Roast St Kilda in no mans land

[Freomaniac]

It's ancient history.

Your cult mindset towards Ross Lyon is bizarre.

I am not a saints fan by any stretch. But yes I do have some bias towards Ross Lyon if you know me and read my posts.

Yeah I have said he got the dockers finals from 2012 to 2015.

That's 4 years in a row of finals. Yeah Freo fell short. He gave freo 2, possibly 3 legit shots at the flag.

This is big footy. I am entitled to my view. You are entitled to yours.

I am here to give my honest view on the saints.

Most non saints fans have verbally bashed the saints side on here.

Have I verbally bashed some saints players on other threads? Yes I have because I think they have underperforming.

Now on thread.... The saints squad overall isn't great but it isn't totally terrible either.

This saints side isn't as good as the top 4 sides. But they are a level or 2 above the teams that finished bottom 4 this season.

Yes they lost a lot of games. A few close games too, so they haven't been belted by 90 points each week.

I think the saints have some decent players. Some can be actual difference makers.

But like most mid table sides, saints have a solid best 23 but they do have 3 or 4 or 5 sub standard players with their best 23.

Crazy to say this.... Saints could of made finals in 2024 have some close games fell their way.


This time last season, people sank the boots on Geelong finishing 12th with 10 wins, 12 losses and a draw. The cats lost a few close games last season too. I personally didn't think Geelong was that terrible.

Last season there wasnt a big gap between 5th placed Carlton and 14th place Freo.

This season.... There wasn't a massive gap between 5th placed Brisbane that won the flag and 14th placed demons with 11 wins and 12 losses.

Guess where the cats finished this season in 2024? They got a finals spot. Actually, they finished top 4.

 

[phantom13]

I don't think you can really make an argument that King isn't injury-prone. He's played 83 games out of around 130 since he was drafted. He had an okay run from 2020-2022 but he's missed an entire year with an ACL and half of the past 2 seasons. He's a 24 year old running around with a reconstructed knee and shoulder.

Thats a touch harsh.

His ACL was before he came into the AFL system so in reality its 83 out of 108 or whatever (a knee in his under 18s year isnt uncommon and shouldnt really be held against him) and thats IF we think a KPF is playing much in his first year which historically is not the case.

Theres certainly a question mark about his durability (noting hes been playing as a one out key forward whilst being 19, 20, 21, 22 years old) but injury prone is a touch overstated IMO.

 

[Freomaniac]

Don't think that U can blind me with nonsense.

You think % counts yes?

On % the Saints still finished 11th

Stop lying please.

What Am I lying about?

Demons did finish 14th in 2024 with 11 wins and 12 losses.

Cats didnt play finals last season. Finished 12th with 10 wins , 12 losses and a draw. They lost a few close games last season. Had the cats won 2 more games in 2023, they would of got a finals spot. Had they won one more, then they would of got a home final.

Percentage can count to a degree. But if you end up going undefeated in a 22-0 or 23-0 or even a 24-0 record or And Xtreme will know what I am talking about here, Go 172-0 like Bill Goldberg did in WCW from September 22nd 1997 until December 26th 1998, then Percentage doesnt count.

I mean go watch the 2024 AFL grand final, Did Percentage counted in the end? Nope, Just take the win and move on.

 

[Freomaniac]

Thats a touch harsh.

His ACL was before he came into the AFL system so in reality its 83 out of 108 or whatever (a knee in his under 18s year isnt uncommon and shouldnt really be held against him) and thats IF we think a KPF is playing much in his first year which historically is not the case.

Theres certainly a question mark about his durability (noting hes been playing as a one out key forward whilst being 19, 20, 21, 22 years old) but injury prone is a touch overstated IMO.

Max King can be a decent KPF. He has talent no doubt.

I agree on your view his injuries are a worry.

 

[bergholt]

Thats a touch harsh.

His ACL was before he came into the AFL system so in reality its 83 out of 108 or whatever (a knee in his under 18s year isnt uncommon and shouldnt really be held against him) and thats IF we think a KPF is playing much in his first year which historically is not the case.

