View Full Version : StKilda vs Nth Melb - to those who WERE there
Second game I've been to this year to watch the Saints...
My first game this year was against the Cats a few weeks ago..and I swore never to go to the AFL for some time until there were some rule changes or Grant Thomas and his coaching colleagues pulled out of their flooding tactics... but anyway, I went along today to watch the game to see if much had changed..
I left at three quarter time in disgust.
AFL is no longer a spectacle.... Don't believe me? Then just wait and see TV Ratings and crowd attendances drop significantly due to aneurism that has engulfed our game.. Local football in the Eastern Suburbs any day!
R Man
SpInNeR
28 May 2006, 21:33
today was pathetic.
SpInNeR
28 May 2006, 21:38
...unlike you i stayed till the end and even enjoyed bruce evas interviewing of dal, gramy, milne and vossy after the game.
I go to see the saints be competitive and hopefully win, a good game is a bonus.
I follow the saints (win lose or draw) and not just a good game.
Which is why i cant stand all this crap of how boring the game is.
True follows are the ones that go each week.
If so and so supporters pick and choose (aka all the collingwood supporters i know) then i couldnt give a rats arse.
person077
28 May 2006, 22:12
...unlike you i stayed till the end and even enjoyed bruce evas interviewing of dal, gramy, milne and vossy after the game.
I go to see the saints be competitive and hopefully win, a good game is a bonus.
I follow the saints (win lose or draw) and not just a good game.
Which is why i cant stand all this crap of how boring the game is.
True follows are the ones that go each week.
If so and so supporters pick and choose (aka all the collingwood supporters i know) then i couldnt give a rats arse.
agreed.
agreed.
you are a fool person 077... "Agreed." pffft.. before you sit on the fence or 'agree' with everyone why don't you get your own opinion and hey... maybe choose a team..?
...unlike you i stayed till the end and even enjoyed bruce evas interviewing of dal, gramy, milne and vossy after the game.
I go to see the saints be competitive and hopefully win, a good game is a bonus.
I follow the saints (win lose or draw) and not just a good game.
Which is why i cant stand all this crap of how boring the game is.
True follows are the ones that go each week.
If so and so supporters pick and choose (aka all the collingwood supporters i know) then i couldnt give a rats arse.
Well GOOD ON YOU Spinner, each to their own! If you have the type of life that allows to go to every single StKilda game, and you are able to swallow two hours of keepings off than by all means - sit and enjoy!! But to come out and take the high moral ground of being a 'true supporter..' well, whatever - keep thinking you're the greatest.. if you only see our game through rose coloured glasses you my friend have the deep seated problem. Take an objective look at where our game is going and the flaws within it...
bubblegoose
29 May 2006, 11:19
I've been to every VIC game this year, and you sure chose the 2 worst to watch.
If you decide on another game to see, check out the opposition first. If we're playing crap teams, they are the ones flooding our forward half.
What's the use in bombing the ball into our congested forward line just to have the opposition run it down for a quick goal, possibly.
It ain't pretty but these are the tactics that crap teams are going to use against us.
Melbourne at the G this week should be a much better spectacle & quality of game.
thegoldenbear
29 May 2006, 13:40
Yeah it wasn't pretty with the long kicks backwards to re-load and start the attack again, but I was much more satisfied watching them eventually kick to open spaces for Nick to run into rather than trying to see if he'll be the first person decapitated in a marking contest. The teams confidence is slowly reutning and the opening 5 minute blitz reminded me of '04. Good players still to return, not playing at all to potential, still very much in touch with the leaders on the ladder - let's just be grateful for what we have.
Despite the ironic cheers of the crowd, didn't think we were too hard done by from the umpires either. A lot of free's difference on the stat sheet but in the end where they there? Some guy's head was about to explode in front of me when Frank got pinged in the last but it was there. Sometimes people get carried away and then every free against is another disgraceful decision. I hate the umpires interferring in a game as much as the next person but let's get real.
