Match Thread Saints v Demons Round 8 2022

[D.B.Cooper]

Look at it thru the prism of our side we are able to put on the park the year after next, because that is when our List should be right in the sweet spot.

Basically, we are currently a young and inexperienced side.

Unfortunately compared to the Dees that is simply not so.


The Dees fielded today were similar in age and experience, but we were the older team by 9 months.

Average Attributes:
Melbourne Attribute St Kilda
187.6cm Height 187.7cm
87.4kg Weight 86.0kg
25yr 2mth Age 25yr 11mth
100.9 Games 98.8


The Dees had 7 players with less than 50 games. We only had 4.

Total Players By Games:
Melbourne Games St Kilda
7 Less than 50 4
2 50 to 99 9
9 100 to 149 7
4 150 or more 3


The Dees age wise are not going to fall off their perch anytime soon.

Well that was very deflating

[Yorkeys]

Seems we have similar profiles, that's good, eh?

But looking into the averages, they have a giant Gawn and a not- giant in Bowey.

Age wise we have Paddy.

A number of their less than 50 gamers have played finals footy & no first year players?

We have no player that wears a helmet with red wings on it.

As far as tatts go I think we have them covered.

We go ok. Slowly building a strong foundation.

[cwrcyn]

Their ruckman and their key position players are 30 years old or just about. Gawn 30, May 30, McDonald 29y 7month, Brown 29yr 5 month. That's the only area where I can see them losing some potency after the next two years. They've got a bloody good team, though. No one can doubt that.

[saintkev]

Pretty frustrating that we'd start the match playing slow tempo when all our good wins this year have come when we take the game on. Evidence is there in the third quarter.

Hopefully we can build on something for next week. We're so much better when we take the game on.

Good post
Agree only time we looked dangerous was when we took the game on
Stop prop wait footy looks ok on stat sheet and stops the bleeding but it made it impossible for us to score

True. Holding the ball up only allows the opposing team to man up and a turnover invariably occurs when we kick poorly, or to a contest where we’re out marked, or the ball hits the ground and we lack effective, hard at the contest, skilful crumbers.

[st.byron]

Their ruckman and their key position players are 30 years old or just about. Gawn 30, May 30, McDonald 29y 7month, Brown 29yr 5 month. That's the only area where I can see them losing some potency after the next two years. They've got a bloody good team, though. No one can doubt that.

Looking at those numbers, I think it’s reasonable to say those players are in their prime, along with Oliver and Petracca. Gawn, Oliver, Petracca and I would argue May are all genuine elite superstars in their positions.
It makes me think about the expectations being placed on Max to be a superstar. He’s still only 21. Patience is required.
We also have lots of other good young talent with time to develop into their prime. I reckon we just lack a bit of the elite class that having a trio like Gawn, Petracca and Oliver bring. Having them makes players like Viney, Bradshaw, Langdon, Harmes and Neal-Bullen the support cast and gives them space to be role players and develop whilst the elite stars cop most of the attention. I’ve read a few times people comparing Hill’s recruitment to Langdon moving to Melb from Freo and that Langdon was a much better deal. That may be true, but he’s stepped into a team with a star studded midfield doing the grunt work in winning the footy. What a team for an outside runner to step into.
It’s such a luxury having so many elite players in one team. It takes the pressure off the next tier of players who play with them.

[Scollop]

Also…Ben Paton and Wilkie and Webster had poor games. I’d be looking to drop Paton or manage him for next week. Battle also had a stinker but match ups are the key for next week against Geelong

I take back what I said about Paton, Wilkie and Battle. After watching the replay of the whole game I think they were ok. Howard was the best of them, but even he was caught out of position a few times and it cost us goals. Webster was a bit down but I think our defenders weren't the main problem on the day.

We came up against the best midfield in the competition and unless Melbourne get injuries to Gawn and Luke Jackson or to a couple of their stars like Brayshaw and Oliver or Petracca and Brayshaw (or ony sort of combination of 2 or 3 of these bulls) then I can't see any team beating them for the flag this year

[Teflon]

Also…Ben Paton and Wilkie and Webster had poor games. I’d be looking to drop Paton or manage him for next week. Battle also had a stinker but match ups are the key for next week against Geelong

I take back what I said about Paton, Wilkie and Battle. After watching the replay of the whole game I think they were ok. Howard was the best of them, but even he was caught out of position a few times and it cost us goals. Webster was a bit down but I think our defenders weren't the main problem on the day.

