We're Just Not Good Enough

[Johnny Member]

Ok, I'll admit it - I'm cynical about our prospects this season and beyond.


We haven't drafted well.


There. I said it.



Seeing Billings let an 18yo first gamer brush him aside with a feeble tackling attempt last week highlighted the flaws in his game. Zero physical presence is Ok - if you make up for it in spades at the other end of your game. But Billings doesn't. His offensive game is Ok. Nothing more.

Now granted, he hasn't even played 50 games yet and could well be a late bloomer (compared with the development of Bontempelli and Petracca for example) but until then there's a genuine case to be very disappointed in what a Pick 3 has produced for us.

Then there's McCartin. I like him, but I don't like the way he's being played to be honest. I don't really understand why you'd spend Pick 1 on a lead-up half forward. I understand why you'd overlook Petracca and his obvious abundance of talent for a key forward with the number 1 Pick - but not for a high half forward.


I posted about this last year with a theory on why Bruce and McCartin drop what appear to be easy-ish marks. I noticed that they go too 'flat handed' at the ball instead of spreading their fingers in the more traditional and effective way. My theory was that they were being instructed to bring the ball to the front of the contest as their first priority - actually marking the pill is an afterthought. But the absolute rule is to not let the ball through the back.

McCartin did this really blatantly last week. He actually went up in the contest and his 'flat hands' were so obvious that it looked almost like a volleyball spike!


Now that's fine. These guys are sacrificing their own stats for the team. I'm not sure I agree with it (assuming my theory is correct!) but it's a team first strategy and I have no problem with that.

But it does pose the question as to whether or not you need a number 1 Pick to do that?? If you want a workhorse that leads up and down the ground 100 times each week bringing the ball to ground - surely that's a role for the Commodore, not the Ferrari!



But I digress.....


My point is that we've been to the well, so to speak. We've handed over guys like Goddard and Dal Santo to load up on draft picks. We've used the picks we received to get players from other clubs, but more so to get young pearls from the draft. As a result we bottomed out and had 2 x top 3 picks in succession.

I just don't think it's worked, sadly.

We didn't get a Selwood. A Bont. A Judd. A Reiwoldt.

And that's we needed. It's what everyone needs.

Instead, we got a Curren, a Templeton, a Sinclair, a Newnes etc. etc.


So as we improve naturally (as guys get to that 50-100 game mark) there seems to be an expectation that the improvement trend will continue infinitely. But I have my doubts. I'd argue that outside of Gresham and last year's draftees - no one else will get much better than they will be this season.


I'm not worried about the Port game, as I have another theory that we put the cue in the rack at half time and trialled our defense. I think we actually set up to put the defense under as much extended pressure as we could to give them time to work together and get used to each other. All in all, they did quite well.

I would expect they'll do the same tomorrow too.


But what we really, really need to see is a few guys show us that this year they'll become freakishly good. We need another 2-3 at Jack Stevens' level if we're going to improve enough over the next couple of seasons to seriously compete.


Acres? McCartin? Billings? Gresham? Freeman? Carlisle?


This isn't a knock on our recruiters necessarily - as looking at the drafts that I've flagged above, aside from the Bont and Petracca there's nothing glaring jumping out at us that we missed badly. It's just that at this stage, I don't believe we've brought in the required talent to be a genuine top 4 team.

[spert]

I'm not going to judge the one JLT game as a big form guide, as the only conclusion I can come to after the game against PA was that the coach said 'take your foot of the pedal and don't get hurt" after the first quarter. The field kicking was terrible, especially into the forward line and the tackles didn't hold by too many players.

Paddy and Bruce are strong pack marks and they just appeared to be making up the numbers in that game. I was disappointed at the lack of leading by our forwards, and when you don't lead, players up the field just bomb the ball to a contest.

The good thing from that game was that we played one big quarter to win the game- in the past top teams have done that to us.

[Beno88]

I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion. Mine is that you'll be very, very wrong.