Joffaboy
29 May 2006, 13:42
Second game I've been to this year to watch the Saints...
My first game this year was against the Cats a few weeks ago..and I swore never to go to the AFL for some time until there were some rule changes or Grant Thomas and his coaching colleagues pulled out of their flooding tactics... but anyway, I went along today to watch the game to see if much had changed..
Umm Thomas and his coaching collegues didn't flood.
Geta clue :rolleyes:
Umm Thomas and his coaching collegues didn't flood.
Geta clue :rolleyes:
Both teams pushed numbers back.
Hotel 6
29 May 2006, 13:59
Due to my son playing junior footy yesterday I did not get to the game until half time and sat on ground level behind the goals. I thought the game was OK and then I read all the reports about the flooding and how boring it was. I normally sit on the wing at the Dome and I am wondering if sitting behind the goals made a difference in what I saw.
I am not saying it was a great game, I just did not see that it was that bad.
Hotel 6... I was on the wing - the game isn't seen differently where you sit, if it's an ordinary game with no fluidity... My point of this thread is that I came to watch the best football in the country; the best spectacle this country has to offer... and what I saw was about as spectacular to the eye as watching a limping family pet.
Fast, fluid football that comprises of intelligent footballers is what I come to see/ watch/ view.
Ok, let me be straight forward with how I saw it... I was seeing footballers in StKilda's colours get the ball on the forward fifty metre mark and look backwards to feed off the ball!!! Brett Voss was one.. The idea of looking a) at the goals or b) somewhere in our forward 25 didnt even enter his mind... He didn't even look up forward!! Looked to pass it backwards... How strategic do we want to get.. Football has never been, never will be.. rocket science! See Ball, Get Ball, First Instinct with Use!
Fraser Gehrig refuses to offer any/ many leads whatsoever, especially when we had players on our back flank looking for someone to provide the next option - and this didn't happen.. To use Reiwoldt at Full Forward is great.. but Gehrig will never know how to be proper CHF, especially with his lack of speed and willingness to provide another option.. this was blatant on the weekend, and why so many Kangaroos had time to run back and flood, causing massive amounts of sideway movements and hesitancy amongst players. I'm more than happy to hear others opinions, opposed or otherwise.. but this is coming from another frustrated AFL lover.
shallam
30 May 2006, 17:47
bring out the tissues
bring out the tissues
A wise man once said never argue with d.ickheads because soon enough you won't be able to tell the difference.
Hotel 6
30 May 2006, 22:34
Hotel 6... I was on the wing - the game isn't seen differently where you sit, if it's an ordinary game with no fluidity... My point of this thread is that I came to watch the best football in the country; the best spectacle this country has to offer... and what I saw was about as spectacular to the eye as watching a limping family pet.
Fast, fluid football that comprises of intelligent footballers is what I come to see/ watch/ view.
Ok, let me be straight forward with how I saw it... I was seeing footballers in StKilda's colours get the ball on the forward fifty metre mark and look backwards to feed off the ball!!! Brett Voss was one.. The idea of looking a) at the goals or b) somewhere in our forward 25 didnt even enter his mind... He didn't even look up forward!! Looked to pass it backwards... How strategic do we want to get.. Football has never been, never will be.. rocket science! See Ball, Get Ball, First Instinct with Use!
Fraser Gehrig refuses to offer any/ many leads whatsoever, especially when we had players on our back flank looking for someone to provide the next option - and this didn't happen.. To use Reiwoldt at Full Forward is great.. but Gehrig will never know how to be proper CHF, especially with his lack of speed and willingness to provide another option.. this was blatant on the weekend, and why so many Kangaroos had time to run back and flood, causing massive amounts of sideway movements and hesitancy amongst players. I'm more than happy to hear others opinions, opposed or otherwise.. but this is coming from another frustrated AFL lover.
