Some ordd coaching moves tonight..
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 23208
- Joined: Sat 13 Mar 2004 11:44pm
- Has thanked: 735 times
- Been thanked: 1776 times
Some ordd coaching moves tonight..
IMO some things just clearly didnt work:
1. Blake as a sub - to little to late. Play him in the game or forget it.
2. Armitage - will surely leave at seasons end. FFS he is an inside mid being asked to be Mqualter. I actually reckon hes the perfect combo in the guts with Stevens (who can run/clear) - so why not get him in there?
3. Milne. HAD to take Harry O to the goal line - Milne does his best work buzzing round 20 out from goal. IMHO we played into their hands by often having Milne up near CHF......Milnes a barometer....when hes not in the game we lose.
1. Blake as a sub - to little to late. Play him in the game or forget it.
2. Armitage - will surely leave at seasons end. FFS he is an inside mid being asked to be Mqualter. I actually reckon hes the perfect combo in the guts with Stevens (who can run/clear) - so why not get him in there?
3. Milne. HAD to take Harry O to the goal line - Milne does his best work buzzing round 20 out from goal. IMHO we played into their hands by often having Milne up near CHF......Milnes a barometer....when hes not in the game we lose.
“Yeah….nah””
After tonight though Tef, why would you change up the midfield? It may not be fair for Armo, but I though they were very, very good.
Equalled Pies for centre bounce clearances (has that even been done this year) and beat them overall in this stat.
Did Polo play Armo's role late after he was subbed off?
I guess you could swap them around, still, if it ain't broke....etc
Equalled Pies for centre bounce clearances (has that even been done this year) and beat them overall in this stat.
Did Polo play Armo's role late after he was subbed off?
I guess you could swap them around, still, if it ain't broke....etc
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5062
- Joined: Sun 27 Feb 2005 2:30am
- Has thanked: 15 times
- Been thanked: 125 times
We were a bee's dick away from mastering them. Listen to what the boss had to say after the game - we butchered the pill going forward. IT IS THAT SIMPLE.
But, and this is the big but (without the extra 't'), we were really honest. They've blown away just about every side they've played - not us.
To provide perspective - I'm not talking about an 'honourable' loss. I just thought we were honest. We made shyteloads of errors, mostly by foot, but didn't turn it up. We had more of the scoring shots and were more than competitive on most of the KPI's (Jesus I hate that term).
Yeah, we lost. I hate it, will always hate it. But, we were good, just not classy enough.
And, we're not done yet.
But, and this is the big but (without the extra 't'), we were really honest. They've blown away just about every side they've played - not us.
To provide perspective - I'm not talking about an 'honourable' loss. I just thought we were honest. We made shyteloads of errors, mostly by foot, but didn't turn it up. We had more of the scoring shots and were more than competitive on most of the KPI's (Jesus I hate that term).
Yeah, we lost. I hate it, will always hate it. But, we were good, just not classy enough.
And, we're not done yet.
'I have no new illusions, and I have no old illusions' - Vladimir Putin, Geneva, June 2021
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 624
- Joined: Thu 13 Nov 2008 8:06pm
You're joking right? He kept the most in form power forward of the competition to 2 goals and 10 disposals. Not a terrible night I'd say. Did one or two silly things, but overall I'd say he did a reasonable job.saintbob wrote:Bringing Zac Dawson in was a very very ordinary decisionby the match committee, would have to be one of the dumbest players to EVER pull on a Saints jumper!!!
Gets beaten regularly in one in ones, looks like a dear in the headlights on the rare occasion that he actually gets the ball.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6582
- Joined: Sat 11 Jun 2011 4:52pm
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 1274 times
- Been thanked: 463 times
Why the hell doesn't Rossy put Jack in the centre more often FFS?
The team had a total of 39 clearances and 8 of them were from Jack.
8
And yet he is hardly in the centre square FFS.
