Raph Clarke

[saintsRrising]

[From a big picture point of view, I agree with you. From the course of this game, taking issue with Raph is backwards. He was running without being run down, he was hitting targets with his kicking, he was giving second efforts and tackling hard. All the things we need to see from him.

Perhaps I am marking too hard....but the first quarter incident was not the only one I observed.

But as to not being run down...twice he was in space and clear...but basically stopped and was run down.

Hitting targets...yes he was not kicking to stationary players as much which is good...but he did not always hit. Once in the backline he kicked across to the BP well above his team mates head.


Twice in the last few minutes of the game he made bad decisions that let the Tigers back in for scoring opportunities...


His third quarter was very good....and I would hope that he can deliver that standard more often.

Schnieder I think would be listed as a "popular" player. From my eyes he made more bad mistakes that Raph in the Tigers game.

Like Raph..it is just the way I saw it.

[saintsRrising]

. I think he doesn't go with his instincts often enough - seems unsure of himself. That would be a confidence thing - whilst his brother takes opponents on and flies for marks and throws himself onto opponents boots to smother, Raph tries to think to much about the what ifs!! He just needs to run and jump and kick quickly - first option, don't wait. He could be anything or just fade away.

Basically agree....but I also think that he is probably more suited to be a forward or a wingman...rtaher than playing as a defender.


Would the Cat's Steve Johnson be anywhere near as good if he was playing asa defender??

[yipper]

I agree - ideally Raph should be on the forward line. He may well be a very difficult match up. Generally a very good kick and can take a mark, could become a regular multiple goal kicker for us.

[bergsone]

. I think he doesn't go with his instincts often enough - seems unsure of himself. That would be a confidence thing - whilst his brother takes opponents on and flies for marks and throws himself onto opponents boots to smother, Raph tries to think to much about the what ifs!! He just needs to run and jump and kick quickly - first option, don't wait. He could be anything or just fade away.

Basically agree....but I also think that he is probably more suited to be a forward or a wingman...rtaher than playing as a defender.


Would the Cat's Steve Johnson be anywhere near as good if he was playing asa defender??

[joffaboy]

If you're suggesting it's a race thing, then it is disappointing you think it is as simple as that.

No I dont think it is as simple as that.

It is simply this - there are many times he has turned the ball over or made a terrible decision that costs us. If you didn't see this on Saturday or any other time he's played this year then you can't have been watching too closely.

And he was the only Saints player to turn the ball over? Why the victimisation of Raph?

The colour of his skin is irrelevant. The kid simply can't play at this level.

You would hope so. As I said I dont think it is as simple as that. I would suggest there are a number of issues at play here. Is his skin colour one of them? I dont know, but I am at a loss to understand the vitriol and hatred toward Raph when his game was no better or worse than a significant number of other players.

[B W and R all over]

No he wasn't the only one to turn it over, but he did it pretty often. And he has done it pretty often this year.

Most of the time when he has the ball or is in a contest for it, we end up worse off as a result.

If skin colour was any factor, wouldn't we be just as critical of Xavier?

I reckon a lot of the people who are frustrated with Raph were the same ones that cheered every tackle, goal and mark from Nicky Winmar, so I don't think him being black is any issue.

Don't take my word for it though, ask Aaron Hamill, who was very critical of his former teammate on the radio on Saturday night - suggesting he's not up to it.

I'm not saying Sammy's word is the be all and end all. But of all the people in the media at the moment, Aaron (and Grant Thomas, but let's not open that can of worms) would be one who has seen most of Raph at a close distance.

[CURLY]

Raph to me looks like a player who always waits for the perfect option. He doesnt ever just blaze away or kick to space he holds it often to long as he is trying to create somthing that often isnt there.

[joffaboy]

No he wasn't the only one to turn it over, but he did it pretty often. And he has done it pretty often this year.

yes he has been ordinary and turnovers have been poor, however on Saturday night he was pretty good and contributed much to the win. Have a look at his work in qtr 1, and the last half. qtr 2 was poor, but he made up for it.

Most of the time when he has the ball or is in a contest for it, we end up worse off as a result.

That is your opinion only. The first three goals all were influenced by Raph Clarke. Why does this not count?

If skin colour was any factor, wouldn't we be just as critical of Xavier?

I am not saying it is, however i do remember X being roundly critisised as a teenager on here, more so than many ohers. But again who is to say what underlying motive there is to critisise a player.

I reckon a lot of the people who are frustrated with Raph were the same ones that cheered every tackle, goal and mark from Nicky Winmar, so I don't think him being black is any issue.

