10 minutes ago, stuie said:

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.

 

Last post on this, because it's Monday morning and I've got work to do.

The cumulative effect on the team of having 1-4 of the players set out above is absolutely minimal. You could include Dunn, or Oliver (who when he plays, plays about 65% TOG), or anyone else at Casey in this discussion.

If you think we're above being too stupid to lose to St Kilda, good luck to you. The evidence is to the contrary.

How do you explain the fact that they beat us by practically the same margin earlier in the season, using exactly the same tactics, and preying on exactly the same weaknesses we have? 

I mean, these exchanges have been fun, but it's time to stop before I completely lose my [censored] at you.

9 minutes ago, poita said:

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.

I am still angry about yesterday but I think it's worth remembering we have the youngest team going around. The game plan has value, but not if the players don't execute it. I'm not sure we have many at Casey that would have helped. Aside from 2-4 kids at that level, some who haven't played yet, we actually don't run that deep in terms of quality. You can only select what you have.

Where I was super critical was the similarity to the last loss to them. Either the coaching staff didn't identify the issues in that game - or they did and the players didn't execute it. Either way it was horrible to watch.

1 minute ago, Undeeterred said:

Last post on this, because it's Monday morning and I've got work to do.

The cumulative effect on the team of having 1-4 of the players set out above is absolutely minimal. You could include Dunn, or Oliver (who when he plays, plays about 65% TOG), or anyone else at Casey in this discussion.

If you think we're above being too stupid to lose to St Kilda, good luck to you. The evidence is to the contrary.

How do you explain the fact that they beat us by practically the same margin earlier in the season, using exactly the same tactics, and preying on exactly the same weaknesses we have? 

I mean, these exchanges have been fun, but it's time to stop before I completely lose my [censored] at you.

Gee I don't know, do you think the lack of fresh legs in the last game at Etihad against the Saints was a factor too maybe? (Go look up the changes we made in that game, I'll wait for you) Do you think the fact Roos talks about what a different ground it is and how much speed and run plays a factor matters? Do you think the point that the 1 game we've won there was with fresh legs and a quick team means anything?

You want to talk evidence, then talk evidence. It's right there in front of you.

So I'll take it that you think the Saints are a much better team than us then, given the evidence you want to present.

10 hours ago, Petraccattack said:

There are 6 games left and we need to get a scalp that shows we may have improved a bit.

We must win one of the following -  Eagles in Perth, Geelong in Geelong or Hawks at the MCG.

Port in Adelaide would be great too, but those three are the real litmus test.

Unlikely. The only possibility is Geelong if we can scrag Dangerfield (like Bernie did last year).

29 minutes ago, The heart beats true said:

I am still angry about yesterday but I think it's worth remembering we have the youngest team going around. The game plan has value, but not if the players don't execute it.  ...

Where I was super critical was the similarity to the last loss to them. Either the coaching staff didn't identify the issues in that game - or they did and the players didn't execute it. Either way it was horrible to watch.

I think everybody - including the coaches - forget that every week we play against another team who are hell-bent on stopping us from executing our game plan. Which is mainly (a) winning stoppages, and (b) fast attacks through the corridor.

We're going to play a lot of teams who will actually succeed in stopping us executing our game plan. They do this by (a) nullifying Gawn & Viney & Jones; (b) closing up the corridor, so if we keep trying to attack through the corridor, we get burned. Again and again and again ... It's a great game plan when it works, but it's actually not a difficult game plan for a well-drilled team with the right tools (e.g. Hickey to nullify Gawn; Armitage to nullify Viney or Jones) to counter.

It's not a fail-safe game plan. No game plan is. It's only the top few teams who, when their game plan is successfully countered, find another way of getting the job done.

So it's not a matter of the players "failing to execute" a fail-safe game plan. It's a matter of the game plan being successfully countered by the other coach.

The stupidity is when we play teams like St. Kilda - who aren't great but who have the tools & knowhow to counter our game plan - we play right into their hands by trying to do the same thing, in some sort of belief that if we can just do it better, we'll get a different result than the last several times. If we can't work out what to do when our game plan is countered, we'll continue to be a 10-12 placed team.

And the comments about "we don't have a Dangerfield" seem to indicate that we actually don't have another way of getting the job done. St. Kilda don't have a Dangerfield either; what they do have is a well-drilled team where everyone knows what they need to do.

24 minutes ago, Akum said:

I think everybody - including the coaches - forget that every week we play against another team who are hell-bent on stopping us from executing our game plan. Which is mainly (a) winning stoppages, and (b) fast attacks through the corridor.

