Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
plugger66 wrote:In one way the top 5 is all a bit sad. Pretty much expected if you watched the games without looking for mistakes as the first thing you look at.
Sad but expected?
How so?
Sad because the top 5 are already aging. Even the top 10 only has about 3 players under 25.
2 years ago Armo was a trade option. Before Watters Jack wasn't best 22. Dempster is a stalwart and there was a smattering of kids in there. Newnes a bit disappointing but he isn't flash, just consistent.
Thanks for the history lesson but it still doesn't explain the lack of younger guys. Also remember back then we were a great side so there was expected to be less younger players and also the list was older. That isn't an excuse now. The first 3 were always going to finish like that but where is the surprise younger player. Havent seen the results of other younger sides B&F was I'm guessing that most have a 23 year old or younger in the top 5. I could also be wrong on tat as I am quite often.
matrix wrote:Sooooo
Some on here want to trade numbers 1& 2 in our B&F
Should be able to get picks of Carlton and Brisbane
I for one am looking forward to this.
And Geary knockers
Just goes to show...you know jack shite
We all know jack shite
In Springfield, they're eating the dogs. The people that came in, they're eating the cats. They’re eating – they are eating the pets of the people that live there.
matrix wrote:Ummmm
No
We know that people on here do not rate Geary.
The club obviously does
Hence....Jack shite.
Aside what the club thinks, it's called opinion
In Springfield, they're eating the dogs. The people that came in, they're eating the cats. They’re eating – they are eating the pets of the people that live there.
St Chris wrote:Geez, I reckon some on here are looking at this with a glass half empty attitude.
Of the top 15, we have:
A winner at 25
6th at 24
8th at 23
9th at 22
11th at 22 and 23
13th at 24
and
14th at 22
That's more than half of the top 15 closer to the start of their careers than to the end.
Not bad for a list that still struggles with a gap in the middle age bracket.
Well that stat is probably even more depressing considering there is only 22 in the side. I would think Melbourne are maybe a year ahead in the rebuild. It would be interesting to see their ages. I think the B&F shows how much we still need to rebuild. of the 6 in the top 10 over 25 and Armo will be around in 3 years.
St Chris wrote:Geez, I reckon some on here are looking at this with a glass half empty attitude.
Of the top 15, we have:
A winner at 25
6th at 24
8th at 23
9th at 22
11th at 22 and 23
13th at 24
and
14th at 22
That's more than half of the top 15 closer to the start of their careers than to the end.
Not bad for a list that still struggles with a gap in the middle age bracket.
Well that stat is probably even more depressing considering there is only 22 in the side. I would think Melbourne are maybe a year ahead in the rebuild. It would be interesting to see their ages. I think the B&F shows how much we still need to rebuild. of the 6 in the top 10 over 25 and Armo will be around in 3 years.
Given that Billings Ross Acres McCartin McKenzie Goddard Wright all played less than 10 games Im not suprised they didnt poll higher.
St Chris wrote:Geez, I reckon some on here are looking at this with a glass half empty attitude.
Of the top 15, we have:
A winner at 25
6th at 24
8th at 23
9th at 22
11th at 22 and 23
13th at 24
and
14th at 22
That's more than half of the top 15 closer to the start of their careers than to the end.
Not bad for a list that still struggles with a gap in the middle age bracket.
Well that stat is probably even more depressing considering there is only 22 in the side. I would think Melbourne are maybe a year ahead in the rebuild. It would be interesting to see their ages. I think the B&F shows how much we still need to rebuild. of the 6 in the top 10 over 25 and Armo will be around in 3 years.
22 in a side, yes. But obviously most teams use 30-35 in a year. Of the kids, only Sinclair and Lonie played enough footy to show up on this list (and Dunstan, as previously mentioned by Bergholt) and they both spent a fair bit of time in the vest.
I'd be curious to see how the age profile compares to 2014??
And FWIW the Dees B&F finished like this:
Bernie Vince 29
Nathan Jones 27
Tom McDonald 22
Jack Viney 21
Daniel Cross 32
Jesse Hogan 20
Jeff Garlett 26
Colin Garland 27
Angus Brayshaw 19
Lynden Dunn 28
Not too dissimilar, it's just their Veterans are 27-30 rather than ours who are 30+
St Chris wrote:Geez, I reckon some on here are looking at this with a glass half empty attitude.
Of the top 15, we have:
A winner at 25
6th at 24
8th at 23
9th at 22
11th at 22 and 23
13th at 24
and
14th at 22
That's more than half of the top 15 closer to the start of their careers than to the end.
Not bad for a list that still struggles with a gap in the middle age bracket.
