a goal-kicking forward line

[bigcarl]

Kouta also said in his book that Pagan's style of coaching was outdated and unsuited to how football needed to be played, and that results of the club suffered because of the way they were playing. And Pagan only won a flag eight years ago. Footy changes very quickly.

some things never change. one is that to win a game you have to kick a higher score than your opponent.

... but thanks for helping to put this thread back on track.

[saintsRrising]

We addressed rookies. Didn't help.

.

What do you mean it did not help????????????????

Attard beyond expectations played a swag of games in his first year...and Jones played several.

That is agreat return from a first year of proper focus in this area.


add to this that Geary, eddie and van reehan all show promise of possibly become AFL players.

That is a fantastic return!!!! a fantastic return already with more likely to come.


You clearly have no idea about how to use the rookie system do you?????


The rookie system is all about identifying flawed players or slow developers and then improving them by INTENSIVE DEVELOPMENT!!!!!!!!!!

Yes player development a term unknown uder the previous regime and an are that you choose to ignore.

How can you possibly believe that seriously starting to use the rookie sytem in ONLY one year is going to deliver major benefits in YEAR ONE!!!




WC did not get its return on it rookies by drafting the as rookies and then playing them in the sniors. No they rookied them and DEVELOPED them.

Cox was developed...Priddis was developed.....




the rookie draft is nota "lucky dip'....but an opportunity to excell at developing players....and even more so than the main draft as you arestarting out with agroup of players who by definition have some faw or hurdle to be overcome.....including lack of familarity with Ausssie rules when say drafting Irsih players.



No under the previous regime we tooka na Irish lad...but did we develop him....no we left him to rot along with anyone else outside of the chosen ones in the seniors.

[bigcarl]

Kouta also said in his book that Pagan's style of coaching was outdated and unsuited to how football needed to be played, and that results of the club suffered because of the way they were playing. And Pagan only won a flag eight years ago. Footy changes very quickly.

some things never change. one is that to win a game you have to kick a higher score than your opponent.

... but thanks for helping to put this thread back on track.

oops, spoke too soon

[saintsRrising]

john kennedy senior used to say he'd play his best players forward because the team that kicked the highest score would win the game, and yes, he knew you had to get the ball down to them.

Yes I agree....in terms of your best big players that is....though the Hawks teams of that era had fantastic HFs.......but they also had an exceptional midfield......and indeed probably an exceptional whole team!!!


Your best mediums I would play in the midfield.

but yes yoour best two talls apart from your ruck you want at FF and CHF.


This is why I would play Kosi at FF in 2008.

[saintsRrising]

Kouta also said in his book that Pagan's style of coaching was outdated and unsuited to how football needed to be played, and that results of the club suffered because of the way they were playing. And Pagan only won a flag eight years ago. Footy changes very quickly.

some things never change. one is that to win a game you have to kick a higher score than your opponent.

... but thanks for helping to put this thread back on track.

oops, spoke too soon

Sorry Bigcarl. My apologies I will refrain from non-core string posts from now on.

[Oh When the Saints]

The philosophy of football has not changed - you need to kick a higher score than your opponent to win.

But the method of doing so has changed, and now involves the idea that conceeding a low score makes it easier to kick a high one ... and win the game.

The emphasis on running and swift movement of the ball by hand and short-passing is greater than ever before. This requires a greater proportion of players who are athletically adept and possess high fitness and skill levels.

It has also in turn increased the importance of the half-back, centre and half-forward lines, all of which have morphed largely into a big midfield group.


The current structure of teams follows this pattern ... it will be interesting to see how that changes over time.

[bigcarl]

Kouta also said in his book that Pagan's style of coaching was outdated and unsuited to how football needed to be played, and that results of the club suffered because of the way they were playing. And Pagan only won a flag eight years ago. Footy changes very quickly.

some things never change. one is that to win a game you have to kick a higher score than your opponent.

... but thanks for helping to put this thread back on track.

oops, spoke too soon

Sorry Bigcarl. My apologes I will refrain from non-core string posts from now on.

you're right mate. not a big issue really. i was just making a noise

[bigcarl]

The philosophy of football has not changed - you need to kick a higher score than your opponent to win.

