Discussion Solutions

Remove this Banner Ad

Mister E said:
P.s I think our team would be a lot better with 3 talls (Riewoldt,Stanley/lynch,Kosi)
Click to expand...

I dont mind that. Riewoldt and Stanley are both fast, and Stanley is very good at ground level and agile for someone his size.

Hard to man up on. Would our defensive pressure in the forward line suffer?

FWIW I wouldn't drop Baker, he was pretty damn good. Drop Ross' mate Dempster.
 
I just thought you played too defensive for too long. The saints had the majority of the play in the 2nd half but weren't able to build a big enough lead, so when a window opened up for the cats they didn't need to kick that many goals to get themselves back into the game.

Still though 1 point, wouldn't of taken much and this thread would of been on the cats board
 
SaintsSeptember said:
I dont mind that. Riewoldt and Stanley are both fast, and Stanley is very good at ground level and agile for someone his size.

Hard to man up on. Would our defensive pressure in the forward line suffer?

FWIW I wouldn't drop Baker, he was pretty damn good. Drop Ross' mate Dempster.
Click to expand...

At least Dempster had 2 inside 50's, I think he can effectively blanket as well as Baker, but has more of an attacking mindset.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

So let me get this straight by a couple of poeple, the solution for them is to replace someone like McQualter who had shizen disposal in shizen areas to produce, well shizen is to move someone like Gilbo, whose disposal is shizen to shit gold and know where the goals are or Geary whose disposal is shizen to run around shizen areas to produce shizen.

Perhaps picking someone who can kick a footy properly more than 50% of the time might be a good place to start for your percieved problems, because in effect replacing a guy who shanks it out ont hefull with a guy who shanks it to the opposition or out on the full and another who loves kicking it along the turf still has the same problems of going from point A to Point B, you'll just get more of it if they're used more, it's a trade off.

The problem was inherently polish and poise, these things come with time. Geelong weren't kept to 1 goal in a half of footy because they were kicking it over thei shoulders and trying to pull soccer moves in a fanciful display of footwork, and it becomes an entirely different story if, and I stress if, our early opportunities wer eless 2.11 and more 9.4, as that then 4 goal haul when the cats clicked would have meant sweet didly as opposed to "oh noes, lead change!" the problem as it always has been, is that we simply do not finish off hard work, it is the same problem every club has, they get enough of it in the right areas and it comes down to whoever misses from 35m on a 45 degree angle or small instances like the simple art of goal kicking.
 
If we had won, I would still be this angry. It has nothing to do with the result in that sense. It has to do with the scoring. I would be happier if we lost 80-105. The gap doesn't bother me so much as the complete incompetence at putting together a decent score. If we're going to be a golf-scoring team (ie, low), then apart from anything, the AFL and Channel 7 won't make the mistake of putting us on Friday night at the MCG again.

Seriously, the club is trying to get to 45,000 members - do you think any potential member saw that disgrace last night and is thinking, "Y'know, I reckon I might sign up..."? It is absolutely critical that we put our best foot forward at the beginning of the year. And a great place to start is to put together our best forward footballers.
 
Persevering Saint said:
If we had won, I would still be this angry. It has nothing to do with the result in that sense. It has to do with the scoring. I would be happier if we lost 80-105. The gap doesn't bother me so much as the complete incompetence at putting together a decent score. If we're going to be a golf-scoring team (ie, low), then apart from anything, the AFL and Channel 7 won't make the mistake of putting us on Friday night at the MCG again.

Seriously, the club is trying to get to 45,000 members - do you think any potential member saw that disgrace last night and is thinking, "Y'know, I reckon I might sign up..."? It is absolutely critical that we put our best foot forward at the beginning of the year. And a great place to start is to put together our best forward footballers.
Click to expand...

Our mids had 10 shots at goal, that's not the St Kilda I remember of last year.

Sure most of them missed, two were questionable umpired and not paid, but the genuine attempts to improve in this area were there.

They will hopefully become more composed and less halted as they grow in confidence, and it would be nice to have them contribute more to the scoreline.

Now if we can get the forward line to have some semblance of structure, and it not consist of one KPP, a backmen, a crumber and a guy who should really only be a third forward not a KPP, we suddenly should look a lot better.
 
