Wasn't he?rodgerfox wrote: Why do you keep saying that GT was unlucky?
Another GT "Gem"... I agree 100%!
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
-
reincarnated
With injuries of course he was. However with no plan B and lack of a decent bottom 6 it would have taken a minor miracle for us to actually win a premiership during his tenuremarkp wrote:Wasn't he?rodgerfox wrote: Why do you keep saying that GT was unlucky?
Reincarnated thought the comment made by GT was a little rich considering how well we were playing up until three quarter time in the sydney prelim of 05. My my we hold on to things a little too much here though
"Phil? Phil Connors? It's me. Ned! Ned Ryerson! Bing!"
Why does it always feel like Groundhog Day around here when two letters of the alphabet at posted.
GT.
Seriously, you really need to all move on. 2005 is history.
Three of the most useless words in the English language are could've, would've and should've.
You cannot change the past, so why bother getting all heated up about it....over and over and over and over....ad nauseum.
2009 is here. It's now. We are in a Prelim. Focus on that....not the past.
Have a great day.
Why does it always feel like Groundhog Day around here when two letters of the alphabet at posted.
GT.
Seriously, you really need to all move on. 2005 is history.
Three of the most useless words in the English language are could've, would've and should've.
You cannot change the past, so why bother getting all heated up about it....over and over and over and over....ad nauseum.
2009 is here. It's now. We are in a Prelim. Focus on that....not the past.
Have a great day.
Poster formerly known as SENsaintsational. More wisdom. More knowledge. Less name.
-
Milton66
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3521
- Joined: Tue 19 May 2009 9:53pm
- Location: None of your goddam business
According to you, we're all just lucky this year. Lyon's poor decisions are being covered up by having a fit list, so therefore one can logically conclude that GT was unlucky because his poor decisions were exposed by the fact that our players weren't fit. Obvious isn't it?rodgerfox wrote:Why do you keep saying that GT was unlucky?Milton66 wrote:The Swans were lucky because they managed their players correctly.
We were just plain old "unlucky".
Unlike lucky Ross, the fact that we didn't have all our guns fit and firing on the field, actually exposed unlucky GT's poor decisions. Eh, Rodge?
Anyway, back on topic...
I just thought it was interesting that he made those comments.
Hotel De Los Muertos: Your room is ready... Care to step inside?
-
reincarnated
Poor selection personell are always going to be covered if the team has such high end quality and quantity of itMilton66 wrote:According to you, we're all just lucky this year. Lyon's poor decisions are being covered up by having a fit list, so therefore one can logically conclude that GT was unlucky because his poor decisions were exposed by the fact that our players weren't fit. Obvious isn't it?rodgerfox wrote:Why do you keep saying that GT was unlucky?Milton66 wrote:The Swans were lucky because they managed their players correctly.
We were just plain old "unlucky".
Unlike lucky Ross, the fact that we didn't have all our guns fit and firing on the field, actually exposed unlucky GT's poor decisions. Eh, Rodge?
Anyway, back on topic...
I just thought it was interesting that he made those comments.
Simply put Zac Dawson should not be playing. If it was not for Sam Fisher playing loose and having a great game Zac would have been beaten again and again. Our other backs were able to help him out - which is good however if he is one out for a period of time with the forward and acres of space all around it could and should get ugly folks
-
SaintWodonga
- Club Player
- Posts: 1868
- Joined: Wed 04 Jul 2007 12:01am
- Location: Wodonga
- Contact:
Because we are the only team who's backs help out?reincarnated wrote:Poor selection personell are always going to be covered if the team has such high end quality and quantity of itMilton66 wrote:According to you, we're all just lucky this year. Lyon's poor decisions are being covered up by having a fit list, so therefore one can logically conclude that GT was unlucky because his poor decisions were exposed by the fact that our players weren't fit. Obvious isn't it?rodgerfox wrote:Why do you keep saying that GT was unlucky?Milton66 wrote:The Swans were lucky because they managed their players correctly.
We were just plain old "unlucky".
Unlike lucky Ross, the fact that we didn't have all our guns fit and firing on the field, actually exposed unlucky GT's poor decisions. Eh, Rodge?
