There were many reasons to savour Melbourne's victory over the GWS Giants including the fact that we managed to rise above St Kilda on the final home and away ladder.

I know the Saints beat us twice this year including once under controversial circumstances but the fact remains that, apart from those two victories, they won only 4½ games for the season.

Yet every man and his dog is predicting that the Saints are the next big thing along with the Bulldogs. This is what Shane Crawford wrote in the Sunday paper:-

Shane Crawford looks into his crystal ball and predicts what 2018 will look like

CRAWFS 2018 TIME CAPSULE

THE Dogs and the Saints in the 2018 Grand Final. Im a massive fan of how both clubs have built their lists, and Ive long thought that these two teams could play off for a flag by 2018. But Luke Beveridges team has exceeded my expectations this year, and that means their pathway through to a long-awaited Grand Final again might come earlier than I expected. But with the Saints and the Dogs profiling well for the future, having lists with an average age of only 23, and with good development programs, Im sure both will be knocking on the premiership door in 2018.

It's not only Crawford talking up the Saints. I heard Tim Watson saying much the same thing about them on SEN this morning and previously, other commentators have also been bullish about them.

So what does Crawf have to say about the team which finished up one place in front of St Kilda:-

And three years ago, Melbourne was in a rebuilding phase. Well, some things never change.

Fair call. We are going through a long rebuilding phase but in my book, we have better youthful talent than St Kilda and one of the main reasons why they beat us twice was the influence of their more experienced types. In 2 to 3 year's time they won't have the likes of Riewoldt, Montagna, Fisher, Gilbert, Dempster and Ray in their lineup so I'm not buying the Saints hype.

Agree wholeheartedly WJ

still annoys me that we didn't beat them though.

The hype around St Kilda isn't justified. Riewoldt and Montagna will retire in the next couple of years, that will set them back.

Bruce has had a good year, but he still has to back that up for me to rate him a legitimate replacement to Riewoldt. McCartin is a long way off - and unproven.

Their ruck stocks are reasonably solid, Longer is a real prospect, however, Hickey has regressed, and doesn't look the player I thought he was.

Billings is the best thing St Kilda have going for them, and he is injury plagued atm, and is yet to show he'll get over them.

I don't buy the hype around St Kilda, there are far too many variables surrounding them. Plus, we seen what happened to Port when the AFL expected more from them, sides put more work into them and cut off their supply, rebound, and run.

Excluding us, the other four wins were against Gold Coast, Lions, Essendon and Bulldogs. Draw against Geelong. Last win in round 14.

They only beat one team more than one spot higher than them on the ladder.

Good summary.

You are only as good as your last performance or in this case, season. And we finished above them, and our trajectory of improvement is better.

Terry Wallace did a comparison on the TAC show a month ago on who's list he'd rather have and he chose Melbourne over the Saints. Everything he mentioned hit the nail on the head and was absolutely spot on.

I think they're assembling a very even list across the field and their fans have every right to be excited.

However, we will not know how good they really are until Riewoldt retires. That man is a freak to still be playing the way he is after all these years, in the most difficult and physically demanding position on the ground. If he was at the MFC we'd have won five more games this year.

There were many reasons to savour Melbourne's victory over the GWS Giants including the fact that we managed to rise above St Kilda on the final home and away ladder.

I know the Saints beat us twice this year including once under controversial circumstances but the fact remains that, apart from those two victories, they won only 4½ games for the season.

Yet every man and his dog is predicting that the Saints are the next big thing along with the Bulldogs. This is what Shane Crawford wrote in the Sunday paper:-

Shane Crawford looks into his crystal ball and predicts what 2018 will look like

It's not only Crawford talking up the Saints. I heard Tim Watson saying much the same thing about them on SEN this morning and previously, other commentators have also been bullish about them.

So what does Crawf have to say about the team which finished up one place in front of St Kilda:-

Fair call. We are going through a long rebuilding phase but in my book, we have better youthful talent than St Kilda and one of the main reasons why they beat us twice was the influence of their more experienced types. In 2 to 3 year's time they won't have the likes of Riewoldt, Montagna, Fisher, Gilbert, Dempster and Ray in their lineup so I'm not buying the Saints hype.

I am with you, WJ. But it must be said that Crawf, whilst seemingly a good bloke, is hardly my idea of an original thinker, and I don't really think his opinion carries much weight.

There were many reasons to savour Melbourne's victory over the GWS Giants including the fact that we managed to rise above St Kilda on the final home and away ladder.

I know the Saints beat us twice this year including once under controversial circumstances but the fact remains that, apart from those two victories, they won only 4½ games for the season.

Yet every man and his dog is predicting that the Saints are the next big thing along with the Bulldogs. This is what Shane Crawford wrote in the Sunday paper:-

Shane Crawford looks into his crystal ball and predicts what 2018 will look like

It's not only Crawford talking up the Saints. I heard Tim Watson saying much the same thing about them on SEN this morning and previously, other commentators have also been bullish about them.

So what does Crawf have to say about the team which finished up one place in front of St Kilda:-

Fair call. We are going through a long rebuilding phase but in my book, we have better youthful talent than St Kilda and one of the main reasons why they beat us twice was the influence of their more experienced types. In 2 to 3 year's time they won't have the likes of Riewoldt, Montagna, Fisher, Gilbert, Dempster and Ray in their lineup so I'm not buying the Saints hype.

all true Jack, but lets not get into a mine is bigger argument, with them. let our guys think along the lines of, we need to get better, bigger, stronger, smarter. If our players think they're more talented, they may take the low road instead of tackling the hills for training.