C'mon man![Mad :x](./images/smilies/icon_mad.gif)
The team had a total of 39 clearances and 8 of them were from Jack.
8
And yet he is hardly in the centre square FFS.
C'mon man
![Mad :x](./images/smilies/icon_mad.gif)
Last edited by Jacks Back on Sat 13 Aug 2011 1:51am, edited 2 times in total.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 18575
- Joined: Thu 11 Mar 2004 1:36am
- Has thanked: 1902 times
- Been thanked: 839 times
Yep, can't fault our effort. It's just the ability to translate that effort to scoreboard pressure.The OtherThommo wrote:We were a bee's dick away from mastering them. Listen to what the boss had to say after the game - we butchered the pill going forward. IT IS THAT SIMPLE.
But, and this is the big but (without the extra 't'), we were really honest. They've blown away just about every side they've played - not us.
To provide perspective - I'm not talking about an 'honourable' loss. I just thought we were honest. We made shyteloads of errors, mostly by foot, but didn't turn it up. We had more of the scoring shots and were more than competitive on most of the KPI's (Jesus I hate that term).
Yeah, we lost. I hate it, will always hate it. But, we were good, just not classy enough.
And, we're not done yet.
- MCG-Unit
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3147
- Joined: Thu 11 Mar 2004 4:04pm
- Location: Land of the Giants
- Has thanked: 527 times
- Been thanked: 20 times
He must be taking the p!ss on Dawson - for the amount of time the ball came into defence - thought he did a very good job on Cloke.Saintersss wrote:You're joking right? He kept the most in form power forward of the competition to 2 goals and 10 disposals. Not a terrible night I'd say. Did one or two silly things, but overall I'd say he did a reasonable job.saintbob wrote:Bringing Zac Dawson in was a very very ordinary decisionby the match committee, would have to be one of the dumbest players to EVER pull on a Saints jumper!!!
Gets beaten regularly in one in ones, looks like a dear in the headlights on the rare occasion that he actually gets the ball.
Think he had 2 errors, the high tackle, and a maybe a throw. People must just see a name, and associate that with poor performance
![Shocked :shock:](./images/smilies/icon_eek.gif)
Stand your ground ![Shocked :shock:](./images/smilies/icon_eek.gif)
![Shocked :shock:](./images/smilies/icon_eek.gif)
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 264
- Joined: Mon 21 Aug 2006 11:59pm
- Location: Perth
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 4 times
steven played very well, but he's a kid, he needs rest time, at a game at that pace. We don't want him broken like Luke ball before he's 23.
Armo was beaten, he'll get better, but he was beaten by a great midfield, and well, luke ball.
big ben needed a break, he too is a kid and if we want to win he can't ruck for 120 plus minutes. Hence Kosi and blake were used to give him a break.
Armo was beaten, he'll get better, but he was beaten by a great midfield, and well, luke ball.
big ben needed a break, he too is a kid and if we want to win he can't ruck for 120 plus minutes. Hence Kosi and blake were used to give him a break.
Bewaire krime, da krimson bolt is comeing to yure nayborhood to smach krime
SHUT UP KRIME!
SHUT UP KRIME!
-
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Mon 18 Jul 2011 4:05pm
- Location: GIPPSLAND
yes he has kept the power fowards to small amounts of goals but that because hes had a lot of help , we play an extra man in defence , im not saying he doesnt try his heart out but he need to stop making clumsy stupid free kicks , once he stops doing that then ill say hes played a good game , all good sides have great full back and thats something that we lackMCG-Unit wrote:He must be taking the p!ss on Dawson - for the amount of time the ball came into defence - thought he did a very good job on Cloke.Saintersss wrote:You're joking right? He kept the most in form power forward of the competition to 2 goals and 10 disposals. Not a terrible night I'd say. Did one or two silly things, but overall I'd say he did a reasonable job.saintbob wrote:Bringing Zac Dawson in was a very very ordinary decisionby the match committee, would have to be one of the dumbest players to EVER pull on a Saints jumper!!!