LordJimmy said:
Take a step back from the abysmal umpiring (Once again, why is a Geelong supporter allowed to umpire their games? He has single handedly won them a premiership and nearly took several other matches from us in his officiating.) and lethargic options, it's quite clear what's going on:

We have an amazing backline. They are all great. They put in a terrific job. Geelong were held to less than 50 points, chip in the two goals that seem to have disappeared from the final score and we have the four points. In this case, they can't be faulted.

But there are too many of them. We have what, eight now? Baker, Dawson, Gwilt, Fisher, Blake, Gilbert, Clarke... that makes seven, then you argue guys like Gram, McQualter, Ray and Goddard also count. It's a bit crowded. This is at the expense of our forward line.

These guys aren't utilities, they aren't flexible. They're defenders. Gilbert and Blake played forward for most of this match and were quite dull. Once again: THEY ARE DEFENDERS. They can't be changed. It doesn't work.

Save McQualter, who simply needs to go, all of these guys do enough to warrant selection as defenders. They all do great jobs. But for the sake of team balance, a tough call or five has to be made. It's unacceptable that we dawdle around with half our team in a defensive mindset. It doesn't work.

What's the tough call, and who are the options we can bring in up forward that can help? Stanley and Steven are two touted options, but are they fit enough after time away from the club? Lynch has presented, but can he take the field properly? Riewoldt was quintuple-teamed for most of the night, so obviously he needed help and assistance. Gamble and Milne definitely not excused in this case.

Tough calls need to be made, nonetheless. McQualter is the no-brainer, but some of our actual backmen need to be thrown out for the sake of the team. Raph can take a wing, for starters. He was good tonight and is capable of taking himself further up the ground. The questions surround what we bring in up forward and what the cost is.
Click to expand...

****ing great post. someone has come out and said it and i totally agree!!!!! we need better team balance for me we need to start to cull the old and go with the new.

dempster dawson gwilt
clark gilbert fisher

the rest are backups or trade/delist material. blake should be used as a backup ruckman/sub now. i totally agree with you on the grams/mcqualters/goddards. goddard should be in the center and given licence to go where its hot. mcqualter either makes it as an attacking foward or he's gone. gram either makes it on the wing or as a push up forward flanker or he's gone. peake is in the same mold as is ray. ray atleast has the tagging option to his game.

Baker is at retirement. its either dempster or baker, not both.
 
StFly said:
So let me get this straight by a couple of poeple, the solution for them is to replace someone like McQualter who had shizen disposal in shizen areas to produce, well shizen is to move someone like Gilbo, whose disposal is shizen to shit gold and know where the goals are or Geary whose disposal is shizen to run around shizen areas to produce shizen.

Perhaps picking someone who can kick a footy properly more than 50% of the time might be a good place to start for your percieved problems, because in effect replacing a guy who shanks it out ont hefull with a guy who shanks it to the opposition or out on the full and another who loves kicking it along the turf still has the same problems of going from point A to Point B, you'll just get more of it if they're used more, it's a trade off.

The problem was inherently polish and poise, these things come with time. Geelong weren't kept to 1 goal in a half of footy because they were kicking it over thei shoulders and trying to pull soccer moves in a fanciful display of footwork, and it becomes an entirely different story if, and I stress if, our early opportunities wer eless 2.11 and more 9.4, as that then 4 goal haul when the cats clicked would have meant sweet didly as opposed to "oh noes, lead change!" the problem as it always has been, is that we simply do not finish off hard work, it is the same problem every club has, they get enough of it in the right areas and it comes down to whoever misses from 35m on a 45 degree angle or small instances like the simple art of goal kicking.
Click to expand...

Yeah, disposals could be better all round. The problem is, that to attack you need to get the ball. And the players that don't get enough of the ball are the ones I have the biggest issue with.

Having said that, I still like Baker, I thought some of his work, particularly in the first half forced a fair few turnovers.
 
