You're way off the track

There were more MFC players out their playing for their careers than Saints players. Few if any of the Saints players positions were in jeopardy for next week. If anything Riewoldt was playing injured and they were missing their most dynamic big man in Gardner. There biggest issue was to get the 4 points and no injuries. Their focus is on this week, not playing a pre determined wooden spooner.They accomplished their objectives with 10 minutes of football.

The point you don't seem to acknowledge though RR, is that 10 minutes was aided by both our coaching staff and the fact we had a team not close to our best, and also giving farewell games to half fit players and sticking them in our forward line trying to get them goals.

If we were so shizen and the Saints so great they should have did what Geelong did to us and blow us away early and the cruise, they weren't able to and we made structural changes which made it easier for them to achieve their win.

I am not trying to compare the respective teams based on the season in whole, just Sundays game. The Saints weren't switched on and could have been beaten if we wanted to win. North proved that the week before.

When you sit on the bottom of the ladder, you are in a no win situation. If a top team blows you away, they are just doing what they are supposed to do to a crap side. If the game is close, all of a sudden it's because they are not switched on and can't get up to play a bottom side.

The point you don't seem to acknowledge though RR, is that 10 minutes was aided by both our coaching staff and the fact we had a team not close to our best, and also giving farewell games to half fit players and sticking them in our forward line trying to get them goals.

Its called flossing the facts Jerry. Get over it.

If we were so shizen and the Saints so great they should have did what Geelong did to us and blow us away early and the cruise, they weren't able to and we made structural changes which made it easier for them to achieve their win.

Once upon a time there lived a big..... You must have tipped us for win on the weekend and taken odds.

I am not trying to compare the respective teams based on the season in whole, just Sundays game. The Saints weren't switched on and could have been beaten if we wanted to win. North proved that the week before.

So we are as good as North are we now? The only thing you have got right Jerry is that the Saints weren't switched on. The rest is revising history for your own means

When you sit on the bottom of the ladder, you are in a no win situation. If a top team blows you away, they are just doing what they are supposed to do to a crap side. If the game is close, all of a sudden it's because they are not switched on and can't get up to play a bottom side.

Maybe Jerry, the team on top is in a no win situation if you think about it....really think about it.

when I get challenged.. I answer teh question...if you are that highly strung or ptretentious yourslef that a few words can rattle you ...grow some skin..thats all I can suggest.

You still .. now..I'll be as nice as I can...havent addressed the nature of your advocacy that stats rule.. many were earnt in junk time and as such are meaninglless.. Not just I have that view.. but others. You are of course entitled to yours. I just happen to disagree. Stats even at the best of times are a dangerous reliance. Um yes it was a busy 15 minutes.. I can only take it that you were watching an entirely different game as that was indeed when the Saints skipped away to their eventual margin. Still wee managed a few of our own too.. That in itslef is curious as it really ought have been a one way street then .. by all accounts..especially statiscally !!

Mate i really couldnt care less to convince you or not.. I simply am stating as an observation, and my opinion, what I saw. Funny others seem to have seen it too.. not too many saw your game it would seem

Seems when you are challenged...your afront is the challenge itself. If Im wrong I'll happily change my view of concede the better judgement.

Where we will both agree however is there are indeed many miles yet to travel and its will be hard.

1st bolded part - Stats rule? I'm saying that? The discrepancy is undeniable. We see the game through the lens of a MFC supporter, everything else is surreptitious to us. The Saints were poor, but at any stage they could, and would, blow us away. And they did.

2nd bolded part - BB59, we do care, otherwise you wouldn't be posting, nor I responding. Don't hide behind that "I don't care what you think" defence...

I'm not indicting the club with the opinion that we are further back than those first 3 1/2 qtrs suggests. I am merely attempting to hold the reigns on expectations or else, half way through next year, this place is going to be 2007 all over again:

Confusion, anger, and idiocy.

1st bolded part - Stats rule? I'm saying that? The discrepancy is undeniable. We see the game through the lens of a MFC supporter, everything else is surreptitious to us. The Saints were poor, but at any stage they could, and would, blow us away. And they did.

2nd bolded part - BB59, we do care, otherwise you wouldn't be posting, nor I responding. Don't hide behind that "I don't care what you think" defence...

I'm not indicting the club with the opinion that we are further back than those first 3 1/2 qtrs suggests. I am merely attempting to hold the reigns on expectations or else, half way through next year, this place is going to be 2007 all over again:

Confusion, anger, and idiocy.

you still dont quite get it.. Stats alone tell nothing if that arent quantified and qualified. You are offering them up as argument complete. Again.l.you have to determine when and how and to what effect. But that wonldnt suit your cause ..so you wont.

