What are the selectors thinking?

[St. Luke]

The only way to make this current side competitive is by constantly dropping the non-performers. We just don't do it! So what in God's name is the incentive for anyone through the Scorps to try harder????

[sunsaint]

OVER-Rated.

Plus, he is not that fast - especially with the pill.

Is there a Black and Decker tool quote of the week on Saintsational?

I would like to hear who you think is quicker

[Legendary]

To The Top, you make far too much sense to be posting on saintsational ...

As I have said before, the problems were apparant by mid 2004 when, instead of continuing to build we thought we had "the side" - and we ran it into the ground - from which it has never recovered.

We "burnt" the foundations of St Kilda becoming a consistent contender for a decade - and now we have the pieces to pick up.

Succint and accurate.

[WayneJudson42]

The Cup glittered too brightly and impatience set in.
We chose to mainly add GOPS for depth, rather than quality for the future.

And that is bighting us on the bum now.

And if we'd drafted for the future at that time we would've burnt any chance of a premiership then - we gambled - it was worth the gamble - bad luck and circumstance went against us.

Should a club forever look to the far future? Look at the premiership teams in the immediate years around their success - little or no influx of youngsters but a solid core of experience - crows, essendon, lions, port, swans, west coast, geelong. By winning the premiership you could argue they've burned their chance 4 years down the track. Fair dinkum!

But if you'd rather never take the gamble and say - this side is a chance - well you'll never win!

Disagree. Perhaps Brooks was an ok decision at the time coz we needed a ruckman. But everyone else were pretty much hacks TBH.

Should have stuck with the kids IMO.

[userbetheknee]

I just feel for Harvs, that a legend is forced to play with so many average players and has never won a flag because of it.

[Spinner]

OVER-Rated.

Plus, he is not that fast - especially with the pill.

Is there a Black and Decker tool quote of the week on Saintsational?

I would like to hear who you think is quicker

I believe Dal Santo is quicker..Its a good comparison because everyone thinks he slow...Why?

Im not basing this on lap times.....Solely based on game speed.

Dal picks up the ball in full flight, reads the play, doesn't panic and thus ALWAYS delivers perfect disposal.

Jones. Not comment.

[degruch]

OVER-Rated.

Plus, he is not that fast - especially with the pill.

Is there a Black and Decker tool quote of the week on Saintsational?

I would like to hear who you think is quicker

I believe Dal Santo is quicker..Its a good comparison because everyone thinks he slow...Why?

Im not basing this on lap times.....Solely based on game speed.

Dal picks up the ball in full flight, reads the play, doesn't panic and thus ALWAYS delivers perfect disposal.

Jones. Not comment.

Perfect disposal!?! Geez...my rubbish bin has had better disposal this year.

[Saints Premiers 2008]

To The Top, you make far too much sense to be posting on saintsational ...

As I have said before, the problems were apparant by mid 2004 when, instead of continuing to build we thought we had "the side" - and we ran it into the ground - from which it has never recovered.

We "burnt" the foundations of St Kilda becoming a consistent contender for a decade - and now we have the pieces to pick up.

Succint and accurate.

richmond of 2001

truths need to be told

[To the top]

It is interesting that Brook's name is mentioned - and he was obtained following on the loss of Everitt.

He showed good potential whilst being nursed through his first couple of games, rucking with Maguire and getting fuller on-field time by playing some VFL games - where he seriously did a knee taking a strong, jumping pack mark.

Had confidence problems, then was picked and played in a back pocket against Port Adelaide who had Primus and Lade, both of whom they used forward so we panicked and played Brooks as a back pocket!

Knocked the confidence down further.

Was then played in the final Minor Round game of 2005, kicking 3, missing 2 and looking up to the standard playing as a forward ruckman.

His contested mark against Riewoldt, turning in mid air and snapping the goal the instant his feet hit the ground said he could play, as did his leading and kicking from the 50 metre line.

