Just now, AdamFphlebeb said:

So selection cost us six goals? Come on, mate. Yes, we should have won this game, but they consistently beat us, because we lie down as soon as they bring a bit of pressure.

I felt like our defenders instigated our mini fight back at the end of the third with a few bruising tackles and just generally an attitude of 'we're [censored] sick of this, let's do something about it'. The mids responded and we hit the scoreboard. But playing ANB, Michie and Newton would not have tipped the balance, so I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to argue here, unless you are arguing that...?

We can all differ in how we perceive it, that's footy, but to my eyes we started out great and gradually hit the wall with them smashing us for the most part in the second quarter. Then when normal game fatigue hit them we clawed back slightly but we couldn't maintain it. We were second to the ball and contest all day, we were constantly caught, there were even flat out foot races for the ball where we weren't even close. Plus we had 3-4 guys carrying injuries that effected their games. Ideal game to bring in fresh players and we blew it. Saints are not a 6 goal better side than us. They're just not.

 

3 hours ago, Akum said:

The most frustrating thing about the Roos tenure is that we keep getting fools made of us by teams that we should beat.

I think I disagree with you on this. St. Kilda currently have those few extra mature players that get them over the line, for now. 

I feel like our improvement this that we have beat the teams we should. Collingwood, Tigers, Suns, Fremantle, Brisbane.

We've lapsed once against Essendon, but that is was just once is the side's growth. 

8 minutes ago, stuie said:

With this game, I feel that the selection failure was enough to tip the balance that we lost.

We SHOULD have won this game.

Not without Leadership. That was the gaping hole today. The game that could have kept the season alive. 

Nobody apart from Viney stood up

apalling after 3 Years of Roosy's coaching. 

35 shots to 19. Could have been a 12 goal massacre

14 minutes ago, stuie said:

We can all differ in how we perceive it, that's footy, but to my eyes we started out great and gradually hit the wall with them smashing us for the most part in the second quarter. Then when normal game fatigue hit them we clawed back slightly but we couldn't maintain it. We were second to the ball and contest all day, we were constantly caught, there were even flat out foot races for the ball where we weren't even close. Plus we had 3-4 guys carrying injuries that effected their games. Ideal game to bring in fresh players and we blew it. Saints are not a 6 goal better side than us. They're just not.

 

I completely agree and yet here we are again. They've done that to us four or five times in a row now, where we've clearly been a better team, but despite this, they beat us by 5-7 goals. It keeps happening and I'd say it's that we don't like the pressure when it comes back our way and at the end of the day, their leaders stand up when it matters. Riewoldt has won it for them now in a couple of those contests too.

Edited July 17, 20169 yr by AdamFphlebeb

13 minutes ago, stuie said:

With this game, I feel that the selection failure was enough to tip the balance that we lost.

We SHOULD have won this game.

I appreciate that you've gotten off the fence but I can't agree with you.

There wasn't enough going right for us to suggest that a few fresher legs would have dragged us over the line.

It didn't seem to me like a game where we were doing things right but held back by fitness. We did far too much wrong and I don't think it's a proper analysis of our performance to chalk the bad skills or decision-making down to fitness.

2 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Not without Leadership. That was the gaping hole today. The game that could have kept the season alive. 

Nobody apart from Viney stood up

apalling after 3 Years of Roosy's coaching. 

35 shots to 19. Could have been a 12 goal massacre

Neither of our two decent senior leaders were above about 50% fitness though. At least 1 of them should not have been playing.

 

Just now, stuie said:

Neither of our two decent senior leaders were above about 50% fitness though. At least 1 of them should not have been playing.

 

Once you cross the white line you have declared yourself fit

won't accep that excuse...

1 minute ago, titan_uranus said:

I appreciate that you've gotten off the fence but I can't agree with you.

There wasn't enough going right for us to suggest that a few fresher legs would have dragged us over the line.

It didn't seem to me like a game where we were doing things right but held back by fitness. We did far too much wrong and I don't think it's a proper analysis of our performance to chalk the bad skills or decision-making down to fitness.

Skills, run and pressure told the story for me today. Our skills were ok til we got tired, same with our run and pressure. That's why I think it was such a big influence.

I get how you're taking it as a bit of a chicken or egg kind of thing, but I guess I have my preconceived thoughts about playing at Etihad and today confirmed them in my mind.

1 minute ago, stuie said:

Neither of our two decent senior leaders were above about 50% fitness though. At least 1 of them should not have been playing.