Gets beaten regularly in one in ones, looks like a dear in the headlights on the rare occasion that he actually gets the ball.
Think he had 2 errors, the high tackle, and a maybe a throw. People must just see a name, and associate that with poor performance
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4642
- Joined: Thu 22 Sep 2005 11:17am
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 4 times
He ran rampant. I guess if you put Demspter on him you free up Krakour...he was more damaging then our free man thats for sure.plugger66 wrote:Well for a start playing 6 in the forward line would have helped. Easy in hindsight and we were always going to play a 7 an backline but that allowed Davis to be freed up.fingers wrote:What could we have done about Davis???
Dawson's game was OK, he is not there to rack up possessions his job is to stop the FF getting a kick. To keep Cloke to 10 touches and 2 goals is a win to Dawson.
Jack Steven was good but butchered the ball, like most of the team with a 55% effective disposal rate.
We were one tall short in the forward line as Armo is not a HFF.
I thought Jonesey was good, he is tagging a player well, but he is now getting a lot more possessions himself.
In the end we butchered the ball with having 20 scoring shots to 19 and still getting beaten.
It's not all Doom and Gloom, our endeavor is back all we need now is the execution.
Jack Steven was good but butchered the ball, like most of the team with a 55% effective disposal rate.
We were one tall short in the forward line as Armo is not a HFF.
I thought Jonesey was good, he is tagging a player well, but he is now getting a lot more possessions himself.
In the end we butchered the ball with having 20 scoring shots to 19 and still getting beaten.
It's not all Doom and Gloom, our endeavor is back all we need now is the execution.
- Johnny Member
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4157
- Joined: Thu 05 Oct 2006 12:27pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
- Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12753
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 762 times
- Been thanked: 423 times
Just curious,Johnny Member wrote:I would have thought that Davis would have been in the coach's planning as one of the top 3-4 players to negate.
I know you can't negate everyone, but I wouldn't have thought he'd be a guy that you'd be content to leave alone.
do you believe the gameplan was to let him run free?
If not, who do you reckon was supposed to stop him, and didn't?
(interestingly against Carlton Garlett/Yarran? did a similar 'job' on us)
If yes, which player that we did tag shouldn't we have?
I think we play a bigger enough defencive game as it is with trying to tag ever player on the ground. If Davis is not running out of the defence it would be Harry O or Ben Johnson.I agree with Dan Warna if we didn't butcher the balls coming back over there head it could of been a different story.Dan Warna wrote:i concur with the failure on davis.
that said, he gave us 8 free hits with his shocking turnovers, which we failed to capitalise on.
- Johnny Member
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4157
- Joined: Thu 05 Oct 2006 12:27pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
I don't know.Mr Magic wrote:Just curious,Johnny Member wrote:I would have thought that Davis would have been in the coach's planning as one of the top 3-4 players to negate.
I know you can't negate everyone, but I wouldn't have thought he'd be a guy that you'd be content to leave alone.
do you believe the gameplan was to let him run free?
If not, who do you reckon was supposed to stop him, and didn't?
(interestingly against Carlton Garlett/Yarran? did a similar 'job' on us)
If yes, which player that we did tag shouldn't we have?
I'd hope it wasn't - but then again someone mentioned above that he 8 turnovers!
So maybe the idea is to allow him to get the ball - but to reduce the chance of him finding a target further up the ground?
Maybe the perception is that he hurts you by foot, but perhaps the reality is that he does cause turnovers?
I didn't watch the game last night. I followed it on AFL.com as I can't stand watching a replay! So I didn't see any matchups.
I just assumed from reading the match thread last night, the glimpse I saw of the 1st quarter on the TV last night and from the papers this morning that we didn't really try a negating role on him.
- SydneySainter
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2416
- Joined: Sat 26 May 2007 6:59pm
- Has thanked: 54 times
- Been thanked: 153 times