But the method of doing so has changed, and now involves the idea that conceeding a low score makes it easier to kick a high one ... and win the game.

The emphasis on running and swift movement of the ball by hand and short-passing is greater than ever before. This requires a greater proportion of players who are athletically adept and possess high fitness and skill levels.

It has also in turn increased the importance of the half-back, centre and half-forward lines, all of which have morphed largely into a big midfield group.


The current structure of teams follows this pattern ... it will be interesting to see how that changes over time.

good post. a lot of things in football are cyclical and just because they aren't fashionable now doesn't mean they won't be in the future. imo the teams that do the best are the ones that play to their particular strengths the best.

in short, there is no "correct" way to win a premiership. there are different ways to achieve the same goal

[saintsRrising]

The philosophy of football has not changed - you need to kick a higher score than your opponent to win.

But the method of doing so has changed, and now involves the idea that conceeding a low score makes it easier to kick a high one ... and win the game.

The emphasis on running and swift movement of the ball by hand and short-passing is greater than ever before. This requires a greater proportion of players who are athletically adept and possess high fitness and skill levels.

It has also in turn increased the importance of the half-back, centre and half-forward lines, all of which have morphed largely into a big midfield group.


The current structure of teams follows this pattern ... it will be interesting to see how that changes over time.

Indeed....

It does mean however that if your forwards are QUALITY that you can still gaina real advantge.


We have however real qulaity in our tall forwards (Kosi and Roo).....but nil ina medium forward (Hamill being injured) and only 1 qulaity small in Milne.





It also means that witha super-sized midfield that it is even more important that some your mids have the knack of kicking goals.



From our super-sized midfield group dal is a good goal kicker......but X and fior need to converta lot more of the opportunities that they gleen...and both X and fior do gleena good number of scoring opportunities.

[rodgerfox]

I also know that when Ross arrived that he was stunned in the Saints incompetence in the area off player conditionaing and and fitness and demanded that this be addressed. GT left a mess.

I also know after speaking to an ex-Saints Club Doc that under the previous regime that player conditioning was a joke with medical advice not always followed and failure to have individual fitness plans for players to the extent required for modern football.Y

ou prattle on about the fitness of our players being the only issue....but completely disregard the clear incompetence of the former coach in this regard who insisted on full responsibilty and accountabilty in this are and got it....much to the cost of the St Kilda Football Club.

Well articulated and I absolutey agree 100%, as I did with the rest of what you wrote, but only quoted this part because it is the very issue that dodgy keeps prattling on about,

sure dodger is going to make the point that Thomas Maximus was messiah like for getting us to a preliminary final with a long injury list, but what he fails to recognize is the exact precise point you make sRr and that is that Thomas Maximus was largely to blame, for running the entire football department like a fair dinkum chook raffle, which in the end possibly cost us a premiership or two


now dodgy, back in your foxhole, you're completely owned

Ahhh I see what this is about.

SR and B4Eva just won't let go.

It always comes back to GT doesn't it?


For two different reasons though. It's quite funny.......

B4Eva is a weirdo who is unable to be objective. Can't fathom the concept of neither loving nor hating someone. Once he no longer loved GT, he had to hate him.
Every post since has been about hating GT, and trying to convince others to do to the same.
Insecurity. Get more on 'your side'.
You're either with us, or against us!!

No concept of simply being impartial.

B4Eva, you need to understand, that because I don't hate GT, doesn't mean I love him.
Because people don't love Rod Butterss, doesn't mean everyone hates him.

We are all not like you.

I don't love GT - never have. Try to find one post where anything I say suggests I love him, or think he's some kind of messiah.

I thought he coached brilliantly at times, poorly at others. And I think he was incredibly underrated by many.

Love him? No.
Messiah? No.
Hate him? No.
The devil himself? No.

To be frank, he's just yet another guy who has crossed paths with the club I support. Nothing more.

