Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
bergsone wrote:Gwilt to replace Fisher next week,get one back lose one.Not too sure who else we could have put on Buddy,maybe Gilbert,losing Fisher really seemed to open up our back half
Simpkin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
With Gilbert 3MU.
Dempster on Cyroli.
I thought that would have been an obvious line-up.
have any of you actually followed the saints the last 5 years?
we trialled dempster on talls for 3 years. then lyon worked out it was a failed experiment. then lyon switched demster to amll fwd and dempster became a gun.
why do we have to repeat this experiemnt. blind freddy could have told watters it was VERY VERY bad idea to play dempster on buddy. This is a known fact.
our only option 9agree not perfect) was gilbo having a crack on buddy and dempster having a crack on cyril.
im simply dumbfounded at the coach and the group memory loss on here.
therabbitinthehat wrote:I think Simpkin probably had his best game for us yet, but had no chance in curbing Franklin who demonstrated a few times just how strong he is - maybe in a year or 2 Simpkin could match it with him physically, but not yet.
simpkin wasn't on franklin at all. he played on roughead pretty much all night and i think he took the points easily.
What irked me was that Dempster was left on buddy "all night." it was always going to be too much to ask. Gilbert seemed to be a better match-up with his height and pace. With Rioli up, the swapping of Dempster and Gilbert, was well worth a try.
therabbitinthehat wrote:I think Simpkin probably had his best game for us yet, but had no chance in curbing Franklin who demonstrated a few times just how strong he is - maybe in a year or 2 Simpkin could match it with him physically, but not yet.
simpkin wasn't on franklin at all. he played on roughead pretty much all night and i think he took the points easily.
Roughhead got votes on Sunday footy show.
_______________________________________________________________________
"Don't argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience."
mr six o'clock wrote:Our backline wasn't that bad , we were smashed in the centre , only lenny and jack could hold their heads high there .
So there forward line saw plenty of the ball . the free kicks they got inside fifty as well as the fifty metre penalty's also helped !
How many frees inside fifty and fifty metre penalty's did we get ?
Franklin only really got on top once fisher was out !
Post of the thread and the real issue IMHO.
Best way to stop Buddy is to stop supply - time and again AFTER we'd manage to kick a goal it goes back to centre and we lose the important clearance and they go fwd. In the last qtr we absolutely HAD to get some better supply from middle - FFS we actually looked dangerous in attack (a real positive for mine) so mids doing their bit was crucial.
Montagna
Dal Santo
Armo
Jones all IMHO lowered colors or offered no where near enough support for Hayes. Steven was best mid all night for me.
We just dont have enough quality through here with outside run - Goddard's elite as a defensive sweeper......but cant win his own ball out of centre. Shame we've got injuries cause had we had Fisher/Gwilt in defence I reckon we couldve swung Gilbert into midfield as he does win the ball, can run and carry and tackle.
Midfield is our issue and when Hayes goes god help us.
bergsone wrote:Gwilt to replace Fisher next week,get one back lose one.Not too sure who else we could have put on Buddy,maybe Gilbert,losing Fisher really seemed to open up our back half
Simpkin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
With Gilbert 3MU.
Dempster on Cyroli.
I thought that would have been an obvious line-up.
all week it was obvious dempster should go to cyril. obvious to all but our coach apparently.
bergsone wrote:Gwilt to replace Fisher next week,get one back lose one.Not too sure who else we could have put on Buddy,maybe Gilbert,losing Fisher really seemed to open up our back half
Simpkin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
With Gilbert 3MU.
Dempster on Cyroli.
I thought that would have been an obvious line-up.
all week it was obvious dempster should go to cyril. obvious to all but our coach apparently.
I thought that would have been an obvious line-up.
all week it was obvious dempster should go to cyril. obvious to all but our coach apparently.
And who all week should have got Buddy?
dunno. but not dempster. i wuold have given gilbo first crack and simpkin second crack. blake 3rd crack. fisher 4th. dempster 5th.
but yeah we all know with no zac there is noone obvious. but dempster is way down the list for anyone over 6'2. he is a small fwd specialist. he likes to dempster them!
all week it was obvious dempster should go to cyril. obvious to all but our coach apparently.
And who all week should have got Buddy?
dunno. but not dempster. i wuold have given gilbo first crack and simpkin second crack. blake 3rd crack. fisher 4th. dempster 5th.
but yeah we all know with no zac there is noone obvious. but dempster is way down the list for anyone over 6'2. he is a small fwd specialist. he likes to dempster them!
As you say no one obvious. Its all hindsight but it may have been even worse had other players gone to either of Buddy or Cyril. May have been better. Anyway the ball was coming down to easily to help the backs. Only Lenny and Jack were getting a kick in the midfield.
Much being said about our defence being vulnerable.
I guess really, both defences were made a meal of really when it came to big guys.
Buddy / Roughy had 13 scoring shots = 7 goals 6
Kosi / Roo had 10 scoring shots = 8 goals 3
Difference in the game was their small forward (with a bit of help from the umpires mind you) but still he made the most of the spilling ball every time.
Waters has a real hard on for playing Dempster as a tall defender. Unsure if it's cos we lack tall's or he thinks Dempster makes a good tall defender?
The Hawks had Hale, Rough and Buddy as their tall forwards. We had Fisher, Gilbert, Simpkin and Blake as tall defending options but we went with Dempster. Very strange decision IMO. Is Waters already tanking?
Old Mate wrote:Waters has a real hard on for playing Dempster as a tall defender. Unsure if it's cos we lack tall's or he thinks Dempster makes a good tall defender?
The Hawks had Hale, Rough and Buddy as their tall forwards. We had Fisher, Gilbert, Simpkin and Blake as tall defending options but we went with Dempster. Very strange decision IMO. Is Waters already tanking?
