Off The Long Run

[tugga]

Thats exactly what I'm talking about.

And it's not just the guy with the ball who's at fault either. he looks downfield and sees nobody providing an option because they fear that that they may be on the receiving end of a dud kick, so they skulk back behind the ball to gather an easy kick.
I'd rather see a bloke put in a long lead and stuff it up by having a crack, than see blokes hide behind the ball and gather 30 easy possessions.

 

[Rayzorwire]

Razor you've been following the club for a while so you know the drill. Players have dropped their heads, cant handle the pressure, probably dont care enough about losing another coach.

I thought our 3rd quarter against Geelong was one of the best we've played under Wallace 1980, and that our effort level against the Dogs was around where it should be for the majority of the game.

Wallace cant turn it around mate. He had 5 years, he left it too late, and he overestimated his playing group until it was too late.

I don't think Wallace overestimated our list, I just think he saw zero point in not being upbeat about it. He was brought in partly to sell the club in a positive light, and despite not having much opportunity to do that, he's done as good a job in that department as anyone could have.

At the same time he was blunt and brutally honest when he said we wouldn't seriously challenge until 2011.

15 players we've used so far this year have played less than 50 games and there's a lot more rookies still to come through.

With that major handicap, we just can't routinely beat sides who are carrying roughly the same number of players in the 100+ games bracket.

Anyone who has seen Year of the Dogs should realise that Wallace is one of the best motivators and strictest taskmasters of the modern era.

Why haven't we seen that brutal ferocity at Richmond should be the question we are asking.

Is it all done solely behind closed doors?

Did he realise early on that he was dealing with a group of petty, coach-killing veterans who are selfish to the core, some highly overrated, highly sensitive mid-age players who've been taught from day one that being good enough occasionally guarantees you a career at this club, and a bunch of green kids?

Or is it like Pagan said recently - modern players no longer take 'in-your-face' criticism properly and instead want to be constantly coddled with positive reinforcement?

Wallace is downright frightening when his tail is up...we need to be asking questions like:

'What was it about our playing group which made him shelve that side of his personality?'

'Was he sadly lacking the mature age players who had the balls to respond to being verbally challenged on a regular basis?'

'Given the fact it is our <100 games players who are often leading the way in terms of passion and consistency, are we much better off keeping the coach who raised them to play like that, acknowledging that everyone bar Richo from 25yrs upwards was a lost cause when he took over, and giving him long enough in the job to bring the rookies he's blooded (I count everyone less than 100 games in that bracket) into being that senior group of players with heart and passion for the club and their own individual performance?'

'How have backroom shenanigans affected the way he coaches the side?'

'How has being at the club with a long tradition of senior players whispering self-serving bollocks in the ear of the board affected his coaching?'

'How has being totally insecure in his job from the first year onwards (thanks to coterie group 'let's get Sheedy' BS) affected his ability to give senior players the post-game bollocking they deserve?'

Best case scenario is that Wallace is axed and Bowden, Simmonds, Johnson, Pettifer, Newman, Schultz are all Gaspared along with him. Deledio and the rest have learnt nothing but bad habits from our senior players. Sacking the coach without any consequences for the players keeps us in the same vicious circle we've been in for 25 years

I honestly believe that the only way to improve a club like ours would have been to extend Wallace's contract for another 2-3 years halfway through last year, put ambitions on hold, put all the players on notice and let them know in no uncertain terms that either they better perform for this coach or they can kiss their career goodbye.

How many players are currently thinking that they'll be right and have a career whatever happens to Wallace?

Coaches embarking on finals campaigns need to be assured of their job and assured that they can say '**** results and **** you Bowden, Brown, Simmonds, Newman - or whoever - you dish up that shit and you can play Coburg 2nds until you're ready to give us a genuine 100% effort.'

Does Wallace have that absolutely necessary power? Nope, he's totally chained between feral clueless supporters and feral clueless board members all demanding success yesterday.

Has he ever had that power? Nope, the list was so miserable and lacking depth when he took over that he only had a choice between players with occasional heart and nowhere near enough ability, players with ability and no heart, or totally raw juniors who were not ready.

When a coach has nothing but hollow threats to hand out because his own tenure is in constant jeopardy, his ability to do the best job he can with one eye firmly on the long term ambitions is massively compromised.

There's nothing about our current situation which is more disappointing to me than having a genuine quality AFL coach (probably the last one we'll get for some time after a string of coaches who weren't mentally up to the job) be totally hamstrung throughout his entire coaching term, build a list that has a lot of talent and merit, and finish out his term having to put politics and clueless demands ahead of being the best coach he can and focusing solely on a premiership - not benchmarks which are irrelevant to a premiership.

You know and I know certain players should have been hammered and bugger the consequences - Wallace can't and never could because the demand from board and supporters for ephemeral 'success' overrides and obliterates the steps needed to bring long term, genuine success.

As most of us know, certain senior players are selfish cancers and are only teaching the younger players how to be the same. If Wallace could dump them all, be unconcerned about the consequences for our 'MUST SUCCEED' 2009 finals campaign, and make an example of them all, we'd be far better off.