[amusingname]

[quote="Johnny Member"]I'm not worried about the Port game, as I have another theory that we put in the cue in the rack at half time and trialled our defense. I think we actually set up to put the defense under as much extended pressure as we could to give them time to work together and get used to each other. All in all, they did quite well.

quote]


For someone who is not worried about this game, you seem to be reading a lot into where players are at from their performances in it.

I really don't understand your 'flat hands' theory either, so you are saying that they are not worried about marking the ball, just bringing it to the front of the pack? is this a team edict as well for forwards? If so, Roo is continually disobeying it.

[Johnny Member]

For someone who is not worried about this game, you seem to be reading a lot into where players are at from their performances in it.

Not really, I only referenced it once in regards to Billings' woeful tackling and lack of physicality.

I really don't understand your 'flat hands' theory either, so you are saying that they are not worried about marking the ball, just bringing it to the front of the pack? is this a team edict as well for forwards? If so, Roo is continually disobeying it.

I think that Bruce does it, and McCartin does it.

Sometimes it's glaring.

My theory, and it's just a theory, is that yes - it's a directive that their first and foremost objective is to bring the ball to front and centre.

[Johnny Member]

I might add, that I noticed the 'flat hands' thing as I would get frustrated watching these two guys get their hands on the pill in a marking contest, sometimes getting clear purchase on it - but spill it. It seemed to happen quite a lot.

On closer inspection, I noticed the hands hitting the ball way too hard and their hands being way too flat. I assumed it was merely a technical error that they'd need to improve. But then I started to go with the theory that these two guys are pretty strong marks, and it's most likely a directive to keep the ball movement fast by keeping the ball on the deck when we have numbers around the contest.


I'm standing by the theory!

[samoht]

Why do they mark at all, then? Is it a fail when they mark?
I can understand them deliberately spoiling the ball when their opponent is in a better position - but the other times they'd be going for the mark, putting their best hand forward, so to speak.

Why settle for a 10% chance of the resultant spill working in your team's favour - something coming of it (a point or a goal), when a mark means you have 100% control , you're under no pressure, and have a much better chance of something positive happening?
When the ball spills, you're going to be put under pressure - you get tackled, blocked and chased towards the boundary - chances are you'll cough the ball up even if it happens to go your team's way (and there's only a 50% chance of it even going your team's way, anyway).

[saintsRrising]

McCartin drop what appear to be easy-ish marks.

You have to be kidding?

If there is one aspect of his game that is excellent it is marking. McCartin, or McClunk as some call him, is a very solid, and often one grab, mark.

[saynta]

McCartin drop what appear to be easy-ish marks.

You have to be kidding?

If there is one aspect of his game that is excellent it is marking. McCartin, or McClunk as some call him, is a very solid, and often one grab, mark.

Prefer you opinion any day to JM's.

[prwilkinson]

Yeah, we'll see.

[saint64]

You are saying what many of us are thinking JM - we are just hoping that you are wrong!

[SaintPav]

There is some truth to this but it was only a pracie match and some of these issues can be easily fixed.

If Petracca ends up being a super star he's exactly what we needed..sheesh..here we go again...

Suggestion: edit title of thread to:

"Maybe we're not good enough?"


People will hate you...

[desertsaint]

"I'd argue that outside of Gresham and last year's draftees - no one else will get much better than they will be this season."

I expect we'll see a lot more improve than that - the vast majority of the following under 25s will improve. Billings, Acres, Dunstan, Bruce, Membrey, McCartin, Webster, Sinclair, Lonie, Ross, Newnes, Longer, Rice, Goddard, Pierce, Wright, and McKenzie.

I agree none of the above are looking like they will become elite, but some may become solid A players, and others good B to B+.
I too would have preferred Petracca over McCartin, and Bont over Billings (but only after the fact). Who wouldn't, we need elite players which is why we must tempt one over. I definitely see the core of a future finals contender in our list.

[Spinner]

McCartin drop what appear to be easy-ish marks.

You have to be kidding?

If there is one aspect of his game that is excellent it is marking. McCartin, or McClunk as some call him, is a very solid, and often one grab, mark.

