I saw a St Kilda side.

[st_Trav_ofWA]

I saw a stkilda side lose to a half fit eagles team ...

We suk its all over lets not be richmond fans and be happy we lose well!!!

Yes cause we were full strength they missed a mid a tall forward a small forward and a utility... We missed a ruck a CHB a mid/small forward a key defender and a rebounding defender ... But no it was a half strengh WCE team

[Moods]

8 day vs 6 day break....

?????

Does not explain the first half.
It may have explained a second half fade-out....but that did not occur.

We had a great second half. But that first half was SOFT.

Yep. Agree.

And we wouldn't want to complain too much - we have ANOTHER 6 day break this week and then ANOTHER the following week against the tiges. It's bloody ridiculous.

[stkildajason3votes]

I saw a lot of experienced St Kilda players getting beaten and playing undisciplined footy for most of the game today, and ultimately getting beaten by 5 goals..onto next week.

Beaten by 1 point or by 100 points it still isn't 4 points that we need. Losing is not acceptable anymore no matter if we play a good 3rd qtr. We should have played a good 1st & 2nd.

JASON

[Thinline]

Losing in this instance is a reality.

Accept that the best you can do after the event is concentrate on what can be improved and the good that occurred.

Like it or not we are development squad. The days of beating everyone are gone for now.

Personally, I saw lots to like even if the first half pissed me off.

[Dave McNamara]

People have to realise the old St Kilda is no more.

In the eighties, nineties or noughties, a 50 point deficit at half time would have blown out further, ESPECIALLY by an undermanned side coming off a six day break travelling to one of the msot hostile grounds in the competition. With six days to recover, weren't we supposed to be tired and down on energy. Yet I felt we gave it a huge crack and possibly run the game out better.

It has been ten years since we lost a match by one hundred points - only one team currently in the league ahs gone longer - The Sydney Swans who last loss by three figures back in 1998 - and guess who that was to?

The same team which has countless times come close to dying or merging; the same team who has won one premiership in a hundred years and the same bloody team who is turning everything around - when we win that second premiership, the third fourth and fifth won't be far off it.

We are turning our history upside down and giving the middle finger to the historians.

Who really cares who won the wooden spoon in 1923? ( I don't actually know if that even was us)

Or who scored the lowest score of all time.

We gave up without a whimper back in the old days, even back in the eighties when we were putrid or the nineties when we weren't much better.... well we don't now.

We have far too much pride to let a team walk over us for four quarters.

Not only did we twice draw to within 17 points, we gave ourselves a good chance of winning the game.

No longer can people go on about the St Kilda culture because its dead and buried.

This is the new St Kilda culture.

We may not win the flag for another three or four years, but we will NEVER sink to the depths that say Melbourne have...

Totally agree 1eyed.


St.Kilda is a strong, proffessional organisation now, and if it just keep going strong, as it has been since 2000-2001, eventually, sooner or later, be it in 2 or 12 years, St.kilda will land a flag, and I totally believe that once we get that one flag, more flags will start to follow and we'll start getting premierships every decade.

IMHO, two more EXCELLENT posts well worthy of Skinny's wonderfully themed thread!

OES and Hungry, I TOTALLY agree. I've long thought that once we get that sooooo-elusive-Holy-Grail-Second-Coming-of-the-mighty-Saintas-premiership, then with the proverbial monkey off the back, we will win more and do so consistently.

To all the worriers and doubters out there, I just say... read below the line.

[WinnersOnly]

It was great that they fought back after half time, how do we explain the first half. Since when did we start accepting admiral losses - for me it doesn't wash. For me it was the worst loss of the year because for half a game they played like timid kids scared of the opposition. If we start accepting that we will end up having 100 point losses and return to the Saints of old!

[Thinline]

It was great that they fought back after half time, how do we explain the first half. Since when did we start accepting admiral losses - for me it doesn't wash. For me it was the worst loss of the year because for half a game they played like timid kids scared of the opposition. If we start accepting that we will end up having 100 point losses and return to the Saints of old!

Yes we have some steady hands in there but two/three relative juniors in the middle, no ruck man against the ruck kings of the world, and a juvenile playing our key defensive post and a mosquito fleet of near enough debutants up forward.

These are not excuses, but they are realities that need to be considered in their proper context.

If at the height of our Lyon days we went west and put in a half like that I'd be ropeable.