No doubt R Man it was not a pretty game. I suppose I just had a different perspective of it sitting behind the goals at ground level. As an AFL member I can go to a heap of games and I live close to the Telstra Dome (in West Melbourne), so far this year I have only gone to two games that don't involve the Roos and both of those were Adelaide games because I went with people who barrack for the Crows. Both of those games were ordinary. The game against the Tigers and the opening round game against Collingwood. There was a time when I would go to every North game and about 15 others during the year. There is no doubt that I am enjoying the game less and less as a specticle and that's pretty sad. In fact this week I am going to head out and see my mum and go watch Croydon play in Eastern League
BTW good luck to the Saints this week.
sainter
31 May 2006, 04:09
I'm another of those that have no life and attend every single Saints game thanks R Man. :p
You're right about the quality of the game. It was awful. I think you're being quite harsh blaming our coaches for the flooding tactics though. In fact I think it was Thommo's reluctance to follow that path that contributed to the standard of the game. They had a loose man in defence and we chose not too man up on that player so as to keep our forward line as open as possible. Our players do have to get smarter though. Sometimes our players had no options up the ground and had no alternative but to kick sideways but there were times that they didn't even look up the ground.
I'd also follow the advice of bubblegoose earlier in this thread. Anyone that has followed the footy this year could have told you that the game on the weekend would be awful to watch. To tell you the truth I don't mind seeing us win ugly. Surely we've seen enough losses over the years to appreciate any win we have? The manner in which we play in round 9 isn't hugely important in the grand scheme of things either, provided we win the game. Losing the game on sunday with Melbourne, Sydney and Adelaide to come in the next 3 weeks would have been a disaster. The Kangaroos flooded back in big numbers against the Dockers last week and it helped them to lead by a small margin at half time. They were eventually run over but on the smaller confines of Telstra Dome it's a method of footy that often has successful results. There's just not the space that the MCG and Subiaco has. Look at Geelong. They tried their super flood tactics against the G the week after beating us and the Pies kept finding gaps and made them look stupid. We might be injury ravaged but Sunday afternoon at the G would be a good game to see. Both teams play an attacking brand of footy and I'd think it would be a free flowing kind of game.
I'm another of those that have no life and attend every single Saints game thanks R Man. :p
You're right about the quality of the game. It was awful. I think you're being quite harsh blaming our coaches for the flooding tactics though. In fact I think it was Thommo's reluctance to follow that path that contributed to the standard of the game. They had a loose man in defence and we chose not too man up on that player so as to keep our forward line as open as possible. Our players do have to get smarter though. Sometimes our players had no options up the ground and had no alternative but to kick sideways but there were times that they didn't even look up the ground.
I'd also follow the advice of bubblegoose earlier in this thread. Anyone that has followed the footy this year could have told you that the game on the weekend would be awful to watch. To tell you the truth I don't mind seeing us win ugly. Surely we've seen enough losses over the years to appreciate any win we have? The manner in which we play in round 9 isn't hugely important in the grand scheme of things either, provided we win the game. Losing the game on sunday with Melbourne, Sydney and Adelaide to come in the next 3 weeks would have been a disaster. The Kangaroos flooded back in big numbers against the Dockers last week and it helped them to lead by a small margin at half time. They were eventually run over but on the smaller confines of Telstra Dome it's a method of footy that often has successful results. There's just not the space that the MCG and Subiaco has. Look at Geelong. They tried their super flood tactics against the G the week after beating us and the Pies kept finding gaps and made them look stupid. We might be injury ravaged but Sunday afternoon at the G would be a good game to see. Both teams play an attacking brand of footy and I'd think it would be a free flowing kind of game.
There is ambiguity in one of my lines where I was saying 'Thomas and his colleagues' - It was meant to bracket Thomas and the rest of the clubs coaches ie colleagues in the coaches association. worded wrong :o I think StKilda playing Collingwood should be a marvellous spectacle at the G (if it is) this Sunday, I really do.