It still puzzles me that because I disagreed with the sacking, and felt he was underrated that everything I post is construed as being pro-GT. It's just bizarre.

But then again, when dealing with people such as yourself - for the reasons listed above, it's not a surprise.



Now, onto SR.....

Doesn't hate GT, but thinks he's smarter than him. But he thinks he's smarter than anyone involved in any footy club. Oh, except 'Ross' and Mark Williams. the arrogance that comes across is unbelievable, and quite sickening.

Hell, he even noticed before anyone else in the footy world that West Coast had alot of rookies!! Genius!!

He's really struggling with GT, because all the bull**** reasons for us failing he came up with are slowly proving to be just that - bull****.

GT is making him look stupid.

We need rookies to win a flag. Nup - didn't work.

We need a game plan to win a flag. Nup - didn't work.

We need Neil Balme to win a flag. Nup - didn't work for 14 clubs.

Now we need some Yoga teaching guru to win a flag!!


Now, like others (and this was predicted at the time by many) who blamed our failure on GT and his lack of on-field couching nouse have been proven wrong - they're looking for ways out. Ways to protect their egos.

Just like Patrick Smith.

Everyone, including B4Eva and SR (the fool even re-posted it earlier) said all along that our list was good enough and it the only thing holding us back from a flag was Thomas and his coaching. I disagreed and said the only thing holding us back was being able to field 22 fit players consistently.

Now, like the cowards that they are, they refuse to acknowledge that they were wrong.

It shiits me.

It's not pro-GT - it's anti-knobs who crapped on about how good we would be if they were at the helm.

We changed coaches and went backwards. And now I watch them squirm and search for others things to blame on Thomas, rather than simply admitting that they got it wrong.

[Oh When the Saints]

I disagreed and said the only thing holding us back was being able to field 22 fit players consistently.

Agree.

In 2005 and 2006 we would have won a flag were it not for the injuries we suffered.

In 2005 especially many of those were preventable. There should have been in place adequate measures to prevent those injuries.

There weren't. It cost us a flag.

Who is to blame for not putting in place those measures to prevent injuries?

That's your $64,000 question

[barks4eva]

I also know that when Ross arrived that he was stunned in the Saints incompetence in the area off player conditionaing and and fitness and demanded that this be addressed. GT left a mess.

I also know after speaking to an ex-Saints Club Doc that under the previous regime that player conditioning was a joke with medical advice not always followed and failure to have individual fitness plans for players to the extent required for modern football.Y

ou prattle on about the fitness of our players being the only issue....but completely disregard the clear incompetence of the former coach in this regard who insisted on full responsibilty and accountabilty in this area and got it....much to the cost of the St Kilda Football Club.

Well dodger, I see you didn't bother to address the above quote, which is hardly surprising, but at least you're consistent

You wrote last year that the basic fundamentals under Ross Lyon were exactly the same as what they were under Grant Thomas, no different

When pressed for an explanation (about 20 times ) you offered nothing

I suppose the basic fundamentals you were referring to were that the players would wear football gear and train with football's

I suppose you'll also regard the new professional football department in much the same way, as being the basic model that Thomas already had in place

[rodgerfox]

I also know that when Ross arrived that he was stunned in the Saints incompetence in the area off player conditionaing and and fitness and demanded that this be addressed. GT left a mess.

I also know after speaking to an ex-Saints Club Doc that under the previous regime that player conditioning was a joke with medical advice not always followed and failure to have individual fitness plans for players to the extent required for modern football.Y

ou prattle on about the fitness of our players being the only issue....but completely disregard the clear incompetence of the former coach in this regard who insisted on full responsibilty and accountabilty in this area and got it....much to the cost of the St Kilda Football Club.

Well dodger, I see you didn't bother to address the above quote, which is hardly surprising, but at least you're consistent

You wrote last year that the basic fundamentals under Ross Lyon were exactly the same as what they were under Grant Thomas, no different

When pressed for an explanation (about 20 times ) you offered nothing

I suppose the basic fundamentals you were referring to were that the players would wear football gear and train with football's

I suppose you'll also regard the new professional football department in much the same way, as being the basic model that Thomas already had in place

Ok, now we're clearly getting off track. But nonetheless - I started it, so here I go.....

