off injured -luck of the game. Its part of footy.
As for playing a man short, that was their decision and it was for a short time at the end of the game, not as if they played without him for a quarter. The fact that Laidley took him off indicates he had conceded the game was over. Had there been only a few points in it at that stage my bet is he would have found enough players fit enough to make up the numbers.

Leo.J · Post: # 753585Post **Leo.J** » Sun 07 Jun 2009 6:30pm

fingers wrote:Dear North - don't come out mouthing off, pushing and shoving and trying to "rough them up" if you haven't got the football or the fitness base to back it up.

Good call...the irony of it that they came out and tried to rough us up, and ended up with one in hospital, one concussed and 17 fit players by the end of the game.

And for all the old women in the media (Robbo, Ox, Walls), King may have over done it, but North had being trying that sort of rubbish all day, roughing up our younger guys.

Good on ya Kingy, while he may have a rest for it, it sends a message that you can try and rough us up if you like, but you'd wanta do it properly, because if you don't you'll get hurt in more ways than one.

We've been missing a hard edge for years, difference is now that we can also hurt sides on the scoreboard.

I can't remember the last soft premeirship side...maybe thats because there are none.

Richter · Post: # 753621Post **Richter** » Sun 07 Jun 2009 7:57pm

Leo.J wrote:Good on ya Kingy, while he may have a rest for it, it sends a message that you can try and rough us up if you like, but you'd wanta do it properly, because if you don't you'll get hurt in more ways than one.

We've been missing a hard edge for years, difference is now that we can also hurt sides on the scoreboard.

I can't remember the last soft premeirship side...maybe thats because there are none.

Great comments Leo.