Then was played against Hawthorn in a forward pocket, a game famous for its flooding and where the ball did not go inside St Kilda's 50 metre arc in the first quarter (Fiora kicked our only score, a goal, from outside 50). Gehrig did not have a touch in the first quarter either, and very few for the game.

Was taken off toward the end of the first quarter and came back on in the final quarter for some useful push off and lead work which was ignored except on one occasion.

And that was the end, no matter consistently being named in the VFL best lists.

I always believe that big men take more time, and particularly when you have had a serious knee injury at 19 years of age.

The facts were that, at 198cm - and like Kosi - he was that bit too short to ruck because at that height you generally have to jump to contest - which you can do at centre bounces but not around the ground.

Some will say he lacked intensity based on looking in from the other side of the boundary (as they say about Raph Clarke) but he had skills and I would suggest he would be very handy today parked up forward and playing from the goal square because he could move, he could mark and he could kick.

But it is too late now.

So we complain about Kosi instead - when Kosi is neither a full forward or a ruckman - and needs to re-capture his drive and intensity in his legs (by succesive full pre-seasons and consistent full seasons) to play to the advantage of the team accross half forward and higher up the ground - in tandem with Riewoldt.

But Brooks was an unfulfilled talent St Kilda let slip.

And he was a big man.

Now we wait on Allen and McEvoy, and who says either have more to offer than Brooks?

We have made some strange decisions in my books and it has put the pressure right on in respect to what we do over the next couple of years - now with GC17 in the equation to really muddy the waters.

[Spinner]

It is interesting that Brook's name is mentioned - and he was obtained following on the loss of Everitt.

He showed good potential whilst being nursed through his first couple of games, rucking with Maguire and getting fuller on-field time by playing some VFL games - where he seriously did a knee taking a strong, jumping pack mark.

Had confidence problems, then was picked and played in a back pocket against Port Adelaide who had Primus and Lade, both of whom they used forward so we panicked and played Brooks as a back pocket!

Knocked the confidence down further.

Was then played in the final Minor Round game of 2005, kicking 3, missing 2 and looking up to the standard playing as a forward ruckman.

His contested mark against Riewoldt, turning in mid air and snapping the goal the instant his feet hit the ground said he could play, as did his leading and kicking from the 50 metre line.

Then was played against Hawthorn in a forward pocket, a game famous for its flooding and where the ball did not go inside St Kilda's 50 metre arc in the first quarter (Fiora kicked our only score, a goal, from outside 50). Gehrig did not have a touch in the first quarter either, and very few for the game.

Was taken off toward the end of the first quarter and came back on in the final quarter for some useful push off and lead work which was ignored except on one occasion.

And that was the end, no matter consistently being named in the VFL best lists.

I always believe that big men take more time, and particularly when you have had a serious knee injury at 19 years of age.

The facts were that, at 198cm - and like Kosi - he was that bit too short to ruck because at that height you generally have to jump to contest - which you can do at centre bounces but not around the ground.

Some will say he lacked intensity based on looking in from the other side of the boundary (as they say about Raph Clarke) but he had skills and I would suggest he would be very handy today parked up forward and playing from the goal square because he could move, he could mark and he could kick.

But it is too late now.

So we complain about Kosi instead - when Kosi is neither a full forward or a ruckman - and needs to re-capture his drive and intensity in his legs (by succesive full pre-seasons and consistent full seasons) to play to the advantage of the team accross half forward and higher up the ground - in tandem with Riewoldt.

But Brooks was an unfulfilled talent St Kilda let slip.

And he was a big man.

Now we wait on Allen and McEvoy, and who says either have more to offer than Brooks?

We have made some strange decisions in my books and it has put the pressure right on in respect to what we do over the next couple of years - now with GC17 in the equation to really muddy the waters.

Great Post....I loved Brooks.....He was my one great hope of a dominate ruckman......

Anyone remember his leap in the goal square aginst the Roos in a practice match at PP???

Boy could he jump.