The basic fundamentals I referred to, were the same that the players, and Ross Lyon himself said.

Albeit it was in the paper, so make of it what you will. But Lyon himself quoted that the fundamentals are the same.

The fundamentals, he said, were the fact that our game plan was still to win contested footy. To play as a team. To use the ball well. And to kick winning scores. The fundamentals of the game plan were not changing. He agreed with the fundamentals we had in place.

These were areas which apparently (according to the GT critics) we had either neglected, or erred in.

He agreed with the plan - but obviously was not totally satisfied with the execution.

Is that Ok? Happy with that response? I don't usually bother responsing to questions that I either don't realise is a direct question asked of me - or one that I figure the asnwer is so obvious it isn't worth answering.


As for the quote above that I haven't responded to. I didn't respond because I didn't see the relevance of it.

If Thomas is in charge of players' fitness and health, and they aren't healthy or fit, then clearly it's his fault.

Where's the news flash there?

When have I ever argued otherwise??

I suppose you'll also regard the new professional football department in much the same way, as being the basic model that Thomas already had in place

Why would I? Why would you suppose that?

The reason I believed the fundamentals of our game plan were the same, was firstly because Ross Lyon said it was, and secondly becuase those fundamentals are basically the same at every football club in Australia.

I'd imagine our football department will be far different to what it was. And so it should be.

It won't matter for shiit if we have injuries though, and it wouldn't have mattered for shiit in 05 and 06 if we didn't have injuries either.

It could be argued of course that had someone else been appointing fitness teams other than Thomas, they may have had better luck in finding the right person.

For the record though, I do struggle to understand how poaching Craig Starcevich who was considered the best in the business is 'neglecting' injuries.

[mischa]

It still puzzles me that because I disagreed with the sacking, and felt he was underrated that everything I post is construed as being pro-GT. It's just bizarre.

It's not pro-GT - it's anti-knobs who crapped on about how good we would be if they were at the helm.

We changed coaches and went backwards. And now I watch them squirm and search for others things to blame on Thomas, rather than simply admitting that they got it wrong.

Excellent points. Fortunately (perhaps) we now have a coach who is part of the AFL mafia and no matter what happens-will always be considered a genius.

[saintsRrising]

[Now, onto SR.....

Doesn't hate GT, but thinks he's smarter than him. But he thinks he's smarter than anyone involved in any footy club. Oh, except 'Ross' and Mark Williams. the arrogance that comes across is unbelievable, and quite sickening.

Hell, he even noticed before anyone else in the footy world that West Coast had alot of rookies!! Genius!!

He's really struggling with GT, because all the bull**** reasons for us failing he came up with are slowly proving to be just that - bull****.

GT is making him look stupid.

We need rookies to win a flag. Nup - didn't work.

We need a game plan to win a flag. Nup - didn't work.

We need Neil Balme to win a flag. Nup - didn't work for 14 clubs.

Now we need some Yoga teaching guru to win a flag!!


Now, like others (and this was predicted at the time by many) who blamed our failure on GT and his lack of on-field couching nouse have been proven wrong - they're looking for ways out. Ways to protect their egos.

Just like Patrick Smith.

Everyone, including B4Eva and SR (the fool even re-posted it earlier) said all along that our list was good enough and it the only thing holding us back from a flag was Thomas and his coaching. I disagreed and said the only thing holding us back was being able to field 22 fit players consistently.

Now, like the cowards that they are, they refuse to acknowledge that they were wrong.

It shiits me.

It's not pro-GT - it's anti-knobs who crapped on about how good we would be if they were at the helm.

We changed coaches and went backwards. And now I watch them squirm and search for others things to blame on Thomas, rather than simply admitting that they got it wrong.

My apologies Bigcarl...but I don't take kindly to personal attacks which this clearly is. Rodgers post above is a direct aattack on me as a person and not a discussion at all on what I have posted but rather is an abusive post.