Buddy always plays well against us, no matter who is on him.
Old Mate wrote:Waters has a real hard on for playing Dempster as a tall defender. Unsure if it's cos we lack tall's or he thinks Dempster makes a good tall defender?
The Hawks had Hale, Rough and Buddy as their tall forwards. We had Fisher, Gilbert, Simpkin and Blake as tall defending options but we went with Dempster. Very strange decision IMO. Is Waters already tanking?
Buddy always plays well against us, no matter who is on him.
He struts out thinking he can, and then doing.
Wouldn't of mattered who IMO.
So we do nothing and just except it.
"Buddy thinks he's gonna do well, so he will, oh well."
The point is, Dempster is not a KPP and never will be. He's 6'4 however plays like a 6 footer. He's the perfect match-up for Rioli, and has done a number on him before. Some of the match-ups were dreadful and played a big part in us losing the game.
Fisher started fit and did not leave the ground until half time. He's an option. Blake when not rucking is an option for Hale/Buddy or Rough if Simpkin goes to Buddy. Gilbert has been out of form but I'd say more as an attacking HB Flanker. Why not give him a negating role on a tall. He has the agility to run with Buddy.
Not too mention this frees Dempter up to play on his bunny in Rioli.
If you are a half decent team and you stop Rioli and Buddy then you'll win most of the time.
I also think it was a massive mistake not playing Wilkes to really stretch their defence.
Max used to handle Buddy quite well. And he is the same height as Simpkin. Maybe Tom may have been the best bet. And Dempster has never been anything other than a defender against smalls and medium size players. Watters did not do himself well on Saturday with hs placements.
borderbarry wrote:Max used to handle Buddy quite well. And he is the same height as Simpkin. Maybe Tom may have been the best bet. And Dempster has never been anything other than a defender against smalls and medium size players. Watters did not do himself well on Saturday with hs placements.
Watters should come out and apologise. It was one thing to make a fundamantal mistake with his match-ups. Almost unforgivable to sit there for 100 minutes and not make a change. Mind you - Adam Kingsley should put his hand up. He has been at the club long enough to know what Dempster can and cant do. Surely he should have spoken up?
It took Lyon 3 years of trial and error to work out Dempsters abilities (very good on smalls and mediums) - and once he did Dempster became a key plaayer for us. Surely Kingsley should have known this?
borderbarry wrote:Max used to handle Buddy quite well. And he is the same height as Simpkin. Maybe Tom may have been the best bet. And Dempster has never been anything other than a defender against smalls and medium size players. Watters did not do himself well on Saturday with hs placements.
Watters should come out and apologise. It was one thing to make a fundamantal mistake with his match-ups. Almost unforgivable to sit there for 100 minutes and not make a change. Mind you - Adam Kingsley should put his hand up. He has been at the club long enough to know what Dempster can and cant do. Surely he should have spoken up?
It took Lyon 3 years of trial and error to work out Dempsters abilities (very good on smalls and mediums) - and once he did Dempster became a key plaayer for us. Surely Kingsley should have known this?
noob wrote:To be fair we don't have a proper full-back which needs to be seriously addressed at the end of the year
We have a first round pick probably around 10 so that could help.
Who do you think you are kidding, more likey to be around pick 5 the way we are going.
But will they trade that for a ready made full back or wiil they take 4 years to develop a youngster, with all the consequences in those 4 years.
The more you know, the more you know you don't know.
When I was a young child, I knew that I knew so much about so much.
Now that I am old and know so much more, I know that I know so much about so little, and so little about so much.
If you are not engaging AI actively and aggressively, you are doing it wrong.
You are not going to lose your job to AI.
You are going lose your job to somebody who uses AI.
Your company is not going to go out of business because of AI.
Your company is going to go out of business because another company used AI.
- Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA
noob wrote:To be fair we don't have a proper full-back which needs to be seriously addressed at the end of the year
We have a first round pick probably around 10 so that could help.
Who do you think you are kidding, more likey to be around pick 5 the way we are going.
But will they trade that for a ready made full back or wiil they take 4 years to develop a youngster, with all the consequences in those 4 years.
You have to remember that the Demons and Dogs are odds on to use their priority picks (Scully and Ward Compo) being such a good draft. If they finish below us theres 4 picks already gone then count another 2 on GWS and GC and likely another 2 on Port and the Lions who will finish below us. That makes pick 9 the best we will get.
Something like this I reckon:
1. GWS
2. GC
3. Melb
4. Melb
5. Bris
6. Port
7. WB
8. WB
9. St K
Yeah looking good for early draft picks this year you would think!
Re our matchups I thought Dempster did a reasonable job, but Geary struggled. We lost the game through the midfield however it wasnt the defensive players fault the way the ball was being delivered.
SAINTS another day older another day closer to the Holy Grail!
WinnersOnly wrote:Yeah looking good for early draft picks this year you would think!
Re our matchups I thought Dempster did a reasonable job, but Geary struggled. We lost the game through the midfield however it wasnt the defensive players fault the way the ball was being delivered.
We also missed McEvoy who runs the corridor very well (good tank) to get back and help out defenders in the air. Best exemplified by Buddy's mark in the square in the last (?). Dawks came in relatively slowly, I looked forward and no-one was pushing back for us to give Dempster a chop out. Buddy will beat most opponents if left one on one with time to position himself against a smaller opponent (and everybody is).
It was also very apparent that Buddy stayed closer to goal when Fisher went off. No McEvoy, no Fisher - I'm with you WO, Dempster did a reasonable job.
'I have no new illusions, and I have no old illusions' - Vladimir Putin, Geneva, June 2021