I heard some terrible things said about Nicky Winmar by Saints fans. However that was 15 years ago and that type of thing is hopefully gone. he question I ask is - is it?

Don't take my word for it though, ask Aaron Hamill, who was very critical of his former teammate on the radio on Saturday night - suggesting he's not up to it.

Thats fine. Did he have reasoned opinions on why? The ones I cant stand are the ones who just pot him and dont back it up with any evidence that,

a) he turned it over more than numerous other players
b) he cost us goals
etc.

One poster above critisised him for playing the %'s and kicking down the line to a contest with 10 seconds to go FFS

What type of idiocy is that?

I'm not saying Sammy's word is the be all and end all. But of all the people in the media at the moment, Aaron (and Grant Thomas, but let's not open that can of worms) would be one who has seen most of Raph at a close distance.

True. And there are many reasoned and decent posts on here, much I agree with.

I dont have rose coloured glasses. I believe Raph has to step up, and has to perform better, however I get sick of the hysterical shrill bleating about him, much of it based on nothing but hatred for a kid who has tremendous upside.

Where that hatred comes from? You be the judge.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

I dont have rose coloured glasses. I believe Raph has to step up, and has to perform better, however I get sick of the hysterical shrill bleating about him, much of it based on nothing but hatred for a kid who has tremendous upside.

Where that hatred comes from? You be the judge.

What's had me scratching my head since watching the tape is that that game is exactly what I've been wanting to see from Raph. Mainly efficient with the ball (he had 1 clanger), tackling and running, and his efforts finishing on the positive side more than the negative. It's not a brilliant game by any stretch, but that's the kind of game that says the door is still open. If he can string together a couple of those, then he'll have turned the corner.

Where does the hatred come from? I don't think there's any need to dig too deep into motive, it gives too many too much credit. The hatred comes from habit.

[saintsRrising]

[What's had me scratching my head since watching the tape is that that game is exactly what I've been wanting to see from Raph. Mainly efficient with the ball (he had 1 clanger), tackling and running, and his efforts finishing on the positive side more than the negative. It's not a brilliant game by any stretch, but that's the kind of game that says the door is still open. If he can string together a couple of those, then he'll have turned the corner.

Where does the hatred come from? I don't think there's any need to dig too deep into motive, it gives too many too much credit. The hatred comes from habit.

Points:

1/ 1 Clanger? I am not sure where your stats are from. The ones on afl.com show 5 for example. Even allowing for differences in defintions... my eyes would indicate that he had a lot more than one clanger.

I do agree this was a better game for him compared to his earlier ones this year and that he did morev things right....and so this is a good sign. Lets hope he continues to improve.

2/ Hatred???

Why cannot people with differening opinions be free to make them without having to be labeled as making them from a hate basis?

I mean if your brother votes Liberal and you sister Labour...do you "hate" one of them just based on how you vote.


On ratios of positive to negative...is a 50/50 ok???

I do agree that some posterss are way over the top and illogical, and even abusive...but not all people that see flaws in Raph's game "hate" him.

[The Peanut]

I dont have rose coloured glasses. I believe Raph has to step up, and has to perform better, however I get sick of the hysterical shrill bleating about him, much of it based on nothing but hatred for a kid who has tremendous upside.

Where that hatred comes from? You be the judge.

What's had me scratching my head since watching the tape is that that game is exactly what I've been wanting to see from Raph. Mainly efficient with the ball (he had 1 clanger), tackling and running, and his efforts finishing on the positive side more than the negative. It's not a brilliant game by any stretch, but that's the kind of game that says the door is still open. If he can string together a couple of those, then he'll have turned the corner.

Where does the hatred come from? I don't think there's any need to dig too deep into motive, it gives too many too much credit. The hatred comes from habit.

Agree

All will say they don't hate Raph and that they are just being objective .... but read though the thread - it is a wild west lynching from a kangaroo court with all teeth bared- there is nothing objective about eating your own when a bloke puts in an effort and does ok.

... and its the backline gaps we need to fill!!! - we can cover the forward line - its all about winning games of footy and we are not in the position to build a perfect world.

How about everyone go to Collingwood game with positive energy for Raph so the mood is right for him to further develop his confidence - it must be very difficult with thousands of people sitting in the stands waiting for your mistakes, counting them and adding a few for good measure.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

[What's had me scratching my head since watching the tape is that that game is exactly what I've been wanting to see from Raph. Mainly efficient with the ball (he had 1 clanger), tackling and running, and his efforts finishing on the positive side more than the negative. It's not a brilliant game by any stretch, but that's the kind of game that says the door is still open. If he can string together a couple of those, then he'll have turned the corner.