If I was a coward as posted by Rodger above I would back down at his name calling and attempted bullying rather than stick to my views.

Rodger when losing an argument often uses this tactic of name calling.

However can we just examine his above post of his and clear up some distortions which is another favourite tactic of Rodger's and which he has repeatedly done again in this string.

What I posted was "Our current list has the raw talent required to win a flag . . . but only if a number of players improve.." Clearly a numbers of players that I then listed did not improve. A number have now been delisted.

There were also various other "ifs" mentioned by me.


In my List Management Post re-posted above I also outlined TWO possible scenarios…and the Saints went with the second scenario…ie

Scenario 1
Winning it in 2007 and 2008:
If this is the absolute main focus, then this will see greater weight being giving to trading either players or draft picks to get our needs addressed with players that can play now.

To top up . . . or to be slow and steady???
Will the "new order" emphasis be to put absolute priority to win the flag in 2007 and 2008 . . . or will the attitude be more to win it in 2007 if we can but to recruit more on the basis of best possible winning chance from 2008 to 2012.


Scenario 2

Best possible winning chance from 2008 to 2012
With this scenario in trades for players are less likely . . . however the club will still be alert to deals of advantage. Players that address our weaknesses that can be obtained for a reasonable trade



So yes Rodger what I posted was that there was different ways to go....and the Club has gone on the second path....which is a best possible winning chance from 2008 to 2

Selecting a player such as Howard was all about the future and not solely a focus on 2007.




Lastly this is forum where people put up their views on the club, players, coaches et...and discuss them.

Forumites should be free to agree or disagree, to post counterviews etc etc......but posting abuse such as Rodger has should not be accepted.

I post on here because I enjoy genuine discussion and debate....and not as Rodge implies because I want to be at the helm.


Play the post...and not the poster.

[rodgerfox]

Lastly this is forum where people put up their views on the club, players, coaches et...and discuss them.

Forumites should be free to agree or disagree, to post counterviews etc etc......but posting abuse such as Rodger has should not be accepted.

I post on here because I enjoy genuine discussion and debate....and not as Rodge implies because I want to be at the helm.


Play the post...and not the poster.

Oh perleeeease.

Boo freakin' hoo.

I was playing the post until your arrogant sarcastic responses and smart arse name calling cameout.

So please, if you can't take it - don't dish it out.

Nothing worse than someone who loves dishing it out, then runs and dobs when they get a bit back.

Also, if you're going to make 9000 threads a week with quadruple spacing so they take up an entire page, if you're going to refer to your posts as 'pieces', if you're going arrogantly claim you outsmarted the entire football world by declaring that clubs need to be good in more than 1 area, if you're going to arrogantly claim that 'Ross' agrees with you, if you're going to 'sign' your 'pieces' as if they are some sort of Pulitzer Prize novels - you surely need to expect that someone is going to take you to task.

[Teflon]

[Now, onto SR.....

Doesn't hate GT, but thinks he's smarter than him. But he thinks he's smarter than anyone involved in any footy club. Oh, except 'Ross' and Mark Williams. the arrogance that comes across is unbelievable, and quite sickening.

Hell, he even noticed before anyone else in the footy world that West Coast had alot of rookies!! Genius!!

He's really struggling with GT, because all the bull**** reasons for us failing he came up with are slowly proving to be just that - bull****.

GT is making him look stupid.

We need rookies to win a flag. Nup - didn't work.

We need a game plan to win a flag. Nup - didn't work.

We need Neil Balme to win a flag. Nup - didn't work for 14 clubs.

Now we need some Yoga teaching guru to win a flag!!


Now, like others (and this was predicted at the time by many) who blamed our failure on GT and his lack of on-field couching nouse have been proven wrong - they're looking for ways out. Ways to protect their egos.

Just like Patrick Smith.

Everyone, including B4Eva and SR (the fool even re-posted it earlier) said all along that our list was good enough and it the only thing holding us back from a flag was Thomas and his coaching. I disagreed and said the only thing holding us back was being able to field 22 fit players consistently.