 

Then we have bigger issues if we are playing players who are injured or not fit when we have so many playing at Casey 

1 minute ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Once you cross the white line you have declared yourself fit

won't accep that excuse...

I agree, but what I'm saying is our coaching/fitness staff failed.

 

2 minutes ago, olisik said:

Then we have bigger issues if we are playing players who are injured or not fit when we have so many playing at Casey 

Yep, selection committee issues (as I've probably harped on about too much already).

16 minutes ago, stuie said:

Skills, run and pressure told the story for me today. Our skills were ok til we got tired, same with our run and pressure. That's why I think it was such a big influence.

I get how you're taking it as a bit of a chicken or egg kind of thing, but I guess I have my preconceived thoughts about playing at Etihad and today confirmed them in my mind.

How do you explain our raging first quarter and our comeback at the end of the third? If legs were an issue, we wouldn't have been able to mount that third quarter come back. I just don't think it holds water, mate. Particularly, as Freo brought it against Geelong.

2 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

That is the most worrying comment I have heard Roos make.  Lyon hasn't been there for 5 years and only a handful of StK players were coached by him.

Exactly. The point is that we don't have any of those kinds of players, the nearest we get is Dawes and Lumumba.

Roos was just referring to the experience of players like Riewoldt, Montana, Dempster, Gilbert etc. who not only have been around for a while, but played under a very good coach and were playing in finals etc.

1 minute ago, bing181 said:

Exactly. The point is that we don't have any of those kinds of players, the nearest we get is Dawes and Lumumba.

Roos was just referring to the experience of players like Riewoldt, Montana, Dempster, Gilbert etc. who not only have been around for a while, but played under a very good coach and were playing in finals etc.

It's both a mention of the reality of St Kilda's list and leadership and a veiled comment at the lack of performance of our leaders today.

2 minutes ago, AdamFphlebeb said:

How do you explain our raging first quarter and our comeback at the end of the third? If legs were an issue, we wouldn't have been able to mount that third quarter come back. I just don't think it holds water, mate. Particularly, as Freo brought it against Geelong.

I did go over it in another post here actually... Basically, we started off with a bang then hit the wall as fatigue set in early due to tiredness, then when the usual game fatigue hit the Saints we lifted a little, but we weren't able to maintain it and they ended up cruising over us.

10 minutes ago, stuie said:

I did go over it in another post here actually... Basically, we started off with a bang then hit the wall as fatigue set in early due to tiredness, then when the usual game fatigue hit the Saints we lifted a little, but we weren't able to maintain it and they ended up cruising over us.

But if we had the run taken out of us by the Darwin drip, how did we lift again? Okay, so fatigue hit the Saints at a point, but aren't you saying we lost today because we were fatigued off the back of last week? It's a bit like having your cake and eating it too.

We turned into a bunch of soft onlookers today, Viney was the only guy who looked like he wanted a contest for 4 quarters. N.Jones was really disappointing in this regard, it didn't look like he wanted to be around the ball

First quarter was some of the best ball movement by us I've seen for a while and we were laying some vicious tackles but guys like Kent, Kennedy, Hunt, Garlett, Vandenberg really fell away as the game went on.

Once we lost the lead players started running back behind the mark

The disposal in our back half is embarrassing, not convinced about Wagner yet and White really isn't a ball handler

We dominated possession in the first quarter and to good use but by the time the Saints got their fair share they looked cleaner than us.

Petracca looked really promising as a marking forward, which is where I think he should be spending the majority of his time.

Gawn showed more potential as a forward but he needs to get better at getting in front of packs and marking at a high point.

He was caught a few times from memory, but Brayshaw's return was pretty positive.

Good job by Harmes too.

Pretty soft 34 possessions for Bernie and a bunch of loopy little nothing kicks

We're too caught up about spacing the field but we're forgetting to provide leads.

Tackling is a big deficiency in Hogan's game

 

I sat amongst Saints diehards today, barely a Demon anywhere nearby. Believe me, they think we are the softest team going round and they never thought at any stage we would win this game.

First qtr was great, but we were destroyed for the rest of the match and the scoreboard flattered us in my opinion. Our forward line seemed very dysfunctional and we could not handle their impressive pressure around the ball, thus the huge amount of handballs to teammates under the hammer.

I thought Viney`s unbelievable mark and goal late in the 3rd would lift his team mates but hardly anyone gave a sniff. Very disappointing day after such a promising start, so similar to our first meeting this year.

