Another perspective?

[To the top]

No doubt we were on the back foot yesterday, for a raft of reasons which were evident to all.

In the face of this circumstance the Coach has singled out Jack Steele and his efforts - and correctly so given the first requirement was to stem the avalanche - not that much could have been done in regard the free kicks against Carlisle (twice), Coffield and Savage which all gifted goals to NM.

So Steele put pressure on the ball handler - attempting to create a further stoppage and/or disrupt disposal to the end event of the ball being in the hands of a St Kilda player.

But, IF you are tackling, the other side has the ball

And therein lies the problem.

IF the ball is in the hands of a St Kilda player the focus is on usage of the ball.

Tackling is a defensive response to not having the ball.

To win footy games you have to score - and score more that the opposition (noting there are also dour, defensive games where tackling and tackling pressure can deliver a result because the ball is ultimately won thru the integrity of defence including tackling)

We have a concentration on defence, including defensive "small" forwards who chase and tackle (surely this is a requirement of ALL players?)

"He is very good defensively and denies territory"

But what about impact on the Scoreboard - where games are won?

Along with defensive integrity as and when required?

And there are the words - "as and when required".

Footy is about more than defending.

It is about winning the ball in a contest then using it to the advantage of team - forcing the opposition into reactionary defensive mode.

We just don't seem to force the opposition into reactionary defensive mode - it is St Kilda who are marked exclusively on reactionary defensive acts.

Hence the praise of Steele (which I have no problem with if it is the catalyst for forcing the opposition onto the defensive), the lauding of Geary including as Club Captain, the preference of Longer over Hickey etc. etc.

And the reasons why some with obvious deficiencies continue to be selected the result being the soft underbelly far, far too often exposed.

The other side of that problem is that these players are our experienced players, having played upwards of 100 AFL games so they should now be showcasing skills which impact the results of winning games.

Look at the Leader Boards of "Best Player" recognition's.

There is a total absence of St Kilda players, awaiting the likes of Billings, Acres, Gresham, Clark, Coffield, King et al, those with over and above "blue collar" attributes aka Dunstan and Steele (and you need your core of "blue collar" in support of your elite)

To me the focus of the Club needs to be questioned.

We need a change of focus to attacking skills supported by defensive integrity

Not lauding defensive integrity full stop - end of process.

It will take time for the likes of those players I have mentioned to evolve to consistent premier performers - hopefully with support from our further recruiting of senior players from elsewhere and with the recovery of some already on our List then thru the Draft where we are once again lining up for higher Draft Picks with a bottom 4 or worse outcome in 2019.

This is the reason I believe Richardson has run his course - and that goes to the Administration as well because Richardson is answerable as an employee charged with a List of Duties.

The Mission Statement comes from the Board.

[saynta]

Fair comment imho.

[saintkev]

I agree. I noticed in the first quarter yesterday, especially, Saints players waiting for North players to take possession of the 50 / 50 ball. Then tackling incorrectly, or having their tackles shrugged off. It’s a long way off how we played in the earlier part of the season. Plus guarding space puts no pressure on the opposition and that was constantly on display yesterday.

[thejiggingsaint]

A most interesting OP TTT For what it's worth, I've been dismayed at the way in which our opponents (not just Norf yesterday) always have players available to take a pass (whether by foot or by hand) Always appear to have time and space, and regularly carve ways through into our defensive fifty. By contrast, our blokes invariably either cough it up to an opponent, or give it off to a contest!!! The turnovers have me tearing out what little hair I have left!!! In short, I just about HATE watching us at present..........

[Cordz2]

Excellent post.
I’d write something similar if I had the time.
Richo seems to me to be a very reactionary coach . Focuses on responding rather than initiating. He is very opposition focused. In business you look for patterns in your numbers to reflect a problem. St Kildas scores in the past 2 years have been so similar that it’s almost unbelievable. We kick between 68 and 78 almost every week. Now unless you play a boring Ross Lyon shutdown style like we used to, you won’t win more than you lose with that pattern.

[scallopsroe]

A most interesting OP TTT For what it's worth, I've been dismayed at the way in which our opponents (not just Norf yesterday) always have players available to take a pass (whether by foot or by hand) Always appear to have time and space, and regularly carve ways through into our defensive fifty. By contrast, our blokes invariably either cough it up to an opponent, or give it off to a contest!!! The turnovers have me tearing out what little hair I have left!!! In short, I just about HATE watching us at present..........

Opposition sides, from my observations this year and in past seasons, seem to block and shepherd far more effectively than the Saints. This technique gives vital seconds to compose and deliver the handball or kick effectively. Our players will run off or just stop after dishing off the pill and don't seem to block or shepherd with the same intensity as our opponents.
Note again yesterday, our opponents have scored quickly and heavily. This has been a disturbing trend with our bad losing games in the past 6 years. Freo, Giants, Lions, PA, Adelaide and Pies were very efficient in putting us to the sword.
We can't seem to stop a run on and wait for the quarter siren to reset, not acceptable

[To the top]

Further, it is interesting to note that our 2 “defensive” forwards accrued 13 possessions between them for 1 goal - and if you add Long in that goes to 22 possessions for 1 goal

What return did NM get - or Brisbane or Richmond (noting teams have identified a weakness with Richmond taking note of Brisbane and NM no doubt taking note of both)?

And still White does not get a game whilst we continue to select Savage who with his experience should be accepting the responsibility plus McKenzie

This is symptomatic of selections

Some are automatically pencilled in when the deficiency is obvious and needs to be addressed including by personnel changes

We have been an underperforming side for as long as we have been - and these players remain automatic selections (and even Captain and Acting Captain)

The reason we have been and are a poor side is these players and their continuing selection

Plus those who should be the beneficiaries of opportunity are subservient to these rusted on selections

By way of example, Gresham is a clever player but is not quick He is evasive meaning his value is as a dangerous goal kicking small forward not a midfielder

My opinion anyway

But we select those whose return I refer to at the opening - and no pressure on the scoreboard

As I say, symptomatic of culture, a culture which needs to change by direction of the Board

As a footy Club we need to get onto the front foot, identify those who will lead the revival, put them in their optimum positions now and then build the blocks around them

I also note Steele had as many tackles as possessions - and there is a story there too because with 6x6x6 you need to win the midfield when those restrictions apply

That is the prime goal scoring phase of the game

[BarryGrogan]

You're spot on.


Even our F50 entries are defensive. The 'bomb it in' entry is a defensive strategy.