Did we over achieve

[robsaint]

Did we over achieve the past two years? Did Ross get the best out of an average bunch? Yes we do some talented individuals; Lenny, Roo, Goddard and Fisher that have played to their potential. What about the rest, Joey did he excel last two years and this is just where he is really at. Gram always wasteful with his disposal had one very good year 2009. Fisher always reliable. Dal got the skills but has never consistently delivered. My opinion is that some players played above themselves inspired by the likes of Goddard and Lenny. The back men Gwilt, Gilbert and Blake looked good due to efforts Goddard and Fisher. Enough said about Raph. Zac like every full back needs the support of others. Now that Goodard and Fisher are down a little, the rest of the backmens skill level is exposed. Jones was inspired by Lenny who made Joey and Dal look good as outside players because he was always there in and under doing the hard work. Players like Mini, Eddy, Dempster look good in a good team but are also exposed and inconsistent. Roo cannot handle two and three players week in week out, it is bound to take its toll and has. Milne and Schniedner are still useful they will always have good and bad games, comes with the potion they play. Big Ben is slogging away learning his craft needs some senior support. It is always easy to assess things in retrospection so I am not going to go on about some of the recruiting. Some of the recycled players have been good contributors, Gardiner and Schnieder especially. Others were a waste Jess, Lovett, Gamble?, Peake?
It may be premature but I think an assessment of every player and would expect at least 6-10 players no being there next year. The hard question needs to be asked of every player, Do you want to play for the Saints and are you prepared to do what it takes.
This is my little frustrated rant.

[BigMart]

No

[BigMart]

No

[oh when]

No - we took football to a new level - just like the Pies are doing now.

[Sobraz]

What does overachieve mean??....

How does a player consistently play at a higher level than he's capable??... I can understand a match here and there where things 'go a players way', but how does a guy like Dal or Joey play better than he actually can, for 2 years??... Doesn't make sense...

Guys like Dempster, Blake etc get coverage for their lack of skill due to the ability of others, but all along we were all aware that they lacked the ability to begin with... It's others playing up to their potential that covered them, not players playing better than they can...

[spert]

Its like saying the light switch in over-on rather than on. If you're capable of doing something, then did it, then you have achieved it. Players who have achieved a certain standard and now can't do it, are under achieving. This can be due to age, injury, mindset etc etc.

[The Fireman]

What does overachieve mean??....

How does a player consistently play at a higher level than he's capable??... I can understand a match here and there where things 'go a players way', but how does a guy like Dal or Joey play better than he actually can, for 2 years??... Doesn't make sense...

Guys like Dempster, Blake etc get coverage for their lack of skill due to the ability of others, but all along we were all aware that they lacked the ability to begin with... It's others playing up to their potential that covered them, not players playing better than they can...

Exactly...silly thread.

[SaintWal]

Over achievement is only due to game tactics that are in advance of the opposition. Geelong 07,8,9 hawks 08, saints 09 and to a certain extent 10. Pies late 10 and now in 11. Change is the key, emulation will only leave you behind the team you are emulating

[dcstkfc]

Over-achievement is impossible.

How can you achieve more than you can achieve?

[plugger66]

Over-achievement is impossible.

How can you achieve more than you can achieve?

Totally agree but i think what did happen is that our coach came up with a fantastic game plan that suited a side that had many ordinary players in it surrounded by about 6 superstars. I am unsure that side on paper would deserve to play 3 GF's in 2 years.

[dcstkfc]

Over-achievement is impossible.

How can you achieve more than you can achieve?

Totally agree but i think what did happen is that our coach came up with a fantastic game plan that suited a side that had many ordinary players in it surrounded by about 6 superstars. I am unsure that side on paper would deserve to play 3 GF's in 2 years.

We deserved it because we scored more points than the Western Bulldogs in the Preliminary Finals of 09 and 10, and then scored the same amount of points as the Pies in GF 1.

It's a game, if it was about talent on lists, it wouldn't be very exciting.

[plugger66]

Over-achievement is impossible.

How can you achieve more than you can achieve?

Totally agree but i think what did happen is that our coach came up with a fantastic game plan that suited a side that had many ordinary players in it surrounded by about 6 superstars. I am unsure that side on paper would deserve to play 3 GF's in 2 years.

We deserved it because we scored more points than the Western Bulldogs in the Preliminary Finals of 09 and 10, and then scored the same amount of points as the Pies in GF 1.

It's a game, if it was about talent on lists, it wouldn't be very exciting.

Yes but if I was coaching the side we would have lost for sure. RL came up with a great game plan for the side we had. And I didnt say we didnt deserve it. We did for the reasons you said. I was saying on paper without a great game plan we probably wouldnt have got to the GF 2 years in a row.

[3rd generation saint]

If we'd won the last two years, all the pundits would agree that we overachieved.

[bigcarl]

No. Nor did we underachieve. Only bad luck stopped us possibly winning back-to-back flags.

Ross inherited a very good list, which is now in decline. He's done a good job and if he can pull us out of this and get us back to being contenders any time soon, he'll got up even further in my estimation.

[dcstkfc]

Yes but if I was coaching the side we would have lost for sure. RL came up with a great game plan for the side we had. And I didnt say we didnt deserve it. We did for the reasons you said. I was saying on paper without a great game plan we probably wouldnt have got to the GF 2 years in a row.

Wholeheartedly agree with you on that one. Sincerely hope it wasn't all Tudor/SOS though...

[SaintWal]

Over-achievement is impossible.

How can you achieve more than you can achieve?