Lyon needs to start getting it right at the selection table. Time to freshen up the team like we all thought was gona happen in 2011!!!! We cant keep playing the same dead wood and having to rely on our guns all the time, he needs to show some faith in the youth and stop handing out games to guys that got him into 09 grand final!!!!

fb. geary dawson baker
hb. clarke fisher gilbert
c. gram goddard montagna
hf. gwilt reiwoldt schneider
ff. milne stanley steven
r. mcevoy dal santo hayes
i. ray cripps armitage WINMAR
 
Is there any danger of RL instructing our forwards to remain somewhere in the fwd half of the ground so that when our great defenders do their job and create a turnover they have some space to run into.

This might just give some guys a chance to take a mark on the lead and make some of our forward entries appear effective.
 
Must say I do get a little frustrated when a player needs to kick under pressure (something that happens more regularly when the forwards push up and create congestion) and sends a long ball to CHF to find no-one is there (or the target is someone under 6 foot with two opponents).
 
I look at Nat Fyfe, and i just think ****. He's tiny as shit, but has been given every opportunity at senior level. And now, after being stuck with throughout the entire 2010 season, the faith is paying off in spades. Why is 4 years in the gym a requirement for selection these days?

If i had my way, I'd be getting Cripps, Crocker and Winmar in asap. All demonstrating the areas which hurt St Kilda the most. Speed and skill. You're not oversaturating the 22 with inexperience. People say, we're gunning for a premiership, we need strong bodies yayayayayyaya. Means jackshit if these 'strong bodies' aren't good AFL footballers. We've compromised skill for strength, and that's come at a huge price.

They need to be stuck with. Throw them in their proper positions, throw Cripps at half back, throw Winmar onto a wing, throw Crocker onto the half forward line. Give them time in the middle, allow them the time to learn the tricks of the trade. Stick with them for 8 - 10 weeks and truly let them show us what they can do. Don't impede their development by throwing them in a completely different position to what they have so far mastered. Plucking them from their natural position in the VFL one week, and throwing them in a forward pocket is going to do jack shit for their development, and prove a total waste of time and space.

Developing kids during a time of winning culture, surrounded by 3 extraordinary on field leaders will pay off hugely years down the track when we're flailing down the bottom 4 and todays heroes are gone.

But you know, this is too farfetched for the coaching panel.

It's frustrating to see the same players trotted out who barely make a scratch of difference over and over again when we are so so so close to finding that winning formula. We have the tools to do it, no question, but they need to look elsewhere.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

CHBench said:
Developing kids during a time of winning culture, surrounded by 3 extraordinary on field leaders will pay off hugely years down the track
Click to expand...

Whilst I'm diggin' it, our situation is not unlike politics. If you want to do something really good for the future, will anyone give you a pat on the back whilst there is some short term pain?

Ledger's injury was untimely, as I'm getting the impression he would have got a gig after the NAB Cup if fit.

Ross has almost committed to playing Cripps.

Wants Stanley and Steven once they show some form and fitness.

Agree Winmar must be played soon. I still worry about his durability after last year, but that's 3 top performances in a row now.

Not so much Crock though. Whilst he kicks it as well as Stewie Dew, he weighs about as much as one of his legs. Could be a ripper though.

Archer will be great value too, but I'd really prefer that we stop kidding ourselves and let the lad play in a role that he is suited to. A 193cm ruckman who doesn't have much of a leap is just stoopid.

But all of this needs to be tempered. AFL game plans are much more complicated than in the VFL where you can chase a kick. Some just aren't ready for the information overload yet (and end up looking a little lost a the elite level).
 
Can only play the kids that deserve it, and from what I'm hearing, it sounds as if Steven and Stanley haven't earnt their spots in the 22 yet, so leave them in the 2's. The kids who come in will be the ones who deserve it. From reading things in the Sandringham board, short term changes should be:

IN: Winmar, Cripps, Archer
OUT: Dempster, Gamble, McQualter

Cripps deserves a chance in the AFL and will get it as soon as he is fit, which it sounds as if he is. Winmar also sounds good, might be a tiny bit raw but if he's fit, you'd think he'd be close. Archer also comes in, purely because neither Stanley or Koschitzke sound ready by the sounds of things. We need somebody to help Riewoldt out up forward. As soon as Stanley shows enough, he'd take Archer's spot.

McQualter got into the side on NAB Cup form, so if he's not backing that up with H&A form he has to go out. Dempster should go as well. Don't mind him, but he's not really the way forward. Gamble goes too. There's still a place for Gamble in the future but he didn't offer enough on Friday to suggest he deserves a place over any other player.

