Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
Milton66 wrote:
Still if we were good enough to beat them for 3 quarters, why not the last.
Fitness? Out coached? Complacency on our part?
A different question I know, but one that still haunts me somewhat, because I also bought into the no-name myth that was the Swans of 05.
I didn't.
Walking across the bridge to the G that night for me was like walking to the gallows.
I just could not see how a team so decimated would win a prelim final. It just doesn't happen - never has in the history of the sport.
Milton66 wrote:
BTw, I also reckon that Sydney did tweak it's game plan in the 2nd half of the season and introduced some subtle "attacking" changes.
I believe the changes were a result of them being able to play the way Roos wanted them to, because they had a fit and available list.
Probably quite similar to Lyon not being able to get out of his own daylight for the first year and a bit when he didn't have a decent list to pick from.
He's no different to any other coach in this regards. In all seriousness, Thomas was probably the best coach I've seen (along with Mark Williams to a point) at maintaining a competitive team when decimated by injury.
His record proves.
Good, experienced players can stick to game plans under pressure. Young kids can't - well not always.
I think we played on confidence, and passion in the first 3 quarters against Sydney that night. In the end, the team with the better, fitter and more capable list on the park won.
I was, and still am quite amazed and proud that we were in the game for as long as we were.
We were woeful in the first quarter, ran round like chickens with their heads cut off, wasted tons of energy.
Must of watched a different game.
Hamill could of and should of played that game.
Like 09 we were the best team that year, injuries or not....
Milton66 wrote:So was it injuries that "cost us so dearly" in 05?
So are you saying that it was injuries that "cost us so dearly" in 05?
Whichever paints GT in the best light
That would depend on who made the decisions to hire the staff who managed or mismanaged the injuries which allowed players to play injured... doesn't it?
And how much did employing these managers who mismanaged the players which cost us a flag cost us anyway?
I demand a Royal Commission!
Hotel De Los Muertos: Your room is ready... Care to step inside?
saintsRrising wrote:
Others of us were pi**ed that incompetence had cost us so dearly.
So it was injuries that "cost us so dearly" in 05?
Is that a question, or a statement with a question mark?
Huh?
It has a question mark, therefore it's a question.
Fair dinkum. The lengths some people go to for a fight in this place.
You'll need to much clearer. I have no idea whether you're asking a question, making a statement, or what it's even about.
RF - if your statement wasn't directed at sainterk then who was it directed at? Who else could it have been directed at? Many of your obtuse remarks may be clear to you, but to us mere mortals they are very confusing....
saintsRrising wrote:
Others of us were pi**ed that incompetence had cost us so dearly.
So it was injuries that "cost us so dearly" in 05?
RF - if your statement wasn't directed at sainterk then who was it directed at? Who else could it have been directed at? Many of your obtuse remarks may be clear to you, but to us mere mortals they are very confusing....
Many of your obtuse remarks may be clear to you, but to us mere mortals they are very confusing....
Not always - Well ... until we realise he is serious.
Are you for real?
Yeah - Rodger - I agree with him - I seriously do not believe that by now you are not aware that half your stuff seems either driven by an agenda or is just simply devised to be inflammatory. Otherwise you might have Alzheimer's.
But please don't stop this forum needs you!
This is a team game and there is no room for individuals who think they are above walking through the fire.
