Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
To the top wrote: ↑Sun 30 Aug 2020 12:25am
A contribution “they have worked out our run off half back”
The question is why reliance on run off half back?
We have Ryder with a chop out from Marshall
So why not run from the contest including particularly the centre square when the set up is 6/6.6?
Why the reliance on “run off half back”?
Yes, Clark, Coffield and Long give good rebound but, if the ball is in the opposition’s half, they are going to score so starting your game from half back is fraught because the law of averages is against you One slip up and they score
Our glaring deficiency is under our rucks
Can’t have this. Won center clearances easily won inside 50’s easily.
Forward line was the issue tonight.
Clearances were 29 to 23 in our favour
Centre clearances not sure?
All night we looked completely stagnant off half back and when we did finally slowly find a way forward we missed very gettable shots or it came out without any pressure
Ross, Jones and Kent were not kicking to our forwards’ advantage and guys like Billings were constantly getting run down so his kicks went no-where. Our delivery and decision making was the difference.
We won stoppage clearances and I’m pretty sure we won centre clearances. The problem was our kicking efficiency. We won the i50 count by a lot. I’ll need to watch the replay to see if our smalls had a few opportunities to score, but I think the Dees defenders were very good at intercepting our kicks, so I don’t think there were too many crumbing chances
Last edited by Scollop on Sun 30 Aug 2020 1:07am, edited 1 time in total.
Ghost Like wrote: ↑Sun 30 Aug 2020 12:31am
G'day Teflon,
I refuse to requote to the power of 10. What if the best available mid was Rockliff, Ross, Sloane, Murphy or similar, would you do it?
Who tonight from the St Kilda side would you take to the finals ahead of Billings?
Rockliff could be tempting others a little older I think
I’d also do it for an upside mid from gws that may be getting squeezed out ....a Caldwell type?
It depends on availability you need to test the market and I would
We paid over for Hill in need....I’d love if 4 sides needed JB and were prepared to pay ...
Smith from Dogs....be ok too
I don’t think Ive ever said we have better stock just sitting in our list currently to displace Billings....I’ve constantly said we need to bring into the the best available midfield talent we can get
If it was poker ....Billings trade may provide an ace at the bargaining table we desperately need and I’m ok with that
Ironically mate, if it was poker we are literally holding a Jack. The only way we can win this is by holding more Jacks.
Two Jacks will always beat one Ace.
In poker highest card is ace which can also be a 1...I like flexibility
I think everyone is a tad jacked-off at the moment to keeping to many of them..,
To the top wrote: ↑Sun 30 Aug 2020 12:25am
A contribution “they have worked out our run off half back”
The question is why reliance on run off half back?
We have Ryder with a chop out from Marshall
So why not run from the contest including particularly the centre square when the set up is 6/6.6?
Why the reliance on “run off half back”?
Yes, Clark, Coffield and Long give good rebound but, if the ball is in the opposition’s half, they are going to score so starting your game from half back is fraught because the law of averages is against you One slip up and they score
Our glaring deficiency is under our rucks
Can’t have this. Won center clearances easily won inside 50’s easily.
Forward line was the issue tonight.
Clearances were 29 to 23 in our favour
Centre clearances not sure?
All night we looked completely stagnant off half back and when we did finally slowly find a way forward we missed very gettable shots or it came out without any pressure
The_Dud wrote: ↑Sat 29 Aug 2020 11:29pm
Well well well...
Bad kicking is bad football
+2 in shots and +16 i50
Forward 50 entry was putrid, bombing it long to no advantage nearly every single time
King is not the problem, would be nice if they didn’t kick it on top of his head every. Single. Time.
Geary continues to be a liability. Make Steele captain already.
That Petracca can play a bit...
So we deliver the ball high and accurately to the tallest player in league history and he drops marks an Auskicker would clunk and somehow it's the fault of the players kicking it to Kings clear advantage.
That would have demoralised our play makers. If he doesn't improve soon players won't kick it anywhere near him in fear our dumb fans will blame them for accurate delivery.
Kick it to him on the lead, when we did he marked it. Everything else was on top of his head (so May could jump in to him and spoil) or expecting him to take a screamer over a pack. In a couple of years he’ll do that easy but for now just kick it to his advantage at least!
