Some ordd coaching moves tonight..

Teflon · Post: # 1119774Post **Teflon** » Sat 13 Aug 2011 12:38am

IMO some things just clearly didnt work:

1. Blake as a sub - to little to late. Play him in the game or forget it.

2. Armitage - will surely leave at seasons end. FFS he is an inside mid being asked to be Mqualter. I actually reckon hes the perfect combo in the guts with Stevens (who can run/clear) - so why not get him in there?

3. Milne. HAD to take Harry O to the goal line - Milne does his best work buzzing round 20 out from goal. IMHO we played into their hands by often having Milne up near CHF......Milnes a barometer....when hes not in the game we lose.

SainterK · Post: # 1119789Post **SainterK** » Sat 13 Aug 2011 1:16am

After tonight though Tef, why would you change up the midfield? It may not be fair for Armo, but I though they were very, very good.

Equalled Pies for centre bounce clearances (has that even been done this year) and beat them overall in this stat.

Did Polo play Armo's role late after he was subbed off?

I guess you could swap them around, still, if it ain't broke....etc

undecided · Post: # 1119794Post **undecided** » Sat 13 Aug 2011 1:20am

blake as sub was stupid. play him or dont. we need a game changer as a sub

saintbob · Post: # 1119802Post **saintbob** » Sat 13 Aug 2011 1:23am

Bringing Zac Dawson in was a very very ordinary decisionby the match committee, would have to be one of the dumbest players to EVER pull on a Saints jumper!!!

Gets beaten regularly in one in ones, looks like a dear in the headlights on the rare occasion that he actually gets the ball.

The OtherThommo · Sat 13 Aug 2011 1:26am

We were a bee's dick away from mastering them. Listen to what the boss had to say after the game - we butchered the pill going forward. IT IS THAT SIMPLE.
But, and this is the big but (without the extra 't'), we were really honest. They've blown away just about every side they've played - not us.
To provide perspective - I'm not talking about an 'honourable' loss. I just thought we were honest. We made shyteloads of errors, mostly by foot, but didn't turn it up. We had more of the scoring shots and were more than competitive on most of the KPI's (Jesus I hate that term).
Yeah, we lost. I hate it, will always hate it. But, we were good, just not classy enough.
And, we're not done yet.

Saintersss · Sat 13 Aug 2011 1:31am

saintbob wrote:Bringing Zac Dawson in was a very very ordinary decisionby the match committee, would have to be one of the dumbest players to EVER pull on a Saints jumper!!!

Gets beaten regularly in one in ones, looks like a dear in the headlights on the rare occasion that he actually gets the ball.

You're joking right? He kept the most in form power forward of the competition to 2 goals and 10 disposals. Not a terrible night I'd say. Did one or two silly things, but overall I'd say he did a reasonable job.

Jacks Back · Sat 13 Aug 2011 1:41am

Why the hell doesn't Rossy put Jack in the centre more often FFS?

The team had a total of 39 clearances and 8 of them were from Jack.

8

And yet he is hardly in the centre square FFS.

C'mon man

bigcarl · Post: # 1119828Post **bigcarl** » Sat 13 Aug 2011 1:43am

The OtherThommo wrote:We were a bee's dick away from mastering them. Listen to what the boss had to say after the game - we butchered the pill going forward. IT IS THAT SIMPLE.
But, and this is the big but (without the extra 't'), we were really honest. They've blown away just about every side they've played - not us.
To provide perspective - I'm not talking about an 'honourable' loss. I just thought we were honest. We made shyteloads of errors, mostly by foot, but didn't turn it up. We had more of the scoring shots and were more than competitive on most of the KPI's (Jesus I hate that term).
Yeah, we lost. I hate it, will always hate it. But, we were good, just not classy enough.
And, we're not done yet.

Yep, can't fault our effort. It's just the ability to translate that effort to scoreboard pressure.

dcstkfc · Post: # 1119831Post **dcstkfc** » Sat 13 Aug 2011 1:51am

I want to know how on earth Davis was allowed to roam free like he did?

plugger66 · Post: # 1119832Post **plugger66** » Sat 13 Aug 2011 1:53am

dcstkfc wrote:I want to know how on earth Davis was allowed to roam free like he did?

Because we had a 7 man backline.

MCG-Unit · Post: # 1119839Post **MCG-Unit** » Sat 13 Aug 2011 2:04am

Saintersss wrote:
saintbob wrote:Bringing Zac Dawson in was a very very ordinary decisionby the match committee, would have to be one of the dumbest players to EVER pull on a Saints jumper!!!

Gets beaten regularly in one in ones, looks like a dear in the headlights on the rare occasion that he actually gets the ball.
You're joking right? He kept the most in form power forward of the competition to 2 goals and 10 disposals. Not a terrible night I'd say. Did one or two silly things, but overall I'd say he did a reasonable job.

He must be taking the p!ss on Dawson - for the amount of time the ball came into defence - thought he did a very good job on Cloke.

Think he had 2 errors, the high tackle, and a maybe a throw. People must just see a name, and associate that with poor performance

sainter104 · Sat 13 Aug 2011 4:04am

from what i seen Dawson was amongst out best tonight especially last 1/4

Dan Warna · Post: # 1119888Post **Dan Warna** » Sat 13 Aug 2011 8:42am

steven played very well, but he's a kid, he needs rest time, at a game at that pace. We don't want him broken like Luke ball before he's 23.
Armo was beaten, he'll get better, but he was beaten by a great midfield, and well, luke ball.
big ben needed a break, he too is a kid and if we want to win he can't ruck for 120 plus minutes. Hence Kosi and blake were used to give him a break.

fingers · Post: # 1119893Post **fingers** » Sat 13 Aug 2011 9:10am

What could we have done about Davis???

plugger66 · Post: # 1119898Post **plugger66** » Sat 13 Aug 2011 9:14am

fingers wrote:What could we have done about Davis???

