The Fox Report - Round 5

[Thinline]

I think there's a bit of a crossed-wire semantics going on.

If 'ruck' means 'hitout' then yes, it appears we didn't get first finger on it as often as we would have liked ven thogh there seems to be a bit of controversy about that (see below)...

If 'ruck' means 'ball up, ruckmen go at it, ball bobbles about for a bit, then a Saint picks it up and uses it and or tackles the poor Port Adelaide prick who got a hand to it' (ie clearance) then I am more than comfortable with our performance although I would like to see specific numbers.

Lade and Brogan suit a soft surface. They are big units who can stand there at stick and arm up without being unduly bumped out of position Our guys are more lithe and springy and rely on athleticism to get first crack. Even so, I am surprised at your hitout numbers, Rodger. The Age has them listed as 49-43 in Port's favour? Pretty even, and more in line with what I thought I was watching, and probably consistent with the conditions favouring a better suited body type.

What were the numbers for actual clearances? Anyone?

[SainterK]

My opinion for what it's worth...

So many saints fans (including myself at times) have called for RL to let the players play their "natural game" and a more attacking style of football.

Thanks to RL and his conviction in his game plan, our players "natural game" now includes defensive pressure. It's almost like he had to wind them up to the extreme, and now that he has released them somewhat...they are now sitting somewhere perfectly balanced between attacking and defensive footy.

As far as getting the best out of his players, I think we see the evidence that the players realised that they needed to get the best out of themselves.

[saintsRrising]

From a critical perspective - we need to improve. Geelong are obviously the goods. And unless we can do what we did in the first half, for 4 quarters we will unfortunately be the runner-up for the 2nd time in 12 years.

.

Err.......the one flaw in your argument is that on the weekend in a one-sided game that the Cats did:

The Cats:

First Half; 13 goals

Second Half 5 goals

They won at home against a weaker team than PA. The Saints supposedly shocking second half was against a better team playing at home.

The Saints:

First Half: 10 goals

Second Half: 5 goals

So since that you are into stats (ignoring what one can see..ie ruck contests ) and that the Cats game would seem to be very similar does this mean that the Cats are now concerned?????..........and that as their ability to score goals was a lot less in the second half that they are by implication "no longer the goods".



So should have Lyon kept playing King in the second half so that we looked the goods? Or was he right to be more concerned with the Dogs game this week?

Last week Kosi wanted to go back on (according to his team-mate). Shgould Lyon have kept him on too..... IMO it was better that he had this week and future weeks in mind.

[saintsRrising]

I think there's a bit of a crossed-wire semantics going on.

If 'ruck' means 'hitout' then yes, it appears we didn't get first finger on it as often as we would have liked ven thogh there seems to be a bit of controversy about that (see below)...

If 'ruck' means 'ball up, ruckmen go at it, ball bobbles about for a bit, then a Saint picks it up and uses it and or tackles the poor Port Adelaide prick who got a hand to it' (ie clearance) then I am more than comfortable with our performance although I would like to see specific numbers.

Lade and Brogan suit a soft surface. They are big units who can stand there at stick and arm up without being unduly bumped out of position Our guys are more lithe and springy and rely on athleticism to get first crack. Even so, I am surprised at your hitout numbers, Rodger. The Age has them listed as 49-43 in Port's favour? Pretty even, and more in line with what I thought I was watching, and probably consistent with the conditions favouring a better suited body type.

What were the numbers for actual clearances? Anyone?

Well if you go on hit-outs alone...Knowble was a "great ruckman"


PA won the hit-outs on the night sure...and probably would have done so even if King had played the whole game...but by not as much.

But a competent ruckman (and we now have two in King and Gardiner) does a lot more than just hit-outs.

So the Saints were not at all smasshed in the ruck. Yes Brogann and Lade took the honors on the night...but overall we were not "smashed" in the ruck...unlike some past very painful PA games that I can remember.

[rodgerfox]

So the Saints were not at all smasshed in the ruck. Yes Brogann and Lade took the honors on the night...but overall we were not "smashed" in the ruck...unlike some past very painful PA games that I can remember.