He doesn't have that power and he never did have.

Razor if we lose to Melbourne this week what will you say then? None of the brightsiders dare touch this question because of the answer.

I really haven't thought about it Beav, I guess we'll find out if it happens.

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

Rayzor, I am not trying to pull the piss out of you but how can your claims be so black and white when.
TW was signed onto a 5 year contract, by his own admission, on the couch last night, every football dept. contract that currently exists has been entered into by the club , whilst he has been coach except obviously his own .
By seasons end he will have coached over 100 games , so I still don't understand why we haven't got more players around that 100 games mark , and the older players who you have assummed or suggested go sooking when he rips into them , weren't at the same experience level 5 years ago .

 

[_RT_]

We didn't fold without a whimper. If that had been the case, we have been outscore by a lot more than 5 goals in the second half.

We were outscored after 1/4 time 16.8 to 5.11. We were outscored 6.1 to 1.5 in the last quarter. That is folding without a whimper in my book happened the week before as well against the Cats when they scored 4.4 to our 1.1.

Why would it be different in terms of the 22 round season?

Missing four points is missing four points.

Its because it is the first 3 weeks of a new season, where the players should be jumping out of their skin ready to put in their best performances. I can excuse a side giving it away at the end of the season when its done and dusted and there is nothing to really play for.

No, I don't agree. I think the top-5/6 teams all soundly beating us (which I don't think will happen) has very little bearing on whether we're able to and deserve to finish 7th or not.

WTF! Of course it has plenty of bearing on whether we make/deserve the finals or not. We play The Dogs and Blues twice plus Cats, Hawks, Crows & Saints once each. Thats 8 games from 22 which if we were to lose would mean we have to win at least 12 of the remaining 14 games to be in the running to make finals. However, with us being soundly beaten by the top 5/6 sides we would probably have to win all 14 to make up the difference in % we would lose from those sound beatings. Tell me Ray how confident are you of winning these 5 games: Sydney x2, Roos x2 and Port @ AAMI. I wouldn't back us in to win any of them at the moment. Yet I bet you do, perhaps you should become a bit more realistic.

Well, you were talking about what YOU would rather he did. That's not his terms.

As far as I'm concerned, as long as his form holds he can play on as many years as he'd like to. Nobody is physically ready to kick him off the list and he puts bums on seats better than anyone.

I further disagree that any coach who takes on the job will commence any resembling a serious rebuild. Our board sees us as on the verge of finals and will only employ a coach who promises more success as quickly as possible.

That's the realistic scenario.

There in lies the problem, no-one is prepared to make the calls that need to be made. I've said it before and I'll say it again, this club is never going to get anywhere as long as it relies on Richo to be our match winner. As for putting bums on seats, I'd bet my last $ that we would get a lot more bums on seats if we were to be a regular contender for the flag, rather than having Richo running around.

Personally I'll be pissed if Wallace's replacement comes in and starts promising finals from day 1. It is quite clear that this list is not good enough to be a genuine contender.

But if you want to continue to believe the spin that comes out of the club then by all means go right ahead.

History says we haven't come close to winning a flag since well before the draft was brought in. Therefore it must be impossible...should we fold the club now or aim towards making a new history?

So you're choosing to ignore a rather signifigant fact that says nearly 80% of the teams that have started 0-3 in the last 10 years have failed to make finals. Yet you you have a go at me for being unrealistic.

You're just deflecting RT.

Its only deflecting because you don't have anything to counter it with. You tried to make a point that we're playing kids but when another side is running around with 6 kids with under 15 games. Perhaps the more damning stat is our games per players average yesterday was 80.9. The other sides average was 65.7. Now you tell me Ray which side is playing kids and which side isn't?

Geelong has 14 players over 100 games, the Dogs have 12, St. Kilda have 12, Hawthorn at full strength has 9 and a number of others that will pass 100 games this season.

Even a quick glance at the quality of those over-100 games players shows why these sides are consistent premiership chances, and also demonstrates clearly why other clubs like the Swans (14+) are always such a tough matchup for us.

We only have 6 players available over 100 games and several of them are next to useless. It hurts us enormously, it's a list flaw that Wallace inherited and whether it's him or someone else given the job beyond this season, it will take a couple more years to rectify. Even then we'll still be easing blokes like Vickery, Post etc. into the side and getting games into them.

So now I am confused. You believe our list is good enough to make finals but you believe that a number of our 100+ gamers are next to useless. Not only that but you also conceed that it will still take a few more years to rectify the situation.

So explain to me again just how we're a worthy top 8 side if our list is such terrible shape in terms of 100+ gamers & we match up poorly with those sides that do have plenty of 100+ gamers because they are so much better than ours. Because it can't work both ways.

These blokes have played 2 games, 35 games, 72 games, 93 games and 32 games respectively. Other than perhaps Tuck, none of them have reached their career peak (three are miles off) and there's a lot of others on our list in the same boat.

That's a big positive long term, however distressing it is in the short term.