Now, like the cowards that they are, they refuse to acknowledge that they were wrong.

It shiits me.

It's not pro-GT - it's anti-knobs who crapped on about how good we would be if they were at the helm.

We changed coaches and went backwards. And now I watch them squirm and search for others things to blame on Thomas, rather than simply admitting that they got it wrong.

My apologies Bigcarl...but I don't take kindly to personal attacks which this clearly is. Rodgers post above is a direct aattack on me as a person and not a discussion at all on what I have posted but rather is an abusive post.


If I was a coward as posted by Rodger above I would back down at his name calling and attempted bullying rather than stick to my views.

Rodger when losing an argument often uses this tactic of name calling.

However can we just examine his above post of his and clear up some distortions which is another favourite tactic of Rodger's and which he has repeatedly done again in this string.

What I posted was "Our current list has the raw talent required to win a flag . . . but only if a number of players improve.." Clearly a numbers of players that I then listed did not improve. A number have now been delisted.

There were also various other "ifs" mentioned by me.


In my List Management Post re-posted above I also outlined TWO possible scenarios…and the Saints went with the second scenario…ie

Scenario 1
Winning it in 2007 and 2008:
If this is the absolute main focus, then this will see greater weight being giving to trading either players or draft picks to get our needs addressed with players that can play now.

To top up . . . or to be slow and steady???
Will the "new order" emphasis be to put absolute priority to win the flag in 2007 and 2008 . . . or will the attitude be more to win it in 2007 if we can but to recruit more on the basis of best possible winning chance from 2008 to 2012.


Scenario 2

Best possible winning chance from 2008 to 2012
With this scenario in trades for players are less likely . . . however the club will still be alert to deals of advantage. Players that address our weaknesses that can be obtained for a reasonable trade



So yes Rodger what I posted was that there was different ways to go....and the Club has gone on the second path....which is a best possible winning chance from 2008 to 2

Selecting a player such as Howard was all about the future and not solely a focus on 2007.




Lastly this is forum where people put up their views on the club, players, coaches et...and discuss them.

Forumites should be free to agree or disagree, to post counterviews etc etc......but posting abuse such as Rodger has should not be accepted.

I post on here because I enjoy genuine discussion and debate....and not as Rodge implies because I want to be at the helm.


Play the post...and not the poster.

A great post SR.

I was told by several moderators that Rodgers personal abusive posting had led to several warnings which resulted in him changing the way he posts.......yer...righto... Surely time for some control is required???

For the record - NO OTHER poster on this forum has an issue with any of your ALWAYS football related posts - except Rodger.

Make of that what you will....but I do suspect it has a little to do with the fact that Dodg craves being the football oracle.......that no one has him down for....and when someone like yourself talks footy and makes sense then in Dodges world they need to discredited......its sad on so many levels.

[Teflon]

Lastly this is forum where people put up their views on the club, players, coaches et...and discuss them.

Forumites should be free to agree or disagree, to post counterviews etc etc......but posting abuse such as Rodger has should not be accepted.

I post on here because I enjoy genuine discussion and debate....and not as Rodge implies because I want to be at the helm.


Play the post...and not the poster.

Oh perleeeease.

Boo freakin' hoo.

I was playing the post until your arrogant sarcastic responses and smart arse name calling cameout.

So please, if you can't take it - don't dish it out.

Nothing worse than someone who loves dishing it out, then runs and dobs when they get a bit back.

Also, if you're going to make 9000 threads a week with quadruple spacing so they take up an entire page, if you're going to refer to your posts as 'pieces', if you're going arrogantly claim you outsmarted the entire football world by declaring that clubs need to be good in more than 1 area, if you're going to arrogantly claim that 'Ross' agrees with you, if you're going to 'sign' your 'pieces' as if they are some sort of Pulitzer Prize novels - you surely need to expect that someone is going to take you to task.

I rest my case.

[rodgerfox]

I was told by several moderators that Rodgers personal abusive posting had led to several warnings which resulted in him changing the way he posts...

Someone is outright lying.