Theres certainly a question mark about his durability (noting hes been playing as a one out key forward whilst being 19, 20, 21, 22 years old) but injury prone is a touch overstated IMO.

Yeah he's not too bad tbh.

2020 missed 1 game with injury
2021 missed 2
2022 none
2023 missed 13
2024 missed 10 (and 1 suspended)

First three years playing senior footy he played 58 out of 61, 95% of games. Last two years 50% of games so hopefully not a predictor of what's to come, if they are then we're rooted, but I don't really see any reason to believe that at this point.

 

[bergholt]

6 additional years for a less than 2 goal a game, injury prone, 50% set shot accuracy forward

I agree there are question marks but approaching 2 goals a game is fine for his age and stage.

Roughead had 1.90 at Max's age, ended up with 2.04.

Hawkins had 1.67 at Max's age, ended up with 2.22.

Joey Daniher had 1.86 at Max's age, ended up with 1.94.

I'm sure there are many more I could find if I could be bothered but I reckon every key forward starts out relatively slow and improves later in their career. Worth noting also that Roughy and Hawkins were both playing in sides that were winning flags.

Max is currently sitting at 1.92 goals a game, ahead of all three of them, despite playing in a mediocre team for his whole career so far. Yes, he's been the main guy, so we'd expect a bump, but I still think he holds up fine on stats.

There are reasons to be concerned about Max but not his goals per game average.

 

[Xtreme]

What Am I lying about?

Demons did finish 14th in 2024 with 11 wins and 12 losses.

Cats didnt play finals last season. Finished 12th with 10 wins , 12 losses and a draw. They lost a few close games last season. Had the cats won 2 more games in 2023, they would of got a finals spot. Had they won one more, then they would of got a home final.

Percentage can count to a degree. But if you end up going undefeated in a 22-0 or 23-0 or even a 24-0 record or And Xtreme will know what I am talking about here, Go 172-0 like Bill Goldberg did in WCW from September 22nd 1997 until December 26th 1998, then Percentage doesnt count.

I mean go watch the 2024 AFL grand final, Did Percentage counted in the end? Nope, Just take the win and move on.

I know hat Freomaniac means!

 

[Freomaniac]

I know what Freomaniac means!

Of course you do lol

Well theres 82 games in a regualr season in the NBA. Going 172-0 in the NBA could mean back to back NBA titles.

If the AFL went back to a 22 game season. Going undefeated means going 25-0.

Going 175-0 in the AFL means winning 9 flags in a row. Not gonna happen in the AFL that a team can go to a 172-0 Goldberg streak in WCW.

I assume you have no Issues with the hawks going 172-0?

 

[phantom13]

Well this thread seems to be going fantastically

 

[Tasmanian saint]

I know the Billings family, so I likely had a different perspective on him - but I was quite shocked that he was a top 5 Draft pick.

I just never saw it.

If Melbourne didn’t trade pick 2 in that draft apparently they were drafting billings at 2 ,and everything I seen leading up to that draft had him a guaranteed top 5 pick we didn’t reach for him , if anything it was poor development and coaching and wanting to turn him into a midfielder when wasn’t one

 

[PJays]

I don't think you can really make an argument that King isn't injury-prone. He's played 83 games out of around 130 since he was drafted.

From memory
2018 ACL (draft year)
2019 Played 5 games VFL returning from ACL then ankle injury, missed months
2020-2022 mostly healthy
2023-2024- A string of injuries, played 23 games out of 47. And that includes the game he was injured 20 seconds in vs Melbourne. And the game he got injured during Q3 vs GWS. And maybe another? So 20 or 21 completed games from 47.

Not only has he been injured almost half the time over the last 7 years, but he's a 200cm beanpole, who naturally will be more injury prone

It's a huge risk.

Clearly though, when healthy, he's shown potential for becoming an absolute superstar.

Let's hope that happens consistently.

 

[phantom13]

From memory
2018 ACL (draft year)
2019 Played 5 games VFL returning from ACL then ankle injury, missed months
2020-2022 mostly healthy
2023-2024- A string of injuries, played 23 games out of 47. And that includes the game he was injured 20 seconds in vs Melbourne. And the game he got injured during Q3 vs GWS. And maybe another? So 20 or 21 completed games from 47.