Where were our match winners though? That was my point. These guys aren't our match winners, except for say Foley and maybe Tuck, they are grunts. You know you're in trouble when grunts are your best players in a game that needed to be won in the overall scheme of things.

Six of one, half a dozen of another.

I seem to remember you stating numerous times that we should be aiming for finals and nothing else is acceptable. The expectations of supporters wouldn't have changed one iota if Wallace had said at the beginning of the season that we were simply aiming to be 'competitive' - in fact, he probably would have been lynched for saying so.

It's called being between a rock and a hard place.

No its not Ray, if we get being competitive right, then making the finals takes care of itself. You can't be a finals contender if you can't compete in games week in and week out. Would you agree with that. It is what Clarkson did with the Hawks. He made sure they were able to compete week after week and the rest is history, that is why they were able to go out and compete and win on Sunday despite missing upto 6 of the premiership side. Meanwhile we were missing upto 6 of our best 22 but folded as normal because our players don't know how or simply don't want to compete when it gets a bit too hard.

You're correct I did say that we should aim for finals and anything less in unacceptable, now given that only 5 of 23 sides since 99 have managed to come back from a 0-3 start to make the finals, history suggests that we aren't going to do it, so therefore I'm not accepting another failed season, because even though we're only 3 rounds in our season is effectively over before it began as usual.

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

Oh and Rayzor how do you think those within our leadership group have performed this season and over Terrys tenure at the club, because I as a generalisation, think members of our leadership group have failed to live up to expectations, on field, whilst under Terrys tenure.

 

[beaver fever]

Razor the things you have highlighted are faced by almost all new coaches. The board and the supporters demand success, and this is no different for Wallace. Understandably he has faced many constraints, the biggest one I think has been poor resources. Perhaps with a proper functioning list management system and well funded football department he might have been better, but unfortunately Wallace could not overcome this.

However it is not the fact we aren't successful that has made Wallace a failure, it is the state the list is in. He brought in far too many recycled players where really only Mitch Morton has been successful. 3 national draft picks in 3/5 years because he wanted to trade our picks for recycled players. This is exactly the same mistake that Frawley made when he was at Richmond. The club did not take the national draft seriously, and now we are in a similar situation to where we were at in 2004. I understand it is not as bad as before. The only difference is before we had mega duds, where's now we only have duds.

Now Wallace was brought to the club to rebuild the list. What exactly has been achieved? What ruckman have been developed? We are still reliant on an aging Simmonds who is on his last legs, and then we have 3 kids because we did not do enough back in 2004-2006. What key forwards have we developed? Riewoldt is one success, but that is about as far as it goes. Pattison, Hughes and Schulz are duds. You may say it's not Wallace's fault that they didn't come on, national draft picks are hit and miss, well he brought in 3 kpf and expected to find 2 players out of that? We're lucky to have found 1. Everyone goes on about how good our key defenders are, well what we have are 3 undersized players, 1 playing out of position, 1 with poor kicking skills and 1 now dropped to Coburg. We have Post and Rance developing and wow if they don't come on we are screwed. We simply did not bring in enough young talls to the club, because instead we brought in recycled hacks that have led us nowhere Polak, P.Bowden, M.Graham, Kingsley and Knobel or persisted with dud players for too long. These are all Wallace choices. I know you might argue that they cost us little, but that is the very mentality that brings this club down. Late national draft picks, PSD picks and rookie picks are gold and we have failed to realise that.

So after 4 years at the club we do not have any ruckman to replace Simmonds, we have one key forward that is still only 19 and we have a bunch of undersized key defenders. Now that's just the talls situation, the smalls and mediums look just as bad.

 

[Bojangles17]

And it's not just the guy with the ball who's at fault either. he looks downfield and sees nobody providing an option because they fear that that they may be on the receiving end of a dud kick, so they skulk back behind the ball to gather an easy kick.
I'd rather see a bloke put in a long lead and stuff it up by having a crack, than see blokes hide behind the ball and gather 30 easy possessions.

i think thats the very root of the problem we have NO genuine forwards that could kick 4-7 on a good day, the type that provide real targets straightening the side up going forward...It's not quite as simple as finding a decent forward I also believe that TW has ****ed with the gameplan. stepping beyond the limitations of the team...meaning they arent game to go forward with any conviction , at one point Jacko stopped in his tracks and switched play on the 50mtr line, an unbelievable play that was ultimately rebounded...JR did the same thing early on

 

[tony_montana]

love him or hate him dermie summed it up beautifully on SEN this arvo.

instead of rayzing the list and building a young list that will grow and develop together, get harder/tougher together and build a new playing culture together, we kept the same old same old on and tried to build that way.


we should have just rayzed the lot, sure you can say now that the older blokes need to go bc they are a cancer of our club, but terry cant do it bc its finals or bust in 09 WELL Tough t***ies!!! clarko embarked on his complete rebuild with no guarantee he would reap the benefits of his tough decisions. He took the risk and got rewarded with a contract extension. Terry, on the otherhand had 5 years GUARANTEED, we werent going to sack him after a bad first 2 seasons and still he wimped out and went the 6 of one half and 1/2 a dozen of the other.