Well that stat is probably even more depressing considering there is only 22 in the side. I would think Melbourne are maybe a year ahead in the rebuild. It would be interesting to see their ages. I think the B&F shows how much we still need to rebuild. of the 6 in the top 10 over 25 and Armo will be around in 3 years.
Given that Billings Ross Acres McCartin McKenzie Goddard Wright all played less than 10 games Im not suprised they didnt poll higher.
Well Ross was part form, part injury. Wright was part form part injury. The rest apart from Billings aren't expected to poll well but I'm talking 3rd and 4th year players like Newnes, Hickey, Longer, Saunders, lee and so on. Of course most of them hardly played but it was mainly due to form or not good enough.
St Chris wrote:Geez, I reckon some on here are looking at this with a glass half empty attitude.
Of the top 15, we have:
A winner at 25
6th at 24
8th at 23
9th at 22
11th at 22 and 23
13th at 24
and
14th at 22
That's more than half of the top 15 closer to the start of their careers than to the end.
Not bad for a list that still struggles with a gap in the middle age bracket.
Well that stat is probably even more depressing considering there is only 22 in the side. I would think Melbourne are maybe a year ahead in the rebuild. It would be interesting to see their ages. I think the B&F shows how much we still need to rebuild. of the 6 in the top 10 over 25 and Armo will be around in 3 years.
22 in a side, yes. But obviously most teams use 30-35 in a year. Of the kids, only Sinclair and Lonie played enough footy to show up on this list (and Dunstan, as previously mentioned by Bergholt) and they both spent a fair bit of time in the vest.
I'd be curious to see how the age profile compares to 2014??
And FWIW the Dees B&F finished like this:
Bernie Vince 29
Nathan Jones 27
Tom McDonald 22
Jack Viney 21
Daniel Cross 32
Jesse Hogan 20
Jeff Garlett 26
Colin Garland 27
Angus Brayshaw 19
Lynden Dunn 28
Not too dissimilar, it's just their Veterans are 27-30 rather than ours who are 30+
Amzing spin I would have thought. You say not to dissimilar but they have 2 under 23 in the top 5. 3 in the top 6. We have none in the top 6. None in the top 8. We have one in the top 10. They have 4. I'm not at all concerned about the ages of our older guys but more concerned with the finishing positions of our younger guys. In 3 years
plugger66 wrote:
Amzing spin I would have thought. You say not to dissimilar but they have 2 under 23 in the top 5. 3 in the top 6. We have none in the top 6. None in the top 8. We have one in the top 10. They have 4. I'm not at all concerned about the ages of our older guys but more concerned with the finishing positions of our younger guys. In 3 years
You know what they say about stats, they can tell you anything you want to see. I meant not to dissimilar as a whole group - about 50/50 between under-25's and veterans.
I do think it backs up what you said earlier, that we're behind Melb by a year or 2.
They have a couple of gems in their young brigade too, in Viney, Hogan and Brayshaw. We havent seen enough from our direct equivalents - Dunstan, McCartin and Billings, because of injury and form. And potentially quality, but that will be decided over coming years.
plugger66 wrote:
Amzing spin I would have thought. You say not to dissimilar but they have 2 under 23 in the top 5. 3 in the top 6. We have none in the top 6. None in the top 8. We have one in the top 10. They have 4. I'm not at all concerned about the ages of our older guys but more concerned with the finishing positions of our younger guys. In 3 years
You know what they say about stats, they can tell you anything you want to see. I meant not to dissimilar as a whole group - about 50/50 between under-25's and veterans.
I do think it backs up what you said earlier, that we're behind Melb by a year or 2.
They have a couple of gems in their young brigade too, in Viney, Hogan and Brayshaw. We havent seen enough from our direct equivalents - Dunstan, McCartin and Billings, because of injury and form. And potentially quality, but that will be decided over coming years.
Well I hope you are right because its going to be a very slow process if you aren't. We need 2 young guys to get into the top5 next season. I think I have said the same for 2 years now.
plugger66 wrote:
Amzing spin I would have thought. You say not to dissimilar but they have 2 under 23 in the top 5. 3 in the top 6. We have none in the top 6. None in the top 8. We have one in the top 10. They have 4. I'm not at all concerned about the ages of our older guys but more concerned with the finishing positions of our younger guys. In 3 years
You know what they say about stats, they can tell you anything you want to see. I meant not to dissimilar as a whole group - about 50/50 between under-25's and veterans.
I do think it backs up what you said earlier, that we're behind Melb by a year or 2.
They have a couple of gems in their young brigade too, in Viney, Hogan and Brayshaw. We havent seen enough from our direct equivalents - Dunstan, McCartin and Billings, because of injury and form. And potentially quality, but that will be decided over coming years.
Well I hope you are right because its going to be a very slow process if you aren't. We need 2 young guys to get into the top5 next season. I think I have said the same for 2 years now.
