Autopsy Crows hammer Saints by 63 in round 1

[The Punter]

I never said Arie was bad or one of our worst - I thought he was solid

His kicking was good but it seems like from training and match play he either takes on too much or is too conservative - with the latter on show yesterday. Can be improved of course

But I still think there are glaring deficiencies in his game, in particular intercept marking and overhead marking. Hope he develops this in the 2s because once he does, he's best 22

The too ambitious/conservative thing comes with comfort. So I'm not worried about that.

It's just the combination of his deficiencies. He's slow and not good overhead. There are plenty of 194cm AFL quality defenders, but they are nearly always at least not slow or not poor overhead. The overhead thing may come, but I can't see him suddenly getting some toe.

 

[phantom13]

I doubt it, ask some neutral supporters if they think Sharman, Henry, Owens & Phillipou would bump out four players from their forward line… you won't like their responses.

Henry and Owens would be for most (Owens certainly 2 years ago maybe not last year).

 

[Coconut_twirl]

Yep, every season it’s more pain with out a return on investment. Extending Lyon looks insane right now.

We could extend him further. I hear Ross is free in 2028.

 

[Waiting for Godot]

You think he’s autistic?

I’m starting to wonder. He could be on the high functioning end of the spectrum.

 

[Coconut_twirl]

Pick up Ed Richard’s and trade Steele maybe?

I think we have missed the boat on trading Steel. Unlikely to get a first rounder.

 

[PJays]

There's been a few mentions in this thread about the age and experience of St Kilda vs Adelaide yesterday

Here are the facts

• On overall averages it's almost identical- Adelaide's team was, on average, 39 days younger and had played 3 less games

• Both teams roughly around the AFL average if you look across 18 teams over the weekend

• The distribution is entirely different and this is where the confusion and debate comes in

• Saints had more youth- 9 players aged 22 or under compared to 6 for the Crows

• Saints had more fresh faces- 7 players with under 25 games experience (including 6 with under 10 games), compared to 2 for the Crows

• Saints also had more old guys - 6 aged 30+ compared to 2 for the Crows

So essentially

• St Kilda has a lot of old guys and a lot of young guys. More than the AFL average in both groups. Although injuries contribute to this- Henry, King, Dow, Sharman aged 23- 25. Butler and Howard currently 28, turning 29 soon.
• Adelaide has a more typical age distribution.

 

[Sully111]

No attempt to use his kicking to our advantage, didn’t take kick outs didn’t try to put him into space. I thought he played a decent game and needs to be persevered with and allowed to use his booming boot. Imo we had plenty who were a lot worse than Arie, including some who got the ball and butchered it time after time.

Agreed

I hope we stick with Arie in the 1's

 

[kernelT]

There's been a few mentions in this thread about the age and experience of St Kilda vs Adelaide yesterday

Here are the facts

• On overall averages it's almost identical- Adelaide's team was, on average, 39 days younger and had played 3 less games

• Both teams roughly around the AFL average if you look across 18 teams over the weekend

• The distribution is entirely different and this is where the confusion and debate comes in

• Saints had more youth- 9 players aged 22 or under compared to 6 for the Crows

• Saints had more fresh faces- 7 players with under 25 games experience (including 6 with under 10 games), compared to 2 for the Crows

• Saints also had more old guys - 6 aged 30+ compared to 2 for the Crows

So essentially

• St Kilda has a lot of old guys and a lot of young guys. More than the AFL average in both groups. Although injuries contribute to this- Henry, King, Dow, Sharman aged 23- 25. Butler and Howard currently 28, turning 29 soon.
• Adelaide has a more typical age distribution.

Agree on the main but we do only have 3 x 30 year olds and 3 x 31 year olds… so I probably wouldn't call that lots of old guys.

 

[stavro#4]

 

[Yawkey way]

I actually do, I know if my sons were budding AFL footballers St Kilda would be the last club I'd want them at. Why should we pass our life inflictions onto our children.

The odds are they will spend their entire career in a state of flux, without ever seriously contending. They won't have the off field and after playing opportunities many other clubs present.