I don't think anyone is saying we were overall smashed in the ruck.

I said we were smashed in the ruck when Blake was in there in the second half.

I stand by that, because it's true.

Up until then, our rucks were brilliant, and a major factor in our comeplte control of the game.

After that, their rucks dominated Blake and we lost full control of the game.

[rodgerfox]

My opinion for what it's worth...

So many saints fans (including myself at times) have called for RL to let the players play their "natural game" and a more attacking style of football.

Thanks to RL and his conviction in his game plan, our players "natural game" now includes defensive pressure. It's almost like he had to wind them up to the extreme, and now that he has released them somewhat...they are now sitting somewhere perfectly balanced between attacking and defensive footy.

As far as getting the best out of his players, I think we see the evidence that the players realised that they needed to get the best out of themselves.

Before Lyon came to the club, we were 2nd, 5th and 5th in tackles per game.

After Lyon took over we went to 7th, and 7th.

And now this year we are back to 2nd.


I think you'll find that what Lyon was attempting early on, simply didn't work.

Coralling to me, is contrary to a defensive game really. It gives your opponent the ball, then if they stuff up you can rebound. If they don't stuff up, you don't get the pill and you get rolled.

This year, we've taken back the initiative and we want the ball first. When we get it, we attack quickly (now this is something I'm sure Lyon wanted all along - but was virtually impossible with our forwards all coralling and filling space up on the wing) and put fierce pressure on our opponents when and if they actually get first possie.

I don't think there's any doubt that Lyon has changed tact on the importance of getting the ball first.

We genuinely appeared to allow our opponents the ball, and then relied on them coughing it up due to our corralling defence.

Now, we get it first.


I think some significant changes to our style of play, plus the fitness and availability of our key players has led to our form this year.

[sainters man]

Who are they 2 or 3 players that arent "up" to it?

[rodgerfox]

From a critical perspective - we need to improve. Geelong are obviously the goods. And unless we can do what we did in the first half, for 4 quarters we will unfortunately be the runner-up for the 2nd time in 12 years.

.

Err.......the one flaw in your argument is that on the weekend in a one-sided game that the Cats did:

The Cats:

First Half; 13 goals

Second Half 5 goals

They won at home against a weaker team than PA. The Saints supposedly shocking second half was against a better team playing at home.

The Saints:

First Half: 10 goals

Second Half: 5 goals

So since that you are into stats (ignoring what one can see..ie ruck contests ) and that the Cats game would seem to be very similar does this mean that the Cats are now concerned?????..........and that as their ability to score goals was a lot less in the second half that they are by implication "no longer the goods".



So should have Lyon kept playing King in the second half so that we looked the goods? Or was he right to be more concerned with the Dogs game this week?

Last week Kosi wanted to go back on (according to his team-mate). Shgould Lyon have kept him on too..... IMO it was better that he had this week and future weeks in mind.

I think in your feeble attempts to argue, you've completely and utterly missed my point.


We were smashed in the ruck when Blake was in there. Brogan rucked beautifully against Blake, and due that that we lost full control of the game.

Simple. I can't see how that can be argued.


Gardiner was rightfully rested. We've lost King, so when you're 10 goals up you'd be mad to risk your only other ruckman.

What the concern is, that we won't be able to rest Gardiner the whole game next week. We showed that injuries to key players can bring us back tot he pack very quickly.

Gardiner and King have always been susceptable to injury. The concern is that one of them has gone down already and there was an immediate impact due to it.

Again, I can't see how that can argued. It's pretty simple.


As for the Cats, they've shwon that they can win a flag and go through full seasons consistently at a high level.

So no, I wouldn't be that concerned at all if I was them.

[rodgerfox]

Who are they 2 or 3 players that arent "up" to it?

I was waiting for someone to ask that.

Firstly, let me say by 'it' I mean a couple of things....

- To play a role in a winning team on GF day
- To consistently perform at a level that wouldn't be exposed by an opponent

I have question marks over Gwilt. Definately over Eddy. McQualter still. I worry about Dawson if we can't continue our midfield dominance.