Anyway, back on topic...
I just thought it was interesting that he made those comments.
Simply put Zac Dawson should not be playing. If it was not for Sam Fisher playing loose and having a great game Zac would have been beaten again and again. Our other backs were able to help him out - which is good however if he is one out for a period of time with the forward and acres of space all around it could and should get ugly folks
-
meher baba
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7223
- Joined: Mon 14 Aug 2006 6:49am
- Location: Tasmania
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 516 times
If I were a GT hater and were of a mind to dump on GT for letting the 2005 PF slip away from us, I think I'd definitely wait a couple of weeks until after the current team has actually won a PF.
Talk about counting your chickens before they are hatched!!
And, BTW, anybody trying to make a comparison between the team's gutsy effort in 2005 and the embarassing Carlton capitulation on Saturday night (very poor coaching to start resting your key players for next week before you have the game in the bag) doesn't know anything about football.
Our team wasn't complacent in 2005 and they tried their guts out until the final siren. Nor did GT make any disastrous coaching moves or matchups. We were just plain buggered: several key players out injured and others playing injured. You can perhaps blame the injuries on GT (although have a look at what the injuries were first of all and come back and tell me how many of them were actually caused by poor conditioning), but you can hardly fault the team's effort or performance in 2005.
Talk about counting your chickens before they are hatched!!
And, BTW, anybody trying to make a comparison between the team's gutsy effort in 2005 and the embarassing Carlton capitulation on Saturday night (very poor coaching to start resting your key players for next week before you have the game in the bag) doesn't know anything about football.
Our team wasn't complacent in 2005 and they tried their guts out until the final siren. Nor did GT make any disastrous coaching moves or matchups. We were just plain buggered: several key players out injured and others playing injured. You can perhaps blame the injuries on GT (although have a look at what the injuries were first of all and come back and tell me how many of them were actually caused by poor conditioning), but you can hardly fault the team's effort or performance in 2005.
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."
- Jonathan Swift
- Jonathan Swift
Why harsh? We had a turnstile on the "training services" office door during the GT/Butters regime. No continuity, no money to improve the situation and no stats on player fitness at all (as documented by Dave Misson when he got there - he was amazed and appalled).rodgerfox wrote:A pretty harsh view really.
Lyon recognised very early that the team needed "meat and potatoes" (his term) in their fitness management diet - brought in Misson and the bloke from North, and after 2007 whenthe previous regimes damage was being repaired, we have hardly had a soft tissue injury.
The neglect and negligence of the - I dont get involved in fitness and training services issues" coach and the "wont spend any money" President resulted in our list being decimated by needless injuries and hences a shot at the flag in 2004 and 2005.
The game goes for four quarters. Superior injury management and fitness of the Sydney team prevailed over the neglected and unfit St.Kilda team.rodgerfox wrote:But, in the end, regardless of what you wrote, it still took a team that had an unchanged lineup for 10 weeks to kick 7 straight in the final quarter to roll us.
True, and one of an injury depleted Geelong or St.Kilda would have been flogged by a near fully fit WCE in the Grand Final.rodgerfox wrote:Had Geelong not had 4 injuries in the last quarter the week before, we would have come up against a team nearly as depleted as we were instead.
Lance or James??
There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in <redacted>. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a <redacted>investigation followed by <redacted> witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for <redacted>and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense. (Oops just got a spontaneous errection <unredacted>)
There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in <redacted>. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a <redacted>investigation followed by <redacted> witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for <redacted>and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense. (Oops just got a spontaneous errection <unredacted>)
-
matrix
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 21475
- Joined: Mon 21 May 2007 1:55pm
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 4 times
yup
i just think that a defenders role is to stop his opponent from doing anything
i think max is just as good as zac when he has the football in his hands
i think he is a better leader
i think he would be feared more
i think he can play the role that would be asked of him
i think he is a better stopper
i think he is faster
i think i say i think too much
but yes, obviously there is something that someone doesnt think is good enough.
