POST MATCH DISCUSSION - Round 17

[rjay 23,923]

For those who had a go at Nathan Jones...take a close look and notice that he came out after half time with a pretty solid knee bandage.

My guess is it happened in a contest in the goal square when he landed awkwardly in the 2nd Q, but that's only a guess. Definitely happened in the first half and his movement was restricted.

We're talking about someone who played with a debilitating neck injury last year that would have kept a lot of people off work for 6 months let alone going out and playing football week in week out.

He doesn't complain, he goes about his job and his injury doesn't get reported in the AFL match report....

[Males 577]

Our decision making needs a lot of improvement, especially our handballs under pressure. On the plus side, we do have the youngest list in the AFL, against the Hawks our Avg games per player was something like 63-125. That being said, I see plenty of improvement to come over the next couple of years when our boys get another 30-40 games under their belts.

[Dr. Gonzo 22,486]

For all the whinging on here we were in it up to our necks up until the 10 minute mark of the last. The turning point came when we got within a kick, won the clearance and had Watts streaming forward. He kicked it on top of Hogan who was being held and in frustration threw an elbow back. It collected the Saints player in the head and he won a free. Instead of Hogan lining up right in front to put us in front it went down the other end for a 12 point turnaround. Another quick goal to them and it was suddenly 3 goals the difference again. One of them also happened after Grimes failed to kill the contest.

A frustrating game but we were in it up to the last and they just worked harder and pressured more than us. Their tackles stuck while ours let them get a possession away. They always had a guy hanging out the back as well usually Weller who opened us up on the transition. 

[Coq au vin 754]

Our team handpassed themselves into trouble over and over again, dropped marks and kicked to contests (because St Kilda were manning up and applying pressure through fast running and good tackling). St Kilda spread very well, passed by foot and took many, many uncontested and contested marks. They didn't drop the marks. Their skills were way better on the day. After the first quarter our players looked listless, tired and like the melbourne of the Bailey- Neeld era. Scared rabbits in the headlights who panicked, dropped the ball constantly and got caught.

[Demons11 6,404]

9 hours 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

 

hogan is not there to tackle 

[Coq au vin 754]

7 hours ago, rjay said:

For those who had a go at Nathan Jones...take a close look and notice that he came out after half time with a pretty solid knee bandage.

My guess is it happened in a contest in the goal square when he landed awkwardly in the 2nd Q, but that's only a guess. Definitely happened in the first half and his movement was restricted.

We're talking about someone who played with a debilitating neck injury last year that would have kept a lot of people off work for 6 months let alone going out and playing football week in week out.

He doesn't complain, he goes about his job and his injury doesn't get reported in the AFL match report....

His disposal was atrocious yesterday.

[Akum 2,660]

7 hours ago, rjay said:

For those who had a go at Nathan Jones...take a close look and notice that he came out after half time with a pretty solid knee bandage.

My guess is it happened in a contest in the goal square when he landed awkwardly in the 2nd Q, but that's only a guess. Definitely happened in the first half and his movement was restricted.

We're talking about someone who played with a debilitating neck injury last year that would have kept a lot of people off work for 6 months let alone going out and playing football week in week out.

He doesn't complain, he goes about his job and his injury doesn't get reported in the AFL match report....

OK, but he'd had 2 kicks & 7 handballs up to 1/2 time. Got most of his disposals in last qtr.

I thought he looked as if he was injured to start with, but if so, he shouldn't have played.

[praha 10,283]

25 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

For all the whinging on here we were in it up to our necks up until the 10 minute mark of the last. The turning point came when we got within a kick, won the clearance and had Watts streaming forward. He kicked it on top of Hogan who was being held and in frustration threw an elbow back. It collected the Saints player in the head and he won a free. Instead of Hogan lining up right in front to put us in front it went down the other end for a 12 point turnaround. Another quick goal to them and it was suddenly 3 goals the difference again. One of them also happened after Grimes failed to kill the contest.

A frustrating game but we were in it up to the last and they just worked harder and pressured more than us. Their tackles stuck while ours let them get a possession away. They always had a guy hanging out the back as well usually Weller who opened us up on the transition. 

Taking the [censored], surely? Even when we got within 5, we never had momentum, never seemed to control the play. Every time they got the ball in our forward line they looked like transitioning and scoring. EVERY time. Sure, a goal would have put us in front, but we were never going to win that. 

[Die Hard Demon 1,152]

I think a very damning stat in this game & from memory, most of the year.. would be our lack of tackles in our forward 50. 3 tackles from 40 entries is unacceptable. Saints with 14 from 50 entries says a lot about our forwards. Those who say hogan is not there to do that are kidding themselves. Any weak link & it doesn't work. Hawks are the perfect example of forward pressure. They just desperately keep it in there. It's just extracted so easily out & then were killed on the rebound. Honestly.. it's not that hard is it !!? 

[titan_uranus 22,444]

Having slept on it, I'm still just as livid at our performance now as I was yesterday.