Plus there are very strong odds they will never be known as a premiership player. But hey they played for St Kilda....Battle & Membrey made exactly the right move.

I lived out my childhood dreams playing in multiple GF winning sides, first and foremost that's what you play for.

We need to be up and about as a club selling moorabbin and being successful on the ground. We really can’t survive another decade in the bottom third. The clubs doing everything they can but the deck is stacked against us.

 

[akaifu]

There's been a few mentions in this thread about the age and experience of St Kilda vs Adelaide yesterday

Here are the facts

• On overall averages it's almost identical- Adelaide's team was, on average, 39 days younger and had played 3 less games

• Both teams roughly around the AFL average if you look across 18 teams over the weekend

• The distribution is entirely different and this is where the confusion and debate comes in

• Saints had more youth- 9 players aged 22 or under compared to 6 for the Crows

• Saints had more fresh faces- 7 players with under 25 games experience (including 6 with under 10 games), compared to 2 for the Crows

• Saints also had more old guys - 6 aged 30+ compared to 2 for the Crows

So essentially

• St Kilda has a lot of old guys and a lot of young guys. More than the AFL average in both groups. Although injuries contribute to this- Henry, King, Dow, Sharman aged 23- 25. Butler and Howard currently 28, turning 29 soon.
• Adelaide has a more typical age distribution.

That's the key point

 

[Pakenhamsaint]

 

[beside the seaside]

There's been a few mentions in this thread about the age and experience of St Kilda vs Adelaide yesterday

Here are the facts

• On overall averages it's almost identical- Adelaide's team was, on average, 39 days younger and had played 3 less games

• Both teams roughly around the AFL average if you look across 18 teams over the weekend

• The distribution is entirely different and this is where the confusion and debate comes in

• Saints had more youth- 9 players aged 22 or under compared to 6 for the Crows

• Saints had more fresh faces- 7 players with under 25 games experience (including 6 with under 10 games), compared to 2 for the Crows

• Saints also had more old guys - 6 aged 30+ compared to 2 for the Crows

So essentially

• St Kilda has a lot of old guys and a lot of young guys. More than the AFL average in both groups. Although injuries contribute to this- Henry, King, Dow, Sharman aged 23- 25. Butler and Howard currently 28, turning 29 soon.
• Adelaide has a more typical age distribution.

Reality is we never win there. We have about seven first team guys out and they are injury free. There's pretty clear reasons why we lost but if that form becomes a trend then it could be a long season as every team will fancy themselves against us.

The worrying thing for me is there's no quick fix for the midfield or the backline, so those players are just going to have to play better.

 

[Rogue Warrior]

There's been a few mentions in this thread about the age and experience of St Kilda vs Adelaide yesterday

Here are the facts

• On overall averages it's almost identical- Adelaide's team was, on average, 39 days younger and had played 3 less games

• Both teams roughly around the AFL average if you look across 18 teams over the weekend

• The distribution is entirely different and this is where the confusion and debate comes in

• Saints had more youth- 9 players aged 22 or under compared to 6 for the Crows

• Saints had more fresh faces- 7 players with under 25 games experience (including 6 with under 10 games), compared to 2 for the Crows

• Saints also had more old guys - 6 aged 30+ compared to 2 for the Crows

So essentially

• St Kilda has a lot of old guys and a lot of young guys. More than the AFL average in both groups. Although injuries contribute to this- Henry, King, Dow, Sharman aged 23- 25. Butler and Howard currently 28, turning 29 soon.
• Adelaide has a more typical age distribution.

Finally some sense

 

[Rogue Warrior]

Seriously dumb take and I’ll tell you why. The list between then and now is chalk and cheese in terms of age profile. Lyon could have easily kept topping up and kept our side between 10th and 6 for another 4 years, but given us no chance it getting beyond that. We’ve taken a risk and turned over the list to go younger and committed to the draft. Making the side younger and removing depth is naturally going to have it challenges and there are no guarantees of success off the back of it. I’d rather we try and build something than just accept our place in the middle of the ladder and tred water until we go off the cliff and then we’d be really f*ked.