time will tell i guess
but bugger me if i dont have my fingers crossed for the bloke
i just think that a defenders role is to stop his opponent from doing anything
i think max is just as good as zac when he has the football in his hands
i think he is a better leader
i think he would be feared more
i think he can play the role that would be asked of him
i think he is a better stopper
i think he is faster
i think i say i think too much
but yes, obviously there is something that someone doesnt think is good enough.
time will tell i guess
but bugger me if i dont have my fingers crossed for the bloke
-
markp
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 15583
- Joined: Mon 26 Mar 2007 4:22pm
- Has thanked: 63 times
- Been thanked: 82 times
All very amusing.... cheers!meher baba wrote:If I were a GT hater and were of a mind to dump on GT for letting the 2005 PF slip away from us, I think I'd definitely wait a couple of weeks until after the current team has actually won a PF.
Why?
Talk about counting your chickens before they are hatched!!
How?... you think this is some sort of competition between Lyon and GT?
And, BTW, anybody trying to make a comparison between the team's gutsy effort in 2005 and the embarassing Carlton capitulation on Saturday night (very poor coaching to start resting your key players for next week before you have the game in the bag) doesn't know anything about football.
Gutsy?... we got flogged, kicked 3 points to their 7 goals in the last quarter... not in any way a capitulation?
Our team wasn't complacent in 2005 and they tried their guts out until the final siren. Nor did GT make any disastrous coaching moves or matchups. We were just plain buggered:
So the Swans were much fitter were they? Maybe our fate was sealed long before game day....
several key players out injured and others playing injured. You can perhaps blame the injuries on GT (although have a look at what the injuries were first of all and come back and tell me how many of them were actually caused by poor conditioning), but you can hardly fault the team's effort or performance in 2005.
You gave us a 10/10?
-
markp
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 15583
- Joined: Mon 26 Mar 2007 4:22pm
- Has thanked: 63 times
- Been thanked: 82 times
How can anyone see it any differently?joffaboy wrote:Why harsh? We had a turnstile on the "training services" office door during the GT/Butters regime. No continuity, no money to improve the situation and no stats on player fitness at all (as documented by Dave Misson when he got there - he was amazed and appalled).rodgerfox wrote:A pretty harsh view really.
Lyon recognised very early that the team needed "meat and potatoes" (his term) in their fitness management diet - brought in Misson and the bloke from North, and after 2007 whenthe previous regimes damage was being repaired, we have hardly had a soft tissue injury.
The neglect and negligence of the - I dont get involved in fitness and training services issues" coach and the "wont spend any money" President resulted in our list being decimated by needless injuries and hences a shot at the flag in 2004 and 2005.
The game goes for four quarters. Superior injury management and fitness of the Sydney team prevailed over the neglected and unfit St.Kilda team.rodgerfox wrote:But, in the end, regardless of what you wrote, it still took a team that had an unchanged lineup for 10 weeks to kick 7 straight in the final quarter to roll us.
True, and one of an injury depleted Geelong or St.Kilda would have been flogged by a near fully fit WCE in the Grand Final.rodgerfox wrote:Had Geelong not had 4 injuries in the last quarter the week before, we would have come up against a team nearly as depleted as we were instead.
What were you thinking? How dare you post in a rational and logical manner. You deserve to be instantly banished from this forum!SENsaintsational wrote:"Phil? Phil Connors? It's me. Ned! Ned Ryerson! Bing!"
Why does it always feel like Groundhog Day around here when two letters of the alphabet at posted.
GT.
Seriously, you really need to all move on. 2005 is history.
Three of the most useless words in the English language are could've, would've and should've.
You cannot change the past, so why bother getting all heated up about it....over and over and over and over....ad nauseum.
2009 is here. It's now. We are in a Prelim. Focus on that....not the past.
Have a great day.
Seriously, Grant and that era is history. We now have to look to the present. It is our time now so let's all get back to the present and concentrate on the 2 games ahead of us.
it is an exciting time for us and the club and to dwell on issues of the past is pointless. Even the club has moved on by extending the olive branch to Grant and inviting him to the game last weekend. Think some of you need to let go of the past and embrace what is ahead of us. Arguing over what could've been is futile. It wasn't - but it can be now.
GO THE MIGHTY SAINTERS!!!!
Fortius Quo Fidelius