Preview 2nd Semi Final, 2020: Richmond v St.Kilda - Metricon Stadium, Friday 9th October, 7:50PM AEDT

[SaintsSeptember]

Quicker than Nick maybe. Jake Carlisle has the turning circle of the titanic

Nick is probably still quicker than Jack.

 

[PostmanBish]

was more thinking of Lynch actually, but yeah.

Saints player more likely to be suspended because JRoo rushes his concussion test and fails it ...

 

[pebblesofsand]

Personally, I'm not worried about Riewoldt. He's hardly done a thing all year. If he's the difference between the two teams then we won't deserve to win. However, we really need Doogs to do a job on that angry marshallow Lynch.

Yeah - he's only averaging 2.5 goals a game for the last 9 weeks.

 

[pebblesofsand]

Fully expect the AFL will announce tomorrow the retrospective booking of Heath Shaw and suspend him for "potentially causing injury" that could have ruined Dan Butlers career.

The AFL - what a joke!!!

 

[SaintsSeptember]

We just need Jack Steele to beat Richmond single handedly like he beat GWS. then it doesn't matter what the others do.

 

[Old Man Rooey]

Won’t be surprised to see geary moved back and a mid or forward brought in.

The key defensive post is the tricky one. If Battle doesn’t get up then it will be Robo.

Marsh, Hind, Battle or Robo.

I think Hind is 1 small forward to many and we should go with savage. Leave geary to take on Houli. Marsh to grimes.

Battle to Grimes (if he gets up) is the better match up - has the smarts to play defense and offense. Whichever, stopping their rebound is critical.

 

[austinnn]

I think Battle will come in & replace Carlisle & play on Riewoldt. The other options are Clavarino? or Roberton. I think one of Roberton, Savage or Webster could replace Long. Abbott may come in, so Marshall can still play forward at times. And prefer Hind over Kent , because he is dual sided. And by all report's Battle's foot injury was only minor, could of played against the Doggies, but they took the precautionary path.

Hahaha, imagine bringing in a key backman for his debut AFL match in a semi final against the reigning premiers! The absolute brass balls of the match committee, it would be laughed about for generations - or lauded if we still somehow won.

Personally, though I'd like to see Clavarino get his chance, doing it this week would be like storming the border between risky and reckless in a convoy of golf carts and clown cars.

 

[Max the great]

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 factor. He could shadow Martin. Ratten is the key here; he needs to roll the dice.

I'm on board with that. Feel that his potential x factor gives us more than any of the other options.

 

[LiterallyNobody]

For me this is not about who is suspended but the fact that it’s happened again.

tribunal and mrp hearings never go well for us because we don’t have blue hoops or a yellow sash or anything. We’ve been a doormat for so long - nothing surprises me.

 

[Premium]

Carlisle has never been quick but reads the play as good as anyone , this is why when he is on his game he is one of the best intercept defenders.
Carlisle has always played well against Richmond even though he did get rubbed out knocking Riewoldt out in a game.
However with him being out I don't know who we have to do the job on him.

Howard will surely play on Lynch and the may well put Wilkie on Riewoldt and hopefully Ross will get a tagging job on Martin.
They may put Geary back into defense just to have a bit more experience there now Carlisles not playing.

I would fully expect they bring in Marsh to fill a position , but it's going to be a very tough game.
Ryder , Carlisle , Long and Battle are big holes to fill.

I don't know how well Dunstan is traveling but if he fit he could well come in and let Jones fill Longs spot and let Geary play on one of there halfbacks.

What ever happens everyone will have to play there best to topple the Tigers.

I'm hoping Battle can play.

 

[KingsRansom]

So, I've spent much of the last day flicking through my old maths textbooks and running some simulations through my Casio scientific calculator, and boy, do I have some news for Saints fans.

The Richmond Tigers are a 3-peat team... or should I say, they WERE a 3-peat team. You see, the Tigers have had the list, the ability and the coaching to win 3 flags in a row - but their window was 2017-19. Unfortunately for them, in the 2018 prelim they ran into an unprecedented factor that no simulation engine could possibly have predicted - a Mason "big" Cox actually having a decent game.

Sadly for Tigers fans, this anomaly robbed them of their opportunity of the 3-peat, and a chance to be remembered in the modern era as one of the great teams, with the 2001-03 Lions and the 2013-15 Hawks.