Where does the hatred come from? I don't think there's any need to dig too deep into motive, it gives too many too much credit. The hatred comes from habit.

Points:

1/ 1 Clanger? I am not sure where your stats are from. The ones on afl.com show 5 for example. Even allowing for differences in defintions... my eyes would indicate that he had a lot more than one clanger.

I do agree this was a better game for him compared to his earlier ones this year and that he did morev things right....and so this is a good sign. Lets hope he continues to improve.

had clangers and clearnaces columns mixed up. You're correct. 5 clangers.

(on another note, HS also says he had 74% efficiency from 19 disposals, meaning every disposal either was a clanger or an effective disposal. That's crazy... and Milne has 9 Clangers from 17 disposals and a scoreline of 7.3. I take it Frees Against are now scored as clangers? Have I gone crazy or was that not the case last year? Did clangers not used to be a disposal stat only?)

2/ Hatred???

Why cannot people with differening opinions be free to make them without having to be labeled as making them from a hate basis?

I mean if your brother votes Liberal and you sister Labour...do you "hate" one of them just based on how you vote.

Honestly sRr, read the thread again and tell me it's all unemotional footy analysis, in good correlation to the impact that Raphael Clarke had on the game, positive and negative. That it's just a co-incedence there's one of these threads after every game he plays.

Seriously, if we swapped the games played by Goddard and Raph on Saturday, do you think we'd have the same thread (btw, I've got no problem with Goddard's game, it just wasn't his best)? If Sam Gilbert had been in the lineup instead of Raph and played the same game, would there be a parallel thread to this one?

Doesn't mean everyone who dislikes him hates him, but behind a certain ex coach, I can't think of anyone who stirs the emotions of this forum like Raph. Which is more than a little creepy.

[plugger66]

Frees against have always been clangers and that should be case.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

Frees against have always been clangers and that should be case.

Thanks plugger.

Honestly thought it was a disposal stat.

[saintsRrising]

Doesn't mean everyone who dislikes him hates him, but behind a certain ex coach, I can't think of anyone who stirs the emotions of this forum like Raph. Which is more than a little creepy.

How about Blake?

But seriously a number of remarks are uncalled for and over the top about Raph. That I fully agree with.

Rix is another who has gained a lot of vitriol. Unfairly so. Sure he is alimited player but he cops alot of unfair postings.


Even RL cops pure abuse from many. I for example was critical for RL favouringa 3 tall forward set up early in the year rather than 2...but saw no need to lable hima moron for doing so.

I think people need to separate true criticism (which by the way can be both negative or postive) and discussion from abuse.

During a game...I am 100% cheering..and am louder than most....which in some years has meant attending three 100 point losses in a row and I can tell you there were not many other Saints fans there with me.

But post game I am an analytical type of guy that likes to review and anlayse everthing...the good, the bad and the ugly.

I also enjoy proposing ina constructive way what I feel are better ways to do things.

This to me is all part of what a forum is all about.

I understand that some would desire it to be a purely a 100% cheer site....

[saintbrat]

a pity Raph ( or any player)doesn't get a bonus for every time their name is mentioned on a fan forum or in the newspaper- he and JB could be richer than Rooey.

reverse of the player fine system.

[spert]

I'll give him a gig at CHF now Roo is gone for a while. Raph aint perfect, but he did a bit better than few more experienced players last Sat. night.

[The_Dud]

i we have to play him, i'd rather play him in the forward line

because he has to be the worst player to have the ball while under pressure in our side

[Huzzad]

Also noticed it was Raph who was the one who kicked it to a three-on-two in the dying seconds instead of an open player and forced the turnover....thank god Jack missed

I would be interested to know who the free player was.

Can you name them? Goddard kicked out to Raph. Brown immediately manned Goddard up and left Raph free to run to the fifty.

Richmond manned up all through the midfield and there was no free St.Kilda man.

So you are basically saying that Raph Clarke, with no free man to kick to, with 10 seconds left on the clock, should break all team rules and not kick it 50 metres to the boundary?

Are you seriously blaming Raph Clarke for the three - count them three St.Kilda players in that contest who couldn't

a) take the mark
b) take the ball out
c) make the contest a stoppage.

This is an incredible statement.

Absolutely incredible.

And it goes back to what i said earlier.....their is an ugly agenda toward Raph Clarke.

Either that or you are completely devoid of logic and/or have no idea about the basics of football.

Incredible

Well, looking at the tape, there were two players free. Fisher and Demptster I believe. Fisher was screaming for it. I'll post the video up if you do not believe me. Closest person to them was the ump. All Raph had to do was look.