Totally agree but i think what did happen is that our coach came up with a fantastic game plan that suited a side that had many ordinary players in it surrounded by about 6 superstars. I am unsure that side on paper would deserve to play 3 GF's in 2 years.

We deserved it because we scored more points than the Western Bulldogs in the Preliminary Finals of 09 and 10, and then scored the same amount of points as the Pies in GF 1.

It's a game, if it was about talent on lists, it wouldn't be very exciting.

Yes but if I was coaching the side we would have lost for sure. RL came up with a great game plan for the side we had. And I didnt say we didnt deserve it. We did for the reasons you said. I was saying on paper without a great game plan we probably wouldnt have got to the GF 2 years in a row.

But Don't you think that the game plan of all out attack in 04 05 was also close? Given the dollars and medical expertise that we currently enjoy afforded to the team of 04 an 05 I think we may have walked away as premiers in either or both years. Given more attack in 09/10 we may have walked away premiers in either or both years.

The basics of the team are very very good. The tweaking, timing, and game plans are tantamount to success or failure. Unfortunately this current batch of players should, or could, have walked away with up to four premierships and will probably walk away with none.

[plugger66]

Over-achievement is impossible.

How can you achieve more than you can achieve?

Totally agree but i think what did happen is that our coach came up with a fantastic game plan that suited a side that had many ordinary players in it surrounded by about 6 superstars. I am unsure that side on paper would deserve to play 3 GF's in 2 years.

We deserved it because we scored more points than the Western Bulldogs in the Preliminary Finals of 09 and 10, and then scored the same amount of points as the Pies in GF 1.

It's a game, if it was about talent on lists, it wouldn't be very exciting.

Yes but if I was coaching the side we would have lost for sure. RL came up with a great game plan for the side we had. And I didnt say we didnt deserve it. We did for the reasons you said. I was saying on paper without a great game plan we probably wouldnt have got to the GF 2 years in a row.

But Don't you think that the game plan of all out attack in 04 05 was also close? Given the dollars and medical expertise that we currently enjoy afforded to the team of 04 an 05 I think we may have walked away as premiers in either or both years. Given more attack in 09/10 we may have walked away premiers in either or both years.

The basics of the team are very very good. The tweaking, timing, and game plans are tantamount to success or failure. Unfortunately this current batch of players should, or could, have walked away with up to four premierships and will probably walk away with none.

I think the game plan in 2004/5 suited our side then as well. We had better forwards back then and also footy was played much differently. There was no such thing as zones or pressing. We were unlucky in 2004/5 mainly due to injuries and we had just plain bad luck in games in 2009/10.

[SaintWal]

Over-achievement is impossible.

How can you achieve more than you can achieve?

Totally agree but i think what did happen is that our coach came up with a fantastic game plan that suited a side that had many ordinary players in it surrounded by about 6 superstars. I am unsure that side on paper would deserve to play 3 GF's in 2 years.

We deserved it because we scored more points than the Western Bulldogs in the Preliminary Finals of 09 and 10, and then scored the same amount of points as the Pies in GF 1.

It's a game, if it was about talent on lists, it wouldn't be very exciting.

Yes but if I was coaching the side we would have lost for sure. RL came up with a great game plan for the side we had. And I didnt say we didnt deserve it. We did for the reasons you said. I was saying on paper without a great game plan we probably wouldnt have got to the GF 2 years in a row.

But Don't you think that the game plan of all out attack in 04 05 was also close? Given the dollars and medical expertise that we currently enjoy afforded to the team of 04 an 05 I think we may have walked away as premiers in either or both years. Given more attack in 09/10 we may have walked away premiers in either or both years.

The basics of the team are very very good. The tweaking, timing, and game plans are tantamount to success or failure. Unfortunately this current batch of players should, or could, have walked away with up to four premierships and will probably walk away with none.

I think the game plan in 2004/5 suited our side then as well. We had better forwards back then and also footy was played much differently. There was no such thing as zones or pressing. We were unlucky in 2004/5 mainly due to injuries and we had just plain bad luck in games in 2009/10.

agreed

[BigMart]

04 we peaked too early, and like 97 lacked finals expetience....

05 we were injury riddled
As we were in 2006

09 we had our chances and blew it....
10 we almost stole one because coll choked when the had the game...oh, lenny and bj helped...

Not winning any of
91, 92, 97, 98, 04, 05, 06, 09, 10 is underachievement given some of the talent we posessed.....underachieving is possible

[jroberts:)]

NO!!

[thejiggingsaint]

No we didn't "overachieve" we were worthy minor premiers in 09 and fought hard to reach the GF in 2010. Obviously because of the set up for determining the premiers (a knock-out comp rather than ladder posi) we can be perceived as "losers" I think differently

[Behind Play]

NO!!!! We were the best team in 2009 and last year we worked hard to reach the GF.

Really, we lost 2009 because of a luck toe poke from Scarlet and last year was an unlucky bounce.

[Teflon]

NO!!!! We were the best team in 2009 and last year we worked hard to reach the GF.

Really, we lost 2009 because of a luck toe poke from Scarlet and last year was an unlucky bounce.

we didnt lose due to a toe poke...we lost as we failed to take our chances in front of goal - see Schneiders inside the goal square FFS and missing...

[bigred]

We lost because of a lot of things throughout the games.

It is never just one action, or one event.

We underachieved in both years.

2009 especially.

I thought we were in this comp to win premierships.

Surely that's the point of it.

[SainterK]

It is never just one action, or one event.

Like this.