Maguire could be another star for us

[ace]

Now that finals footy is guaranteed = 12 wins already in the bank, it is time to ensure that the quality and form of around 32 players is known.
The whole squad should be told, "you may not play next week, that does not mean you are dropped, it is us giving someone else a chance to show their wares, when it comes to the finals we may have more injuries and we will play our strongest side, in the meantime enjoy any time off".

King, Maguire, Dempster, R Clarke, Gwilt, Miles L. Fisher, Armitage, Eddy and Steven did not play against Carlton. They should all be rotated into the team.
Players like Hudghton, Dawson, Baker, Ray, Gram, McQualter, Schneider Geary, Blake, McEvoy should allow players in the first list some games.

[plugger66]

Yep lets just play guys to have a look at them. Even if they are not going as well in much weaker competition lets just drop a guy from the firsts to look at them. Dont worry about moral thats not important. What has Goose done in the backline at Sandy. Not much from what I gather. His only really good games have been up forward but RL must think he is to slow to play there. He isnt going to ruck unless Ben, King, MG, Blake and Kosi all get swine flu and even then Lenny may ruck as has a few hitouts this year or even BJ had a go on Friday. Goose may get a chance to play but it will beed poor form or injuries to the right players. He will never get a game just to see what he can do in the firsts.

[Legendary]

Maguire was only a solid footballer, even at his best.

Slow on the lead and cannot keep pace with an opponent on the lead. Runs in straight lines, but has the agility and turning circle of a truck. Never won a huge amount of the footy, and a poor kick for goal.

I do not understand this obsession with him based on some good form 4 years ago.

He's not in the best 22 players at the club IMO, and won't be again.


Never rated him.

[AnythingsPossibleSaints]

Rubbish. Goose was a "gun". Were you not around in 2004 and 2005? And he was only 20 and 21 at the time. That's younger than anyone who was playing for us on Friday night bar Geary (who's 21) and Geary sure as hell hasn't been holding down a key position for 12+ months.
Maguire was very strong overhead, beat most and held his own against Johnathan Brown (when Brown was at his best). He would dodge and weave around blokes like Harves and Jakovich did and had a thumping kick. And how many times did he put his body on the line to run with the flight of the ball into a pack?
And he was doing all that at 20 and 21, in a key position, in a team that made the Preliminary finals both years! Aside from Franklin and Roughead (who were both 21 and 20 last year and the year before) and Paddy Ryder (21 now), I don't remember anyone else in the comp doing anywhere near as well as Goose did in a key position, that young, since he did.
Unless you reckon he was at his potential best at 21 (and how many guys play their career best footy at 21?) his best was well and truly ahead of him.

[ace]

I'd like to phone a friend before committing...

saintjake thanks Eddie...

note the time he made the call...


http://www.saintsational.com/forum/view ... hp?t=52989

Thanking the President of the Filth, what drugs have you been taking.

[Legendary]

Maguire's 2006 before he broke his leg was poor.

The game of footy had got faster and more defensive, and he struggled big time.

There were countless threads on here calling for him to be dropped after many poor performances, and it was only his game against Sydney that saved his skin.

With time (and 4 years is an age in football), people only remember the good.

He was inconsistent and never won much of the footy at all.

People are making out like he was Sam Fisher. Was never anywhere close, and had as many poor games as he did good ones.

[AnythingsPossibleSaints]

Another Maguire fan club meeting.....Look when Maguire plays exceptionally well in reserves and Blake plays exceptionally poorly in the seniors, Maguire will get his chance. Blake has been solid this year (and the last 2 years) and played well last night...he deserves his spot based on merit.

