Three things....

[Pigdog]

The Dogs didn't deserve to win anything.

They weren't good enough.

They aren't tough enough mentally, or physically.


They were beaten by a side that has now had their measure 3 times this year.

You only deserve to win a game of football - particularly a final, if when the final siren goes you're in front on the scoreboard.


I can't believe any rational football supporter thinks you can win a Prelim final without deserving to do so!

That is one of the most stupidest things I have read this morning.

**** me!!!

 

[JeffDunne]

For a game that was supposedly handed to us by the umpires there really weren't that many contentious decisions.

Bulldogs supporters can piss and moan all they like - they're good at it - but if you're hanging your hat on the free kick moments after half time then maybe you should be questioning the tactic of trying to smash Roo repeatedly off the ball when teams were warned they'd be penalised for it?

Personally I reckon there was 5-6 obvious calls on Roo not made.

Try a new trick next time Eade. Attacking Roo is so 2004.

 

[SainterJo]

Thing One AND Thing Two:

GO SAINTS

 

[Footy_Fan2007]

You cannot blame that last reiwoldt goal on losing the game. Dogs were 1 point down still would of lost. Was impossible to see if it was touched anyway. The free kick however at the start of the third was bullshit. And that was a goal by Eagleton you could clearly see it was over the line on the reply.

The umpiring will never improve. It's actually getting worse which is very dissapointing.

 

[Jacky Too]

The umpiring was acceptable, and was not the reason we lost the game. It was a super contest and find it hard to believe that people thought it was boring or not good to watch. I wonder if these people prefer 20/20 over test cricket. I see some comparisons.

 

[Corzafa]

One thing i really did not like in the game was the free kick against Lake at the start of the third quarter. That changed the game and in my mind was a terrible terrible decision.

 

[Pee Tear Griffin]

It's all well and good for St Kilda supporters to think the umpiring wasn't bad because they won; but if the shoe had been on the other foot they'd be fuming.

 

[Jacky Too]

One thing i really did not like in the game was the free kick against Lake at the start of the third quarter. That changed the game and in my mind was a terrible terrible decision.

maybe, but the only important thing is how a team responds to a decision like that. There were plenty of opportunities after that. I thought the Dogs put it behind them gracefully and continued to play good, courageous footy.

 

[caitsith01]

Thing one - The umpiring was not that bad.

It was pretty bad. Dogs goal not allowed, Saints non-goal allowed, crucial ruck free missed right at the death, soft free to Roo which changed the momentum significantly. Why not be big enough to admit that you got a good run? Or would that somehow break your fragile mental state of extreme anxiety masked by irritating arrogance?

Thing two - Anyone disappointed with the style of play and looking to blame Ros Lyon, St Kilda and the board, players and all their fans and supporters , seriously, welcome to footy in 2009. This is how the game is played now. Tough, uncompromising, contested, fierce.

Don't like it - don't watch it.

No, this is how St Kilda play footy in 2009. It's boring. The Cats, Dogs, Crows and even Hawks, Blues, Lions and Dons all play a more exciting brand of footy. Your little system is working pretty well for you but don't presume to tell us that this is 'footy in 2009'. Incidentally your boys looked pretty shot by halfway through the fourth quarter, can you keep it up for another four against a rampaging Geelong or resurgent Pies?

Don't like people complaining about it - don't read on-line forums. Surely you're not so arrogant as to think that your club is now the definitive model of how to play football?

Thing three - I cannot believe the big deal that is being made out of our "celebrations" after the final siren. COME ON, could you clutch any harder at the straws FFS???! First of all, this was our fourth Prelim in SIX years - we have lost three and we finally, FINALLY won one! Of course they would be excited.

Of course they would. But it's natural that it raises a few eyebrows so HTFU, sunshine. Remember Port in 07, running around in their prelim like they were god's gift to football... doesn't mean anything if your players went nuts, but has the potential to make you look pretty silly next week.

Bring it on, indeed.

 

[Art Corvelay]

I'm not sure the umpiring cost the Dogs the game but I reckon it's the second week in a row the Saints have scored some dubious frees in good position which have kept them in touch, right when it looks like they might get left behind.

 

[Swooop]

As a neutral observer, the umpiring was oh... a F'ing disgrace, that free (leading to an easy goal) to precious St Nick at the start of the 3rd quarter was laughable. The doggies were robbed, the OP should at least have the decency to show some humility...

 

[Violent Stool]

That is one of the most stupidest things I have read this morning.

**** me!!!

It's the 'truest' thing you've heard.

The Dogs tried to be 'tough' off the ball with whimpy sniping shepherds ala Collingwood, they tried to rough up Riewoldt and a few other players.

It didn't work. When it came down to it, when the game was there to be won, physically Riewoldt outran his man.

When true physical toughness was put to the test, the Dogs couldn't compete.

It was physical toughness that got Riewoldt to that contest.


As for mentally tough, they choked against Geelong. More than once this year actually. And last night, they had every opportunity to win the game but blew it.
Choked and couldn't get the win.

Mentally, they didn't will themselves to win.


And not surprisingly after hearing Eade's post game comments. For a head coach to pass off responsibility really makes it clear where the mental weakness comes from.