[WayneJudson42]

It is interesting that Brook's name is mentioned - and he was obtained following on the loss of Everitt.

He showed good potential whilst being nursed through his first couple of games, rucking with Maguire and getting fuller on-field time by playing some VFL games - where he seriously did a knee taking a strong, jumping pack mark.

Had confidence problems, then was picked and played in a back pocket against Port Adelaide who had Primus and Lade, both of whom they used forward so we panicked and played Brooks as a back pocket!

Knocked the confidence down further.

Was then played in the final Minor Round game of 2005, kicking 3, missing 2 and looking up to the standard playing as a forward ruckman.

His contested mark against Riewoldt, turning in mid air and snapping the goal the instant his feet hit the ground said he could play, as did his leading and kicking from the 50 metre line.

Then was played against Hawthorn in a forward pocket, a game famous for its flooding and where the ball did not go inside St Kilda's 50 metre arc in the first quarter (Fiora kicked our only score, a goal, from outside 50). Gehrig did not have a touch in the first quarter either, and very few for the game.

Was taken off toward the end of the first quarter and came back on in the final quarter for some useful push off and lead work which was ignored except on one occasion.

And that was the end, no matter consistently being named in the VFL best lists.

I always believe that big men take more time, and particularly when you have had a serious knee injury at 19 years of age.

The facts were that, at 198cm - and like Kosi - he was that bit too short to ruck because at that height you generally have to jump to contest - which you can do at centre bounces but not around the ground.

Some will say he lacked intensity based on looking in from the other side of the boundary (as they say about Raph Clarke) but he had skills and I would suggest he would be very handy today parked up forward and playing from the goal square because he could move, he could mark and he could kick.

But it is too late now.

So we complain about Kosi instead - when Kosi is neither a full forward or a ruckman - and needs to re-capture his drive and intensity in his legs (by succesive full pre-seasons and consistent full seasons) to play to the advantage of the team accross half forward and higher up the ground - in tandem with Riewoldt.

But Brooks was an unfulfilled talent St Kilda let slip.

And he was a big man.

Now we wait on Allen and McEvoy, and who says either have more to offer than Brooks?

We have made some strange decisions in my books and it has put the pressure right on in respect to what we do over the next couple of years - now with GC17 in the equation to really muddy the waters.

Great Post....I loved Brooks.....He was my one great hope of a dominate ruckman......

Anyone remember his leap in the goal square aginst the Roos in a practice match at PP???

Boy could he jump.

Yes, but he obviously fell out of favour with the great man manager and never got a look in. Would probably be ideal at FF now... but we'll never know. Never the same since his knee.

Mind you, RL had the opp to play him, but didn't. So whoknows the real story?

[Apu]

It is interesting that Brook's name is mentioned - and he was obtained following on the loss of Everitt.

He showed good potential whilst being nursed through his first couple of games, rucking with Maguire and getting fuller on-field time by playing some VFL games - where he seriously did a knee taking a strong, jumping pack mark.

Had confidence problems, then was picked and played in a back pocket against Port Adelaide who had Primus and Lade, both of whom they used forward so we panicked and played Brooks as a back pocket!

Knocked the confidence down further.

Was then played in the final Minor Round game of 2005, kicking 3, missing 2 and looking up to the standard playing as a forward ruckman.

His contested mark against Riewoldt, turning in mid air and snapping the goal the instant his feet hit the ground said he could play, as did his leading and kicking from the 50 metre line.

Then was played against Hawthorn in a forward pocket, a game famous for its flooding and where the ball did not go inside St Kilda's 50 metre arc in the first quarter (Fiora kicked our only score, a goal, from outside 50). Gehrig did not have a touch in the first quarter either, and very few for the game.

Was taken off toward the end of the first quarter and came back on in the final quarter for some useful push off and lead work which was ignored except on one occasion.

And that was the end, no matter consistently being named in the VFL best lists.

I always believe that big men take more time, and particularly when you have had a serious knee injury at 19 years of age.

