Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
bergholt wrote:
I suppose, but then you forget how good he was in 2009. He had a goal per game, an assist per game, 4.7 tackles per game. He was a huge component of that side and he was still only 22 or 23.
Then in 2010 he had 7 goals and 11 assists in the first 13 rounds. Not a lot worse. He wasn't going that badly and we were winning a good number of games. He definitely dropped off after that especially in the finals, but that's much more obvious in hindsight.
Not really, i just dont see how relevant it is.
Mini had a really good 09, i've never questioned his selection for that season. He well and truly earned his spot.
He just had a really poor 2010... A consistently poor one
skeptic wrote:Persevering with guys like McQualter in 2011 when his game was sooooo consistently poorly is not an example of coaching to win premierships now.
I can respect the strategy of not developing kids whilst we're going for a premiership. The implication is, we're not playing kids because our best 22 is clearly set and no one outside will develop in time.
This unfortunetly was not the case. We had a number passengers that were carried over our dominant period. Whilst it wasn't too bad in 09, in 2010 there were 4 players at least that were poor for the majority of the season but kept getting played... Dempster, McQualter, Gram, Eddy (possibly more I can't really remember anymore, I don't think Ray had a great year but am not sure). I still feel that guys like Armo were deprived of opportunity to overtake some of those guys who despite playing worse were persevered with.
That's not part of the play your best 22 strategy and these two things are not mutually exclusive
So four or more players carried for the year in 2010, Riewoldt missing most of the year, where did we finish? 12th - 14th would be my guess.
Lol
Oh yes Eddy, Mini Dempster and Gram were the fearsome foursome of 2010... The opposition quivered at the mention of their names and they were all super in the grandfinals too. Mini's one good quarter in the draw is the stuff of legends...
Quite frankly Jones form from the the Collingwood game onwards wasn't as good as his 09 performances and Ray wasn't that good either.
skeptic wrote:Persevering with guys like McQualter in 2011 when his game was sooooo consistently poorly is not an example of coaching to win premierships now.
I can respect the strategy of not developing kids whilst we're going for a premiership. The implication is, we're not playing kids because our best 22 is clearly set and no one outside will develop in time.
This unfortunetly was not the case. We had a number passengers that were carried over our dominant period. Whilst it wasn't too bad in 09, in 2010 there were 4 players at least that were poor for the majority of the season but kept getting played... Dempster, McQualter, Gram, Eddy (possibly more I can't really remember anymore, I don't think Ray had a great year but am not sure). I still feel that guys like Armo were deprived of opportunity to overtake some of those guys who despite playing worse were persevered with.
That's not part of the play your best 22 strategy and these two things are not mutually exclusive
So four or more players carried for the year in 2010, Riewoldt missing most of the year, where did we finish? 12th - 14th would be my guess.
Lol
Oh yes Eddy, Mini Dempster and Gram were the fearsome foursome of 2010... The opposition quivered at the mention of their names and they were all super in the grandfinals too. Mini's one good quarter in the draw is the stuff of legends...
Quite frankly Jones form from the the Collingwood game onwards wasn't as good as his 09 performances and Ray wasn't that good either.
Our top 6 really were that good
But didnt the pies have more AA that year. Of course that isnt proof they had a better top 6 but it certainly doesnt hurt. The thing is you cant it both ways. Either RL is the greatest coach in the history of the game or our bottom players werent as bad as you say. How else can you explain getting within one point of being as good as 1966.
matrix wrote:
jesus christ a s*** bounce of a footy in 2010 and a couple of goals in 2009 (plus ball on the bench and bartel shutting lenny down) and we'd all be saying who gives a crap about a generation gap
with two premiership posters framed on my wall i think i could accept a generation gap in the team list ffs
it didnt end up that way and its i told you so
it ends up that way and someone else says i told you so
lets keep harping on about what happen 4 odd years ago and who thought it was a good thing and who thought it was crazy
blimey, who wouldnt take the risk for a couple of prems???
Brilliant post.