[Huzzad]

To save the inevitable response of "blah blah blah roll roll roll yes put it up there I still don't believe you blah blah roll roll wank wank," I took a screen shot for you.



Two players open compared to a three on one.

[saintsRrising]

To save the inevitable response of "blah blah blah roll roll roll yes put it up there I still don't believe you blah blah roll roll wank wank," I took a screen shot for you.



Two players open compared to a three on one.

I remember BJ as being free too...


Trouble was that Raph took so long...that eventually all were manned up.

I clearly remeber watching this at the game and that there was ample time for Raph to have passed to a Saints player before they were manned up.

[Shaggy]

To save the inevitable response of "blah blah blah roll roll roll yes put it up there I still don't believe you blah blah roll roll wank wank," I took a screen shot for you.



Two players open compared to a three on one.

Based on the picture Fish and Dempster aren't any where near Raph's vision. And you don't look backwards when you have a bloke on your tail. And you don't center the ball near the opp's forward line just because you hear your name called

[Mr Magic]

Huzzad,
This photo you've put up is a bit deceptive in that it doesn't show the angles correctly.

The 2 players open were about 30-40 metres away from Raph almost at 90 degrees to him. Between him and them was the Richmond player guarding the mark and the Umpire. He very likely didn't even see them? The Richmond player 'guarding the mark' wasn't on the actual mark but 'goalside' of it (as most players seem to do these days). I am sure that this tactic is designed to force the player with the ball to kick towards the boundary line as nobody is going to risk trying to get around/over the man guarding him to his side.. As Raph runss off down the boundary side the 2 saints players run towards him (past the umpire) and end up no more than 10-15 metres away from him , but behind him, before he actually kicks the ball. Standing behind them is the umpire and a Richmond player (Riewoldt?) looking on. Any attempt at that stage by Raph to give the ball to either of them would have been very iffy. I don't believe he had any option then other than kicking it as long as he could towards the wing. As it was, the ball bounced off Goose's arms/chest into Foley's hands.

[Buckets]

Might as well just get rid of him now, Raph was the reason why we were comprehensively beaten in the middle all night long he cost us goals and was the reason why we were beaten in the contested possessions by over 40 possies!

God it is amazing that Raph has become the ultimate whipping boy for this forum more than Blakes, GT and AD could ever become!
Yes he made mistakes but i would seriously suggest that we look more closely at some of the more senior players. Where was Schnieder all night? Or perhaps you are saying both Hayes and Joey had fantastic games against the tigers? And trust me there were a few that didn't play much better than those few. If anything Ralph did the job he needed to..yes a couple of mistakes but i honestly think he played better on Saturday than in most of his games for the RWB. Oh by the way how many games has Raph played? Wouldnt think he would have reached the 50 yet and yet there are alot of posters who would have you think that he has played 150 shite games! What a joke give the guy a break he is doing the best he can in the position that is not suited to him.
Raph should not play for the Saints....in the backline! He should play half forward flank give him enough time in that position and i reckon he would shut a few on here up!

[Huzzad]

Huzzad,
This photo you've put up is a bit deceptive in that it doesn't show the angles correctly.

The 2 players open were about 30-40 metres away from Raph almost at 90 degrees to him. Between him and them was the Richmond player guarding the mark and the Umpire. He very likely didn't even see them? The Richmond player 'guarding the mark' wasn't on the actual mark but 'goalside' of it (as most players seem to do these days). I am sure that this tactic is designed to force the player with the ball to kick towards the boundary line as nobody is going to risk trying to get around/over the man guarding him to his side.. As Raph runss off down the boundary side the 2 saints players run towards him (past the umpire) and end up no more than 10-15 metres away from him , but behind him, before he actually kicks the ball. Standing behind them is the umpire and a Richmond player (Riewoldt?) looking on. Any attempt at that stage by Raph to give the ball to either of them would have been very iffy. I don't believe he had any option then other than kicking it as long as he could towards the wing. As it was, the ball bounced off Goose's arms/chest into Foley's hands.

Oh I agree that the situation isn't perfect. But I would have thought a quick kick back to Fish was a better option than 3 on two, with both Birss and Goose caught behind the Tiger players. My simple point was that we were hardly all manned up, which was the point made by Mr Joffaboy.
The ump was flat-footed anyway, so wouldn't have really been much trouble, Dempster ran hard past him, but Fish dropped back at a slower pace so would have been an easy 20m from Raph if not more, making the distance no trouble. The space between Raph and the man on the mark was pretty big, and with Dempster on the right, could have been an easy switch I reckon if done quickly. Instead he takes about ten steps and kicks up the boundary.