The facts were that, at 198cm - and like Kosi - he was that bit too short to ruck because at that height you generally have to jump to contest - which you can do at centre bounces but not around the ground.

Some will say he lacked intensity based on looking in from the other side of the boundary (as they say about Raph Clarke) but he had skills and I would suggest he would be very handy today parked up forward and playing from the goal square because he could move, he could mark and he could kick.

But it is too late now.

So we complain about Kosi instead - when Kosi is neither a full forward or a ruckman - and needs to re-capture his drive and intensity in his legs (by succesive full pre-seasons and consistent full seasons) to play to the advantage of the team accross half forward and higher up the ground - in tandem with Riewoldt.

But Brooks was an unfulfilled talent St Kilda let slip.

And he was a big man.

Now we wait on Allen and McEvoy, and who says either have more to offer than Brooks?

We have made some strange decisions in my books and it has put the pressure right on in respect to what we do over the next couple of years - now with GC17 in the equation to really muddy the waters.

Great Post....I loved Brooks.....He was my one great hope of a dominate ruckman......

Anyone remember his leap in the goal square aginst the Roos in a practice match at PP???

Boy could he jump.

i agree - excellent post. Out of interest does anyone know what Barry is up to these days?

[Sobraz]

It is interesting that Brook's name is mentioned - and he was obtained following on the loss of Everitt.

His contested mark against Riewoldt, turning in mid air and snapping the goal the instant his feet hit the ground said he could play, as did his leading and kicking from the 50 metre line.

Then was played against Hawthorn in a forward pocket, a game famous for its flooding and where the ball did not go inside St Kilda's 50 metre arc in the first quarter (Fiora kicked our only score, a goal, from outside 50). Gehrig did not have a touch in the first quarter either, and very few for the game.

Now we wait on Allen and McEvoy, and who says either have more to offer than Brooks?

We have made some strange decisions in my books and it has put the pressure right on in respect to what we do over the next couple of years - now with GC17 in the equation to really muddy the waters.

This post is spot on, but the part you left out was what happened in between the Lions game (his best) and the Hawks flood....

After kicking 3.2 at the Gabba, in round 22, he was dropped for the first final against Melbourne... He goes from being in our best one week to dropped, purely because it was a final...

That game would have had a very different result if Brookes had played...

In hindsight, im glad he didnt as it cooked GT's coaching career, but pretty much sacrificing Brookes' career for it seems like a tough means...

Boy the kid could play.. Him being dropped after his best game ever as a Saint coming into the finals ruined his career and was the stupid decision I can remember.... Still mad about it....

[Sobraz]

Back to the original point...

I have given up trying to understand the selectors... Just a converyor belt of the same, tired, useless, going nowhere players being churned through.. Charlie, Fiora, Rix and Birss as emergencies... All going nowhere...

It annoys me that Fiora was suspended, as I wanted to see what Ross would do this week with this hack... He's probably stright back in next week... And in the mean time, he brings in Fiora twin equivalent, Charlie...

If we have these 2 guys on each Forward Flank next week, I will laugh myself to sleep... Cant wait for it...

With Armo, Steven and McEvoy in the 2's surely we should through caution to the wind and try the youth... Irrespective of how they have been playing in the 2's, they have far greater upside to those named above, and are the future...

Ross is letting himself down more by the week...

[Mr Magic]

It is interesting that Brook's name is mentioned - and he was obtained following on the loss of Everitt.

His contested mark against Riewoldt, turning in mid air and snapping the goal the instant his feet hit the ground said he could play, as did his leading and kicking from the 50 metre line.

Then was played against Hawthorn in a forward pocket, a game famous for its flooding and where the ball did not go inside St Kilda's 50 metre arc in the first quarter (Fiora kicked our only score, a goal, from outside 50). Gehrig did not have a touch in the first quarter either, and very few for the game.

Now we wait on Allen and McEvoy, and who says either have more to offer than Brooks?