Prefer you opinion any day to JM's.

At least he has one... You don't offer all that much actually St Kilda related.

[Johnny Member]

There is some truth to this but it was only a pracie match and some of these issues can be easily fixed.

If Petracca ends up being a super star he's exactly what we needed..sheesh..here we go again...

Suggestion: edit title of thread to:

"Maybe we're not good enough?"


People will hate you...

This thread and view wasn't based on the game last week.

[saynta]

McCartin drop what appear to be easy-ish marks.

You have to be kidding?

If there is one aspect of his game that is excellent it is marking. McCartin, or McClunk as some call him, is a very solid, and often one grab, mark.

Prefer you opinion any day to JM's.

At least he has one... You don't offer all that much actually St Kilda related.

Do you troll?

[SaintPav]

There is some truth to this but it was only a pracie match and some of these issues can be easily fixed.

If Petracca ends up being a super star he's exactly what we needed..sheesh..here we go again...

Suggestion: edit title of thread to:

"Maybe we're not good enough?"


People will hate you...

This thread and view wasn't based on the game last week.

Sure but it could still be phrased as a dialectic question and not a statement.

[Johnny Member]

There is some truth to this but it was only a pracie match and some of these issues can be easily fixed.

If Petracca ends up being a super star he's exactly what we needed..sheesh..here we go again...

Suggestion: edit title of thread to:

"Maybe we're not good enough?"


People will hate you...

This thread and view wasn't based on the game last week.

Sure but it could still be phrased as a dialectic question and not a statement.

This is true.


However, I've posed the question internally and come up with the answer, of which I announced in the form of this thread.

[sunsaint]

Sure but it could still be phrased as a dialectic question and not a statement.

but as you agreed - there is some truth to this
I think drafting over the last three years especially, has been a pass and the result will be to drag us off the bottom quickly and to threaten the eight
Ok that is markedly a lot better than a couple of other sides that have not and will not do as well as we have in a re-build. So that is a big plus
But I agree I dont think we have unearthed that superstar A+ 250 game player - yet...( maybe John Long or Josh Battle - hopefully )

I dont know what the right answer is:
a uniform team of B+ / A- players with each player at a very socialist $450-500k pay rate
or
Ross Lyon like team of genuine superstars and then mixed with some absolute "head scratcher" role players

What I do know is that in tight grand finals when the game is in the balance, you need one player who rises above the games very best and does that something special to break the game.
And not just once either.

[Impatient Sainter]

You are entitled to your opinion Johnny and for what its worth I agree with you on Billings' lack of physicality, but think your other conclusions are missing the mark. Lets hope so anyway!

[Saint_J]

I'm a Patty fan and I know he will take time to get going. He's already shown some top signs. But, Petracca he's already influencing and will only get better. I believe backing the clubs selections... god sometimes i wonder.

2017 i'm very positive can see us with 10-12(maybe more) wins making the 8 and finishing above Melbounre

go saints!

[Winmar]

As a result we bottomed out and had 2 x top 3 picks in succession.

We didn't get a Selwood. A Bont. A Judd. A Reiwoldt.

Instead, we got a Curren, a Templeton, a Sinclair, a Newnes etc. etc.

Which of Curren, Templeton, Sinclair and Newnes were top 3 picks?

[lennyhaze]

Im not sure I get the point of this thread and I certainly don't understand it. Everyone without bias reckons we are tracking very well. It seems to me we are as well. Will we eventually win a flag with this group. No idea but we haven't one won in a long time with any group even a group including Hayes, Fisher, Milne, Rooey, Joey etc.

[saintsRrising]

As a result we bottomed out and had 2 x top 3 picks in succession.

We didn't get a Selwood. A Bont. A Judd. A Reiwoldt.

Instead, we got a Curren, a Templeton, a Sinclair, a Newnes etc. etc.

Which of Curren, Templeton, Sinclair and Newnes were top 3 picks?

Three were rookies......

[Winmar]

Exactly! I wonder which other clubs drafted a Selwood, Bont, Judd or Roo with their rookie picks.