In reference to 'winning ugly;' I for one have seen far more losses in my life than wins up close and I"m 'all for the ugly win's too,' as Alvesy used to say - but my worry is that the ugly wins are actually becoming 'ugly games' more often across the weekend - a disease that is bound to be all too common over every round, creating further alienation amongst supporters and viewers alike. Sheedy's concept of a '2020 Thought Process' to save our game for the future is where I'm going here.
I truly believe there MUST be a law stipulated in our games that there can be NO kicking the ball backwards AT ALL in red tape time of the last quarter (perhaps even every quarter.) I think this is fair.. and the only reason one views players kicking backwards in the last 5 minutes of any quarter is to hold up play anyway and keep the scores as they are. Football should always be attacking. Why was the 89' GF so thrilling? Take a look at the scores at the end of the game...
R Man
Joffaboy
31 May 2006, 11:25
Both teams pushed numbers back.
Totally and hopelessly wrong. Kangaroos pushed one of their forwards into defence in Archer. St.Kilda left their structure in place so Goddard had no forward opponent.
Saints DID NOT flood, Kangaroos were the team that pushed their player into their defensive line.
Loved the last 3 minutes. Kangaroos 16 points down and still flooded. Saints held the ball for almost two minutes while the Kangaroos refused to man up.
Hilarious from the Kangaroos coach. Obviously didn't want to win the game, great tactics :) :thumbsu: .
Joffaboy
31 May 2006, 11:31
There is ambiguity in one of my lines where I was saying 'Thomas and his colleagues' - It was meant to bracket Thomas and the rest of the clubs coaches ie colleagues in the coaches association. worded wrong :o I think StKilda playing Collingwood should be a marvellous spectacle at the G (if it is) this Sunday, I really do.
In reference to 'winning ugly;' I for one have seen far more losses in my life than wins up close and I"m 'all for the ugly win's too,' as Alvesy used to say - but my worry is that the ugly wins are actually becoming 'ugly games' more often across the weekend - a disease that is bound to be all too common over every round, creating further alienation amongst supporters and viewers alike. Sheedy's concept of a '2020 Thought Process' to save our game for the future is where I'm going here.
I truly believe there MUST be a law stipulated in our games that there can be NO kicking the ball backwards AT ALL in red tape time of the last quarter (perhaps even every quarter.) I think this is fair.. and the only reason one views players kicking backwards in the last 5 minutes of any quarter is to hold up play anyway and keep the scores as they are. Football should always be attacking. Why was the 89' GF so thrilling? Take a look at the scores at the end of the game...
R Man
I think you have some valid points. However flooding like the Kangaroos did on the weekend wont win them games, and soon this fixation with flooding will start to subside.
Only can really ever be successful on the Telstra Dome due to its narrow wings. Carlton flooded in qtr2 at the G the week before and only conceeded2.6, but that was due to the Saint poor conversion rate than the flood.
Geelong uberflooded a lethargic Saints team (who had played 4 games in 18 days across three states) and beat them in the worst game i have ever seen. They tried the same against Collingwood at the G and got smashed by over 100 points.
Unfortunately you have seen two crap teams flood and try to make the game a scrap. We play the Dees on Sunday which should be open, so a better game will ensue I am sure.
windsock
3 Jun 2006, 23:11
Was just looking for another thread on this board and came across this.
You are delusional Joffaboy. At most stages in the last quarter we had a six man forward line and you had an extra man in defence.
Throughout the game both teams employed that tactic. Laidley probably instigated it in the first quarter when we got three or four goals down - what coach wouldn't? When we got on top in the second quarter, Thommo was outnumbered three on one on many occasions.
How did that happen?
Maybe that was because we had two loose men in defence and that was what was left over. Maybe you were pushing men back. But to squarely put the blame on one coach is laughable.
Kildonan
3 Jun 2006, 23:44
Coach adopts pragmatism at St Kilda (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19286426-2722,00.html)
The Australian
Chip Le Grand
May 29, 2006
"I'll love the day sides see fit to do it against us because we are so damn good."
Grant Thomas, after employing a super flood against Sydney, round 5, 2002.
