Seeing we didn't get a 50 for the blatant Cotchin incident on Jones and seeing we missed the shot I reckon it would have been worth risking a reversal by starting an all in brawl as a statement that we weren't going to cop it. Could have changed the game. It's a final, you take risks.
We had a turnaround year and could have gone further if we hadn't had such bad luck in the last 7 days. Put Ryder, Carlisle and Long in last night's side and we win. And put Gresham in we win easily. Add to that the shocking decisions re the Arc, the unpaid 50s and the generally dirty tactics of...
Not long until game time. I just want to say that I have followed the Saints since Alan Jeans first year as coach in 1961. Seen it all. 65 disappointment, 66 Triumph, 71 bad luck, 97 unbelievably overrun, 2009 the year it was ours and 2010 the unlucky bounce. This current group excites me beyond...
Marshall rucked alone in Rd 4 and was actually beaten by Nankervis. But we still won the game by 26. So the ruck is not so important here. We won that game with speed and that's what we will need to do again.
Not really that much of a "downgrade". Firstly, Savage for Long is pretty much 50/50. Ryder would normally be a huge loss but this game won't be won or lost in the ruck and Marsh will add some speed. Battle will cover Carlisle's loss. It's a horses for courses selection.
I think it's almost certain that's who will come in. Not a bad replacement lot either. This game wasn't made for someone like Paddy (didn't play in our Rd 4 win against Richmond) so the only real loss has been Carlisle. Battle can cover that.
We need to move on from that. Long can be replaced and I reckon Ratts has that under control. This game is ours!
Let's move on from that. I'm sure Ratts has. We will win this - No Richmond Bogan Is Going To Hold It Over Us!
Here it is. Why load up with talls in a night game @ Metricon?
Tigers think big to stretch Saints to breaking point - https://www.afl.com.au/news/515105
Richmond looks like going tall to take advantage of the fact we won't have Ryder and Carlisle. Good, that suits us. This game will be won or lost by fast smalls not lumbering ruckmen.
To be expected. Doesn't matter; it just gives Ratts an opportunity to be even more inventive in who he plays and how he goes about bringing Richmond down. And it galvanises the team. Them against us. Backs to the wall. Give 'em hell Saints!
Savage for Long is a no brainer. Roberton for Carlisle is a massive risk. Will he stand up after so much missed time? Then again, the alternatives are Marsh (not known as a defender) or a debutant like Claravino, who is a Carlisle lookalike but untried and unknown. Yep, let's hope Battle gets...
Regardless of whether Long and Battle play, we can do this. Paddy didn't play in our Rd 4 win over Richmond - he was a late "withdrawal" replaced by a small fast forward (Kent) because that's how Ratts saw us beating them, with speed not height. Marshall can ruck alone so I expect Ratts to bring...
If we can get Long off then fine, he plays. If not, no big deal. He is replaceable. Ryder and Carlisle are more difficult to replace. Obviously Battle goes in if fit. If not then Marsh. For the the other two I think Hind is a must for his sheer speed. And then - wait for it - Parker for the X...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.