We'll come out from the shadows when we're ready, catching them with their pants around the ankles.

I've said before and I'll say it again, St Kilda haven't even finished going down yet.

They've drafted well and have had good selections on account of losing Goddard, Dal Santo and McEvoy.

But they are massively dependent on their older players, in particular one of either Montagna or Riewoldt has been their best on ground in almost every game.

I've been doing some end-ofseason reviewing of my own (an 'article' of sorts will come soon, I'm sure everything can't wait).

Melbourne have had a very strange season. The four losses against other bottom 6 teams (st kildax2, Essendon, Carlton) mean we come out with only two wins over the bottom six, the equal lowest of any club.

But here's the rub - the bottom six teams between them only managed 12 wins and two draws against opponents outside the bottom six. And Melbourne accounts for five of those wins.

St Kilda, in contrast, only managed one win and one draw outside the bottom 6.

I'd rather be having embarrassing lapses against bottom teams than be stuck relying on a handful of venerable champions to drag us over the line against other poor opponents.

Contrasting us with St Kilda is possibly the best way to get me in a good mood about our future.

Also, Shane Crawford and Tim Watson are so far from astute it is a comfort to be written off by them!

McCartin showed enough against us to indicate to me he will be a very good key forward in the next couple of years. Much prefer to have (and keep) Hogan though.

The proof will be in the next couple of years...I think we will push for a finals berth next year and the Saints won't. I also think the Dogs will play one final this year and go straight out, they also won't get an easy draw next year. I would expect us to be pushing for that finals berth with them and a few others.

Do I care what Crawf thinks? no

Saints , LOL

We will be much better than them. They will fall apart when Riewoldt and Montagna retire

Hell , they finished below us this season. We have better talent, list and coaching staff.

still annoys me that we didn't beat them though.

Spot on. Beaten twice. Second time embarrassingly. We've got no leg to stand on.

Beaten by Carlton and Essendon at their lowest ebb too.

We really should've had 11.

It really isn't good enough.

Edited September 7, 201510 yr by jacey

Spot on. Beaten twice. Second time embarrassingly. We've got no leg to stand on.

Beaten by Carlton and Essendon at their lowest ebb too.

We really should've had 11.

It really isn't good enough.

Yet despite all those let downs, we still had more wins than St Kilda

Honestly, I think they are over-hyped. They are still heavily reliant on the same few senior players and while their young guys played well this year I don't know how good they'll be in the long term once you take away the senior group.

We still have to win 2 in a row

But the Saints remind me of MFC circa 2010....

When Riewoldt and Montagna retire they will seriously go backwards. Stevens is excallent and Armitage a good quality workhorse but I struggle to understand what else they really have including their kids who in general I rate well below ours and the Dogs.

Fully agree Jack.
The Saints look better now (as do the Dogs) because their veteran class has played finals. Montagna and Riewoldt were mentioned before but remember as well that blokes like Bob Murphy, Matt Boyd and Dale Morris were up and about during the Doggies run from 2006 to 2010.
I think once our kids get to know what it's all about (and I reckon we won't peak as early as the Saints) then we will pass them.

The Doggies are a different matter to be honest. Their list of youngsters is absolute mint plated and better than ours. Not by a ridiculously huge amount but I reckon the disparity is there for all to see.

Edited September 7, 201510 yr by Colin B. Flaubert

It's a load of crap.

Once the old Saints go - Riewoldt, Montagna, Dempster,Fisher, Gilbert - they're in trouble.

Wallace has it right. They barely win a game without these old guys and Schneider.

Although I will say they're well coached and there's a great spirit amongst the group. They have a more consistent crack than the Dees.

But going forward they're well behind.

Although I will say they're well coached and there's a great spirit amongst the group. They have a more consistent crack than the Dees.

But going forward they're well behind.

And I reakon alot of that is to do with Riewoldt.

The bloke just doesn't give up and it rubs off on his teammates.

Let them have their hype. The hype around Melbourne in 2010 was pretty substantial, and we didn't seem to handle it too well.

[censored] them.

I've been rabbiting on about this all year.

They are continually led by the same group of older players - Riewoldt, Montagna, Steven, Armitage, Dempster, Schneider, Fisher, Gilbert. All from the GF era they had.

Their kids just piggy back off them. They will be a much different proposition when the older players finish up.

And despite having that core GF group, they finished the year on 6.5 wins. That's one fewer win than Melbourne, and the same number of wins as Essendon, a basket case. Five of their six wins were against the bottom 6 (Melbourne x 2, Gold Coast, Brisbane, Essendon), with their sixth win against the Dogs. Compare that with us for example, we had 5 wins against teams with 11+ wins (Richmond, Bulldogs, Geelong, Collingwood, GWS).

Put all that together and at the very, very least we should be being spoken about in the same way as the Saints, but every single media report and commentator will gush about the Saints while suggesting we are nowhere near it. It can be blatant (Crawford) or it can be subtle (commentators on the weekend when GWS was struggling to move the ball pinned it on GWS having a bad day until Brad Johnson thought maybe it was our pressure. I guarantee if it was St Kilda and not Melbourne the first thing they all would have said would have been 'gee what wonderful pressure St Kilda are bringing').

They've exceeded expectations for this year, and they've brought positivity and intensity to most of their games. But I cannot stand the way they are discussed compared to us, not just because it's annoying, but because it's wrong.

Mind you, we don't really get anywhere by focusing on what's happening at St Kilda. But it still infuriates me.