We're going to play a lot of teams who will actually succeed in stopping us executing our game plan. They do this by (a) nullifying Gawn & Viney & Jones; (b) closing up the corridor, so if we keep trying to attack through the corridor, we get burned. Again and again and again ... It's a great game plan when it works, but it's actually not a difficult game plan for a well-drilled team with the right tools (e.g. Hickey to nullify Gawn; Armitage to nullify Viney or Jones) to counter.

It's not a fail-safe game plan. No game plan is. It's only the top few teams who, when their game plan is successfully countered, find another way of getting the job done.

So it's not a matter of the players "failing to execute" a fail-safe game plan. It's a matter of the game plan being successfully countered by the other coach.

The stupidity is when we play teams like St. Kilda - who aren't great but who have the tools & knowhow to counter our game plan - we play right into their hands by trying to do the same thing, in some sort of belief that if we can just do it better, we'll get a different result than the last several times. If we can't work out what to do when our game plan is countered, we'll continue to be a 10-12 placed team.

And the comments about "we don't have a Dangerfield" seem to indicate that we actually don't have another way of getting the job done. St. Kilda don't have a Dangerfield either; what they do have is a well-drilled team where everyone knows what they need to do.

Riewoldt says hi.

 

The first 3 goals to the saints in the last quarter involved poor play by grimes. Momentum changing.

If you think the Saints shouldn't be a 6 goal better team than us, you are correct. They are more like a 10 goal better team. 

35 scoring shots to 19. The margin flattered us.

Just watched the game again and clearly they should've won by 10-12.

Got to love this ups and downs of Demonland, we win and we are world beaters on the rise, lose and it has all been a waste and we should just give up as we are a disgrace. The reality of course is somewhere between the two extremes. 

Thinking back over the last two games there is one thing that keeps coming into my head. During the Freo game it was notable that our players were hunting the ball and oppo players in packs and working together and bullying the Freo players, yesterday it was the Saints doing the same thing to us.

That says to me that the lose yesterday is completely between the ears. We can apply pressure, we can bully teams, we can play very good football, but to do so we need the whole team to turn up. That didn't happen yesterday and it looked as though most of the team were left behind in the bus. 

7 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

If you think the Saints shouldn't be a 6 goal better team than us, you are correct. They are more like a 10 goal better team. 

35 scoring shots to 19. The margin flattered us.

Just watched the game again and clearly they should've won by 10-12.

If this not the most frequently used crock of crap I hear after a loss. Whenever we lose people come on here and scream about how we are so [censored], so usless, havent improved, should have lost by 10 goals, never gonna win again. Yes, It was a dissapointing day but if you are going to continue to follow a football team, any team, then your gonna have to learn to suck it up. Saints lost to the GC a coule of weeks ago!! you dont think that was just as disapointing for them? We are going to have shockers (this one by the way was not as doom and gloom as people seem to be saying) and we are going to have days we play well. Over time we will get more consistant and sitting at 101.3% shows that is happening already.

You cant keep spouting crap about margin flattering us every time we lose. Yeah, Saints missed easy chances but we missed easy chances too do they not count? Fact is we were out worked, they put on more pressure, they do every time we play them. Odds on they will have another mighty dissapointing day before years end and we will have another good day. We are on a rollercoaster not a highway. 

Just now, Chris said:

Got to love this ups and downs of Demonland, we win and we are world beaters on the rise, lose and it has all been a waste and we should just give up as we are a disgrace. The reality of course is somewhere between the two extremes. 

Thinking back over the last two games there is one thing that keeps coming into my head. During the Freo game it was notable that our players were hunting the ball and oppo players in packs and working together and bullying the Freo players, yesterday it was the Saints doing the same thing to us.

That says to me that the lose yesterday is completely between the ears. We can apply pressure, we can bully teams, we can play very good football, but to do so we need the whole team to turn up. That didn't happen yesterday and it looked as though most of the team were left behind in the bus. 

That's the way it goes here Chris.  One week we have threads slamming the players, the coaches and the development.  Win next week and we'll have threads on certain players and their excellent improvement, how we're back in with a slight chance for finals and everyone wants to play here.  It's just the way it is.

11 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....

Only 3 contested would appear to support this. Usually has an even balance between contested and uncontested.

9 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.

We were 30 games on average down on the Saints yesterday. They have a season and a bit on us in experience.

But even so i agree with SWY here in that we really lack leaders who stand up when things start to go a bit wacko.

We also lack a champion or 2 across the ground to show the way. The fact that much of our 'lead by example' stuff was left to Viney y'day is a reflection of us just being a too young and brittle team both physically, mentally and generally eg; knowing what to do and when.

We also lack great ball users by foot who can hit Short targets regularly and control the game in order to control the tempo more often and prevent teams getting a run on like the Saints did late in the 1st and most of the 2nd y'day. Was it 6 in a row at one stage? Crazy.