Which club in their right mind wouldn't do everything in its power to strike while the iron was hot in 08-11 when they've won a single premiership in 135 years of existence?!
We were as close as you could possibly be to a flag, and easily could have had two. We have none, and we have to bear it. Not Ross's fault.
Maybe if he'd drafted conventionally and not taken and played the hard bodied witches hats we may have had replacements for the Eddie and MacQualters etc and won thise flags....Hypothetical we will never know.
matrix wrote:
jesus christ a s*** bounce of a footy in 2010 and a couple of goals in 2009 (plus ball on the bench and bartel shutting lenny down) and we'd all be saying who gives a crap about a generation gap
with two premiership posters framed on my wall i think i could accept a generation gap in the team list ffs
it didnt end up that way and its i told you so
it ends up that way and someone else says i told you so
lets keep harping on about what happen 4 odd years ago and who thought it was a good thing and who thought it was crazy
blimey, who wouldnt take the risk for a couple of prems???
Brilliant post.
Which club in their right mind wouldn't do everything in its power to strike while the iron was hot in 08-11 when they've won a single premiership in 135 years of existence?!
We were as close as you could possibly be to a flag, and easily could have had two. We have none, and we have to bear it. Not Ross's fault.
Maybe if he'd drafted conventionally and not taken and played the hard bodied witches hats we may have had replacements for the Eddie and MacQualters etc and won thise flags....Hypothetical we will never know.
You do realise that some of the trading got us schneider, Dempster, Ray, King and Gardiner. And apart from the Lovett debacle we hardly lost any picks of value. I think people confuse bad drafting with bad trading. Our drafting in the last 10 years has been pathetic. Well up until 2011 anyway.
plugger66 wrote:
But didnt the pies have more AA that year. Of course that isnt proof they had a better top 6 but it certainly doesnt hurt. The thing is you cant it both ways. Either RL is the greatest coach in the history of the game or our bottom players werent as bad as you say. How else can you explain getting within one point of being as good as 1966.
where in the debate is it stated that Collingwood weren't a better team? How many Pies played as well as Hayes and Goddard in the draw, how many Pies were celebrated for their one quarter performances
I never said RL was a poor coach and I didn't ean to turn this into a GF debate again. I' just pointing out that ppl frequently say RL sacrificed tomorrow so that he could throw everything into getting us a premiership and they use this line to justify his poor player development.
In 2011 McEvoy got better when we had no other rucks left and were forced to persevere with him. Armitage, Geary, and Steven improved fairly quickly after he left too. Considering we got very little from those bottom 6 over the time frame specified, it was a mistake not to play the above kids whose form may have been poor (but not worse) and their potential higher.
Developing kids and playing the best 22 are NOT completely mutually exclusive
I just don't u/s how ppl can persevere with the idea that in 2010 it was ok to play an unde rperforming Mini, and then in 2011 when we weren't winning... despite the same level of performance it then became not ok
plugger66 wrote:
But didnt the pies have more AA that year. Of course that isnt proof they had a better top 6 but it certainly doesnt hurt. The thing is you cant it both ways. Either RL is the greatest coach in the history of the game or our bottom players werent as bad as you say. How else can you explain getting within one point of being as good as 1966.
where in the debate is it stated that Collingwood weren't a better team? How many Pies played as well as Hayes and Goddard in the draw, how many Pies were celebrated for their one quarter performances
I never said RL was a poor coach and I didn't ean to turn this into a GF debate again. I' just pointing out that ppl frequently say RL sacrificed tomorrow so that he could throw everything into getting us a premiership and they use this line to justify his poor player development.
In 2011 McEvoy got better when we had no other rucks left and were forced to persevere with him. Armitage, Geary, and Steven improved fairly quickly after he left too. Considering we got very little from those bottom 6 over the time frame specified, it was a mistake not to play the above kids whose form may have been poor (but not worse) and their potential higher.