If he made the tough decisions early he wouldnt be in this predicament, we'd be on the up with genuine substance and a strongly balance list albeit a very young one, but instead now so many richmond supporters see that we have 6 over 31's on our list and see that we're still rubbish, hence the anger and resentment is multiplied. It is finals or bust bc of the way he has chosen to rebuild, if he made the truly hard decisions we still might be a few years off, but we'd be better of structurally and i would almost guarantee that most supporters would see we're genuinely on the up and would probably not be demanding finals.

He made his bed, now he can lie in it, I have no sympathy for him.

Shame bc I was his biggest fan and have been for over a decade but here he's stuffed up.

and before anyone harps on about 25 players in 2 yrs culled, so what? we also only took 3 ND picks 3 out of 5 yrs, thats where the cream is and we didn't dip in enough. We could have had more picks along with higher picks if list management was brutal instead half arsed from the very beginning

 

[bomba4eva]

You've changed a lot since I first read one of your posts RT. Back then you refused to be negative towards anything to do with Richmond. Tambling was also developing well back then and on track to become a very good player according to you many moons ago. Geez things have changed. Your club is again immersed in failure and the ridiculous thing is that the state of your list is still pretty poor. 6 30+ year olds in your bloody best 22! The recruitment of Cousins suggests that you think you can have a crack soon but this was a huge mistake. Winning 8 of your last 11 also covered up the cracks which are being exposed now. Lose against the Dees and you'll get your wish RT.

 

[Bojangles17]

The recruitment of Cousins suggests that you think you can have a crack soon but this was a huge mistake. .

howzat, what was the opportunity cost of passing on cousins

 

[bomba4eva]

howzat, what was the opportunity cost of passing on cousins

No, you misunderstood. The huge mistake was thinking you were within touching distance of a flag. Once Richo, Brown, Simmonds all retire you will be left with gaping holes in your team. The thinking behind getting Cousins was that you might be able to eek out a flag with your senior players still around. The opening 3 rounds have brutally shown how far off you really are.

In answer to your question the OC was gaining another youngster which continues the rebuild mode which some may have thought had faulted due to the recruitment of Cousins, Hislop and Thomson which were all expected to make impacts this year.

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

No, you misunderstood. The huge mistake was thinking you were within touching distance of a flag. Once Richo, Brown, Simmonds all retire you will be left with gaping holes in your team. The thinking behind getting Cousins was that you might be able to eek out a flag with your senior players still around. The opening 3 rounds have brutally shown how far off you really are.

In answer to your question the OC was gaining another youngster which continues the rebuild mode which some may have thought had faulted due to the recruitment of Cousins, Hislop and Thomson which were all expected to make impacts this year.

The not so knowledgable thought we were close, Richo moving to a wing is assisting in developing our forward line, maybe should of happened 3 years ago, Brown should not have a spot by seasons end, Simmonds has already shown his worth by taking the heat early in games and will be a back-up ruckman / forward by seasons end, Thompson good move back -up if Cogs goes down again, Hislop waste of time, Cousins super move, cost jack and with our developing midfield, Cotch, Lids and Foley is the best available to assist in their developement.

 

[bomba4eva]

The not so knowledgable thought we were close, Richo moving to a wing is assisting in developing our forward line, maybe should of happened 3 years ago, Brown should not have a spot by seasons end, Simmonds has already shown his worth by taking the heat early in games and will be a back-up ruckman / forward by seasons end, Thompson good move back -up if Cogs goes down again, Hislop waste of time, Cousins super move, cost jack and with our developing midfield, Cotch, Lids and Foley is the best available to assist in their developement.

I doubt Brown will be gone at the of the year unless he retires or is forced to move on due to a new coach clearing out the senior players. Has some good footy in him and Wallace won't dump him. Still an important player to Richmond. Don't exactly have many quality small forwards around the place.

Who will replace Simmonds as the number one ruck?

 

[tony_montana]

I doubt Brown will be gone at the of the year unless he retires or is forced to move on due to a new coach clearing out the senior players. Has some good footy in him and Wallace won't dump him. Still an important player to Richmond. Don't exactly have many quality small forwards around the place.

Who will replace Simmonds as the number one ruck?

Pattison, Vickery, Graham and Browne, on current form we're hardly trading down on this one

 

[1980]

I thought our 3rd quarter against Geelong was one of the best we've played under Wallace 1980, and that our effort level against the Dogs was around where it should be for the majority of the game.



I don't think Wallace overestimated our list, I just think he saw zero point in not being upbeat about it. He was brought in partly to sell the club in a positive light, and despite not having much opportunity to do that, he's done as good a job in that department as anyone could have.

At the same time he was blunt and brutally honest when he said we wouldn't seriously challenge until 2011.

15 players we've used so far this year have played less than 50 games and there's a lot more rookies still to come through.

With that major handicap, we just can't routinely beat sides who are carrying roughly the same number of players in the 100+ games bracket.

Anyone who has seen Year of the Dogs should realise that Wallace is one of the best motivators and strictest taskmasters of the modern era.