The key to the loss, was not being able to switch the ball and not having the confidence or skills to make the risky kick to setup play.. We cannot cope if we cannot switch quickly as we are poor at slow tempo football.

Wish I had have known how to trip without being caught by the umpires when I was playing. Far more effective than biting, pinching and back studding.

15 minutes ago, SPC said:

The key to the loss, was not being able to switch the ball and not having the confidence or skills to make the risky kick to setup play.. We cannot cope if we cannot switch quickly as we are poor at slow tempo football.

You have to be more than capable at doing both SPC. We are ok at going fast up through the middle for short stints until our opponents crowd us out through there. Not so good at chopping our way up the field out wide then back in hitting 45s to counter.

You cant always go at break neck speed straight up the guts.

I agree about the switch. We lack some really solid kicks who can manage this with confidence and quickly.

Other times we need to play slow tempo in order to stop a run like y'day.

Regardless of how good or bad we are at it it still needs perfecting if we are to beat teams like the Saints (and better) going forward.

Most of our problems can be summed up in 3 major factors that are lacking....

1. Leadership across the park

2. A lack of mature players to hold the line and who know how/when to play slow, drop back and defend, organise the zones and less experienced players etc. Basically a list that is too skewed with inexperienced players just learning the basics of the game, with a sprinkling of serious talent/grunt.

3. Lack of quality users of the ball by foot which therefore leads to not enough use of the ball by foot, this leads to constant 'fast' play by hand which eventually results in fatigue and increased turnovers, gifting goals to any opponent who can keep a reasonable amount of pressure on the ball carrier 

4 minutes ago, Rusty Nails said:

You have to be more than capable at doing both SPC. We are ok at going fast up through the middle for short stints until our opponents crowd us out through there. Not so good at chopping our way up the field out wide then back in hitting 45s to counter.

You cant always go at break neck speed straight up the guts.

I agree about the switch. We lack some really solid kicks who can manage this with confidence and quickly.

Other times we need to play slow tempo in order to stop a run like y'day.

Regardless of how good or bad we are at it it still needs perfecting if we are to beat teams like the Saints (and better) going forward.

Most of our problems can be summed up in 3 major factors that are lacking....

1. Leadership across the park

2. A lack of mature players to hold the line and who know how/when to play slow, drop back and defend, organise the zones and less experienced players etc. Basically a list that is too skewed with inexperienced players just learning the basics of the game, with a sprinkling of serious talent/grunt.

3. Lack of quality users of the ball by foot which therefore leads to not enough use of the ball by foot, this leads to constant 'fast' play by hand which eventually results in fatigue and increased turnovers, gifting goals to any opponent who can keep a reasonable amount of pressure on the ball carrier 

I agree 100%.. We do not have another option.. The ballistic style suits us when we are given room to open up the ground, and Etihad is easy to block up.. When we lose the ability to move the ball fast, we go into a holding pattern and players panic. We have improved our style as a club, but not too sure whether mentally we have improved much!!

Geary kicked two consecutive goals on Hogan yesterday. Would love any of our backmen to even try to do that for once.

48 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

If this not the most frequently used crock of crap I hear after a loss. Whenever we lose people come on here and scream about how we are so [censored], so usless, havent improved, should have lost by 10 goals, never gonna win again. Yes, It was a dissapointing day but if you are going to continue to follow a football team, any team, then your gonna have to learn to suck it up. Saints lost to the GC a coule of weeks ago!! you dont think that was just as disapointing for them? We are going to have shockers (this one by the way was not as doom and gloom as people seem to be saying) and we are going to have days we play well. Over time we will get more consistant and sitting at 101.3% shows that is happening already.

You cant keep spouting crap about margin flattering us every time we lose. Yeah, Saints missed easy chances but we missed easy chances too do they not count? Fact is we were out worked, they put on more pressure, they do every time we play them. Odds on they will have another mighty dissapointing day before years end and we will have another good day. We are on a rollercoaster not a highway. 

Understand your frustration AW but I think you've put a lot of words into my mouth which I did not say. I said the margin flattered us because they missed a lot of easy shots and should've beaten us by more. Which part of that is untrue? They kicked 20 behinds to our 8, many of those 20 were ridiculously easy, I stopped counting after 8. The bolded bits I did not say, the rest is a rant of understandable frustration.

1 hour ago, Moonshadow said:

If you think the Saints shouldn't be a 6 goal better team than us, you are correct. They are more like a 10 goal better team. 

35 scoring shots to 19. The margin flattered us.

Just watched the game again and clearly they should've won by 10-12.

I hate this argument. The margin should have been what it was, because that's how St Kilda played and the score they kicked. You can't make up a magical margin that you think we should have lost by, then tailor your argument as if that was the outcome.