We came up against the best midfield in the competition and unless Melbourne get injuries to Gawn and Luke Jackson or to a couple of their stars like Brayshaw and Oliver or Petracca and Brayshaw (or ony sort of combination of 2 or 3 of these bulls) then I can't see any team beating them for the flag this year

Webster the worst for sure
Crouch was good too

[Teflon]

Think the thing that struck me again at Dees was we seemed to start the game with this stop-kick-mark game plan as opposed to our usual run/rebound attack approach.
We did exactly the same against Pies
We then flicked the switch in both matches playing a more run game and looked very good for large periods??
Why the heck would you change a game plan that’s got you to 5-2??

[Banger9798]

In watching the replay, I don't think the Dees could have played much better, I think we did well after half time.
They are actually in top form and few injuries to key players.

We are not that far away.

[Vortex]

Think the thing that struck me again at Dees was we seemed to start the game with this stop-kick-mark game plan as opposed to our usual run/rebound attack approach.
We did exactly the same against Pies
We then flicked the switch in both matches playing a more run game and looked very good for large periods??
Why the heck would you change a game plan that’s got you to 5-2??

I think the answer is the loss of Hayes. Our mids had options they now don't have since he went down.

[spert]

Think the thing that struck me again at Dees was we seemed to start the game with this stop-kick-mark game plan as opposed to our usual run/rebound attack approach.
We did exactly the same against Pies
We then flicked the switch in both matches playing a more run game and looked very good for large periods??
Why the heck would you change a game plan that’s got you to 5-2??

I think the answer is the loss of Hayes. Our mids had options they now don't have since he went down.

Mind you, we had Hayes playing great in Round 1 and we lost- again our midfield were a bit off the pace just like last week and the week before.

[Vortex]

Think the thing that struck me again at Dees was we seemed to start the game with this stop-kick-mark game plan as opposed to our usual run/rebound attack approach.
We did exactly the same against Pies
We then flicked the switch in both matches playing a more run game and looked very good for large periods??
Why the heck would you change a game plan that’s got you to 5-2??

I think the answer is the loss of Hayes. Our mids had options they now don't have since he went down.

Mind you, we had Hayes playing great in Round 1 and we lost- again our midfield were a bit off the pace just like last week and the week before.

The Midfield mechanism into F50 seemed to work better with Hayes in the forward line by spreading the opposition defence and creating some uncertainty.

[saintbob]

Melbourne’s midfield are quicker and better by foot, or is it just that they’ve learnt to not all get sucked to the ball and leave some on the outside so they’ve always got time and space

[Impatient Sainter]

Just put myself through the torture of rewatching the game. What stood out was Melbournes pressure and work rate all over the ground was ernomous, another level up than what we are capable of at present. Then their skills in close and kicking skills were another level to ours. I dont think we played badly its just Melbourne were better.

Gresham was one who really needs to tidy his disposals. He was really sloppy with his disposals, even when not under pressure. I think the perceived pressure of the Dees got into his head.

What I want to start to see at our club is more players, playing with some attitude ala Long. Physically & mentally challenge the opposition, have our defenders constantly niggling, our forwards giving it back and our mids to get really aggressive. I dont care if we give away the occasional free kick, but if an opponent thinks he is going to run around or through us they 'get hurt'. Bring some attitude!!!

[saintsRrising]

Melbourne’s midfield are quicker and better by foot, or is it just that they’ve learnt to not all get sucked to the ball and leave some on the outside so they’ve always got time and space

Their whole team is "quicker" in mind and action.

And they are all very confident at present, and confident players do not second guess themselves as much, nor makes as many mistakes. They have self-belief.

They are very well drilled, and everyone knows their role.

The above factors means that you team mates are more often where they are meat to be, and are doing what they are meant to be. The collective then thrives.


While the gameplan is different, the factors above remind me of the Saints at our best under Lyon. So if we can adopt those characteristics of the current Dees, or the back-then Saints then we can get better still.


Having said that, the Dees have two beasts in their midfield in Petracca and Oliver and we just do not have that.

[The Fireman]

I,m vindicated

[samoht]

So much for the importance of winning hitouts.

[SaintPav]

Too bad Geepong.