Well for a start playing 6 in the forward line would have helped. Easy in hindsight and we were always going to play a 7 an backline but that allowed Davis to be freed up.

spert · Post: # 1119903Post **spert** » Sat 13 Aug 2011 9:17am

Dawson did a very good job apart from a couple of stoopid errors. Not many forwards have been able to really beat him this season.

cunnassaints66 · Sat 13 Aug 2011 9:42am

MCG-Unit wrote:
Saintersss wrote:
saintbob wrote:Bringing Zac Dawson in was a very very ordinary decisionby the match committee, would have to be one of the dumbest players to EVER pull on a Saints jumper!!!

Gets beaten regularly in one in ones, looks like a dear in the headlights on the rare occasion that he actually gets the ball.
You're joking right? He kept the most in form power forward of the competition to 2 goals and 10 disposals. Not a terrible night I'd say. Did one or two silly things, but overall I'd say he did a reasonable job.
He must be taking the p!ss on Dawson - for the amount of time the ball came into defence - thought he did a very good job on Cloke.

Think he had 2 errors, the high tackle, and a maybe a throw. People must just see a name, and associate that with poor performance

yes he has kept the power fowards to small amounts of goals but that because hes had a lot of help , we play an extra man in defence , im not saying he doesnt try his heart out but he need to stop making clumsy stupid free kicks , once he stops doing that then ill say hes played a good game , all good sides have great full back and thats something that we lack

fingers · Post: # 1119922Post **fingers** » Sat 13 Aug 2011 9:59am

plugger66 wrote:
fingers wrote:What could we have done about Davis???
Well for a start playing 6 in the forward line would have helped. Easy in hindsight and we were always going to play a 7 an backline but that allowed Davis to be freed up.

He ran rampant. I guess if you put Demspter on him you free up Krakour...he was more damaging then our free man thats for sure.

ando051 · Post: # 1119961Post **ando051** » Sat 13 Aug 2011 10:51am

Dawson's game was OK, he is not there to rack up possessions his job is to stop the FF getting a kick. To keep Cloke to 10 touches and 2 goals is a win to Dawson.

Jack Steven was good but butchered the ball, like most of the team with a 55% effective disposal rate.

We were one tall short in the forward line as Armo is not a HFF.

I thought Jonesey was good, he is tagging a player well, but he is now getting a lot more possessions himself.

In the end we butchered the ball with having 20 scoring shots to 19 and still getting beaten.

It's not all Doom and Gloom, our endeavor is back all we need now is the execution.

Johnny Member · Sat 13 Aug 2011 10:54am

I would have thought that Davis would have been in the coach's planning as one of the top 3-4 players to negate.

I know you can't negate everyone, but I wouldn't have thought he'd be a guy that you'd be content to leave alone.

Dan Warna · Sat 13 Aug 2011 10:57am

i concur with the failure on davis.

that said, he gave us 8 free hits with his shocking turnovers, which we failed to capitalise on.

Mr Magic · Post: # 1119972Post **Mr Magic** » Sat 13 Aug 2011 11:06am

Johnny Member wrote:I would have thought that Davis would have been in the coach's planning as one of the top 3-4 players to negate.

I know you can't negate everyone, but I wouldn't have thought he'd be a guy that you'd be content to leave alone.

Just curious,
do you believe the gameplan was to let him run free?
If not, who do you reckon was supposed to stop him, and didn't?
(interestingly against Carlton Garlett/Yarran? did a similar 'job' on us)

If yes, which player that we did tag shouldn't we have?

ando051 · Post: # 1119977Post **ando051** » Sat 13 Aug 2011 11:13am

Dan Warna wrote:i concur with the failure on davis.

that said, he gave us 8 free hits with his shocking turnovers, which we failed to capitalise on.

I think we play a bigger enough defencive game as it is with trying to tag ever player on the ground. If Davis is not running out of the defence it would be Harry O or Ben Johnson.I agree with Dan Warna if we didn't butcher the balls coming back over there head it could of been a different story.

Johnny Member · Sat 13 Aug 2011 11:19am

Mr Magic wrote:
Johnny Member wrote:I would have thought that Davis would have been in the coach's planning as one of the top 3-4 players to negate.

I know you can't negate everyone, but I wouldn't have thought he'd be a guy that you'd be content to leave alone.
Just curious,
do you believe the gameplan was to let him run free?
If not, who do you reckon was supposed to stop him, and didn't?
(interestingly against Carlton Garlett/Yarran? did a similar 'job' on us)

If yes, which player that we did tag shouldn't we have?

I don't know.

I'd hope it wasn't - but then again someone mentioned above that he 8 turnovers!

So maybe the idea is to allow him to get the ball - but to reduce the chance of him finding a target further up the ground?

Maybe the perception is that he hurts you by foot, but perhaps the reality is that he does cause turnovers?

I didn't watch the game last night. I followed it on AFL.com as I can't stand watching a replay! So I didn't see any matchups.

I just assumed from reading the match thread last night, the glimpse I saw of the 1st quarter on the TV last night and from the papers this morning that we didn't really try a negating role on him.

SydneySainter · Sat 13 Aug 2011 11:23am

Cutting a forward and bringing in another tall defender was a BAD decision.

Having Blake as the sub was another BAD decision.