Peake stays. Was quite good when he came on (didn't play much of the game) and I feel that we will need somebody like him to improve to win a flag, so he can stay. Disposal is a major worry so he has or he goes as well, but he deserves to be persisted with after Friday night.

More realistically, Gamble will probably stay and Winmar will probably miss, but Ross would know we need change. If you were looking to implement a more attacking team, by the end of the season, the team will probably look like:

B: Clarke / Dawson / Blake
HB: Gram / Fisher / Cripps
C: Montagna / Goddard / Dal Santo
HF: Gilbert / Riewoldt / Schneider
F: Milne / Stanley / Steven
R: McEvoy / Hayes / Jones
INT: Armitage / Koschitzke / Winmar
SUB: Ledger

First and foremost, with the game moving the way it, Gamble doesn't strike me as versatile enough to keep a spot in the 22. Maybe he can add another bow to his string, but really, I don't know if a team can carry a non-key specialist forward unless they are that good. I say we just go with Gilbert and let him develop into the forward we want him to be. There's no reason to give up on that.

Between McEvoy, Koschitzke, Blake and possibly Stanley, our ruck division should be stable (have no idea on Gardiner so I have to leave him out). Schneider/Milne/Steven are a little short but we have players like Goddard who can rotate through, allowing those guys to play more midfield roles.

A lot of harsh decisions on that team (Baker, Ray, Peake and so on) but on potential, that team seems to have the best attacking options we have.

Not saying we'll end up like that, but if you wanted to attack more, that's what I'd like to see by the end of the year.
 
Would love to see Smith, Cripps and Stanley in the team.

Our gamestyle still works, but we need to adapt to game situations better, be able to attack when neecesary.
 
Apparently Gilbert doesnt want to play forward, and Ross must agree with him to an extent.
FWIW I thought Fish was coming good in the forward line, last year, but can we cover him in the back, given we have a fit Raph this year ( so far, knock on wood ), and Gwilt only seems to be getting better. ( Last year we needed him in the back ).

Otherwise we have , Stanley, Archer, or Cahill ( on the strength of one good VFL practise game ) or Walsh.

If Cripps plays as a back, I dont see what he has to offer as far as short term improvement.
 
SaintsSeptember said:
Apparently Gilbert doesnt want to play forward, and Ross must agree with him to an extent.
FWIW I thought Fish was coming good in the forward line, last year, but can we cover him in the back, given we have a fit Raph this year ( so far, knock on wood ), and Gwilt only seems to be getting better. ( Last year we needed him in the back ).

Otherwise we have , Stanley, Archer, or Cahill ( on the strength of one good VFL practise game ) or Walsh.

If Cripps plays as a back, I dont see what he has to offer as far as short term improvement.
Click to expand...

Well, the team I made has Cripps down back, but that's mainly because I couldn't really find a place to put him.

I don't understand why Gilbert doesn't want to play forward, but does he have a choice? Who else could we possibly play there besides Gamble? Gamble's fine, but that versatility factor is a problem. Unless he can play defence, I can't see him doing much else.
 
thomas_m18 said:
Can only play the kids that deserve it, and from what I'm hearing, it sounds as if Steven and Stanley haven't earnt their spots in the 22 yet, so leave them in the 2's. The kids who come in will be the ones who deserve it. From reading things in the Sandringham board, short term changes should be:

IN: Winmar, Cripps, Archer
OUT: Dempster, Gamble, McQualter

Cripps deserves a chance in the AFL and will get it as soon as he is fit, which it sounds as if he is. Winmar also sounds good, might be a tiny bit raw but if he's fit, you'd think he'd be close. Archer also comes in, purely because neither Stanley or Koschitzke sound ready by the sounds of things. We need somebody to help Riewoldt out up forward. As soon as Stanley shows enough, he'd take Archer's spot.

McQualter got into the side on NAB Cup form, so if he's not backing that up with H&A form he has to go out. Dempster should go as well. Don't mind him, but he's not really the way forward. Gamble goes too. There's still a place for Gamble in the future but he didn't offer enough on Friday to suggest he deserves a place over any other player.