Is that OK with you? Or do we have to run every thread by you, before we start one? Unless I'm mistaken, you don't have to read them all.
And you reckon "solid" is good enough? Solid is going to win us a Premiership?
What's the purpose in waiting till someone plays "exceptionally badly" before dropping them? That's the sort of culture and attitude that's led to this club only winning one flag in 113 years. This is the leading football comp in the country, not a friendly get-together, or "under 9's" game. You've got to have the guts to play someone simply because they're the best option, if you want to be your best. Keeping someone in, simply because they haven't done "that badly" and have been in there for a long time, is not likely to cut the mustard. Like Kevin Sheedy not picking Derek Kickett for the 93 Grand Final, despite him playing all year. It's that sort of guts that wins premierships.
Some of us also want to actually see our very best team, so that we can reach our full potential. Maybe scraping by for a win each week is good enough for some, but some of us are aiming higher and want to see our VERY best EACH WEEK, like earlier in the year. We want to see this team FLY, not just be "solid" and surely that requires picking the very best team each week, based on who the best option, in each position is, that week. Not based on who played last week, or the week before, or waiting till someone plays "exceptionally badly" before not picking them.
And you don't have to think of it as someone being "dropped". Each week is a new week and the team is picked from scratch. You're either in it, or you're not in it. Playing last week doesn't entitle you to play this week. Except maybe in the "under 9's".

[plugger66]

Another Maguire fan club meeting.....Look when Maguire plays exceptionally well in reserves and Blake plays exceptionally poorly in the seniors, Maguire will get his chance. Blake has been solid this year (and the last 2 years) and played well last night...he deserves his spot based on merit.

Do you have a problem with that? Or do we have to run every thread by you, before we start one? Unless I'm mistaken, you don't have to read them all.
And you reckon "solid" is good enough? Solid is going to win us a Premiership?
What's the purpose in waiting till someone plays "exceptionally badly" before dropping them? That's the sort of culture and attitude that's led to this club only winning one flag in 113 years. This is the leading football comp in the country, not a friendly get-together, or "under 9's" game. You've got to have the guts to play someone simply because they're the best option, if you want to be your best. Keeping someone in, simply because they haven't done "that badly" and have been in there for a long time, is not likely to cut the mustard. Like Kevin Sheedy not picking Derek Kickett for the 93 Grand Final, despite him playing all year. It's that sort of guts that wins premierships.
Some of us want to actually see our very best team, so that we can reach our full potential. Maybe scraping by for a win each week is good enough for some, but some of us are aiming higher and want to see our VERY best EACH WEEK. We want to see this team FLY, not just be "solid" and surely that requires picking the very best team each week, based on who the best option, in each position is, that week. Not based on who played last week, or the week before, or waiting till someone plays "exceptionally badly" before not picking them.
And you don't have to think of it as someone being "dropped". Each week is a new week and the team is picked from scratch. You're either in it, or you're not in it. Playing last week doesn't entitle you to play this week. Except maybe in the "under 9's".

Yes solid is good enough unless the replacement is going much better as he is playing in the lesser competition. As for the side being a new side each week and starting from scratch well that is plainly wrong. Of course players have bonus points otherwise you could be dropping 6 players a game. does Kosi get dropped next game because he was awful on Friday? By the way have you seen Goose play this year and if you have how is he going compared to Blake?

[AnythingsPossibleSaints]