Why haven't we seen that brutal ferocity at Richmond should be the question we are asking.

Is it all done solely behind closed doors?

Did he realise early on that he was dealing with a group of petty, coach-killing veterans who are selfish to the core, some highly overrated, highly sensitive mid-age players who've been taught from day one that being good enough occasionally guarantees you a career at this club, and a bunch of green kids?

Or is it like Pagan said recently - modern players no longer take 'in-your-face' criticism properly and instead want to be constantly coddled with positive reinforcement?

Wallace is downright frightening when his tail is up...we need to be asking questions like:

'What was it about our playing group which made him shelve that side of his personality?'

'Was he sadly lacking the mature age players who had the balls to respond to being verbally challenged on a regular basis?'

'Given the fact it is our <100 games players who are often leading the way in terms of passion and consistency, are we much better off keeping the coach who raised them to play like that, acknowledging that everyone bar Richo from 25yrs upwards was a lost cause when he took over, and giving him long enough in the job to bring the rookies he's blooded (I count everyone less than 100 games in that bracket) into being that senior group of players with heart and passion for the club and their own individual performance?'

'How have backroom shenanigans affected the way he coaches the side?'

'How has being at the club with a long tradition of senior players whispering self-serving bollocks in the ear of the board affected his coaching?'

'How has being totally insecure in his job from the first year onwards (thanks to coterie group 'let's get Sheedy' BS) affected his ability to give senior players the post-game bollocking they deserve?'



I honestly believe that the only way to improve a club like ours would have been to extend Wallace's contract for another 2-3 years halfway through last year, put ambitions on hold, put all the players on notice and let them know in no uncertain terms that either they better perform for this coach or they can kiss their career goodbye.

How many players are currently thinking that they'll be right and have a career whatever happens to Wallace?

Coaches embarking on finals campaigns need to be assured of their job and assured that they can say '**** results and **** you Bowden, Brown, Simmonds, Newman - or whoever - you dish up that shit and you can play Coburg 2nds until you're ready to give us a genuine 100% effort.'

Does Wallace have that absolutely necessary power? Nope, he's totally chained between feral clueless supporters and feral clueless board members all demanding success yesterday.

Has he ever had that power? Nope, the list was so miserable and lacking depth when he took over that he only had a choice between players with occasional heart and nowhere near enough ability, players with ability and no heart, or totally raw juniors who were not ready.

When a coach has nothing but hollow threats to hand out because his own tenure is in constant jeopardy, his ability to do the best job he can with one eye firmly on the long term ambitions is massively compromised.

There's nothing about our current situation which is more disappointing to me than having a genuine quality AFL coach (probably the last one we'll get for some time after a string of coaches who weren't mentally up to the job) be totally hamstrung throughout his entire coaching term, build a list that has a lot of talent and merit, and finish out his term having to put politics and clueless demands ahead of being the best coach he can and focusing solely on a premiership - not benchmarks which are irrelevant to a premiership.

You know and I know certain players should have been hammered and bugger the consequences - Wallace can't and never could because the demand from board and supporters for ephemeral 'success' overrides and obliterates the steps needed to bring long term, genuine success.

As most of us know, certain senior players are selfish cancers and are only teaching the younger players how to be the same. If Wallace could dump them all, be unconcerned about the consequences for our 'MUST SUCCEED' 2009 finals campaign, and make an example of them all, we'd be far better off.

He doesn't have that power and he never did have.



I really haven't thought about it Beav, I guess we'll find out if it happens.

I agree to the extent that I was thinking of putting up a thread about it after the match. There just has to be some common denominator over 27 years why so many coaches fail and we keep on so many players that we rate highly but other clubs dont. It really is groundhog day over and over again, which is why as critical as I was of Wallace last season, I wanted so desperately for him to turn it around this week. I just cant take another coach and rebuild all over again.

But at the end of the day, Wallace is a media savvy bloke. If he had internal issues, he knows how to use the media and shift the spotlight.

As much as I'd love Gary March to come out this week and sack 3 senior players and tell the rest to get behind the coach or else, this is Richmond. We'll take the easy way out again. Wallace is gone.

 

[Rayzorwire]

Rayzor, I am not trying to pull the piss out of you but how can your claims be so black and white when.
TW was signed onto a 5 year contract, by his own admission, on the couch last night, every football dept. contract that currently exists has been entered into by the club , whilst he has been coach except obviously his own.

I've got very little idea what you're talking about PtF.

Let's start with which "claims" I have made?

Then let's acknowledge the fact that Wallace has not had anything resembling full control of appointments within the football department, and perhaps ponder the relevance of that to the thread we're discussing.

FWIW, I think Royal is an extremely ordinary assistant based on what I have seen, read and heard, but the fact Wallace felt the need to appoint him says more about Wallace needing an ally in a place of constant turmoil than Wallace actually thinking Royal was the best assistant going around.

How many other football department decisions have the dirty stain of club politics all over them?

I might add, our midfield was rapidly improving in 2008 until [fill in the blank] political appointment number X took over with his unique brand of 'genius.'