Speaking of the 3-peat Hawks, here we find a spooky, yet pointed comparison. The 2020 Tigers bear a historical resemblance to the 2016 Hawks - the year after the 3-peat (in the Tigers case, the failed 3-peat). And what does history tell us happened to the 2016 Hawks? Knocked out of the Finals in straight sets, after a close QF loss, and then falling in the SF to the EVENTUAL PREMIERS in the Western Bulldogs, famously storming home from 7th to win the flag.

So, where does that leave us now? My contention (and this is strongly backed by my Casio calculator) is that the 2020 Tigers are the equivalent team historically to the 2016 Hawks. They will fall this weekend in the Semi Final to the mighty Saints, who are then destined to storm home from the bottom half of the top 8 to win a drought ending flag, just like the 2016 Bulldogs.

Thank you for your time and consideration reading this pile of drivel, enjoy your day.

TL;DR - The 2020 Tigers are the 2016 Hawks, and the 2020 Saints are the 2016 Bulldogs - see you at the after party.

PS. Please feel free to pass this on to the St Kilda Footy Club, they can consider this my resume for my application for an analyst position.

 

[Diehard Saint]

Howard will surely play on Lynch and the may well put Wilkie on Riewoldt and hopefully Ross will get a tagging job on Martin.
They may put Geary back into defense just to have a bit more experience there now Carlisles not playing.

According to this JR mentions that Wilkie has played “62” very good minutes on Dusty. Try find the article.

 

[Premium]

According to this JR mentions that Wilkie has played “62” very good minutes on Dusty. Try find the thread.

View attachment 978351

Well that will be good then , just hope Battle can play and get the job done on Riewoldt.

 

[Diehard Saint]

Well that will be good then , just hope Battle can play and get the job done on Riewoldt.

All is very quiet on Battle, which is a concern.
When would our main training session be, Wednesday? We’d be leaving Noosa on Thursday.

 

[Premium]

All is very quiet on Battle, which is a concern.
When would our main training session be, Wednesday? We’d be leaving Noosa on Thursday.

The one thing going for us is the team under Ratten is so close knit they surely will come out firing , it certainly is big game experience to all the youngsters in the team.
We come out with the hunger we could cause a upset but everyone will have to be on.

 

[Tigerssaints]

As an addendum, the impact clauses we were arguing are;

View attachment 978175
Bullet point 2, then first sentence after the points and it's why the AFL sh*t me to tears and are weak as piss generally, trying to avoid any concept of being seen to do any wrong. No "we screwed up", no "we can do better" just "it's all their fault".

In their own words as Gleeson put it: in particular, any injury sustained by the player who was offended against".

As the Dogs medico report stated, no injury sustained. Assessment and no action taken.

Secondly the potential to cause injury.

What this means is that after you have done the first bit, and looked to see no issue, you are then to say "can this cause injury?". This is a moot point. Every action in a contact sport, when there is contact undertaken, has the potential to cause injury. This needs to change but wont, because the AFL are inept at writing documents.

You then do the checklist; yep, Long made contact to Macrae above the neck. Move to third consideration;

The "Porpus" effect, where the victim player is impacted by a third player. What is Jones doing in that video? I'll tell you what, getting pushed by Macrae, who is in turn pushing against Macrae, trying to win a footy in a contest.

This is momentum ladies and gentlemen, this is what happens when two forces collide. In 1 second, Macrae has pushed off Jones, this act has put him in the path of Long who at this stage;

Is propped. Not moving forward. No momentum.
View attachment 978186
Ball is: in dispute.

In 1 second, contact is made. Just 1 second from the above frame. See where Longs momentum is, it's right not left, the path of the ball and Macrae.

As he's propped; ball pivots left, Lone steps left
View attachment 978189
What do you not see? Answer: The centre circle. What causes this? Answer: Macraes greater momentum.

Now what happens when two forces meet? I'll tell you what, the greater momentum smacks into a propped wall. Newtowns balls, only one side doesn't move sicne you are grounded.

Now as their feet are close together, technically: Macrae ran into Long. Macrae has ability and kinetic force to spring left as his right foot is planted, what does he do?

Runs into Long who is already in the act of bracing. See his left hand, it is extended as in the space of 1 second the ball went from contested and free to in Macraes possession. As we know, Macrae then meets Long.