But to make me feel better, I read Alan Richardson talking about how St Kilda could not have played better and I think to myself: if that's St Kilda's best, and that was, what, some of our worst, I still know which team I'd rather be supporting.

8 minutes ago, praha said:

Taking the [censored], surely? Even when we got within 5, we never had momentum, never seemed to control the play. Every time they got the ball in our forward line they looked like transitioning and scoring. EVERY time. Sure, a goal would have put us in front, but we were never going to win that. 

No we clearly had the momentum at the start of the 4th, right up until that free kick against Hogan. Had we taken the lead, who knows what would have happened from there on. But we didn't, they scored the next goal, and our heads dropped.

[chook fowler 18,295]

19 minutes ago, praha said:

Taking the [censored], surely? Even when we got within 5, we never had momentum, never seemed to control the play. Every time they got the ball in our forward line they looked like transitioning and scoring. EVERY time. Sure, a goal would have put us in front, but we were never going to win that. 

I agree. We played 1 quarter of decent football and were lucky they didn't kick straight. We were never in the game after the first quarter. 

Edited July 17, 2016 by chook fowler

[jackaub 1,402]

10 hours 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.

Because Saints were very poor in the first quarter made us look better than we were. Have another look at the first quarter and the saints made many mistakes and applied little pressure

Our guys then thought they were in for an easy afternoon. Saints ramped up the pressure as per usual we were not prepared for it and folded like a deck chair on a windy day

This team is still mentally weak,fragile and it must be addressed or we will never rise above 11th

We have learned nothing and the younger players are starting to play like the damaged older players

[Lucifers Hero 37,123]

Perfectly summarised by JV: “You start winning and everyone gets away from their roles and tries to get a kick and a touch. It breaks down the whole system, so we learned that and we had to reset it at half-time."  

Did the players think they had it won in the first quarter, so started racking up the individual stats and be the 'hero'!!!!

Not sure what the leaders were thinking when StK kicked 5 unanswered 2nd qtr goals.  I would have thought that after 2 or 3 the leaders would have a pow wow to work out what was happening and 'reset' on the ground.  I think they were busy trying 'to get a kick and a touch'. 

That is pre Roos 'individual', 'every man for himself' type football - old habits die hard. Unfortunately our worst offenders were senior players especially in the 2nd qtr which is when we lost the game. 

[Gator 16,893]

9 hours ago, Akum said:

They just use an AFL form of "rope-a-dope" to beat us. Every time.

Ball lands between 3 players from each side. The 3 Dees all try to pounce on the ball. One Saint goes for the ball, the other 2 go to the outside. If a Dee gets first hands, he is too close to his flatfooted teammates to be able to get clear of the contest, and the two Saints on the outside just close in if a Dee does look like breaking clear. If the Saint gets first hands, he immediately flicks it clear of the contest to where one of  his teammates cruising past can accelerate into the open with the other teammate running in support alongside him. They're 30 metres away by the time the 3 Dees pick themselves up. Same happens with 3 or more Dees getting sucked into the tackle.

They expected that we would keep trying the slingshot through the corridor and we were determined not to let them down the whole game. We don't seem to be able to move the ball forward any other way. They just simply closed down the space through the corridor. And when we turned it over, this also meant that they had much more space out wide to run into.

And when they got it wide, we were always in real danger further up the field. Yet there was never any apparent urgency to run back hard and get out wide to cover their chain of spare men. We were content to just jog alongside them & keep them out wide, and before we realised it, they had put together 3 uncontested possessions and an uncontested mark inside 50.

Exactly the same as Round 6. Exactly the same as last year. Rope-a-dope. Yet we never see it coming, like every other side does.

And don't give me this "Saints are just a better side than us" crapola. These are the names of some of their "stars" who made us look stupid today: Membrey, Ross, Weller, Dunstan, Billings, Newnes, Roberton, Geary, Acres, Minchington, Gresham, Jack Sinclair, Daniel Mackenzie, Nathan Wright. That's two thirds of a side of absolute plodders. We made them look like top-four material, because they were so much better as a combination. We played like 22 individuals after 1/4 time, because of "rope-a-dope". There was no one on the field or in the box who saw the need to do anything different.

Oh, and we don't seem to have anybody who can hit an accurate bullet handpass over more than about 5 metres. Over 10 metres and we have to "loop" the handball. But that's another story.

 

 

That's an excellent and insightful post.

Nothing else needs to be said (although that won't stop the blowhard that grates on everybody).

[stuie 7,374]

10 hours ago, Undeeterred said:

And there it finally is, after about a million posts. We finally get the admission that some combination of Bugg, ANB, Newton and Michie coming in for some combination of outs (I think on the GD thread it was Vince and Kennedy for starters) would have got us a win.

Just first grade nonsense, Stuie.

Again, that is not what I said. Please show me where I said all those guys should have come in.

You're fast becoming a farcical poster.

 

[AzzKikA 2,371]

13 hours ago, Return to Glory said:

I blame myself. 'Let me tell you something my friend. Hope is a dangerous thing. Hope can drive a man insane.'

I blame myself, i knew this was coming.