By seasons end he will have coached over 100 games , so I still don't understand why we haven't got more players around that 100 games mark

Tuck has played all, Deledio has played most, beyond that, we had no other juniors ready to go in rd.1 2005 - which makes the amount of games Wallace has given to juniors and undeveloped players even more laudable.

Why do you even need to ask the question when the answer is so obvious?

and the older players who you have assummed or suggested go sooking when he rips into them , weren't at the same experience level 5 years ago .

I haven't suggested that senior players go "sooking" when Wallace "rips into them," I'm suggesting that there's a very good chance he was smart enough to realise he was better off trying to gently coax decent games of football out of the likes of Bowden than give them the full-frontal 'wake up and stop sniffing your own arseh*le for a living' routine and break them into little pieces like someone should have done when they were juniors.

Its because it is the first 3 weeks of a new season, where the players should be jumping out of their skin ready to put in their best performances.

Ideally, yes.

In reality, we came up short against two MUCH better sides, and failed miserably against a similarly placed contender who has since been knocked back down to earth by a side we would expect to beat.

WTF! Of course it has plenty of bearing on whether we make/deserve the finals or not. We play The Dogs and Blues twice plus Cats, Hawks, Crows & Saints once each. Thats 8 games from 22 which if we were to lose would mean we have to win at least 12 of the remaining 14 games to be in the running to make finals. However, with us being soundly beaten by the top 5/6 sides we would probably have to win all 14 to make up the difference in % we would lose from those sound beatings.

If we're good enough we'll make it, it's as simple as that.

As for percentage, we're 150 points down on being 100%, it's hardly a margin which is impossible to make up in 12+ wins.

Tell me Ray how confident are you of winning these 5 games: Sydney x2, Roos x2 and Port @ AAMI. I wouldn't back us in to win any of them at the moment. Yet I bet you do, perhaps you should become a bit more realistic.

I'm confident about winning every game - after all, we are capable on our day. I'd say we're capable of winning three out of those five.

There in lies the problem, no-one is prepared to make the calls that need to be made.

What, trade all our senior players including Richo 3-4 years ago and have a membership way below what we currently do?

Personally I'll be pissed if Wallace's replacement comes in and starts promising finals from day 1. It is quite clear that this list is not good enough to be a genuine contender.

That was a lot bloody clearer in 2004, but Wallace still had the 'we want results yesterday or else' crap placed on his shoulders and the next bloke will be no different.

Do you really think the dimwitted suits on the board and in the coterie groups will magically demand something other than what they have always demanded?

But if you want to continue to believe the spin that comes out of the club then by all means go right ahead.

Yeah right, I have a tradition of doing that...

So you're choosing to ignore a rather signifigant fact that says nearly 80% of the teams that have started 0-3 in the last 10 years have failed to make finals. Yet you you have a go at me for being unrealistic.

To understand raw statistics and apply them intelligently, you need to start by further working out the percentage of those teams who played two top-3 sides and a top-8 side in the first three weeks, two of the games away from home, then begin again from there.

Your avoidance of the most pertinent question asked - re. our premiership history - is noted.

Its only deflecting because you don't have anything to counter it with.

Is this the point where I say 'you're only saying that because you point blank refuse to address the point that all the top sides have significantly more experienced quality players than us?'

You tried to make a point that we're playing kids but when another side is running around with 6 kids with under 15 games. Perhaps the more damning stat is our games per players average yesterday was 80.9. The other sides average was 65.7. Now you tell me Ray which side is playing kids and which side isn't?

Again, you're applying raw statistics with zero relevant context. Our 100+ game players give us very little consistent good football, the majority of the rest of the league bases its success on that very same group of players.

The thing you're blinded to and deceived by when you drag out raw stats, is that our 'kids' are mostly holding down vital roles:

Defense - nobody but Newman and McMahon who isn't a kid...Newman's just another professional footballer 'victim' of his own terminal mediocrity, while McMahon is a professional pussy - whose 40% genuinely good disposal puts him ahead of other alternatives.

Number of senior players who genuinely add to our worth as a side - zero.

Midfield - Simmonds who isn't worth half a pinch of cockroach shit as a no.1 ruckman, Johnson, who the Dutch are in talks with about whether or not he can extend his career indefinitely falling over and sandbagging holes in dykes, and Richardson, who is a midfielder in name only. You could add Tuck, but he's solely a Wallace player who would be gone without Wallace's knack for getting the best out of players who genuinely want to be good AFL players.

Number of senior players who genuinely add to our worth as a side - Richo...one close to gone veteran.

Forward line - Brown and Bowden...up when they can be bothered, neither give us anything defensively and their good offensive games are becoming increasingly rare.

Number of senior players who genuinely add to our worth as a side - one player between both of them, or none if you're harsh (realistic?).

Name me another genuine finals contender who has such a measly, mediocrity ridden bunch of senior players to prop it up RT.

Then we can talk about kids.

Juniors have their place in a side which has solid senior structure - we have no senior structure to offer them...just juniors coming into a side where slightly more experienced juniors are left to lead the way.

