Mike Sheahan - sigh

F_Q_F · Post: # 769555Post **F_Q_F** » Mon 06 Jul 2009 12:44am

The late free kick against Cameron Mooney in a marking contest and the poor application of the advantage rule - again - hurt.

I watched the replay but the camera cut away so I didn't see how Geelong managed to lose possession of the ball. I do know that there was 2 Geelong players running to the ball to look to play on.

If they coughed it up from a skill error then tough luck, maybe you need to have some vision as to whats ahead of you before you take off. If you hear the whistle then run and pick up the ball and take off and run yourself into trouble thats your own fault.

Who said that was a guarenteed goal though?

Plus the advantage rule had been called like that all day, we had at least 2 like that (plus a whole lot of shocking other ones). Deal with it.

StPeter · Post: # 769571Post **StPeter** » Mon 06 Jul 2009 12:55am

This article is from the "expert" who tipped against us in something like 4 of

the first 5 weeks!

OneEyedSainter77 · Mon 06 Jul 2009 1:04am

I hate Sheahan and think he's aan overrated jouranalist - his top 50, his - blah, just everything, he's an utter ididot as a journalist.

but I didn't mind that one bit. it was fair - geelong were unlucky in the dying stages. Big deal. They didn't win, we did, we stood up and showed we are the real farking deal and he acknowledged that.

Good article IMO.

(and no, this isn't plugger66 in disguise)

evertonfc · Post: # 769605Post **evertonfc** » Mon 06 Jul 2009 2:06am

He's not only a bad journalist but because I don't agree with his views on football, he's also a bad person who deserves the worst insults my education allows me to conjure up.

He is Hitler-like, no - worse than that. Such an evil, awful person. That line about the play on business just proves that he's probably racist as well.

And this bit:

The Saints were superb. They had five goals on the board by the 17-minute mark of the opening term and held the best team of the past three seasons to 13.7 for the game.

Suggests to me that we should pool some money together to bring about his death. Who's with me?

(Apart from that, I thought it was a good article, right on the money. But because he wrote it, it must be bad.)

matrix · Post: # 769663Post **matrix** » Mon 06 Jul 2009 7:41am

"It was the fourth goal for the one-time West Coast bad boy; he is proving to be an inspired recruiting decision."

he plays for st kilda

"Geelong, which trailed by five goals early in the game, steadily retrieved the deficit and looked headed for yet another victory."

pardon?????...headed for another victory?..the game was a nail biter, where did EITHER team look like they were going to head for another victory ?

"Given the fact the premiership points largely are irrelevant, the real rewards are psychological. On that score, both teams won."

he just cant say it huh??

"No one could decry St Kilda's victory, but Geelong might have been a trifle unlucky in the finish."

"The Cats went into the game without their most productive forward Steve Johnson, a late withdrawal, and also have No. 1 ruckman Brad Ottens to return in the next 2-3 weeks"

and the saints went into the game without their #1 defender and a ruckman....no comments on that mike???

"The late free kick against Cameron Mooney in a marking contest and the poor application of the advantage rule - again - hurt"

get over it, goddard got smacked in the head about 3 times
ablett got the sofest free to get him into the game
what about the free against Milne?
Lenny being out of bounds and holding the cherry is called?
unreal Mike, decisions were just as bad on the other side of the coin

Hurricane · Post: # 769752Post **Hurricane** » Mon 06 Jul 2009 10:54am

Geelong, which trailed by five goals early in the game, steadily retrieved the deficit and looked headed for yet another victory.

So Mike tell me when Geelong was actually in front?

Cant awnser? I will do it for you.....how about NEVER. Geelong were not infront of St Kilda for 1 minute, 1 second, 1 nano second. NEVER. Not ONCE.

The best they could do was level the scores for about 5 minutes. I for one would LOVE to see the stat on the last time Geelong was not in front for any of the game. I would hazard a guess it would be at least 2 years.

But we dont mention that do we Mr Sheehan? Wouldnt want the facts to get in the way of another article sucking the Cats collective wedding tackle would we?

BANG BANG

bigcarl · Post: # 769755Post **bigcarl** » Mon 06 Jul 2009 10:56am

Hurricane wrote:
Geelong, which trailed by five goals early in the game, steadily retrieved the deficit and looked headed for yet another victory.
So Mike tell me when Geelong was actually in front?

Cant awnser? I will do it for you.....how about NEVER. Geelong were not infront of St Kilda for 1 minute, 1 second, 1 nano second. NEVER. Not ONCE.

The best they could do was level the scores for about 5 minutes. I for one would LOVE to see the stat on the last time Geelong was not in front for any of the game. I would hazard a guess it would be at least 2 years.

But we dont mention that do we Mr Sheehan? Wouldnt want the facts to get in the way of another article sucking the Cats collective wedding tackle would we?

BANG BANG

never headed

borderbarry · Mon 06 Jul 2009 10:59am

I was also disgusted with the match commentators on Channel 7. Not once were the two dodgy 50 metre penalties to the Cats mentioned as such, although one commentator was astounded when Lenny Hayes was pinged for holding the ball when out of bounds.
After the finish, Cometti said something to the effect of "This result proves nothing." I am sure that had the Cats won by a goal he would have been spruiking them as the best team in the comp.
Also it must be remembered that the Cats would have had to scored twice more to win this match.

joffaboy · Post: # 769764Post **joffaboy** » Mon 06 Jul 2009 11:04am

Poor article.

