Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
i take your point, but if you had the choice of giving it to goddard, just for example, or dempster, which one would you kick it to?
and which would be more likely to finish off with a goal?
Gwilt
good one
Seriously though, I think this kid can make this spot his own, to be fair he needs to get the delivery...
i've always liked him as a player. his ability to impact on the scoreboard is the query i have.
Sure, I guess I still see Gwilt (same age group as Zac, McQualter) as one of the younger ones, I think he deserves at least another crack at making the spot his own....
The only way that Jimmy can play there is if we have another strong player to help make space for him. This would mean a whole re arrangement of the fwd line.
His role was to make space for the big 2. so you can't have it both ways... or expect hin to play both roles.
Will be interesting to see what impact Walsh has.
Hotel De Los Muertos: Your room is ready... Care to step inside?
I agree there are other reasons for our forward inefficiency in the finals.
and we all know Kosi could have played better and held a couple of marks - but he's a key tall and was needed for the sake of structure.
So again i ask do we need 3 small forwards in our forward line ? - especially in tough finals.
Just to correct my original post our 3 smalls kicked 4 goals in the last 2 finals - against the Dogs and the Cats, which is still a paltry return.
so what I'm asking is ..
Does half our forward line need to be smalls - and we need to be mindful that our smalls aren't built like mini tanks - like Chapman or Ablett who are blessed with the powerful bodies that break tackles.
We're talking about 3 genuine smalls.
so I ask again - why does half our forward line need to consist of 3 smalls and how's that providing us with the balance and structure we need ?
How does this help us kick the winning scores in tough finals where the tough get going and the smalls effectively disappear ?
shouldn't we consider bringing in a couple of mid size players to play as forwards instead and just keep it to 1 small only ? - especially after what we've learnt this finals series against our top 2 final contenders - the Cats and the Dogs.
samoht wrote:I agree there are other reasons for our forward inefficiency in the finals.
and we all know Kosi could have played better and held a couple of marks - but he's a key tall and was needed for the sake of structure.
So again i ask do we need 3 small forwards in our forward line ? - especially in tough finals.
Just to correct my original post our 3 smalls kicked 4 goals in the last 2 finals - against the Dogs and the Cats, which is still a paltry return.
so what I'm asking is ..
Does half our forward line need to be smalls - and we need to be mindful that our smalls aren't built like mini tanks - like Chapman or Ablett who are blessed with the powerful bodies that break tackles.
We're talking about 3 genuine smalls.
so I ask again - why does half our forward line need to consist of 3 smalls and how's that providing us with the balance and structure we need ?
How does this help us kick the winning scores in tough finals where the tough get going and the smalls effectively disappear ?
Because they are 3 of our 5 best forwards. They all played over 20 games and kicked a heap of goals. As third talls Gwilt & Dempster both averaged well below a goal a game. Besides those 2 we have no one else who has proven themselves to be able to replace our smalls.
bigcarl wrote:
yes, good points well made. let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The Baby spat the dummy, went Wah! Wah! Wah!, threw his plastic toys out of the bath, and went into the draft hoping he would get more bath time in someone else's bath tub.
The more you know, the more you know you don't know.
When I was a young child, I knew that I knew so much about so much.
Now that I am old and know so much more, I know that I know so much about so little, and so little about so much.
If you are not engaging AI actively and aggressively, you are doing it wrong.
You are not going to lose your job to AI.
You are going lose your job to somebody who uses AI.
Your company is not going to go out of business because of AI.
Your company is going to go out of business because another company used AI.
- Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA
Christ one or two things go our way wed have a flag then what would we be saying??
We were great I think we stay injury free add Lovett I LOVE THE TEAM AS IT IS!!
In: Lovett
Out: Ball
done!
Watch out for Luke Miles next year - GUN. Is the reason Matty M is gone. Miles is agile tall and good kick only his injury prevented him from a greta year last year. I have faith he will make it.
CaptainReiwoldt wrote:Christ one or two things go our way wed have a flag then what would we be saying??
We were great I think we stay injury free add Lovett I LOVE THE TEAM AS IT IS!!
In: Lovett
Out: Ball
done!
Watch out for Luke Miles next year - GUN. Is the reason Matty M is gone. Miles is agile tall and good kick only his injury prevented him from a greta year last year. I have faith he will make it.
I have seen Miles play about 12 games and I am sorry to say he is far from a gun. If he was a gun as you call him why hasnt he played as yet. Its not like he is a youngster who needs his body to get bigger. And what injury did he have this year. he played most games except late in the year. Also his kicking is just fair. How many games have you seen him play for Sandy?
gosainters66 wrote:our problem was we went in with too many talls
Don't agree....had we not selected our talls, our smalls would not have had so much opportunity. It was a question of accuracy and composure, that is all...
in conclusion ... (I don't want to labour the point further).