Not only has he been injured almost half the time over the last 7 years, but he's a 200cm beanpole, who naturally will be more injury prone

It's a huge risk.

Clearly though, when healthy, he's shown potential for becoming an absolute superstar.

Let's hope that happens consistently.

How you present the data is really going to either support or oppose your position.

To me anything pre 2020 is pretty irrelevant, hes a developing KPP, most of whom are injured or play very little in their development years anyway so the data becomes 2020 onwards which is 83 our of 108 (ish) most of which have come in 23/24.

If you look at his AFL games log

2020 - 18 (of 19 COVID season plus finals)
2021 - 20 (of 22)
2022 - 22 (of 22)
2023 - 11 (of 24 finals)
2024 - 12 (of 23)

So since making his debut hes played 83 of 110 (bearing in mind hes had a few suspensions as well).

Im certainly not gonna argue hes insanely robust but for a young, still now developing key forward it just doesnt scream risk to me. I probably would have preferred we saw how he goes in 25 with a full run at pre season but i also think there is a games clause in the contract so if he proves to be injury riddled then its not that big a deal anyway.

 

[PJays]

How you present the data is really going to either support or oppose your position.

To me anything pre 2020 is pretty irrelevant, hes a developing KPP, most of whom are injured or play very little in their development years anyway

Why would it be irrelevant? How could his personal injury history not be relevant to his longevity and sustainability?

Plenty of players go through their careers with barely an injury. Others, due to body type or body mechanics or genetics or playing style, are regularly injured. (Or sometimes it's just sheer bad luck). Sometimes injuries beget injuries, as you keep having time off your body doesn't get the chance to strengthen itself and get used to consistent professional footy.

The fact Max had multiple injuries in his late teens doesn't mean he's pre-destined to be consistently injured or that there's anything wrong with him, but it certainly elevates those kinds of risks in my mind.

so the data becomes 2020 onwards which is 83 our of 108 (ish) most of which have come in 23/24.

Which is totally arbitrary....

If you look at his AFL games log

2023 - 11 (of 24 finals)
2024 - 12 (of 23)

But again how many of those 11 and 12 did he actually finish?

I can remember 2 games he went off early, and I suspect there may have been more?

Im certainly not gonna argue hes insanely robust but for a young, still now developing key forward it just doesnt scream risk to me.

A 200cm skinny, gangly body type that seemingly struggles to add muscle definitely is risky to me.

Maybe he'll be fine- plenty of players struggle with injury then come good. Joe Daniher a good example and a similar type to Max.

But I reckon you're kidding yourself if you think this 8 year deal isn't a risky proposition (relatively speaking, compared to other players who have missed less games previously or with different body types)

but i also think there is a games clause in the contract so if he proves to be injury riddled then its not that big a deal anyway.

Where did you read that? Is there is trigger for the last few years of the contract?

 

[aussierulesrules]

To be fair, I don't think he was suggesting that you want to score 100 points for a laugh - I think he was saying you need to score 100 points to win these days.

My view, is that now more than ever, you need to be capable of kicking 100 points on a given day against good opposition - but you also need to be capable of containing a good opposition to under 70 points (give or take) on a given day.

The modern game in 2024/25 seems to dictate what is required on a case by case basis.

The high scoring teams got found out. The overly defensive teams also got found out.

You really need to be good at either depending on the day.


To be honest, I think St Kilda are pretty close to getting this right. I don't think the question marks around their game plan are still valid. I think the second half of the season answered them. They want to score, they want to move the ball fast. They want to defend. They want to slow down the opposition. They demonstrated that they can.

The game plan is correct.

At the moment though, there are just others that are better at it than them.

I think the thing that separates us (who were top 6 for all bar one week of the 2023 H&A season, and then top 6 on the form ladder from R12 onwards this year) from the very best teams is our midfield.

As someone just posted a few days ago, despite being ranked so high in many metrics in the last several rounds, we were still bottom 2 for clearances and inside 50’s.