But those days are done. With a new squad and a new team we are going to have some weird non-moments. It's a simple fact. The Stanley hiccup couldn't have been timed worse.

In all the circs you can only dust yourself off and concentrate on the excitement of the 3rd term surge. THAT was how we CAN play when the confidence kicks in and the roll is on.

If that was a snapshot into the kind of footy we'll be capable of before our old blokes hang em up, I reckon we are mile ahead of where I thought we'd be.

[meher baba]

It's no good complaining about a 6 day break, but a 6 day break plus interstate travel is a bit tough IMO. But the AFL is clear that the draw is not intended to be fair, so it's no good complaining when it isn't. We have a softer draw overall than most other clubs in terms of who our opponents are.

I thought we went ok yesterday. The Eagles have improved a lot over the last 2 years and are now a pretty formidable outfit: albeit, their midfield is arguably a bit light on (I thought ours was clearly better last night). Given their dominant ruckmen, the rest of the comp is lucky that they don't have a great midfield: they'd be unbeatable.

It is well known that we are light on for ruckmen at the best of times. Yesterday - with no McEvoy and with Stanley out after Q1 - we were never going to win IMO. Ruckmen aren't everything, but they are important enough. Not only does ruck dominance give a team the first use of the ball more often on average, but it also tends to produce a stream of free kicks. We saw that last night. A couple of those free kicks in Q1 were killers: they allowed the Eagles to blow out their lead and we were never able to catch them.

But, apart from the rucks and apart from a few other weaknesses (eg, Wilkes), I thought we were great last night. We are learning to play quite a new style of game and seem to be on a steady upswing. We look infinitely more dangerous with the ball in our hands than we have for several years. Even our weakened defence looked pretty good (except for Wilkes) How good will we be when Fisher and Gwilt come back? And McEvoy: not the greatest ruckman going around by a long chalk, but he's good enough.

If we can reach the finals, we'll do some damage there. We're more of a threat than many on here thought a few weeks ago.

[busso mick]

It's no good complaining about a 6 day break, but a 6 day break plus interstate travel is a bit tough IMO. But the AFL is clear that the draw is not intended to be fair, so it's no good complaining when it isn't. We have a softer draw overall than most other clubs in terms of who our opponents are.

West Coast and Fremantle have to travel as far as we did every second week, so is the draw not fair for them as well? Also before yesterday we won our previous 6 at Subiaco, so I think it is more about football ability than the onus of travel.

[mr six o'clock]

It's no good complaining about a 6 day break, but a 6 day break plus interstate travel is a bit tough IMO. But the AFL is clear that the draw is not intended to be fair, so it's no good complaining when it isn't. We have a softer draw overall than most other clubs in terms of who our opponents are.

West Coast and Fremantle have to travel as far as we did every second week, so is the draw not fair for them as well? Also before yesterday we won our previous 6 at Subiaco, so I think it is more about football ability than the onus of travel.

I think interstate clubs have it easier with the extra travel they do . the more you do something the more routine it becomes .
E.G. The WC would travel to Melbourne at least 7 times a year , with the same travel arrangements , staying at the same hotel , training at the same places , having the same support services each time .
The players on there free time can frequent the same establishments where they become known , and local friendships develope.
So once a player has been in the side a few years coming to melbourne is just a long weekend .


On the other hand teams like collingwood who travel 4 times a year maximum ( unless finals ) they could have ten year players who have only played in perth 4 or 5 times !

[ThePunter]

If Admiral Losses is the head of the Navy and I'm a seaman, then I'll accept him.

[ralphsmith]

No need to lose hope yet. There is some deep strength at the core of this club now. Eagles would have lost that one at etihad. I have no doubt about it.

Go saints.

[rexy]

Please stop whingeing bout 6 days breaks. Interstate sides travel weekly often with 6 days breaks....its not a valide excuse IMO and the second half proved that.

We were mentally at the starting gate when the game started and got a rocket at half time. Shame we werent switched on early.

To be fair non vic clubs travel about 10 times a year! Hardly weekly, but yes definately more often, not sure that being non vic means more 6 day breaks though?

Agree re not an excuse but if ive told you once ive told you a million times!, " do not exaggerate "

[Richter]

But, apart from the rucks and apart from a few other weaknesses (eg, Wilkes), I thought we were great last night. We are learning to play quite a new style of game and seem to be on a steady upswing. We look infinitely more dangerous with the ball in our hands than we have for several years. Even our weakened defence looked pretty good (except for Wilkes) How good will we be when Fisher and Gwilt come back? And McEvoy: not the greatest ruckman going around by a long chalk, but he's good enough.