Maybe, just maybe he won’t in a couple of years be marking everything in sight. Pretty clear that we have him earmarked as a certain superstar. Maybe he isn’t / won’t be. Just sayin.
fugazi wrote: ↑Sat 29 Aug 2020 11:47pm
The opposition coaches must look at the tapes and say...gee they seem to bomb it to their skinny 19 year old 70% of the time for their Inside50s.
We need to pressure the kicker and double team King...
They don't seem to have a Plan B.
3 out of 4 of the games lost by a goal should have been 3-4 goal victories.
Why wouldnt you kick it high to Max. He's a TALL forward, the tallest ever. There wasn't absolutely nothing wrong with the kicks to him, he just dropped absolute sitters.
Is this guy a troll ???
FFS Max King is a baby he is not the messiah
I can’t believe people watched that game and could think he had silver service delivery to him?
How odd
If you drop multiple sitters how is that the fault of the delivery.
Ok let’s go ba k to school Dilbert
King is a skinny , lanky reachy lead up forward (think Daniher type but a lot skinnier cause he’s in year 1)
His attributes right now ARE NOT to stand toe to toe and wrestle for marks with bigger defenders
Players who kick the ball to him on top of his head are asking him to do that
We are not playing to his strengths we are doing exact opposite
It ain’t hard
But I think you’re a troll
It’s like telling a welterweight boxer up against a heavier opponent ..we want you to stand and punch on with your opponent....don’t use your speed it’s dumb
Agree with you Teffers that he’s a skinny kid and his go shouldn’t be wrestling gorilla backmen. However it is a worrying pattern that he drops marks he should take and he does it regularly. That I reckon is either confidence or ability. Hoping it’s the former.
Is it the initial movement of the ball in a certain direction?
Because, if we won the clearances, there was no potency from that statistic - no surging forward when forwards are one out because of zone restrictions
No run, lifting of the eyes and putting the ball to the advantage of the next line player/s
You need to beware of statistics because statistics do not deliver a result as winning the clearances and forward 50 entries again showed last night
fugazi wrote: ↑Sat 29 Aug 2020 11:47pm
The opposition coaches must look at the tapes and say...gee they seem to bomb it to their skinny 19 year old 70% of the time for their Inside50s.
We need to pressure the kicker and double team King...
They don't seem to have a Plan B.
3 out of 4 of the games lost by a goal should have been 3-4 goal victories.
Why wouldnt you kick it high to Max. He's a TALL forward, the tallest ever. There wasn't absolutely nothing wrong with the kicks to him, he just dropped absolute sitters.
Is this guy a troll ???
FFS Max King is a baby he is not the messiah
I can’t believe people watched that game and could think he had silver service delivery to him?
How odd
If you drop multiple sitters how is that the fault of the delivery.
Ok let’s go ba k to school Dilbert
King is a skinny , lanky reachy lead up forward (think Daniher type but a lot skinnier cause he’s in year 1)
His attributes right now ARE NOT to stand toe to toe and wrestle for marks with bigger defenders
Players who kick the ball to him on top of his head are asking him to do that
We are not playing to his strengths we are doing exact opposite
It ain’t hard
But I think you’re a troll
It’s like telling a welterweight boxer up against a heavier opponent ..we want you to stand and punch on with your opponent....don’t use your speed it’s dumb
Agree with you Teffers that he’s a skinny kid and his go shouldn’t be wrestling gorilla backmen. However it is a worrying pattern that he drops marks he should take and he does it regularly. That I reckon is either confidence or ability. Hoping it’s the former.
I can’t think it’s ability or technical
King has played on some good defenders before now if he had ability/technical issues I suspect these would be known by now
It has to be confidence
To the top wrote: ↑Sun 30 Aug 2020 9:47am
Statistics, statistics and damn lies
Define "winning clearances"
Is it the ball initially in a players hands?
Is it the initial movement of the ball in a certain direction?