If you say so. As I said, "solid" may be good enough for some, but it's not for others. If you want to aim for "solid" in life, good on you. Some of us want to aim higher, and I believe we have the right to, as you have the right to aim for "solid".
But do you reckon anyone would have ever landed on the moon, or built the pyramids, if they were just aiming for "solid". And do you reckon the likes of Bill Gates and Richard Brandson, or Madonna got where they are today, by aiming for "solid".
And do you really believe we're going as well as we can possibly go at the moment? And if not, are you happy to just say "that's OK"?
And do you know for a fact that they don't start with a blank sheet of paper, to pick the side each week? If they don't, that may explain why we're just scraping by for a win each week lately, instead of kicking all ass, like we did before RL came out about 5 weeks ago and said we were aiming for "stability".
Since he came out publicly and said that, our performances have gone down and it's easy to see why.
What seemed to be the catalyst for our big turnaround last year? It was Dal and Milne getting "dropped"/not picked in round 13. After that, everyone basically was "on notice" and look how well they performed as a result! They knew that no matter who they thought they were, or how many games in a row they'd played, that they could be out the next week (if they didn't perform) and how much better did the team go? They came from out of the eight and going terribly, to reaching the Preliminary final.
And that continued into the start of this year and we all saw how well they performed for the first 7 rounds. Right up until about the time Ross said publicly we wanted to keep the team pretty much the same, for "stability".
Early in the year they all seemed to be playing as if their lives depended on it and the results were there for all to see. But then he came out and said that and there just hasn't been anywhere the same 4 quarter intensity since. Now they seem to be playing simply to "not lose" and a few guys have dropped off, probably because they think that as long as they don't play "exceptionally badly", they will continue to get picked.
Do you honestly believe that they're going to play as well if they think they'll get a game next week as long as they don't play "exceptionally badly", as they would if they thought they could easily be dropped if they don't play their very best? Give me a break, please.
If they did pick it from scratch every week, based simply on who the best option was, in each position, each week, you know that they'll all be much more on their toes and would prepare better and want to play their very best each week. (Like they were before Ross made those comments.) And I seriously doubt there would be 6 changes each week. There aren't that many guys in the VFL doing that well, surely. There may be 2 or 3 each week initially, but once everyone realised what they had to do to get a game, the same guys would still probably be getting picked each week, it's just that they'd be playing more like they did between Milne and Dal getting dropped/not picked last year and round 7 this year, instead of how they've gone since round 7, or were going before round 13 last year.
The proof is in the pudding. If you do the maths, you know which approach worked for this group and which hasn't worked as well.
It will also make us much less predictable. Someone's a lot easier to beat if you know exactly what they're going to do, before they do it. Teams are working us out, because we're as easy to read as a book. The very best, like Rob Harvey and Roger Federer in their peak, were hard to tackle/beat because they were in the "zone" simply making the best decisions at the time, not just doing what they did last time, or the time before that. Their opponents weren't sure which way they were going to run/hit the ball, because they weren't even sure, until they did it. That's why Harvey was basically never tackled and Federer almost never lost. They were doing what was best at the time, not what they did the time before and the time before that and the time before that...

[plugger66]

2-3 changes every week when you are winning. Why would any one do that. Have you ever had anything to do with any footy club at all. Stability is very important and so are solid players. Do think think every player can be a star evey week. No but thats how you want to pick a side. Never heard such rubbish. If you think players will play better because they may be dropped each week it shows lack of footy knowledge. They will be worried and never play at their best. As I asked you previously have you seen Goose in the seconds and under your criteria would Kosi be dropped next game if a foward played well at sandy.

[kaos theory]

Maguire's 2006 before he broke his leg was poor.

The game of footy had got faster and more defensive, and he struggled big time.

There were countless threads on here calling for him to be dropped after many poor performances, and it was only his game against Sydney that saved his skin.

With time (and 4 years is an age in football), people only remember the good.

He was inconsistent and never won much of the footy at all.

People are making out like he was Sam Fisher. Was never anywhere close, and had as many poor games as he did good ones.

Agree with most of that.

he was very good in 03 to 05, but struggled later.

I would still like to see him take a shot at a half forward 3rd tall option. But I don't not expect him to get a walk up start unles he is perfoming brilliantly with sandy and the right type of player goes out of the firsts...