I just think having half a forward line comprising of genuine smalls doesn''t help our efficiency - it didn't against the Cats, after all we dominated the inside 50's.
I repeat again, the Cats version of smalls (Chapman and Ablett) aren't genuine smalls they're mini tanks who can break tackles - they are built for the finals.
We don't have that type of small that is built for the finals.
So I'm not talking about throwing the baby out with the bathwater .. well maybe 2 babies (2 of our 3 genuine smalls) and bringing in a couple of stronger bodied mid size players instead - to get the structure right.
samoht wrote:We could have played Armitage this year as a mid sized forward.
Next year ..
Armitage, Geary ?? or maybe Heyne (may need to build up) could replace 2 forward smalls next year.
At least try something to move away from the 3 small forward structure.,, which isn't effective in the finals.
Geelong? or we just choose to ignore them.
Geelong would have smashed us if they had only played one small forward.
You havent obviously seen the GF yet but if you ever watch it just see Bynes last quarter on Clarke and even Varcoe in the last term. My memory somtimes fails me but I think we in front until the last term so it was a pretty important quarter.
samoht wrote:We could have played Armitage this year as a mid sized forward.
Next year ..
Armitage, Geary ?? or maybe Heyne (may need to build up) could replace 2 forward smalls next year.
At least try something to move away from the 3 small forward structure.,, which isn't effective in the finals.
Geelong? or we just choose to ignore them.
Geelong would have smashed us if they had only played one small forward.
You havent obviously seen the GF yet but if you ever watch it just see Bynes last quarter on Clarke and even Varcoe in the last term. My memory somtimes fails me but I think we in front until the last term so it was a pretty important quarter.
I'm pretty sure he flew in for the game.
Hotel De Los Muertos: Your room is ready... Care to step inside?
Some of their misses were classics, such as the one where Milney is running in towards the goals, has a brain spasm, and did that grubber kick that did'nt make the distance. I would like to know what he was saying to himself after that one!
all i'm going to add to this thread is that Milne got his hands on the footy in the G/F more often then he has in may other finals he's played...
he had 3 shots that he missed
McQualter missed a sitter from directly in front
Schneider missed 2 that he'd normally kick as well
I'd like to see whther ppl would be complaining about the structure if these guys had actually added a further 6 goals to the score as they easily could/should have.
IMO you need to judge each player on their own merits.
skeptic wrote:all i'm going to add to this thread is that Milne got his hands on the footy in the G/F more often then he has in may other finals he's played...
he had 3 shots that he missed
McQualter missed a sitter from directly in front
Schneider missed 2 that he'd normally kick as well
I'd like to see whther ppl would be complaining about the structure if these guys had actually added a further 6 goals to the score as they easily could/should have.
IMO you need to judge each player on their own merits.
I agree with this post.
We had the ball, we had the possession, we had the Inside 50's.
Better qualities entries, more accurate kicking, a couple of contested marks inside 50, and not only would we have won, we would have won by 5 goals. As it was, we only lost by 7 if you take out Hawkins' point. Wonder what the forum would look like if we just converted a couple of our chances? I think we will be better and more confident from this year's experience. Tackling does work, but so do the loose ball gets, and effective kicking.
samoht wrote:We could have played Armitage this year as a mid sized forward.
Next year ..
Armitage, Geary ?? or maybe Heyne (may need to build up) could replace 2 forward smalls next year.
At least try something to move away from the 3 small forward structure.,, which isn't effective in the finals.
Geelong? or we just choose to ignore them.
Geelong would have smashed us if they had only played one small forward.
You havent obviously seen the GF yet but if you ever watch it just see Bynes last quarter on Clarke and even Varcoe in the last term. My memory somtimes fails me but I think we in front until the last term so it was a pretty important quarter.
I was actually agreeing with you. I thought if you wrote three quarters of your posts in such a sarcastic tone you might detect it in other posts. And I did fly in for the Grand Final but I fell asleep when John Farnham came on.
The reality is, in all sports, it's the lttile things that make the difference between winning and losing. Rather than us saying Milne had a shocker, it would be nice to say Milne had a blinder and we won. But we didn't.
In sport, you HAVE to stand up in big games. No ifs or buts. A few of our blokes didn't. They therefore deserve to be under the microscope. Personally, I think Milne has to go if we are to take the next step. And we really need Armo and Steven to go up a cog next year. Otherwise, we may go backwards.
2010 is a huge year for us. And I reckon we've got a pretty tough draw (despite the media suggesting otherwise). Playing and winning 6 games interstate will be bloody tough - tougher than playing last year's finals teams in MEL. I can't see us winning 20 games next year - I'm hoping for around 17. And Top 2 if possible.