Because, if we won the clearances, there was no potency from that statistic - no surging forward when forwards are one out because of zone restrictions
No run, lifting of the eyes and putting the ball to the advantage of the next line player/s
You need to beware of statistics because statistics do not deliver a result as winning the clearances and forward 50 entries again showed last night
It is the potency of the performance
100% correct. Without context, statistics are only a guide. The best example of his is that during their premiership era, Hawthorn were always 18th for clearances and 18th for hard ball gets. Any person who knows even a little about footy would look at these two metrics and think Hawthorn must’ve been an awful team. But - their gameplan dictated that they wanted you to get the ball because they knew that soon enough - you’d just give it straight back to them.
My view is that the impotent ‘quality’ of our clearances is reflective of state depth and quality of our midfield. We have Ross, Steele, Jones and a bit of Sinclair to generate our midfield drive. We have no depth in that area as the absence of Dunstan, Gresh and Hanners are really showing. Good teams have 5–7 very good players able to run through there ... we barely have 3.5.
To the top wrote: ↑Sun 30 Aug 2020 9:47am
Statistics, statistics and damn lies
Define "winning clearances"
Is it the ball initially in a players hands?
Is it the initial movement of the ball in a certain direction?
Because, if we won the clearances, there was no potency from that statistic - no surging forward when forwards are one out because of zone restrictions
No run, lifting of the eyes and putting the ball to the advantage of the next line player/s
You need to beware of statistics because statistics do not deliver a result as winning the clearances and forward 50 entries again showed last night
It is the potency of the performance
100% correct. Without context, statistics are only a guide. The best example of his is that during their premiership era, Hawthorn were always 18th for clearances and 18th for hard ball gets. Any person who knows even a little about footy would look at these two metrics and think Hawthorn must’ve been an awful team. But - their gameplan dictated that they wanted you to get the ball because they knew that soon enough - you’d just give it straight back to them.
My view is that the impotent ‘quality’ of our clearances is reflective of state depth and quality of our midfield. We have Ross, Steele, Jones and a bit of Sinclair to generate our midfield drive. We have no depth in that area as the absence of Dunstan, Gresh and Hanners are really showing. Good teams have 5–7 very good players able to run through there ... we barely have 3.5.
What's your view on basic dropped marks and missed setshots within 30m of goal. Is that the mids fault too?
To the top wrote: ↑Sun 30 Aug 2020 9:47am
Statistics, statistics and damn lies
Define "winning clearances"
Is it the ball initially in a players hands?
Is it the initial movement of the ball in a certain direction?
Because, if we won the clearances, there was no potency from that statistic - no surging forward when forwards are one out because of zone restrictions
No run, lifting of the eyes and putting the ball to the advantage of the next line player/s
You need to beware of statistics because statistics do not deliver a result as winning the clearances and forward 50 entries again showed last night
It is the potency of the performance
100% correct. Without context, statistics are only a guide. The best example of his is that during their premiership era, Hawthorn were always 18th for clearances and 18th for hard ball gets. Any person who knows even a little about footy would look at these two metrics and think Hawthorn must’ve been an awful team. But - their gameplan dictated that they wanted you to get the ball because they knew that soon enough - you’d just give it straight back to them.
My view is that the impotent ‘quality’ of our clearances is reflective of state depth and quality of our midfield. We have Ross, Steele, Jones and a bit of Sinclair to generate our midfield drive. We have no depth in that area as the absence of Dunstan, Gresh and Hanners are really showing. Good teams have 5–7 very good players able to run through there ... we barely have 3.5.
What's your view on basic dropped marks and missed setshots within 30m of goal. Is that the mids fault too?
Rowan Marshall did it too as a younger player
King is even skinnier in year 1 but is he getting hands on the ball in those contests?? - even large pack ones he’s getting looks at it....I wasn’t after a 100 goal season from King year 1 he’s a kid
Membrey who runs and jumps at the ball off 2 feet, often runs under the footy was a worry and no excuse from easy set shots
I’d try Battle up there he has good hands good lead up abilities
But mids (cause we are being slowed down up field now as sides have worked out how to stop speedy saints) are also to blame here....they are now under some pressure with that last kick ....Cats did it first. Lions shoulda mailed us and now even lower sides like Dees are onboard....
Need a plan b as bombing to forward 50 won’t work
To the top wrote: ↑Sun 30 Aug 2020 9:47am
Statistics, statistics and damn lies
Define "winning clearances"
Is it the ball initially in a players hands?