This is why Gleeson is a fop. This is why he does not understand momentum. This is why the result is bullshit of the highest order made by idiots who have NFI how momentum works. See how close the square is in comparison to distance traveled by both parties.

The third impact was the victims, in pushing off Jones that set him on this path.

Long did not bump Macrae. Macrae ran into Long who had arrested previous momentum but did not have sufficient momentum, to run into Macrae who had the greater force.

Learn science you dumbarses.

i hope you pass this on to simon L

 

[saint_]

Could potentially have a backline with an average of 43 games. If Long is able to play it would be an average age of 22.. Incredible to think what a marvellous job those youngsters have done. Imagine in a couple of years once they all get near the 100 game mark, watch out!

Even though no one gives a chance and we are up against it, I'd more than love to beat the tiges. Backs against the wall, would be up there with one of our greatest wins ever if we can.

 

[Munga]

Didn't the AFL say that Long's shoulder came up to meet Macrae's head? That's factually a lie. Macrae's head clearly dips a good head-length just prior to contact. Had Macrae not dipped and propped at the last millisecond to change direction, they would've met shoulder to shoulder and we'd all be praising the hardness of the contest. The hypocrisy and double standards in the league is infuriating...

 

[wolfpac13]

My team if Battle is fit and Long's appeal doesn't go well.

I know people aren't a fan of Marsh in the backline but I think he could be perfect for Riewoldt. I love the idea of Battle playing a full game forward. I feel like we need to put all our eggs into winning, as opposed to not letting Richmond win.

Not sure who comes in for Long but Geary could go back this week. Savage IN for mine but not sure he plays.

FB	B. Paton	D. Howard	N. Coffield
HB	C. Wilkie	J. Marsh	J. Geary
C	B. Hill	H. Clarke	D. Hanneberry
HF	J. Billings	T. Membrey	J. Battle
FF	J. Lonie	M. King	D. Butler
R	R. Marshall	J. Steele	Z. Jones

Interchange

J. Sinclair

S. Ross D. Kent

S. Savage

OUT:
Carlisle
Ryder
Long

IN:
Battle
Marsh
Savage

 

[Premium]

Poor long can't take a trick , he doesn't go out to purposely knock people out.
The thing about the report the guy was not concussed and played out the game.
Long was also the one that gave McCartin his last concussion.

 

[phantom13]

On the one hand I’m glad we’re challenging this, in the same way I’m glad we didn’t just accept playing in Adelaide etc. it sets a standard, we deserve respect.

On the other hand the mrp, appeals etc. is an absolute crapshoot and I’m pretty sure this is a waste of money and time.

 

[austinnn]

Listen to Wheatley and his slobbering mutt on AFL 360 regarding the Long trial - and it is a trial. It's indicative of the approach of the industry on Ben Long.

Wheatley: This belongs in another era.

Classic populist reactive gestures Australian authorities & media voices have made their trademark over the last few years. Ignore the details, what message do we want to send?

Of course it's forgivable for mere opinionmongers like Wheatley & Co. to virtue signal (a despicable term but appropriate here), but nothing short of a miscarriage of justice when someone's fate rests in the hands of an establishment that doesn't concern itself with the particular facts of each case and instead uses broad strokes to "put an end to this sort of thing"

You may ask yourself "Why now? Why do the AFL decide to make this gesture with Long and not other similar incidents?" Why indeed. Maybe it's just they finally decided to act and once again we're in the wrong place at the wrong time. I believe that more than in some conspiracy against our club, but I will say I suspect if we were a more influential club they wouldn't have dared. More than anything, THIS is why we must appeal. Not for Long this time, but for him and Saints players in the future caught in similar circumstances. It's time for Simon Lethlean & the club to stand up and say "St Kilda won't take this anymore". We fight.

Long won't get off this time. We can appeal all we like, cite precedent until the cows come home, but he's just another bad guy for the AFL to slap who plays for a club that realistically has to take what we get.

We'll survive. Ben Long's absence won't stop us from beating Richmond, just as his presence wouldn't have ensured it. I would roll the dice on Jimmy Webster replacing him and playing exactly the same way! I will back Ratten to plan for the Tigers immaculately, and St Kilda's season is on the line again for the third week in a row. Our backs are to the wall with 3 key personnel out, and extremely lacking in experience compared to our competitors but if we enter in the same spirit we entered the EF, we are a strong chance.