We have made some strange decisions in my books and it has put the pressure right on in respect to what we do over the next couple of years - now with GC17 in the equation to really muddy the waters.

This post is spot on, but the part you left out was what happened in between the Lions game (his best) and the Hawks flood....

After kicking 3.2 at the Gabba, in round 22, he was dropped for the first final against Melbourne... He goes from being in our best one week to dropped, purely because it was a final...

That game would have had a very different result if Brookes had played...

In hindsight, im glad he didnt as it cooked GT's coaching career, but pretty much sacrificing Brookes' career for it seems like a tough means...

Boy the kid could play.. Him being dropped after his best game ever as a Saint coming into the finals ruined his career and was the stupid decision I can remember.... Still mad about it....

To be fair to GT Sobraz, I think you'll find Brooks was left out of the team because of the forecast rain that night (which did eventuate).

Nothing more sinister than pcking a team for teh conditions I think.

[WayneJudson42]

It is interesting that Brook's name is mentioned - and he was obtained following on the loss of Everitt.

His contested mark against Riewoldt, turning in mid air and snapping the goal the instant his feet hit the ground said he could play, as did his leading and kicking from the 50 metre line.

Then was played against Hawthorn in a forward pocket, a game famous for its flooding and where the ball did not go inside St Kilda's 50 metre arc in the first quarter (Fiora kicked our only score, a goal, from outside 50). Gehrig did not have a touch in the first quarter either, and very few for the game.

Now we wait on Allen and McEvoy, and who says either have more to offer than Brooks?

We have made some strange decisions in my books and it has put the pressure right on in respect to what we do over the next couple of years - now with GC17 in the equation to really muddy the waters.

This post is spot on, but the part you left out was what happened in between the Lions game (his best) and the Hawks flood....

After kicking 3.2 at the Gabba, in round 22, he was dropped for the first final against Melbourne... He goes from being in our best one week to dropped, purely because it was a final...

That game would have had a very different result if Brookes had played...

In hindsight, im glad he didnt as it cooked GT's coaching career, but pretty much sacrificing Brookes' career for it seems like a tough means...

Boy the kid could play.. Him being dropped after his best game ever as a Saint coming into the finals ruined his career and was the stupid decision I can remember.... Still mad about it....

To be fair to GT Sobraz, I think you'll find Brooks was left out of the team because of the forecast rain that night (which did eventuate).

Nothing more sinister than pcking a team for teh conditions I think.

White was in top form for the Dees. Yet we went in with Rix

[Sobraz]

It is interesting that Brook's name is mentioned - and he was obtained following on the loss of Everitt.

His contested mark against Riewoldt, turning in mid air and snapping the goal the instant his feet hit the ground said he could play, as did his leading and kicking from the 50 metre line.

Then was played against Hawthorn in a forward pocket, a game famous for its flooding and where the ball did not go inside St Kilda's 50 metre arc in the first quarter (Fiora kicked our only score, a goal, from outside 50). Gehrig did not have a touch in the first quarter either, and very few for the game.

Now we wait on Allen and McEvoy, and who says either have more to offer than Brooks?

We have made some strange decisions in my books and it has put the pressure right on in respect to what we do over the next couple of years - now with GC17 in the equation to really muddy the waters.

This post is spot on, but the part you left out was what happened in between the Lions game (his best) and the Hawks flood....

After kicking 3.2 at the Gabba, in round 22, he was dropped for the first final against Melbourne... He goes from being in our best one week to dropped, purely because it was a final...

That game would have had a very different result if Brookes had played...

In hindsight, im glad he didnt as it cooked GT's coaching career, but pretty much sacrificing Brookes' career for it seems like a tough means...

Boy the kid could play.. Him being dropped after his best game ever as a Saint coming into the finals ruined his career and was the stupid decision I can remember.... Still mad about it....

To be fair to GT Sobraz, I think you'll find Brooks was left out of the team because of the forecast rain that night (which did eventuate).

Nothing more sinister than pcking a team for teh conditions I think.