Peake stays. Was quite good when he came on (didn't play much of the game) and I feel that we will need somebody like him to improve to win a flag, so he can stay. Disposal is a major worry so he has or he goes as well, but he deserves to be persisted with after Friday night.

More realistically, Gamble will probably stay and Winmar will probably miss, but Ross would know we need change. If you were looking to implement a more attacking team, by the end of the season, the team will probably look like:

B: Clarke / Dawson / Blake
HB: Gram / Fisher / Cripps
C: Montagna / Goddard / Dal Santo
HF: Gilbert / Riewoldt / Schneider
F: Milne / Stanley / Steven
R: McEvoy / Hayes / Jones
INT: Armitage / Koschitzke / Winmar
SUB: Ledger

First and foremost, with the game moving the way it, Gamble doesn't strike me as versatile enough to keep a spot in the 22. Maybe he can add another bow to his string, but really, I don't know if a team can carry a non-key specialist forward unless they are that good. I say we just go with Gilbert and let him develop into the forward we want him to be. There's no reason to give up on that.

Between McEvoy, Koschitzke, Blake and possibly Stanley, our ruck division should be stable (have no idea on Gardiner so I have to leave him out). Schneider/Milne/Steven are a little short but we have players like Goddard who can rotate through, allowing those guys to play more midfield roles.

A lot of harsh decisions on that team (Baker, Ray, Peake and so on) but on potential, that team seems to have the best attacking options we have.

Not saying we'll end up like that, but if you wanted to attack more, that's what I'd like to see by the end of the year.
Click to expand...

No Gwilt??????????????
 
thomas_m18 said:
Well, the team I made has Cripps down back, but that's mainly because I couldn't really find a place to put him.

I don't understand why Gilbert doesn't want to play forward, but does he have a choice? Who else could we possibly play there besides Gamble? Gamble's fine, but that versatility factor is a problem. Unless he can play defence, I can't see him doing much else.
Click to expand...

Gamble was recruited as a goal scorer but he doesn't offer much in terms of defensive pressure which Lyon rates highly. If he isn't scoring goals then he probably shouldn't be in the team, we'd be better off with Gilbert playing forward or playing a youngster like Stanley, Lynch or Archer as a third tall forward. At least they have some versatility and offer more defensively.

Hopefully Lyon realises that we are too overloaded with defenders and taggers and starts playing a few of our kids that can give us more of an attacking edge. Just a shame Ledger is injured and Steven and Stanley are behind the eight ball due to their suspensions as they would be ideal candidates to come in. If not them then hopefully the likes of Cripps, Winmar, Archer and Lynch will get some opportunities soon.

No need to panic and make wholesale changes but we need to start playing a few of our younger players or we will stagnate.
 
Plugger35 said:
Gamble was recruited as a goal scorer but he doesn't offer much in terms of defensive pressure which Lyon rates highly. If he isn't scoring goals then he probably shouldn't be in the team, we'd be better off with Gilbert playing forward or playing a youngster like Stanley, Lynch or Archer as a third tall forward. At least they have some versatility and offer more defensively.

Hopefully Lyon realises that we are too overloaded with defenders and taggers and starts playing a few of our kids that can give us more of an attacking edge. Just a shame Ledger is injured and Steven and Stanley are behind the eight ball due to their suspensions as they would be ideal candidates to come in. If not them then hopefully the likes of Cripps, Winmar, Archer and Lynch will get some opportunities soon.

No need to panic and make wholesale changes but we need to start playing a few of our younger players or we will stagnate.
Click to expand...

I agree. We have tons of good backs, so instead of putting in the young inexperienced forwars, we just play more backs :confused:
 
Tom12 said:
Would love to see Smith, Cripps and Stanley in the team.

Our gamestyle still works, but we need to adapt to game situations better, be able to attack when neecesary.
Click to expand...

Backline is terrific, we push so hard down back that we create an issue of no space to run out from and our forwards are out of position. Some young speed to break the lines and drop Bakes, McQualter and dempster. Peake the sub. Then get Gram back onto a HB flank and tell him to hit a bloody target instead of bombing the footy to a forward who has the opposition backline dropping in on him like Roo did. I have no problem of him kicking the ball 60+ but with low penetration not 60+ long AND high...
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Discussion Solutions

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top