Developing kids and playing the best 22 are NOT completely mutually exclusive
Do you actally think RL was trying to lose the GF? Have you actually thought that because RL game plan was so structured that these other players that keep getting mentioned couldnt do as required which effected the whole structure.
skeptic wrote:I just don't u/s how ppl can persevere with the idea that in 2010 it was ok to play an unde rperforming Mini, and then in 2011 when we weren't winning... despite the same level of performance it then became not ok
Why are you mentioning 2011 again? He played round 1, then rounds 5 to 8. Only five games for the entire season. Ryan Gamble played 11 - it would make more sense to focus on him.
Look, it's not complicated. 2009 was a good year. At the start of 2010 there was a chance he was going to get even better. So he played every game, and he went reasonably well for the first 13 rounds - about as well as the rest of the team. And we were second on the ladder. So why would he be dropped? He might have been going to improve further. It's only hindsight that says he wasn't going to end up AFL standard.
He wasn't playing well though. He had 2 good games for the year, that 1 vs Geelong n the 1 after. Thats it. And he played 24'ish games. I have no issue with him getting games but those playing better got dropped ahead of him repeatedly
skeptic wrote:He wasn't playing well though. He had 2 good games for the year, that 1 vs Geelong n the 1 after. Thats it. And he played 24'ish games. I have no issue with him getting games but those playing better got dropped ahead of him repeatedly
So why were others dropped and he was kept? Surely RL was trying to win every game we played in.
skeptic wrote:He wasn't playing well though. He had 2 good games for the year, that 1 vs Geelong n the 1 after. Thats it. And he played 24'ish games. I have no issue with him getting games but those playing better got dropped ahead of him repeatedly
So why were others dropped and he was kept? Surely RL was trying to win every game we played in.
How exactly can i answer that?
It is after all a major criticism of him (from me)
plugger66 wrote:
But didnt the pies have more AA that year. Of course that isnt proof they had a better top 6 but it certainly doesnt hurt. The thing is you cant it both ways. Either RL is the greatest coach in the history of the game or our bottom players werent as bad as you say. How else can you explain getting within one point of being as good as 1966.
where in the debate is it stated that Collingwood weren't a better team? How many Pies played as well as Hayes and Goddard in the draw, how many Pies were celebrated for their one quarter performances
I never said RL was a poor coach and I didn't ean to turn this into a GF debate again. I' just pointing out that ppl frequently say RL sacrificed tomorrow so that he could throw everything into getting us a premiership and they use this line to justify his poor player development.
In 2011 McEvoy got better when we had no other rucks left and were forced to persevere with him. Armitage, Geary, and Steven improved fairly quickly after he left too. Considering we got very little from those bottom 6 over the time frame specified, it was a mistake not to play the above kids whose form may have been poor (but not worse) and their potential higher.
Developing kids and playing the best 22 are NOT completely mutually exclusive
Do you actally think RL was trying to lose the GF? Have you actually thought that because RL game plan was so structured that these other players that keep getting mentioned couldnt do as required which effected the whole structure.
You're funny tugger...Lyon had no faults ha ha omg the world is full of tuggers
where in the debate is it stated that Collingwood weren't a better team? How many Pies played as well as Hayes and Goddard in the draw, how many Pies were celebrated for their one quarter performances
I never said RL was a poor coach and I didn't ean to turn this into a GF debate again. I' just pointing out that ppl frequently say RL sacrificed tomorrow so that he could throw everything into getting us a premiership and they use this line to justify his poor player development.
In 2011 McEvoy got better when we had no other rucks left and were forced to persevere with him. Armitage, Geary, and Steven improved fairly quickly after he left too. Considering we got very little from those bottom 6 over the time frame specified, it was a mistake not to play the above kids whose form may have been poor (but not worse) and their potential higher.
Developing kids and playing the best 22 are NOT completely mutually exclusive
Do you actally think RL was trying to lose the GF? Have you actually thought that because RL game plan was so structured that these other players that keep getting mentioned couldnt do as required which effected the whole structure.
You're funny tugger...Lyon had no faults ha ha omg the world is full of tuggers
Who said he had no faults? certainly not me but your response indicates you are failing to answer what i uggest is a very simple question. And I take it you get simple.