 

[Teflon]

That's because of averages. We have Hill, Wood, Macrae, Steele, Webster, etc.

Our forward and back lines were very inexperienced, and we have more guys who are finding their feet at the level.

If this was represented on a scatter plot, ours would show a few players with lots of experience and several others with literally none. In contrast, Adelaide's list is consistently young, but most are now in a good age bracket where conststency starts. They're also becoming less reliant on older players like Tex.

We looked like a scatter graph at times it must be said ..

 

[botts]

I think if anyone know where the club was at under ratts and what has been said, this is exactly why we go Ross back. It’s a full rebuild but the club knows we can’t say it publicly

 

[ScrappyDo]

Our three debutants were 22, 22 and 27. Hall was good, the others I could take or leave. It's not like it was three teenagers we were running out there.

We had more 100 game players yesterday than they did (11 to 9).

So the 3 debutantes at 22, 22 and 27.
The 19yo with 10 games (most as sub)
The 19yo with 6 games (most as sub)
And the 20yo with 5 games (most as sub)

 

[Dr Spaceman]

Seriously dumb take …..

Damian Barrett & Seriously Dumb Take in the same room

 

[Geezington]

Not to worried tbh if we had the 7

 

[Teflon]

Is there a weaker analysis team in the media ?
I mean “Lordo” is just fingernail deep. - wouldn’t know the names of our youth if you asked complete nuff nuff muppett
Barrett’s a bottom feeder nuff said
I turned 9 off this year - not worth watching theyre a rugby channel

 

[Teflon]

Seriously dumb take and I’ll tell you why. The list between then and now is chalk and cheese in terms of age profile. Lyon could have easily kept topping up and kept our side between 10th and 6 for another 4 years, but given us no chance it getting beyond that. We’ve taken a risk and turned over the list to go younger and committed to the draft. Making the side younger and removing depth is naturally going to have it challenges and there are no guarantees of success off the back of it. I’d rather we try and build something than just accept our place in the middle of the ladder and tred water until we go off the cliff and then we’d be really f*ked.

100%

 

[stavro#4]

Our three debutants were 22, 22 and 27. Hall was good, the others I could take or leave. It's not like it was three teenagers we were running out there.

We had more 100 game players yesterday than they did (11 to 9).

I posted the below yesterday.

Your argument is “we are only 2 months younger” and then simultaneously refuse to break down what you’re actually looking at.

We are 2 months younger whilst literally playing every available bit of experience to us.

Boyd inflates the age of the side and yet is also a debutant.

Hall & Irish - 0 games before today (both 23 this year)
Arie 4
Hastie 5
Hugo 9
(All will be 20 this year)

Adelaide.
Draper - 0
Curtain - 9

Worral - 31 (25 next month)
Keane - 31 (25)
Pearling - 45 (25 August)
(Atleast one 1/2 full season of games into them)

Irrelevant where they finished. They recruited hard and went after players already in the system.

We cut further into our list - Membrey would have been handy today for example.

 

[Pakenhamsaint]

I think if anyone know where the club was at under ratts and what has been said, this is exactly why we go Ross back. It’s a full rebuild but the club knows we can’t say it publicly

Problem is people have seen through the bullshit the club is doing to hide it.

After 14 years of piss foor football people are rightly fed up with rebuilding.

Finals as far as I'm concerned are a non negotiable.

 

[_Maximus_12]

Problem is people have seen through the bullshit the club is doing to hide it.

After 14 years of piss foor football people are rightly fed up with rebuilding.

Finals as far as I'm concerned are a non negotiable.

No mate, the problem is supporters like you think there’s a magic wand that can undo the mistakes of Richo, Watters, and Ratten.

You want to win a flag, or you want to do what we’ve done and be a middling mediocre side for the next decade?

Eat the ****ing lemon and shut up. It’s a narrow minded rhetoric to demand success now without considering all of the factors at play.

If it takes us an extra three years of being shit to then bounce and stay up not a single person on here will complain.