So now I am confused. You believe our list is good enough to make finals but you believe that a number of our 100+ gamers are next to useless. Not only that but you also conceed that it will still take a few more years to rectify the situation.

What's so confusing?

We're good enough to make finals IF our senior players give us a consistent 80% of what they're capable of, IF our juniors play 10-30% above what they should be reasonably expected to consistently produce, and IF the very few in between perform somewhere close to 100%.

Where were our match winners though?

Still learning their trade - which is my entire point.

No its not Ray, if we get being competitive right, then making the finals takes care of itself.

Which is precisely why I commented that either stance was six of one and half a dozen of another.

One thing Wallace can't be accused of is not 'taking one game at a time.'

You can't be a finals contender if you can't compete in games week in and week out. Would you agree with that.

Would St. Kilda agree with that after being thumped by Brisbane and being comfortably beaten by West Coast on their way to a preliminary final?

You're correct I did say that we should aim for finals and anything less in unacceptable, now given that only 5 of 23 sides since 99 have managed to come back from a 0-3 start to make the finals, history suggests that we aren't going to do it, so therefore I'm not accepting another failed season, because even though we're only 3 rounds in our season is effectively over before it began as usual.

Your blatant avoidance of my question..."History says we haven't come close to winning a flag since well before the draft was brought in. Therefore it must be impossible...should we fold the club now or aim towards making a new history?" is once again noted, and I'll add in your avoidance of the FACT that if Wallace had claimed at the beginning of the season that we were simply aiming to be 'competitive,' you would have made a thread about that not being an acceptable aim about an hour after he said it.

Oh and Rayzor how do you think those within our leadership group have performed this season and over Terrys tenure at the club, because I as a generalisation, think members of our leadership group have failed to live up to expectations, on field, whilst under Terrys tenure.

We've had the leaders you pick by default when you have no leaders.

I loathe Chris Newman as a footballer or leader, I loathed Johnson before him, and Campbell before that.

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

Rayzor I think the general feeling amongst supporters of the club is :

We haven't seen the developement from players at the club compared to other clubs, whether that be the ones that have been there 2 years, 5 years or the leadership amongst the players inherited.
The club appears to lack coaching staff which is seeing the developement and implication of a structure amongst the playing group.
The leadership amongst the playing group appears somewhat dissapointing and TW doesn't appear to have ever enjoyed a good rapport with member of our leadership group.
The most glaring and annoying thing I believe from supporters, and all followers of AFL ,is there appears to be no direction and hasn't appeared to be any forward thinking. In saying this I agreed with given him a 5 year term and giving him the comfort in knowing, short term pain wasn't likely to place his job on the line. I think all supporters were prepared to cop a little more pain then and were ,if not confident, prepared to give him time to develop the coaching staff, game plan and playing list required to make an impact. But where does it end and surely after 4 years we should see some light at the end of the tunnel. Instead I see a coach treading water and making decisions on the hop.
Ala round 1 picks his best side, round 2 picks a side who gives people going through the turnstiles more of an effort, round 4 picks a side with a higher skill level, all relevant areas that most think the club needs to improve, why after 4 years isn't our best side, in his opinion, giving their best effort in round 1, is he still mis-judging his players ?
Its confusing to most what he is trying to pick a side upon skill, defensive pressure and it also appears that the players also have no idea of what he is trying to accomplish and what is required by them.

 

[Bojangles17]

No, you misunderstood. The huge mistake was thinking you were within touching distance of a flag.

you're a ****en mile off the mark partner, how on earth could you make a call we were in touching distance of a flag when we're looking to make the finals for first time in 8 years...securing Cuz was a bonus PSD selection that delivered extraordinarly gains$$$ before he even stepped onto the ground, whatever he delivers from this point will be icing on the cake.

 

[_RT_]

Ideally, yes.

In reality, we came up short against two MUCH better sides, and failed miserably against a similarly placed contender who has since been knocked back down to earth by a side we would expect to beat.

We didn't just come up short against 2 much better sides, we were soundly beaten by 2 much better sides playing well below their best. Against the Cats we played somewhere near our best footy and still fell 20 points short. Against the Dogs we were woeful and they hardly got out of 3rd gear and yet outscored us by 16 goals to 5 after 1/4 time. Imagine the carnage if they had of been on the ball Monday. We'd all be discussing the appointment of a new coach right about now, rather than discussing when the current one is going to get the arse.

If we're good enough we'll make it, it's as simple as that.

As for percentage, we're 150 points down on being 100%, it's hardly a margin which is impossible to make up in 12+ wins.

The problem is Ray, there is little point making the 8 to go out and embarrass ourselves because we can't compete with the other 7 sides in the 8. We have 11 games against last years top 8 & 11 against the bottom 8. To make the finals we will need to win at least 4 games against the top 8 sides because we aren't certainties to win the remaining 10 games remaining against the bottom 8. Port @ AAMI, WCE @ Subiaco, Carlton, Brisbane and Essendon are all capable of beating us.

As for making up the difference in %, making up 150 points might sound easy, but you're basing that on the the difference not getting any greater. Lets say we lose to the Roos and Swans by 7 goals each and beat the Dees by 60. The difference then grows to be 174 points, meaning each win has to be by a greater margin. So in effect it isn't really that easy at all.