GRANT THOMAS has spent the best part of four years eating these words. With every passing season, as St Kilda developed from easy beat into the most potent team in the game, their forward arc slowly disappeared beneath the rising tide.
At times, a frustrated Thomas would be reduced to despair. "Crikey. I feel sorry for all you people at home watching that," he lamented after an early season game last year.
Mostly, so long as the Saints were winning, he was prepared to grin and bear it. Deep in his heart, Thomas remained convinced that a flooding team would never beat an attacking, one-on-one team in finals. In the ideological schism over good versus ugly football, Thomas and St Kilda were a one-team crusade.
Not any more.
Against the Kangaroos yesterday, St Kilda flooded no more or less than every team does in the modern game. When confronted by the Kangaroos' stacked defence, they kept possession until they found a way forward. If the Kangaroos moved the ball forward slowly, they rushed numbers back.
Having taken four years to decide flooding and football can no longer be separated, St Kilda has rejoined the herd. They won and they won ugly, and Thomas left Telstra Dome a contented man.
"It is a game we definitely had to win," Thomas said. "That was the important part. It wasn't really pretty, obviously, but some days you have got to win like that."
Like everyone in football, Thomas has a strong view about where the game is heading. Like most coaches, he is wary of further rule changes at a time when the game is in a high state of flux. But unlike the Grant Thomas of just a few weeks ago, when the Saints were dramatically out-played and out-coached by Geelong, he is now willing to compromise those beliefs to help his team win.
"We just coach to win," he said. "During the week and other points in time you think about the spectacle and how the game is going. But you can only do with what you are served up with on the weekend. We would love to have man-on-man, contested footy all around the place and it doesn't always happen like that. We are getting more used to sides getting significant numbers behind the ball."
Dean Laidley is another coach who is struggling to keep pace -- quite literally -- with the changing game.
Laidley is meticulous in his preparation for opposition teams. But, according to Kangaroos president Graham Duff and by Laidley's own admission, the players he now has to work with are short of leg speed and a step behind the evolution of the game.
"I have got no qualms with that," Laidley said. "Graham fully supports me, along with (chief executive) Geoff Walsh. We have got a clear understanding where we are at and what we are trying to change and where we are going."
Laidley said he was happy with the "effort and grunt" his players showed in restricting St Kilda to 10 goals and the final margin to 17 points. The Kangaroos kicked poorly for goal and struggled to find a way forward beyond Nathan Thompson, who was well beaten by Max Hudghton.
Equally, they rarely gave St Kilda the opportunity to play their favoured game. Nick Riewoldt was double-teamed by Leigh Brown and Glenn Archer, who played loose in defence. Fraser Gehrig kicked two goals but had little influence and finished the day on report for striking Hamish McIntosh.
The style of this game was reflected in the final stats. Of St Kilda's top five ball winners, Leigh Fisher, Brendon Goddard and Sam Fisher all played in defence. For the Kangaroos, Archer made use of his roaming commission to gather 26 touches, almost all in the Kangaroos' own half.
Midway through the last quarter, Shannon Grant found himself 60 metres out from goal staring at a wall of St Kilda players. He turned around and kicked the ball 50 metres backwards to Archer. Grant's decision was met with howls of derision by supporters from both teams.
"When everybody pushed up the ground -- so the opposition's forward line ends up in front of the ball carrier -- what is the point of kicking down the line and being out-numbered?" Laidley asked. "That is the way it is going. Basketball, soccer, you can call it whatever you like but, at the end of the day, that is what it is turning into."
On this, Laidley will get no argument from Thomas. Not any more.
Chip Le Grand seems to back your view windsock, but the fact is Laidley did put Archer back, stacking the defence, leaving Goddard to play unfettered most of the match.
windsock
4 Jun 2006, 18:54
Thanks for that St Kildonian , but with all due respect, I'd prefer you didn't get Chop Le Blonk to support ANY of my views! ;)
Kildonan
4 Jun 2006, 19:09
:D
Fair enough