[AnythingsPossibleSaints]

As I said, it would probably only be 2-3 for a very short period of time, maybe even just for one week (like when Milne and Dal were not picked for round 13 last year), to spark them back to playing their best, which it's pretty clear they're not playing at the moment. That's why you would do it. To get them playing their BEST. Bad habits can still creep in when you're winning. You don't need to wait till you start losing to stamp them out.
And of course everyone can be a "star" every week. I've learned in life that there are no limits, unless you put them on yourselves. You don't need to have "been involved in a footy club" to have learned life lessons, that apply to all situations. You obviously have some limiting beliefs that are holding you back in life. If I had all them, or listened to all those who said I "couldn't" do certain things in my life, I'd be literally dead right now. I learned what's possible and it would pay you to do the same.
And "solid" is fine, if there's nothing better available, but if there is, you need to let it go, if you want to improve. You can do better.
As for saying "If you think players will play better because they may be dropped each week it shows lack of footy knowledge. They will be worried and never play at their best.", that is complete rubbish, as some of them are clearly driven by fear. Are you the only one in town that didn't see how much better our team played after Milne and Dal were left out in round 13 last year and the rest of the side was "put on notice"? If you're theory was correct, the team would have gone even worse, wouldn't they, but they didn't. They improved out of sight. As I said, that then continued into this year, until Ross stated that match committee wanted "stability" and look what's happened since- pretty much everyone in footy agrees that we've not played as well since round 7. The evidence is there for all to see. One thing worked for our side, the other hasn't.
As for whether I've seen Goose play this year it is irrelevent. You still know deep down in your guts what the right move is. And seeing that he started kicking bags of goals and getting named BOG (while playing up forward, which is harder than playing down back, which is where I'd play him in the seniors), it's hardly a stretch to suggest he's worth bringing in. If he has totally lost what he once had, then fine, don't bring him in. Otherwise, I reckon he's worth bringing in to play CHB , to free up some of the other guys to be more attacking. Unless I'm mistaken, I'm allowed to have this opinion and am hardly the only one who has it.
As for whether I'd leave out Kosi if he played crap and there was a better option for the next game, then I hope I wouldn't hesitate. What's good enough for one has to be good enough for all. Imagine what a rocket that would put up everyone to be on their game every week. "Dropping" Dal last year (after he'd just had 27 possies the previous week) and Milne (who was leading our goalkicking at the time), was no less significant, was it?
I certainly wouldn't be dropping him next week, though, because he's clearly our best option at full forward. He just got beaten on the weekend and had 2 on him for a lot of the night.

[AnythingsPossibleSaints]

Maguire's 2006 before he broke his leg was poor.

The game of footy had got faster and more defensive, and he struggled big time.

With time (and 4 years is an age in football), people only remember the good.

People are making out like he was Sam Fisher. Was never anywhere close, and had as many poor games as he did good ones.

That's not true, I remember that his 2006 was poor (I reckon because he'd lost his confidence, after Hall punched him in the 2005 Prelim), but how old was he then? He was 22! Are you writing a guy off because he had a poor year, in a key position, at the age of 22, and after 2 great years previous? And if you want to compare him to Sammy Fisher, how did he go at the same age? The year Sam turned 22 was the year he made his AFL debut and from memory he only played the one game and had a handful of kicks. You probably would have said he had very little future then too, wouldn't you?
As bad as Goose's year was at 22, it was still about 100 times more influential than Sammy's was at the same age and was on the back of being on the verge of All Australian selection the year before (at just 21).
I reckon all he needed was to get his confidence back again and he would have continued to reach his potential. Most guys (like Sam Fisher) don't reach that till they get in their mid 20's (and Goose is still only just 25), especially if they're playing a key position.
This is why so many of us want to see if he's still got it. He was a "gun" at 21, as anyone with a good memory, who watched St Kilda consistently remembers. He wasn't all over the TV etc, because he was as "ordinary", as you reckon. I think you need to look at some old DVD's. Like the week he kicked 4 goals playing at CHB.
I also reckon he's worth bringing in because he's a guy who I believe likes the "spotlight"/big occasion. I was reading an old interview with Corey McKernan, after he spent most of his last year in the twos. He was also saying he loved the big occasion and that he played better the bigger the occasion and crowd. He said he found it hard to get motivated to play well when playing in front of "15-20" people in the VLF. So if Goose was doing well enough to kick 2 bags of 5 and be named BOG in the VFL, I reckon he'd play even better in the AFL, like Corey did. This is why I'd have brought him in.