Well, Billings if played every game would have been in top 10.
Can't understand why Newnes wasn't had a better year than some in the top 10 for mine.
Dunstan is a worry.
Our best younger players aren't ready for B&F yet.
Next year we will have 3 players in the top 5 under 24.
plugger66 wrote:In one way the top 5 is all a bit sad. Pretty much expected if you watched the games without looking for mistakes as the first thing you look at.
Sad but expected?
How so?
Sad because the top 5 are already aging. Even the top 10 only has about 3 players under 25.
2 years ago Armo was a trade option. Before Watters Jack wasn't best 22. Dempster is a stalwart and there was a smattering of kids in there. Newnes a bit disappointing but he isn't flash, just consistent.
I reckon Billings was probably our most likely but didn't get on the park. Newnes started very slowly so was a bit disappointing. I'm not too concerned we didn't have a single stand out kid, we seem to be getting a very solid group coming on.
Thanks for the history lesson but it still doesn't explain the lack of younger guys. Also remember back then we were a great side so there was expected to be less younger players and also the list was older. That isn't an excuse now. The first 3 were always going to finish like that but where is the surprise younger player. Havent seen the results of other younger sides B&F was I'm guessing that most have a 23 year old or younger in the top 5. I could also be wrong on tat as I am quite often.
matrix wrote:
And Geary knockers
Just goes to show...you know jack shite
Can't fault his pressure, his attack, his work rate or his leadership.
Can fault his ability to regularly turn the ball over.
The only real difference between him and CJ is that his decision making is better .
Sorry can't see him being part of our back 6 when we finally get back into the top 4.
I heard them talking about this after the rising star. Roos has apparently said Melbourne will favour guys with Geary like qualities over high skilled ones. Jack Steven has copped it this year but realistically you only get the package where elite skills in all areas and out put in the very few super stars. Even Dangerfield is only average in his disposal. If you watch other teams there are often guys who get the ball more often but dispose poorly. Some are considered stars of the comp.
I'm not blind to the fact he can shank it, but when the side plays well he doesn't have to kick so much under pressure as they are not under such an onslaught in defence.
Other than Webster and Chips, who in the backline doesn't shank it sometimes anyway?
I rate him because he does everything in his power to win, everything, every time. His teammates know this, his coaches know this.
He also leads very well, he impacts the club significantly.
SainterK wrote:I'm not blind to the fact he can shank it, but when the side plays well he doesn't have to kick so much under pressure as they are not under such an onslaught in defence.
Other than Webster and Chips, who in the backline doesn't shank it sometimes anyway?
I rate him because he does everything in his power to win, everything, every time. His teammates know this, his coaches know this.
He also leads very well, he impacts the club significantly.
I think it just become noticeable with some players. Shenton even gets called a poor kick but is actually a lovely kick. His decision making under pressure often let him down. Gwilt was the same last year. Always kicked well but under pressure started turning it over from his kicking. CJ is looking great playing his natural role as a mid at andy. He played round one last year when Joey and Steven went down and he singlehandedly put on an incredible midfield game. You wonder if he been able to dish it out by hand predominantly his career might be remembered more fondly.
Gears is a very good player and unfairly maligned, same with Steven. People overlook the possessions he gets to move the ball and only see the one mis-kick.
St Chris wrote:
22 in a side, yes. But obviously most teams use 30-35 in a year. Of the kids, only Sinclair and Lonie played enough footy to show up on this list (and Dunstan, as previously mentioned by Bergholt) and they both spent a fair bit of time in the vest.
I'd be curious to see how the age profile compares to 2014??
And FWIW the Dees B&F finished like this:
Bernie Vince 29
Nathan Jones 27
Tom McDonald 22
Jack Viney 21
Daniel Cross 32
Jesse Hogan 20
Jeff Garlett 26
Colin Garland 27
Angus Brayshaw 19
Lynden Dunn 28
Not too dissimilar, it's just their Veterans are 27-30 rather than ours who are 30+
Amzing spin I would have thought. You say not to dissimilar but they have 2 under 23 in the top 5. 3 in the top 6. We have none in the top 6. None in the top 8. We have one in the top 10. They have 4. I'm not at all concerned about the ages of our older guys but more concerned with the finishing positions of our younger guys. In 3 years
and the dees B&F was actually this order:
1. Vince – 29
2. Viney – 21
3. McDonald – 22
4. Hogan – 20
5. Jones – 27
6. Cross – 32
7. Garland – 27
8. Garlett – 26
9. Howe – 25
10. Dunn – 28
3 under 23 in top 4. They have viney, hogan & mcdonald over us, our closest equivalent players are billings (not really viney's type but elite mid), mccartin & goddard who are 1-3 years younger.