Go Saints!

 

[Munga]

We're going to have some fun watching every contest in every match for "potential to do damage"...

Wallis nearly pulling out Wilkie's shoulder and driving his head into the turf, let's start there

 

[Premium]

Listen to Wheatley and his slobbering mutt on AFL 360 regarding the Long trial - and it is a trial. It's indicative of the approach of the industry on Ben Long.

Wheatley: This belongs in another era.

Classic populist reactive gestures Australian authorities & media voices have made their trademark over the last few years. Ignore the details, what message do we want to send?

Of course it's forgivable for mere opinionmongers like Wheatley & Co. to virtue signal (a despicable term but appropriate here), but nothing short of a miscarriage of justice when someone's fate rests in the hands of an establishment that doesn't concern itself with the particular facts of each case and instead uses broad strokes to "put an end to this sort of thing"

You may ask yourself "Why now? Why do the AFL decide to make this gesture with Long and not other similar incidents?" Why indeed. Maybe it's just they finally decided to act and once again we're in the wrong place at the wrong time. I believe that more than in some conspiracy against our club, but I will say I suspect if we were a more influential club they wouldn't have dared. More than anything, THIS is why we must appeal. Not for Long this time, but for him and Saints players in the future caught in similar circumstances. It's time for Simon Lethlean & the club to stand up and say "St Kilda won't take this anymore". We fight.

Long won't get off this time. We can appeal all we like, cite precedent until the cows come home, but he's just another bad guy for the AFL to slap who plays for a club that realistically has to take what we get.

We'll survive. Ben Long's absence won't stop us from beating Richmond, just as his presence wouldn't have ensured it. I would roll the dice on Jimmy Webster replacing him and playing exactly the same way! I will back Ratten to plan for the Tigers immaculately, and St Kilda's season is on the line again for the third week in a row. Our backs are to the wall with 3 key personnel out, and extremely lacking in experience compared to our competitors but if we enter in the same spirit we entered the EF, we are a strong chance.

Go Saints!

Paton - Howard - Wilkie
Coffield - Battle - Sinclair
Hill - Steele - Hannerbery
Butler - Membery - Billings
Lonie - King - Kent

Marshall - Steele - Jones

Geary - Marsh - XXXX - Ross

Dunstan , Phillips , Hind , Savage , Bytel

This will give them a run for there money

 

[Premium]

Listen to Wheatley and his slobbering mutt on AFL 360 regarding the Long trial - and it is a trial. It's indicative of the approach of the industry on Ben Long.

Wheatley: This belongs in another era.

Classic populist reactive gestures Australian authorities & media voices have made their trademark over the last few years. Ignore the details, what message do we want to send?

Of course it's forgivable for mere opinionmongers like Wheatley & Co. to virtue signal (a despicable term but appropriate here), but nothing short of a miscarriage of justice when someone's fate rests in the hands of an establishment that doesn't concern itself with the particular facts of each case and instead uses broad strokes to "put an end to this sort of thing"

You may ask yourself "Why now? Why do the AFL decide to make this gesture with Long and not other similar incidents?" Why indeed. Maybe it's just they finally decided to act and once again we're in the wrong place at the wrong time. I believe that more than in some conspiracy against our club, but I will say I suspect if we were a more influential club they wouldn't have dared. More than anything, THIS is why we must appeal. Not for Long this time, but for him and Saints players in the future caught in similar circumstances. It's time for Simon Lethlean & the club to stand up and say "St Kilda won't take this anymore". We fight.

Long won't get off this time. We can appeal all we like, cite precedent until the cows come home, but he's just another bad guy for the AFL to slap who plays for a club that realistically has to take what we get.

We'll survive. Ben Long's absence won't stop us from beating Richmond, just as his presence wouldn't have ensured it. I would roll the dice on Jimmy Webster replacing him and playing exactly the same way! I will back Ratten to plan for the Tigers immaculately, and St Kilda's season is on the line again for the third week in a row. Our backs are to the wall with 3 key personnel out, and extremely lacking in experience compared to our competitors but if we enter in the same spirit we entered the EF, we are a strong chance.

Go Saints!

With all the media condemning Long he hasn't got a chance.