38 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

Understand your frustration AW but I think you've put a lot of words into my mouth which I did not say. I said the margin flattered us because they missed a lot of easy shots and should've beaten us by more. Which part of that is untrue? They kicked 20 behinds to our 8, many of those 20 were ridiculously easy, I stopped counting after 8. The bolded bits I did not say, the rest is a rant of understandable frustration.

If one of those easy misses becomes a goal, the ball goes back to the middle, so instead of Harmes or Vince doing a dud kick in that comes straight back in, we have Viney and Gawn contesting again. You're then on a totally different path of reality. We have no idea what would have happened, we might have been thrashed as you suggest, or we might have lost by less or even won if St Kilda hadn't peppered the goals. It's an invalid argument, because a goal puts the game on a completely different course to the outcome, compared to a behind.

1 minute ago, Nasher said:

I hate this argument. The margin should have been what it was, because that's how St Kilda played and the score they kicked. You can't make up a magical margin that you think we should have lost by, then tailor your argument around that.

The margin was what it was because that's the score that was kicked and that's what happened on the day. Yes. 

The point I made is that I consider St K to be a better team than the score indicated and that they are currently a much better team than us. The fact they missed so many easy goals is one example of how the margin flattered us and they should've won by more. We missed some, but nowhere near their numbers. Their game atm is superior to ours and are about a 10 goal better team IMO.

Do I deny that St K won by 6 goals? No. Do I think they are a better team and should've won by more? Yes.

42 minutes ago, Nasher said:

If one of those easy misses becomes a goal, the ball goes back to the middle, so instead of Harmes or Vince doing a dud kick in that comes straight back in, we have Viney and Gawn contesting again. You're then on a totally different path of reality. We have no idea what would have happened, we might have been thrashed as you suggest, or we might have lost by less or even won if St Kilda hadn't peppered the goals. It's an invalid argument, because a goal puts the game on a completely different course to the outcome, compared to a behind.

Of course we have no idea what would have happened on a different path to reality.

Any Saints supporter would be saying "we smashed them for the majority of the game, they were only in it at 3/4 time because of our inaccuracy, and we should've won by more"

Their kicking at goal was poor and not reflective of how better they played IMO, so yes, I believe they should've won by more. 

3 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

The margin was what it was because that's the score that was kicked and that's what happened on the day. Yes. 

The point I made is that I consider St K to be a better team than the score indicated and that they are currently a much better team than us. The fact they missed so many easy goals is one example of how the margin flattered us and they should've won by more. We missed some, but nowhere near their numbers. Their game atm is superior to ours and are about a 10 goal better team IMO.

Do I deny that St K won by 6 goals? No. Do I think they are a better team and should've won by more? Yes.

If the sample size was one game (yesterday's), I might agree. But you're talking about a team that's been spanked by the Eagles and Crows to the tune of around 100 points and lost to the Suns by 5 goals a few weeks ago.

I admit that many fall into a trap of underrating their young players like Newnes, Ross and Gresham, who to me all look well rounded, skillful players who keep their feet in a contest, work hard running both ways and make smart decisions.  I think the influence of Montagna and Riewoldt gets overstated sometimes out of hope more than anything. They are certainly influential, but I don't seem the team falling in a heap when they leave like some will claim. They have some genuine quality coming through and taking on responsibility.

All that said, they are not a 10 goal better side than we are. They play that  ground infinitely better than we do, and when they matched our pressure and then bettered it, they got on top. That doesn't make them better, just harder working. They also annoyingly happen to produce their best footy against us. Richardson himself said the third quarter was the best they've played all season. I've read elsewhere that it was the best game Gilbert has played in at least 3 months.

Overall I'd say they are more advanced than we are. But not to the extent of being a 10 goal better side.

I do think we need to attack trade and free agency with all guns blazing after witnessing yesterday. There are some holes we need to fill with quality coupled with experience, and the need is fairly immediate. Players won't stick around for another two years of wallowing mid table, beating up on teams at a low ebb and crumbling against almost any team that brings its A game. That's not progressing with any real conviction.

I have wavered on Prestia, but right now I think he and Hibberd are close to must get targets for the club.

It is an interesting season for mine, we seem to have fallen in a trap of playing our best footy against the better clubs and not so great footy against the clubs around us or below. The good thing is that on many occasions our best hasn't been required to beat those around or below us, with the exception of the dons and saints. 

If I look at our games against the Crows, North, Hawks, GWS, and a big chunk of the Swans game I think we played some of our best footy for the year, with no reward (except GWS). If we could play that footy against the likes of Port, Dons, and Saints we would have won them all.

I seem to remember a pattern like that a decade ago where we beat the sides we weren't meant to and lost to the side we should beat. Lets hope we can start beating them all!