So I think our game plan (especially late in the year) is extremely solid and effective, but our midfield just isn’t up to snuff at the moment.

Phillipou for one could make a big difference there next year, if his form once he returned late in the year is anything to go by. That 10 coaches vote game against Sydney and their midfield was extremely eye-opening.

Macrae if he comes could also help a lot, in the short term at least.

 

[Freomaniac]

Well this thread seems to be going fantastically

Well you have seen my posts on this thread. I havent been bashing your saints on here.

I am just being honest.

Saints are not a bottom 4 club, they are not a top 4 club either. People have sank the boots on the Saints when they lose, even if the losing margin isnt big.

I can throw the saints into a group of 8 to 10 sides.

People forget saints made finals last season. They got 13 wins, 10 losses and a finals spot.

In 2024, Saints got 12th with 11 wins and 12 losses.

There isnt a massive gap or difference between the Saints 2023 side that made finals and the saints in 2024 that got 12th.

 

[Freomaniac]

I think the thing that separates us (who were top 6 for all bar one week of the 2023 H&A season, and then top 6 on the form ladder from R12 onwards this year) from the very best teams is our midfield.

As someone just posted a few days ago, despite being ranked so high in many metrics in the last several rounds, we were still bottom 2 for clearances and inside 50’s.

So I think our game plan (especially late in the year) is extremely solid and effective, but our midfield just isn’t up to snuff at the moment.

Phillipou for one could make a big difference there next year, if his form once he returned late in the year is anything to go by. That 10 coaches vote game against Sydney and their midfield was extremely eye-opening.

Macrae if he comes could also help a lot, in the short term at least.

As a saints fan... I am gonna ask you a brutally honest Question.

Of the 18 sides, Where do you think the AFL would rank your side in wanting to win an AFL flag?

1st meaning most prefererable

to

18th in AFL not wanting the saints win a flag in anyway shape or form?

If you seen my postings on the Vic Bias thread, I have an interesting spot and raking and why the saints are ranked in that spot.

 

[ScrappyDo]

As a saints fan... I am gonna ask you a brutally honest Question.

Of the 18 sides, Where do you think the AFL would rank your side in wanting to win an AFL flag?

1st meaning most prefererable

to

18th in AFL not wanting the saints win a flag in anyway shape or form?

If you seen my postings on the Vic Bias thread, I have an interesting spot and raking and why the saints are ranked in that spot.

Interesting question. Rather than a rank l think the answer is that they simply don't care. It's not that a successful Stkilda wouldn't be a massive money spinner. It's that the money comes from broadcasting and gambling who will preference the status quo. If the saints can make themselves relevant in that space then we filter up in the AFL's conciousness.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Interesting question. Rather than a rank l think the answer is that they simply don't care. It's not that a successful Stkilda wouldn't be a massive money spinner. It's that the money comes from broadcasting and gambling who will preference the status quo. If the saints can make themselves relevant in that space then we filter up in the AFL's conciousness.

Winning a premiership doesn't matter all that much in terms of commercial impact for the AFL.

It's being 'successful' that matters. What that success ultimately looks like on-field doesn't really matter much.

It's about maximising the interest of fans.

Does Richmond being 'successful' generate more interest that St Kilda being 'successful'?

Of course it does.

I don't believe the AFL cheat and rig it so clubs like St Kilda can't win flags - but there's no doubt they tilt the scales in the favour of the big clubs to ensure that they're constantly 'successful'.

And, this ultimately means that it's much harder for the small clubs.

Sydney don't have to win the flag to be a significant 'win' for the AFL. They just need to be consistently good enough to keep fans up north engaged and interested in the sport. Actually winning the flag doesn't make a difference.

 

[aussierulesrules]

As a saints fan... I am gonna ask you a brutally honest Question.

Of the 18 sides, Where do you think the AFL would rank your side in wanting to win an AFL flag?

1st meaning most prefererable

to

18th in AFL not wanting the saints win a flag in anyway shape or form?