Now having said that, Geelong have some duds too. But they had the luxury of having their guns all fit and firing. They could hide them.

Currently, we're doing the same. Should we get a few injuries to some key players then these guys will need to really improve.

[BringBackMadDog]

I have question marks over Gwilt. Definately over Eddy. McQualter still. I worry about Dawson if we can't continue our midfield dominance.

I agree with all of those except Mini, he has been nothing short of sensational this year, he is seriously tough, almost suicidal on his attack on the ball and man and when he does get the pill does not waste it. If he is our number 22 player on the list then we have nothing to worry about.
The key difference between the team this year and other years is Gwilt, Eddy and Dawson would have been starting 22 players regardless of form, this year if their form slips even a little we have X, Raph, Max, Armo and Goose waiting in the wings busting a gut to get a game.
That sort of competition helps keep those getting a game extremely focussed

[saint vince]

rodgerfox Posted: Mon 27 Apr 2009 12:35pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




I don't think anyone is saying we were overall smashed in the ruck.

rodgerfox


We got smashed in the ruck

I thnk you were the one saying we got smashed in the ruck. Of course if your ruckman goes down injured mid game you are going to lose something.

Of course that if we get injuries we are not going to be as good. As like Geelog if Ablett, Chapman, Scarlett and Bartell go down they may struggle. That is just football.

Instead of turning everything negative how about you talk about howgod we are going.

[Mr Magic]

We got smashed in the ruck and lost control over the clearances when Blake was forced to ruck. A concern. I must admit I'm surprised by the lack of concern or even acknowledgement of this by the Saints faithful.

Above is the actual statement rodgerfox made in his op.
It is misleading and can be read in a number of ways which means rodger can claim (as he always seems to do) that other posters are not reading what he has posted.

What is not in dispute is that if you read the statement in the way he now wants us to read it (we were smashed in the rucks because Blake was rucking) he misleads us all by totally neglecting to mention that we could have addressed teh 'problem' by simply playing Gardiner in the Ruck and using Blake as a backup only. THe coaching panel (quite correctly IMO) chose to rest Gardiner and not address the 'rucking problem', which they most certainly would have if the game was in the balance.

r

[Thinline]

It's a classic Rodge Dodge...

He's never going to change.

Don't bother arguing.

[rodgerfox]

rodgerfox Posted: Mon 27 Apr 2009 12:35pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




I don't think anyone is saying we were overall smashed in the ruck.

rodgerfox


We got smashed in the ruck

I thnk you were the one saying we got smashed in the ruck. Of course if your ruckman goes down injured mid game you are going to lose something.

I thought it made it pretty clear that we were smashed in the ruck whilst Blake was in there.

[rodgerfox]

We got smashed in the ruck and lost control over the clearances when Blake was forced to ruck. A concern. I must admit I'm surprised by the lack of concern or even acknowledgement of this by the Saints faithful.

Above is the actual statement rodgerfox made in his op.
It is misleading and can be read in a number of ways which means rodger can claim (as he always seems to do) that other posters are not reading what he has posted.

What is not in dispute is that if you read the statement in the way he now wants us to read it (we were smashed in the rucks because Blake was rucking) he misleads us all by totally neglecting to mention that we could have addressed teh 'problem' by simply playing Gardiner in the Ruck and using Blake as a backup only. THe coaching panel (quite correctly IMO) chose to rest Gardiner and not address the 'rucking problem', which they most certainly would have if the game was in the balance.

r

WTF???

Now I've read it all!!

I, in clear print, say that when Blake was rucking we were smahed in the ruck.

What more can I possibly say???


And of course it could have been addressed had Gardiner been risked. Fair dinkum.

[rodgerfox]

It's a classic Rodge Dodge...

He's never going to change.

Don't bother arguing.

Argue??

What's there to argue about??

I've said in this thread, and others that our rucks were brilliant. But when King went off and Blake had to ruck, we were smashed. And when we were smashed we lost full control over the game.


What more can I say?? And what can be argued about that??