Is it the initial movement of the ball in a certain direction?
Because, if we won the clearances, there was no potency from that statistic - no surging forward when forwards are one out because of zone restrictions
No run, lifting of the eyes and putting the ball to the advantage of the next line player/s
You need to beware of statistics because statistics do not deliver a result as winning the clearances and forward 50 entries again showed last night
It is the potency of the performance
100% correct. Without context, statistics are only a guide. The best example of his is that during their premiership era, Hawthorn were always 18th for clearances and 18th for hard ball gets. Any person who knows even a little about footy would look at these two metrics and think Hawthorn must’ve been an awful team. But - their gameplan dictated that they wanted you to get the ball because they knew that soon enough - you’d just give it straight back to them.
My view is that the impotent ‘quality’ of our clearances is reflective of state depth and quality of our midfield. We have Ross, Steele, Jones and a bit of Sinclair to generate our midfield drive. We have no depth in that area as the absence of Dunstan, Gresh and Hanners are really showing. Good teams have 5–7 very good players able to run through there ... we barely have 3.5.
What's your view on basic dropped marks and missed setshots within 30m of goal. Is that the mids fault too?
Rowan Marshall did it too as a younger player
King is even skinnier in year 1 but is he getting hands on the ball in those contests?? - even large pack ones he’s getting looks at it....I wasn’t after a 100 goal season from King year 1 he’s a kid
Membrey who runs and jumps at the ball off 2 feet, often runs under the footy was a worry and no excuse from easy set shots
I’d try Battle up there he has good hands good lead up abilities
But mids (cause we are being slowed down up field now as sides have worked out how to stop speedy saints) are also to blame here....they are now under some pressure with that last kick ....Cats did it first. Lions shoulda mailed us and now even lower sides like Dees are onboard....
Need a plan b as bombing to forward 50 won’t work
Yep totally agrre about Battle up forward when we are struggling down there. It creates unpredictability and throws the balance out for the opposition. You could see the Dees were panicked when he was in the forward line so he should have stayed down there longer.
So my question is: why was Battle only there for 5 mi S???
I honestly thought we looked dangerous?
In Cats game too they threw him forward and he lead up marked and scored (or was it Lions can’t recall) doesn’t matter the point is he offers us a different look
So why for 5 mins only??
That’s a coaching call
Teflon wrote: ↑Sun 30 Aug 2020 10:35am
I can’t think it’s ability or technical
King has played on some good defenders before now if he had ability/technical issues I suspect these would be known by now
It has to be confidence
I hope so. Good to remember he’s a first year beanpole off the back of a knee reco and significant ankle injury. If he gets through the year unscathed and has uninterrupted pre-season that should help. Dropping those marks though......
I thought DMac should have been selected this game.... and given one last chance.
The reason why we picked him up in the draft was he shutdown Petracca completely in the TAC club.
It would have been great coaching to give him one last shot to prove himself. Since Petracca has been in such great form and no-one in the league has been able to close him down.
shrodes wrote: ↑Sun 30 Aug 2020 3:05am
Ratts seemed a bit filthy in the presser
I should bloody well hope so. No more jellydick spin required from our coach. We had 6 years of that.
Yeah I need to see another game plan adjustment from Ratts
We’ve been worked out for sure now
Pies showed how to play us.
Other clubs ignored this.
Suns on on including Cats did not.
Except Don's happy to have an open shootout = lucky us.
No other club is going to us allow to play the way that Rats wants.
AFL has always been an evolve or die game. Rats needs to have some other options, or will we fall by the wayside and become the 2020 Dodo.
Tend to agree
You can just see us stop and prop off half back last night so much
That gives their defenders so much time to organise
When we do get near 50 we are under pressure
So when forced to go slow can we? I’m sorry but this is where dinky floating Geary kicks hurt you - you need players who can spear a ball through congestion to hit targets to break open a zone
Hill got through a couple of times last night Sinclair too
Perhaps if sides do that then the instructions to our forwards is to get King to lead up to Half forward, take his opponent with him and spread their defenders ??
We just can’t keep get near 50 bombing to top of square to be picked off
Create space on a slow build up the have forwards lead up aka Battle?