If you seen my postings on the Vic Bias thread, I have an interesting spot and raking and why the saints are ranked in that spot.

I think it would be pretty high up, simply because we’ve only won one and it was so long ago, which would make it a real feelgood story.

Teams they would really be keen to see win it would include us, Freo, GWS, Gold Coast, Carlton, Adelaide and North, IMO.

 

[austinnn]

As a saints fan... I am gonna ask you a brutally honest Question.

Of the 18 sides, Where do you think the AFL would rank your side in wanting to win an AFL flag?

1st meaning most prefererable

to

18th in AFL not wanting the saints win a flag in anyway shape or form?

If you seen my postings on the Vic Bias thread, I have an interesting spot and raking and why the saints are ranked in that spot.

Around 13th or 14th.

Probably the only teams under us would be the SA teams and Freo, maybe Melbourne and the Bulldogs now.

They'd be happy for a foundation club with big latent support to break the biggest premiership drought in the league.

But they don't really care, they'd be just as happy for us to be as we gave been for most of our history; there to make up the numbers.

They have little interest in St Kilda Football Club in general. We're like the elder daughter of a man in his second marriage doting over a couple of infant sons from his new wife, or that classic trope, the Red Headed Stepchild of the AFL

 

[Freomaniac]

Interesting question. Rather than a rank l think the answer is that they simply don't care. It's not that a successful Stkilda wouldn't be a massive money spinner. It's that the money comes from broadcasting and gambling who will preference the status quo. If the saints can make themselves relevant in that space then we filter up in the AFL's conciousness.

You would be correct. Saints win a flag but will that really increase the Numbers in Victoria or Australia overall? Not much. Saints fans personally want the flag for the joy of it. AFL wanted a Sydney vs Brisbane Grand final. 5 million people live in Queensland, 8 million in New South Wales. 7 Million in Victoria.

So if we Are talking AFL wanting a lot more money and Foxtel subscribers. Saints wouldnt be high on the list.

I think it would be pretty high up, simply because we’ve only won one and it was so long ago, which would make it a real feelgood story.

Teams they would really be keen to see win it would include us, Freo, GWS, Gold Coast, Carlton, Adelaide and North, IMO.

Nope... This is the AFL. If they want new casual fans and more money Then the Saints, North, Dogs, SA clubs and WA clubs would not be the prefered teams to win or make AFL Grand finals. Once I bunch up certain sides, you will understand....

Hint: Its Not Vic Bias. Its North Bias. Its not about AFL being Biased towards North either.

Around 13th or 14th.

Probably the only teams under us would be the SA teams and Freo, maybe Melbourne and the Bulldogs now.

They'd be happy for a foundation club with big latent support to break the biggest premiership drought in the league.

But they don't really care, they'd be just as happy for us to be as we gave been for most of our history; there to make up the numbers.

They have little interest in St Kilda Football Club in general. We're like the elder daughter of a man in his second marriage doting over a couple of infant sons from his new wife, or that classic trope, the Red Headed Stepchild of the AFL

A solid guess and you are accurate... Correct... Almost.

Allow me to Specifically Bunch up certain sides to Which the AFL prefers to have Success. Massive Clue is North Bias.

1. Northern Teams of Queensland (Gold Coast and Brisbane) and New South Wales (Sydney and Giants). Theres 5 million in Queenland and 8 million in New South Wales. AFL is Happy with Brisbane, Sydney and Giants playing finals regularly in the last 5 to 10 years. Giants vs Western bulldogs 2016 prelim final lured NSW casuals to watch that game. So a Brisbane vs Sydney grand final in 2024 made the AFL happy.

2. Victorian clubs that play Home games at the MCG. I am bunching specifically Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon , Hawthorn, Richmond and Melbourne. Hawks winning those 2013 to 2015 flags brought the bandwagon fans out. Richmond has loyal fans before their 2017 flag. AFL prefered Richmond to win the 2017 flag vs the Crows. Any of these MCG tenants being decent means more Friday night and Saturday night games at the MCG. The AFL has the whole state of Victoria Covered here.