It's either you, or the 'several moderators' that told you I've been warned.

I have not been warned once. Not a single time.

Now I wonder who's lying??


Liars sicken me.

[Oh When the Saints]

rodgerfox made a conscious personal effort to change the manner in which he posted in an attempt to help the forum improve.

I and the other moderators were deeply grateful for his decision.

Would be nice if others would follow suit.

[Teflon]

rodgerfox made a conscious personal effort to change the manner in which he posted in an attempt to help the forum improve.

I and the other moderators were deeply grateful for his decision.

Would be nice if others would follow suit.

am I lying OWTS? Has Rodger been warned....think careful...

And why dont you address the issue SR alludes to and stop pandering to the few??

What in my post is abusive - do tell?????

[Teflon]

I was told by several moderators that Rodgers personal abusive posting had led to several warnings which resulted in him changing the way he posts...

Someone is outright lying.

It's either you, or the 'several moderators' that told you I've been warned.

I have not been warned once. Not a single time.

Now I wonder who's lying??


Liars sicken me.

Why lie when you have it word for word?

Someones in denial..........denial is pathetic.

[bigcarl]

we fell down badly in 2007 in not being able to kick winning scores

imo this was partly because of RL's dubious "numbers behind the ball" philosophy/game plan, which, in effect means that we didn't really have permanent forwards save for fraser.

i'd like a return to a more traditional set-up in which we have a forward line that is capable of turning opportunities to goals.

i'd set up something like this:

C: Gram, Hayes, Gilbert
HF: Goddard, Riewoldt, Dal
F: Milne, Kosi, Schneider

some will say we'd be robbing peter to pay paul by throwing resources forward like that; dal's too important on the ball; kosi can't play ff, we need him around the ground etc, etc.

but consider this: you can't win football matches if you can't put a score on the board.

i like the look of the wings here. gram and gilbert both get plenty of the ball and would be continually launching goalwards with long, direct kicks

thoughts anyone

i keep having to revise my goal-kicking forward line.

first we recruit schneider.

now i have to find a spot for the big g-locomotive. it's an embarrassment of riches!

here's my new line-up.

C: Gram, Hayes, Gilbert
HF: G-Train, Goddard, Riewoldt
F: Milne, Kosi, midfield rotation

There is enough goals there to win the 2008 premiership

[SaintBot]

here's my new line-up.

C: Gram, Hayes, Gilbert
HF: G-Train, Goddard, Riewoldt
F: Milne, Kosi, midfield rotation

There is enough goals there to win the 2008 premiership

where's schneider?

[plugger66]

we fell down badly in 2007 in not being able to kick winning scores

imo this was partly because of RL's dubious "numbers behind the ball" philosophy/game plan, which, in effect means that we didn't really have permanent forwards save for fraser.

i'd like a return to a more traditional set-up in which we have a forward line that is capable of turning opportunities to goals.

i'd set up something like this:

C: Gram, Hayes, Gilbert
HF: Goddard, Riewoldt, Dal
F: Milne, Kosi, Schneider

some will say we'd be robbing peter to pay paul by throwing resources forward like that; dal's too important on the ball; kosi can't play ff, we need him around the ground etc, etc.

but consider this: you can't win football matches if you can't put a score on the board.

i like the look of the wings here. gram and gilbert both get plenty of the ball and would be continually launching goalwards with long, direct kicks

thoughts anyone

i keep having to revise my goal-kicking forward line.

first we recruit schneider.

now i have to find a spot for the big g-locomotive. it's an embarrassment of riches!

here's my new line-up.

C: Gram, Hayes, Gilbert
HF: G-Train, Goddard, Riewoldt
F: Milne, Kosi, midfield rotation

There is enough goals there to win the 2008 premiership

They will not play G at half forward. He will play at FF or will not play. Kosi will play CHF and Roo a roaming forward or Kosi as a ruck forward. The forward line will not win us the flag. It will be the onballers and the backs so that is where the improvement is needed IMO. Also BJ will play down back especially coming back from a reco as he will not need to be as mobile.