[Dr. Gonzo 22,486]

52 minutes ago, praha said:

Taking the [censored], surely? Even when we got within 5, we never had momentum, never seemed to control the play. Every time they got the ball in our forward line they looked like transitioning and scoring. EVERY time. Sure, a goal would have put us in front, but we were never going to win that. 

I thought we had taken the momentum from them at the end of the 3rd/start of the 4th. The free/report against Hogan followed by 2 quick goals killed the game for us. 

[Fork 'em 6,525]

7 hours ago, Males said:

 On the plus side, we do have the youngest list in the AFL, against the Hawks our Avg games per player was something like 63-125. That being said, I see plenty of improvement to come over the next couple of years when our boys get another 30-40 games under their belts.

We've been saying this for years.
How long do we keep saying it?

[jnrmac 19,045]

14 hours ago, Akum said:

How many times can I "like" this?

As many as you like  

It's a sad reflection of where we are at and I am becoming increasingly frustrated by our coaching staff....

[jnrmac 19,045]

1 hour ago, Die Hard Demon said:

I think a very damning stat in this game & from memory, most of the year.. would be our lack of tackles in our forward 50. 3 tackles from 40 entries is unacceptable. Saints with 14 from 50 entries says a lot about our forwards. Those who say hogan is not there to do that are kidding themselves. Any weak link & it doesn't work. Hawks are the perfect example of forward pressure. They just desperately keep it in there. It's just extracted so easily out & then were killed on the rebound. Honestly.. it's not that hard is it !!? 

You need to look at their marks inside 50. Can't tackle them when they take uncontested marks.

[Undeeterred 2,864]

10 hours ago, Undeeterred said:

And there it finally is, after about a million posts. We finally get the admission that some combination of Bugg, ANB, Newton and Michie coming in for some combination of outs (I think on the GD thread it was Vince and Kennedy for starters) would have got us a win.

Just first grade nonsense, Stuie.

 

42 minutes ago, stuie said:

Again, that is not what I said. Please show me where I said all those guys should have come in.

You're fast becoming a farcical poster.

 

When people call out your nonsense, slow down and read the words, Stu, before calling people farcical.

[jnrmac 19,045]

7 hours ago, Males said:

Our decision making needs a lot of improvement, especially our handballs under pressure. On the plus side, we do have the youngest list in the AFL, against the Hawks our Avg games per player was something like 63-125. That being said, I see plenty of improvement to come over the next couple of years when our boys get another 30-40 games under their belts.

I know you are trying to be optimistic but those excuses don't cut it.

[jnrmac 19,045]

11 hours ago, Je Roos Salem said:

Yeah Hogan had a massive chance to turn the game around but in the end it was a poor game by him.

It also turned early in the 2nd when it was a bit of a stalemate and we were running and Brayshaw got caught because of a poor use of handballing and the Saints got one on the rebound I think

No they scored a point. But it was carp play by us nonetheless.

[poita 3,622]

Just a pathetic effort all round really. Bad selection, awful coaching, and a collection of untalented, uncommitted footballers going about their business in a half hearted manner. Everything about that game reminded me of 2014 - couldn't score, couldn't stop the opposition scoring and players generally racking up cheap, pointless possessions whilst going nowhere near their opponents (exhibit A: Bernie Vince; exhibit B: Neville Jetta). The scoreboard seriously flattered us - we deserved to lose by ten goals plus, and would have if St Kilda had taken their chances.

Yet again Gawn gets beaten and the rest of the team (excluding Viney) fall in a big heap. I haven't seen N.Jones play a worse game, Vince was useless and Hogan had his mind elsewhere, even before getting injured.

Why we play a team full of flankers each week is beyond me - we need midfielders who can pinch hit forward or back, not half baked players like Kennedy and Wagner who do their main job poorly, and who have no fall back position. White has probably played his last game, Garlett was disinterested again, and guys like Vandenberg and M.Jones aren't up to the task. I'm Jack Grimes' biggest fan, but he was terrible today, and we all know that Roos doesn't give him the latitude of certain others. I said on Friday we were short a marking forward and a genuine midfielder, and I stand by that. Add the withdrawal of Frost, and we were down a key defender as well.

Roos was horribly outcoached yet again. He is extraordinarily overrated, both here and by the football community in general. Where is the plan B? Where are the moves to change things up, or to stop the opposition's momentum? No, lets stick to the same old players, doing the same dumb things, and hope for the best. I'd love to know how much of a say he has at selection, because this is quite clearly a group of players who is not up to the task.

We are currently ranked 11th, will probably be lower after the weekend, and have not beaten a team above us since round 1. If we have improved from last year, it has been by a miniscule amount.

 

 

 

[stuie 7,374]

5 minutes ago, Undeeterred said:

 

When people call out your nonsense, slow down and read the words, Stu, before calling people farcical.

You're still missing the point, which has not improved from the very start here. You're wanting to focus on names rather than the cumulative effect on the team.

But hey, if you think the Saints are just a 6 goal better team than us then that's up to you.