3. Geelong. Yep I bunched geelong alone in this Bracket for a specific reason. They have won flags historically, 10 flags to be exact. Not as much as the 6 MCG tenants that have won 13 to 16 flags each. Geelong isnt Stupid, they know where the money is and where the profit is. You want an example? 2013 Qualifying final vs Fremantle. Cats would pull in a bigger profit getting 35,000 paying $40 each than Getting 50,000 people paying $40 each for a docklands home game. Why? because the rent in Kardinia Park is dirt cheap compared to the docklands rent deal.

4. Victorian clubs that play home games at Docklands. That is Kangaroos, Bulldogs and Saints on this list. Those 3 teams dont get as much Friday night games as the MCG tenants, even if they make top 4 and contend for a flag. Also... theres only 7 AFL premierships between them too and those 3 are the Smaller Victorian clubs. No disrespect to those 3 clubs. If any of those 3 clubs are struggling, they dont care. Had the saints won a flag in 2009 or 2010, it would be a feel good story just like the Dogs in 2016. Its nice, but the AFL prefers other clubs winning flags for more money. AFL didnt care if North are struggling in the last 5 or 6 years when Collingwood or Carlton or Richmond pack the MCG out. Again, the AFL has the whole of Victoria covered. AFL dont care if a Docklands tenant gets 15-20,000 vs a non vic side. They simply dont care with the TV right money rolling in.


5. The South Australian and Western Australian clubs. AFL dont care about the Crows or Port. They get around 40,000 in a 50,000 Adelaide oval. AFL has South Australia covered as Aussie rules as the main sport in SA. Eagles won flags, Pack out the 60,000 Perth stadium. Dockers average 35,000-40,000 per home game. AFL knows its got the state of WA covered too. They dont care if the SA or WA clubs win a flag.


I said this to fellow saints fan Atomboy and that person agreed with me on point about these rankings.

 

[phantom13]

Why would it be irrelevant? How could his personal injury history not be relevant to his longevity and sustainability?

Plenty of players go through their careers with barely an injury. Others, due to body type or body mechanics or genetics or playing style, are regularly injured. (Or sometimes it's just sheer bad luck). Sometimes injuries beget injuries, as you keep having time off your body doesn't get the chance to strengthen itself and get used to consistent professional footy.

The fact Max had multiple injuries in his late teens doesn't mean he's pre-destined to be consistently injured or that there's anything wrong with him, but it certainly elevates those kinds of risks in my mind.


Which is totally arbitrary....


But again how many of those 11 and 12 did he actually finish?

I can remember 2 games he went off early, and I suspect there may have been more?


A 200cm skinny, gangly body type that seemingly struggles to add muscle definitely is risky to me.

Maybe he'll be fine- plenty of players struggle with injury then come good. Joe Daniher a good example and a similar type to Max.

But I reckon you're kidding yourself if you think this 8 year deal isn't a risky proposition (relatively speaking, compared to other players who have missed less games previously or with different body types)


Where did you read that? Is there is trigger for the last few years of the contract?

I think i noted why i see it as irrelevant. He did a knee as a 17 year old going through a growth spurt before his body had developed in a semi professional environment. To ME thats just not relevant to his injury history as an AFL footballer. He probably rolled an ankle in his juniors at some point too. I just dont think it really matters.

Arbitrary to you obviously. Youre taking data thats pre his debut.

His games clause has been discussed in a few spots on the saints board (by quite a few who have pretty good mail on this sort of thing) its also just the only way the deal really makes any sense.

 

[phantom13]

Well you have seen my posts on this thread. I havent been bashing your saints on here.

I am just being honest.

Saints are not a bottom 4 club, they are not a top 4 club either. People have sank the boots on the Saints when they lose, even if the losing margin isnt big.

I can throw the saints into a group of 8 to 10 sides.

People forget saints made finals last season. They got 13 wins, 10 losses and a finals spot.

In 2024, Saints got 12th with 11 wins and 12 losses.

There isnt a massive gap or difference between the Saints 2023 side that made finals and the saints in 2024 that got 12th.

I more meant that absolutely insane aside about Goldberg and the NBA.