Very one sided full of lazy cliches.

Mentioning Johnson and Ottens (who hasn't played in months BTW) smacks of excuse making.

To say The Cats were unlucky is rubbish. The Cats were great but St.Kilda fully deserved the win and no amount of luck came into it.

The "advantage" penalised the Saints at least twice in the forward 50 during the game but Sheahan only mentions the Geelong disadvantage

To top a poor article all he needed was an "I tipped this" or "the game was the winner" to really make it s.hitefull.

Lift you game Sheahan.

SENsei · Post: # 769765Post **SENsei** » Mon 06 Jul 2009 11:06am

Who cares what Mike Sheahan thinks?

The scoreboard is the only story that matters.....

saintlee · Post: # 769777Post **saintlee** » Mon 06 Jul 2009 11:32am

A lot of over-reaction here....I thought the article was fine

saintly_safes · Mon 06 Jul 2009 12:55pm

"Theres nothing between St.kilda & Geelong" Well Mike I beg to differ ,if you look at the ladder theres 4 points & over 20% between them at the moment so get your head out of your ar-- for a change a give credit where credit is due you hypocritical moron

AnythingsPossibleSaints · Mon 06 Jul 2009 1:06pm

The Mooney free kick is being paid pretty much every time lately, so I wasn't surprised in the least to see it paid. They clearly had the better of the frees for the day, which I hope many will write to Mike and inform him of. There's no point getting all worked up here, when we can easily tell him all about it. He's just an email away. Even if he doesn't read it personally, he'll most likely be told that he's received plenty saying that Geelong had it better than us.
And if you want to talk about "luck", how lucky were they that Gardiner slipped over in the goal square, letting that Chapman tumble punt bounce through in the last? You don't get much "luckier" than that.

degruch · Post: # 769878Post **degruch** » Mon 06 Jul 2009 1:11pm

AnythingsPossibleSaints wrote:And if you want to talk about "luck", how lucky were they that Gardiner slipped over in the goal square, letting that Chapman tumble punt bounce through in the last? You don't get much "luckier" than that.

Possibly the luckiest thing (poor umpiring decisions aside) I've ever seen in a game of football.

starsign · Post: # 770017Post **starsign** » Mon 06 Jul 2009 4:13pm

Basically he has to justify picking the Cats
(and picking against the Saints...again!)

"I was right all along..... and they shoulda won " ...

PJ · Post: # 770031Post PJ » Mon 06 Jul 2009 4:42pm

I think he rates the saints but I think Mikey boy likes selling his newspaper so he was throwing a bit of praise both ways. I have to disagree with his last comment though I don't think geelong will be in the mix in a couple of years IMO. I think they'll fade the way of the swans.

CeilidhSaint · Mon 06 Jul 2009 4:48pm

Mentioning Ottens is like mentioning X Clarke - irrlevant. Probably in our best 22 as would be S King, S Dempster, M Hudghton.
Doesn't everyone go on aout the Cats depth?
Fact is almost any team will have players out at any given time.
As for the umpiring....
Bottom line is - we won, it will always be that way, we still have improvement to make from the performance, we are top, undefeated, great % and I think the boys were extremely controlled in their celebrations, they know this was just the foreplay....

plugger66 · Post: # 770045Post **plugger66** » Mon 06 Jul 2009 4:49pm

PJ wrote:I think he rates the saints but I think Mikey boy likes selling his newspaper so he was throwing a bit of praise both ways. I have to disagree with his last comment though I don't think geelong will be in the mix in a couple of years IMO. I think they'll fade the way of the swans.

I actually dont see why they would fade unless it is hunger. They certainly aint old and will lose a very little amount of players in the next 2-3 years.

PJ · Post: # 770057Post PJ » Mon 06 Jul 2009 4:56pm

Queries??

Milburn - dad's army, actually most of the back line
Scarlett - speed, even Kosi can burn him off now
Blake - lacks quality
Ottens - seems to have the probs S King had at Geelong - injury wise
Mooney - too inconsistent and at his age he's not gonna get any better
Tomahawk - perhaps? but at this point is a fizzer
Stokes - 1 or 2 good things then Mr. Invisible

Their midfield is all class but will it be enough

plugger66 · Post: # 770060Post **plugger66** » Mon 06 Jul 2009 4:58pm

PJ wrote:Queries??

Milburn - dad's army, actually most of the back line
Scarlett - speed, even Kosi can burn him off now
Blake - lacks quality
Ottens - seems to have the probs S King had at Geelong - injury wise
Mooney - too inconsistent and at his age he's not gonna get any better
Tomahawk - perhaps? but at this point is a fizzer
Stokes - 1 or 2 good things then Mr. Invisible

Their midfield is all class but will it be enough

It has been for 3 years and it isnt going to get worse in the short term. All those queries and they lost by one goal. They are a great side and so are we.

PJ · Post: # 770069Post PJ » Mon 06 Jul 2009 5:08pm

It has been for 3 years and it isnt going to get worse in the short term. All those queries and they lost by one goal. They are a great side and so are we.

Agree they are a great side but history might suggest that even the most highly rated will plummet pretty fast shortly after their peak (they've been up there for 3 years now). The cats have a great deal of players rated as All Australian, that's probably why Prismall went (opportunity??), and with the salary cap their squeeze will come (that's how we got King).

Recent examples - Brisbane West Coast - Sydney have managed to stay around the mark but look to have run their race.