White was in top form for the Dees. Yet we went in with Rix

My best mate is an avid Melb fan... (well, was)... we watched the Bris/saints game together, and he was packin himself as to who could match up with Brookes...

When the teams were selected, he rang me telling me Brookes had been DROPPED.... laughing, he called it game over then... oh, but the rain....

[BAM! (shhhh)]

Sometimes reading these forums you'd really get the idea that the road to a premiership was a straight line, well paved and levelled. Yo'd get the idea that from where we were in round 10 2004, the only thing that could stop St Kilda winning a premiership was mismanagment.

St Kilda circa 2004 was a pretty good team. They played a style that was fun to watch, and worked.

Decisions got made, time moved on, philosphies have changed. We've made a number of moves, other teams have made a number of moves.

The reason we didn't win wasn't that it was stupid to try and shorten the development curve with some older players - though those players not working out didn't help, and it's meant that a few years later we don't have others evolving. The reason we didn't win wasn't even because we screwed up thinking Barry Brooks and Fergus Watts were good prospects (unless of course someone knew that their development wasn't going to happen).

The ONLY single big impact, line in the sand move made between round 10 2004 and today, is the firing of the coach. The desire to lay the blame somewhere before that given where we are now is understandable, but facile. What we've learned since then is that it wasn't simply the tactical nous of the old regime holding us back. It's not constructive to the new regime to keep trying to place a blame point before it started... it's not constructive to be looking for a blame point.

At any point since the end of 2003, if things had fallen out right, the Saints could have been premiers. Things haven't fallen that way. There are considerably more things that need to fall right today than there were rd 10 2004... that doesn't necessarily mean things have gone backwards, it just means things aren't as simple as finding a blame point.

[To the top]

The culture of AFL football these days revolves around drafting kids.

Unless a Judd falls onto the market for a particular reason, but that does not often happen so do not hold out on such an event.

2004 is a start point because we had the foundations at our disposal, and those foundations should have served us well for an extended period of time.

So look thru our list in 2004, and see who is still there (and still capable) and who is gone - and look at who exactly has come on board over those years and what they have contributed to a team which is going backwards.

WE have to embrace AFL football for what it is today, taking the punt with the excitement of youth - and recruiting for the team needs, including contingencies.

I repeat, the damming assessment is that, with our dearth of key defenders, Casey do not name a St Kilda listed player at either Full-back or CHB.

Why not?

What has gone wrong to put us in this exposed position?

When did we lose Penny and when did we lose Maguire?

We have to learn, and quickly because we currently ride on the coat tails of a few.

[kalsaint]

Back to the original point...

I have given up trying to understand the selectors... Just a converyor belt of the same, tired, useless, going nowhere players being churned through.. Charlie, Fiora, Rix and Birss as emergencies... All going nowhere...

It annoys me that Fiora was suspended, as I wanted to see what Ross would do this week with this hack... He's probably stright back in next week... And in the mean time, he brings in Fiora twin equivalent, Charlie...

If we have these 2 guys on each Forward Flank next week, I will laugh myself to sleep... Cant wait for it...

With Armo, Steven and McEvoy in the 2's surely we should through caution to the wind and try the youth... Irrespective of how they have been playing in the 2's, they have far greater upside to those named above, and are the future...

Ross is letting himself down more by the week...

If Fiora gets a berth next week hopefully it will be at HB. He can use his speed and foot skills to pass to forwards as he shudders when the goal posts are in front of him nowadays (used to be good on the run).

[sunsaint]

It is interesting that Brook's name is mentioned - and he was obtained following on the loss of Everitt.

<snip>

<snip>.

White was in top form for the Dees. Yet we went in with Rix

But this is what makes "supporter's" different from the professionals.
Especially at selection time.
Didnt we give Brooks five+ years at the club? Didnt the club then decide to get a VERY cheap ruckman in Rix that surpassed Brooks on the field? Yes some will howl at that statement but do a games comparison.
Brooks was not prepared to go the level required of AFL, that's the difference between the two.
And it is all very well to jump up and down about "the future of the club" stuff. But if I was coach, and last time I looked I wasnt, I would be picking the best team. The kids have to force their way into the side, and not be gifted positions.