[spert]

There's stats and there's stats..looking at a replay of the game, I didn't think Port rucks had any kind of influence and our rucks were actually more effective.. and that's what counts over endless stats.

[markp]

Seems this weeks little bait is the term 'smashed in the ruck'.

He obviously thought it had some potential a couple of days ago....

With King off the ground, e were smashed.

Er, when were we smashed?... when we went from 12 goals up to 11 goals up?

Smashed wasn't a great term to use. To be more precise, we went from outscoring them by 70 points, to each kicking 2 goals.

...Is he playing the outraged and amazed card now?

How tiresome.

[rodgerfox]

Seems this weeks little bait is the term 'smashed in the ruck'.

He obviously thought it had some potential a couple of days ago....

With King off the ground, e were smashed.

Er, when were we smashed?... when we went from 12 goals up to 11 goals up?

Smashed wasn't a great term to use. To be more precise, we went from outscoring them by 70 points, to each kicking 2 goals.

...Is he playing the outraged and amazed card now?

How tiresome.

I am amazed.

Even in that post it's incredibly clear what I meant.

As you quoted ...

"With King off the ground, e were smashed."

How much clearer could I be??

[markp]

Seems this weeks little bait is the term 'smashed in the ruck'.

He obviously thought it had some potential a couple of days ago....

With King off the ground, e were smashed.

Er, when were we smashed?... when we went from 12 goals up to 11 goals up?

Smashed wasn't a great term to use. To be more precise, we went from outscoring them by 70 points, to each kicking 2 goals.

...Is he playing the outraged and amazed card now?

How tiresome.

I am amazed.

Even in that post it's incredibly clear what I meant.

As you quoted ...

"With King off the ground, e were smashed."

How much clearer could I be??

And round and round we go....

You said it was a concern, it's not.... we maintained our lead and rested Gardiner. You are just shyte-stirring because it gives you a rare tingle in your jocks.

[rodgerfox]

And round and round we go....

You said it was a concern, it's not.... we maintained our lead and rested Gardiner. You are just shyte-stirring because it gives you a rare tingle in your jocks.

Do you think Gardiner can play 120 minutes straight?


And what do you mean by 'and round and round we go'?

I think something, you don't. What's the issue with that? Isn't that what forums are about?


Odd place this sometimes.

[SainterK]

This is my tribute to Roger, and it goes a little something like this....

Maybe he hangs around here
A little more than he should
We all know he's got somewhere else to go
But Roger's got something to tell us
That he never thought he would...

[saint vince]

And when we were smashed we lost full control over the game.

What part of the game did we lose control. IIRC we won every quarter. We beat them by 66 points and at no time did they look like they were going to score more than five goals for the game.

Can you in point the two or three minutes for the game that th were on top.

LOST CONTROL>>>ROFL


One of the most dominant games I have seen the saints play.

[markp]

And when we were smashed we lost full control over the game.

What part of the game did we lose control. IIRC we won every quarter. We beat them by 66 points and at no time did they look like they were going to score more than five goals for the game.

Can you in point the two or three minutes for the game that th were on top.

LOST CONTROL>>>ROFL


One of the most dominant games I have seen the saints play.

Ah no, the weasel word there is 'full'... why dont you read his posts properly?

Honestly... amazing.

Odd place this.

[Thinline]

It's a classic Rodge Dodge...

He's never going to change.

Don't bother arguing.

Argue??

What's there to argue about??

I've said in this thread, and others that our rucks were brilliant. But when King went off and Blake had to ruck, we were smashed. And when we were smashed we lost full control over the game.


What more can I say?? And what can be argued about that??

Arguing in the general sense, Rodger.

There always seems to be a fair bit of it every time you pipe up.

Have you noticed?

Perhaps the blinkers that come with your self appointed status
as some sort of 'chief scribe St Kilda FC journalist/analyst/resident know everything about everything guy' somehow shrouds your ability to see...

Enjoy the passion, Rodge. Just find the same tired pattern of argument a little dull.

In fact, I feel a bit like a knob for buying in this week.

We belted them. Nuff said.