The day was topped off with an absolute shytefight trying to get a train outta the pit of a place, happens every time!

1 minute ago, AdamFphlebeb said:

But if we had the run taken out of us by the Darwin drip, how did we lift again? Okay, so fatigue hit the Saints at a point, but aren't you saying we lost today because we were fatigued off the back of last week? It's a bit like having your cake and eating it too.

When I say lift, I mean as much as we could at that stage. Clearly given how easily they ended up running over us it wasn't much of a lift and it didn't last. Tired guys can still rally, but it doesn't usually last.

12 minutes ago, Je Roos Salem said:

We turned into a bunch of soft onlookers today, Viney was the only guy who looked like he wanted a contest for 4 quarters. N.Jones was really disappointing in this regard, it didn't look like he wanted to be around the ball

First quarter was some of the best ball movement by us I've seen for a while and we were laying some vicious tackles but guys like Kent, Kennedy, Hunt, Garlett, Vandenberg really fell away as the game went on.

Once we lost the lead players started running back behind the mark

The disposal in our back half is embarrassing, not convinced about Wagner yet and White really isn't a ball handler

We dominated possession in the first quarter and to good use but by the time the Saints got their fair share they looked cleaner than us.

Petracca looked really promising as a marking forward, which is where I think he should be spending the majority of his time.

Gawn showed more potential as a forward but he needs to get better at getting in front of packs and marking at a high point.

He was caught a few times from memory, but Brayshaw's return was pretty positive.

Good job by Harmes too.

Pretty soft 34 possessions for Bernie and a bunch of loopy little nothing kicks

We're too caught up about spacing the field but we're forgetting to provide leads.

Tackling is a big deficiency in Hogan's game

 

What was good about Harmes' game?

12 minutes ago, stuie said:

When I say lift, I mean as much as we could at that stage. Clearly given how easily they ended up running over us it wasn't much of a lift and it didn't last. Tired guys can still rally, but it doesn't usually last.

I think the turning point in the match was that free kick Hogan gave away in the last. We were five points down and it was kicked to the top of our goal square and Hogan gave away a silly free kick. They didn't look back after that. If Hogan brings the ball to ground or stays in the contest without giving away a free kick, we manage to goal, hitting the front could well have been the psychological kick up the backside we needed to go on and win the game. I think we should agree to disagree on this one though, mate.

1 minute ago, AdamFphlebeb said:

I think the turning point in the match was that free kick Hogan gave away in the last. We were five points down and it was kicked to the top of our goal square and Hogan gave away a silly free kick. They didn't look back after that. If Hogan brings the ball to ground or stays in the contest without giving away a free kick, we manage to goal, hitting the front could well have been the psychological kick up the backside we needed to go on and win the game. I think we should agree to disagree on this one though, mate.

I think there were a few incidents you could technically label "turning points", but I honestly just never thought we were serious about today's game.

Yeah fair enough, let's agree to disagree, I've rarely seen anyone change their mind here!

 

Edited July 17, 20169 yr by stuie

1 hour ago, olisik said:

Captain consistently going missing in tight games? Honestly I feel we have better options of leadership then N Jones. 

The problem with having a legit crack at Jonesy it upsets the precious types.  He is a great servant of this club, but when he puts in a shocker he is not immune.  This club unfortunately has zero backup in leadership when Jones goes missing. Several times I watched our backline totally crumble under pressure.  FFS! Shouldn't we be getting past such juvenile performances? Enough is enough....I really am fed up with losing these games such as Saints. One leader can't do it on his own.....where are they come game day?

4 minutes ago, AdamFphlebeb said:

What was good about Harmes' game?

He put his body on the line more than others

53 minutes ago, Chris said:

I think Gawn is pretty hard done by in this thread. Yes he was nullified but illegally in my opinion. I lost count of the number of times he was basically pushed from the contest so the third man up could get a clean hit. That has been paid many times this year, just watch Goldy ruck and you will see it 

What annoyed me was that it washappening so much and none of our players thought to go up aga8nst the third man up, with the exception of Watts on a couple of occasions. 

I noticed this happening last week against freo, the opposition ruckman are basically realising that they can't beat Gawn one on one, instead will hold him so he can't get his arms up or just push him away from the contest. The third man up just gets the tap to wherever he likes then. Us being the amazingly dumb team we are, just let the third man go up alone.