[WayneJudson42]

It is interesting that Brook's name is mentioned - and he was obtained following on the loss of Everitt.

<snip>

<snip>.

White was in top form for the Dees. Yet we went in with Rix

But this is what makes "supporter's" different from the professionals.
Especially at selection time.
Didnt we give Brooks five+ years at the club? Didnt the club then decide to get a VERY cheap ruckman in Rix that surpassed Brooks on the field? Yes some will howl at that statement but do a games comparison.
Brooks was not prepared to go the level required of AFL, that's the difference between the two.
And it is all very well to jump up and down about "the future of the club" stuff. But if I was coach, and last time I looked I wasnt, I would be picking the best team. The kids have to force their way into the side, and not be gifted positions.

Rix had more games was a total waste of oxygen. Brooks never recovered after his knee. And for whatever reason, was never given a go.

I do agree about kids earning their place. However, some believe that you give some a chance to settle, and others not.

Let's face it, of the kids selected regularily, only Eddy has kept his spot (by a thred). Geary, Armo, and Allen aren't up to it just yet. They'll egt their opp. But still some want them in, then if we lose... sack Lyon.

[Teflon]

3 years in which we debuted S. Fisher, Rix, R. Clarke and Gilbert is where we are being bought undone.

I have no doubt that S. Fisher, R. Clarke and Gilbert are up to it, but Rix is best described as a "battler".

Thru 2007 and 2008 we have given a few more a "go", but you can not expect these players to perform as do those who debuted 2 or 3 years before them - unless they are exceptional and none of them are.

As I have said before, the problems were apparant by mid 2004 when, instead of continuing to build we thought we had "the side" - and we ran it into the ground - from which it has never recovered.

We "burnt" the foundations of St Kilda becoming a consistent contender for a decade - and now we have the pieces to pick up.

ABSOLUTELY SPOT ON.

But dont tell Dodgy, Dan and Mehehbabonlots cause all they wanna see is their spritual svengali returned.

[sunsaint]

Rix had more games was a total waste of oxygen. Brooks never recovered after his knee. And for whatever reason, was never given a go.

I do agree about kids earning their place. However, some believe that you give some a chance to settle, and others not.

Let's face it, of the kids selected regularily, only Eddy has kept his spot (by a thred). Geary, Armo, and Allen aren't up to it just yet. They'll egt their opp. But still some want them in, then if we lose... sack Lyon.

Rix's ruck stats were better than Kosi for the same period.
And after 5 years I think Brooks had ample opportunity to prove himself.
just proves it is a much bigger step up to the AFL from the local kangaroo island comp than it is from the VFL

[To the top]

Sunsaint, there are kids running around at Under 19 level in Adelaide, not able to force a position in an SANFL side who will be effective players in the AFL in 2009.

Now the SANFL competition is a hard nosed competition, for mature bodies and "discards" from AFL Lists struggle to make the grade - there are a couple of players who were on St Kilda's Rookie List for a couple of years (and I think Pfitzner was on St Kilda's List for one season, so on our books for 3 years) who are playing Seconds football in the SANFL and unable to force a Senior game.

There are some exceptions, like Cooney who did play SANFL footy before being drafted, but the very, very great majority do not.

Then you get the more mature choices like Sam Fisher, or Patfull at Brisbane who were both established SANFL players (at West Adelaide and Norwood respectively).

But they are rare, for some reason.

It is about drafting 18 year old kids.

So you do not malign any competition.

You scour them for players who show the glimpses that lead to an opinion that they may just have "it".

And that is where St Kilda need to concentrate their endeavours, resources and energies so we can out-perform the other clubs in introducing kids to AFL footy thru the St Kilda FC.