The saints were poor ? hmm thats contradictory to your assertions via stats that they werent. The saints were simply getting beaten. Youcant look at the stats of the game as a whole and say they were better..look where and when they got theirs.. its particularly backended..i.e after Melbourne pulled the pin.. after many "experimental" changes were invoked, after the lads started mucking around..

Again dont let the facts worry you..just continue your blinkered portrrayal of the game. Its not juust me who saw the game this way..others here and off the forum agree, even some friends who are died in the wool Sainters. They are just a tad concerned now going into the finals.

I dont hide..Im right here..

2007 again.. how so. different people, administration,players.. resources.., but you think we are destined to repeat 07 ? Thats hardly giving any credit or kudos to the machinations of present and the desires of those entrusted to carry them out.

Again where I will agre with you is 010 is still an uphill effort. we are far from 'there' yet.

I will also agree to disagree.

you still dont quite get it.. Stats alone tell nothing if that arent quantified and qualified. You are offering them up as argument complete. Again.l.you have to determine when and how and to what effect. But that wonldnt suit your cause ..so you wont.

The saints were poor ? hmm thats contradictory to your assertions via stats that they werent. The saints were simply getting beaten. Youcant look at the stats of the game as a whole and say they were better..look where and when they got theirs.. its particularly backended..i.e after Melbourne pulled the pin.. after many "experimental" changes were invoked, after the lads started mucking around..

Again dont let the facts worry you..just continue your blinkered portrrayal of the game. Its not juust me who saw the game this way..others here and off the forum agree, even some friends who are died in the wool Sainters. They are just a tad concerned now going into the finals.

I dont hide..Im right here..

They kicked the the ball poorly and we have a fantastic backline. Our midfield was awful from go to woe, that is why I temper my enthusiasm.

How about this? - Our forward line was extremely efficient, our backline was fantastic, and our midfield is lucky we are about to get Tom Scully.

2007 again.. how so. different people, administration,players.. resources.., but you think we are destined to repeat 07 ? Thats hardly giving any credit or kudos to the machinations of present and the desires of those entrusted to carry them out.

Again where I will agre with you is 010 is still an uphill effort. we are far from 'there' yet.

I will also agree to disagree.

I think you have completely misread what I am saying.

I am not talking about the ability to win games on field, but the fans ability to deal with reality. The confusion and seething anger on this site throughout the 2007 season was, in part, because the fans had readied themselves for a far better year than that ageing team could produce.

If we get a hard draw to start the season and Bailey hasn't got this rumoured 1 year extension, we will shake our fists and wring our hands and force the club to make a decision based on unrealistic expectations.

I have posted that we are a chance to win 12 games next year, but we are equally a chance to be 2 and 9 heading into the QB clash.

I cede I may have misconstrued your views re 07.. I stand, sit,corrected. That as you describe is to be avoided.

Our midfiled will be indeed fortunate to haqve the likes of Scully... our forward line will relish this also

You actually by means or accident raise an interesting spectre to next year... the draw. In recent years its been all over the place with no seeming desire for balance , just cowtowling to the "boys" . Im inclined to think we may well pull off 10-12 wins..

On the Bailey matter I sense he'll be offered another year prior to the madness that is trading and drafting precisely for the reasons you suggest in thatit negates the effect of the draw and posibble decisions on therun as as result.

I cede I may have misconstrued your views re 07.. I stand, sit,corrected. That as you describe is to be avoided.

Our midfiled will be indeed fortunate to haqve the likes of Scully... our forward line will relish this also

You actually by means or accident raise an interesting spectre to next year... the draw. In recent years its been all over the place with no seeming desire for balance , just cowtowling to the "boys" . Im inclined to think we may well pull off 10-12 wins..

On the Bailey matter I sense he'll be offered another year prior to the madness that is trading and drafting precisely for the reasons you suggest in thatit negates the effect of the draw and posibble decisions on therun as as result.

This is exactly the problem I foresee.

Those that want Bailey to earn his new contract and leaving it till mid next year are not thinking this through. If we get a draw like this year and take out Richmond in round 4 and replace with Carlton we could play better football than this year and have one or two wins (or less) going into the QB clash.

We would be seen to be regressing, the fans who say we had to wait are supposedly vindicated as Bailey is removed and a caretaker in his stead takes us to 6 wins in the remaining 10 games in the soft side of the draw.

The only way to give Bailey a full 2010 is to give him 2011 right now.

Welcome to the real world folks.