If we can reach the finals, we'll do some damage there. We're more of a threat than many on here thought a few weeks ago.

Fully in agreement with you there MB

And with a full choice team in I would not discount us interstate in a final in this sort of form either.

Realistically too, for us to reach the finals it may come down to % (either for a spot in the 8 or deciding home vs interstate final), so how much we lose games by is important. Our last game is against Carlton. Imagine if we were playing them as things are at present... i.e. we're at one win less than them and our respective percentages are 117% and 122%.... we'd need a 50ish point win to get us into the 8.... so we must smash the crap teams we play and make sure any losses are not blowouts...

[Austinnn]

People have to realise the old St Kilda is no more.

In the eighties, nineties or noughties, a 50 point deficit at half time would have blown out further, ESPECIALLY by an undermanned side coming off a six day break travelling to one of the msot hostile grounds in the competition. With six days to recover, weren't we supposed to be tired and down on energy. Yet I felt we gave it a huge crack and possibly run the game out better.

It has been ten years since we lost a match by one hundred points - only one team currently in the league ahs gone longer - The Sydney Swans who last loss by three figures back in 1998 - and guess who that was to?

The same team which has countless times come close to dying or merging; the same team who has won one premiership in a hundred years and the same bloody team who is turning everything around - when we win that second premiership, the third fourth and fifth won't be far off it.

We are turning our history upside down and giving the middle finger to the historians.

Who really cares who won the wooden spoon in 1923? ( I don't actually know if that even was us)

Or who scored the lowest score of all time.

We gave up without a whimper back in the old days, even back in the eighties when we were putrid or the nineties when we weren't much better.... well we don't now.

We have far too much pride to let a team walk over us for four quarters.

Not only did we twice draw to within 17 points, we gave ourselves a good chance of winning the game.

No longer can people go on about the St Kilda culture because its dead and buried.

This is the new St Kilda culture.

We may not win the flag for another three or four years, but we will NEVER sink to the depths that say Melbourne have...

Well said!

No one is happy or satisfied with a loss, but if we can't win, what we want to see is a game plan that works, players that can work together, a team that keeps trying to win even when it looks like we'll get thumped, a club that learns from its mistakes, a lot of heart and a lot of sense, people that don't give up when everything is against us.

I couldn't watch the game but I followed the score, and seeing the score at half time and learning that Rhys Stanley had been subbed off through injury I thought about all the other circumstances*, and thought that it would probably get ugly, but as I checked in in the 3rd Quarter I started to think about the corresponding fixture last year and I thought "Where's Eric MacKenzie?"

Sadly, it wasn't to be, but to get to within a couple of goals in the 4th Quarter, I think the Saints did alright. Everybody knows they didn't do enough, but there was another team on the field.

This club is no joke anymore, but we're not the schoolyard bullies we were a few years ago either. What we are is a team with an upside, you saw it last week. No rabble, no hopeless collective of amateurs and merchants, we are going to be good to watch this year and beyond, even when we lose the senior stars.

If you didn't see that, then fair enough, you watched the game not me. But that is my analysis of the situation. Thanks to the OP and others for the positivity!


*(long flight, shorter than usual preparation, gut-busting game the week before, a few players high off a famous win and possibly not with their feet on the ground, lots of players without many years experience and consistency, missing a couple of first choice key players, a huge percentage of the supporters cheering the other team, big ground, opposition with a chance to climb to the top of the ladder, opposition with powerful midfield and quality all over the ground... and yes, if you want to get really desperate the umpires - each of these things on their own probably don't make a huge difference, but together is probably enough to ensure that the opposition capitalize on the breaks rather than us)

[SinCitySainter]

What I saw was a team who were absolutely smashed in the first half.
They then got back into the game as their opponents took the foot off the gas in the third quarter.
Then each time they looked like they might just make a challenge the eagles slipped a gear and just did enough.

What I saw was a side whose opposition comfortably had their number.

Sorry but that is the reality of that game in my eyes.

I think we are a good mid table side who will be fighting it out for a spot in the 8.
The Eagles are looking for a spot in the 4, the difference in class was evident.