Eade is a serial loser. A serial bridesmaid and rarely, infacxt I'd say never puts his hand up and accepts responsibility.

Accepting responsibility is what wins games, finals and flags.

The Dogs don't seem to have it, and it most likely comes from the coach.

 

[Coooooooneyyyyyyyy]

Boo ****ing hoo. Bad umpiring is in every game these days, apparently. It used to be only Collingwood supporters who would whinge about the mpiring every week - now it's everyone.

What were the bulldogs thinking when the siren rang tonight?

It wasn't "gee, we were hard done by, we should've been given all these decisions"; it was "Bugger, we tried our guts out and fell short of the Grand Final, that really ****ing hurts"

So if you want to sook about the umpriing, eff off to one of the other nine threads on the main board about it.

I really do think the doggies supporters are quite good losers, because I would honestly be gutted if I were in their shoes, I know how it feels, from 04 05 and 08 - it friggen hurts. to front up on this site after that is very gutsy so good on you.

Unfortunately it seems to be the oppo supporters who are complaining about the umpires.

\Umpiring was bad

 

[campbell]

As a neutral observer, the umpiring was oh... a F'ing disgrace, that free (leading to an easy goal) to precious St Nick at the start of the 3rd quarter was laughable. The doggies were robbed, the OP should at least have the decency to show some humility...

agree. Some saints on here should be grateful they had the rub of the umps. IMO they need to say hey were were lucky, and thankfully we were, so sorry to the dogs. Instead we have this nasty attitude appearing of arrogance to all those who dare mention anything bad about any St Kilda thing.

 

[absy]

Riewoldts goal at start of 3rd should not have happened -6 points.

Kosi should never have gotten the free kick earlier -1point.

Oh shit now it's a draw. To say it had no affect on the outcome is ******ed.

 

[Violent Stool]

Riewoldts goal at start of 3rd should not have happened -6 points.

Why is the umpire - or even more to the point Riewoldt and the Saints, being blamed for Lake's cowardice and stupidity?

 

[caitsith01]

Why is the umpire - or even more to the point Riewoldt and the Saints, being blamed for Lake's cowardice and stupidity?

A hundred such incidents go unpunished every game. Why did the umpires randomly pick the Saints best forward out for a free when they desperately needed a goal to stay in the game?

 

[Pigdog]

Why is the umpire - or even more to the point Riewoldt and the Saints, being blamed for Lake's cowardice and stupidity?

If he had pushed him over make forceful contact or made high contact it's a free, a bump when a player is jogging past to which the contact was fairly light should NEVER be paid.

 

[jko'neal]

Three things, for the Bulldogs and Rocket Eade in last nights final qtr.

1. Pick up Lenny Hayes at stoppages!!
2. Pick up Lenny Hayes at stoppages!!
3. Pick up Lenny Hayes at stoppages!!

 

[surfer1605]

The Dogs didn't deserve to win anything.

They weren't good enough.

They aren't tough enough mentally, or physically.


They were beaten by a side that has now had their measure 3 times this year.

You only deserve to win a game of football - particularly a final, if when the final siren goes you're in front on the scoreboard.


I can't believe any rational football supporter thinks you can win a Prelim final without deserving to do so!

I actually believe both teams deserved to win. The Doggies really took it up to the Saints in a game that a lot of people thought the Saints would run away with and kept up the intensity and pressure right to the very end. The Saints were able to overcome this intensity and turn it up a notch (just slightly) and get ahead of the Doggies where it counted.

I can't believe any rational football supporter saying that the Dogs are weak when they beat the Saints in most areas of the game and were just unlucky that their first few points weren't goals.

 

[surfer1605]

A hundred such incidents go unpunished every game. Why did the umpires randomly pick the Saints best forward out for a free when they desperately needed a goal to stay in the game?

Dogs defenders were warned previously to stop bowling over Riewoldt by the umpires otherwise it would be paid a free, so even though the bump was soft it was probably more about the fact that they didn't acknowledge the umpires warning.

 

[strategy]

thing one ....the umps as they have all year ...favoured your players

thing two ....the game was like watching beginners learning how to play RUGBY

thing three.... your players over celebrated

 

[strategy]

Dogs defenders were warned previously to stop bowling over Riewoldt by the umpires otherwise it would be paid a free, so even though the bump was soft it was probably more about the fact that they didn't acknowledge the umpires warning.

the umps won the game for your team and they may do it again next week .
the umps and the MRP panel have been soft on your lot all year and its a disgrace.

 

[a_fighting_fury]

Thing one - The umpiring was not that bad. quote]

The umpiring got the Saints into the Grand Final make no mistake about that.

But I'm not complaining as $$$ on the Sainters to win so very happy about that!

 

[brmi]

to pay a pathetic free kick like that to riewoldt before the ball was bounced in the 3rd qtr, just shows how much the afl influence games... they want the grand final to be saints v. geelong and im positive tonights umpiring will favour geelong, just like last nights favour st kilda

then when we're back on top again, they pay delibrate out of bounds when aker kicked it 50m into space and results in a saint nick goal

absolute disgrace!