I'm confident about winning every game - after all, we are capable on our day. I'd say we're capable of winning three out of those five.

Therein lies the problem, we're a side that is capable on its day, I would prefer us to be a side that is capable every week. When we reach that, then we'll be a side that deserves to make finals.

What, trade all our senior players including Richo 3-4 years ago and have a membership way below what we currently do?

Hawthorn got rid of most of their senior players 3-4 years ago and their membership fell by a little, yet with the success that they have had they now have the biggest membership in Victoria. Amazing what a bit of sustained success on the field can do to your membership total, instead of clever marketing.

That was a lot bloody clearer in 2004, but Wallace still had the 'we want results yesterday or else' crap placed on his shoulders and the next bloke will be no different.

Do you really think the dimwitted suits on the board and in the coterie groups will magically demand something other than what they have always demanded?

In 04 Schwab made the statement that he thought that the Hawks were capable of winning a flag, they failed miserably. He got the sack and Hawthorn hired a coach who said he wanted to rebuild the list. Clarkson didn't promise finals or instant success. He went in with a plan to build a side that could deliver long term success which was built on suffering short term pain for long term gain.

Wallace hasn't done that. Right from the start he was topping up with experienced players. Trying to keep the everyday fan happy by showing that we're still capable of winning games. Have a look at the figures I put up in the Wallace wont play kids thread. 27 kids have made their AFL debuts from 44 draftees under Clarkson. Under Wallace the figure is 22 kids from 30 draftees. They've given more opportunities to kids and taken more chances with kids.

To understand raw statistics and apply them intelligently, you need to start by further working out the percentage of those teams who played two top-3 sides and a top-8 side in the first three weeks, two of the games away from home, then begin again from there.

The raw fact is nearly 80% of sides that have started 0-3 in the last 10 years have missed the finals.

But so you can't say I'm avoiding it, here is the record of the 18 sides that did miss out. They played a combined 54 games of those games, of those games 37 were against top 8 sides. Of those 37, 18 were against top 4 sides. So to summarise it for you: 69% of the games were against top 8 sides and 50% of those games against top 8 sides were against top 4 sides.

Of the 18 sides that missed out 5 of them played all 3 games against top 8 sides.
2001 North played 2 top 4 sides & 1 top 8.
2002 Dogs played 1 top 4 side & 2 top 8.
2006 Tigers played 1 top 4 & 2 top 8.
2008 Dees played 3 top 4 sides. Port played 1 top 4 and 2 top 8.

Does that put the stats into some perspective for you Ray?

Your avoidance of the most pertinent question asked - re. our premiership history - is noted.

We're talking about us being a chance of coming back from a 0-3 start to making the finals. Thats the topic here, not winning flags, because to be a chance to win a flag you have to make the finals first and out chances of doing that when looking at the stats aren't that great. Perhaps you should stop avoiding that.

Is this the point where I say 'you're only saying that because you point blank refuse to address the point that all the top sides have significantly more experienced quality players than us?'

Again, you're applying raw statistics with zero relevant context. Our 100+ game players give us very little consistent good football, the majority of the rest of the league bases its success on that very same group of players.

The thing you're blinded to and deceived by when you drag out raw stats, is that our 'kids' are mostly holding down vital roles:

Defense - nobody but Newman and McMahon who isn't a kid...Newman's just another professional footballer 'victim' of his own terminal mediocrity, while McMahon is a professional pussy - whose 40% genuinely good disposal puts him ahead of other alternatives.

Number of senior players who genuinely add to our worth as a side - zero.

Midfield - Simmonds who isn't worth half a pinch of cockroach shit as a no.1 ruckman, Johnson, who the Dutch are in talks with about whether or not he can extend his career indefinitely falling over and sandbagging holes in dykes, and Richardson, who is a midfielder in name only. You could add Tuck, but he's solely a Wallace player who would be gone without Wallace's knack for getting the best out of players who genuinely want to be good AFL players.

Number of senior players who genuinely add to our worth as a side - Richo...one close to gone veteran.

Forward line - Brown and Bowden...up when they can be bothered, neither give us anything defensively and their good offensive games are becoming increasingly rare.

Number of senior players who genuinely add to our worth as a side - one player between both of them, or none if you're harsh (realistic?).

Name me another genuine finals contender who has such a measly, mediocrity ridden bunch of senior players to prop it up RT.

Then we can talk about kids.

Juniors have their place in a side which has solid senior structure - we have no senior structure to offer them...just juniors coming into a side where slightly more experienced juniors are left to lead the way.

What's so confusing?

We're good enough to make finals IF our senior players give us a consistent 80% of what they're capable of, IF our juniors play 10-30% above what they should be reasonably expected to consistently produce, and IF the very few in between perform somewhere close to 100%.

So, according to you, we have practically nothing in terms of genuine quality in the 100+ gamers catergory, and those we do have hardly provide a consistent input. Then we've got kids who are told to go out and hold down key positions when they shouldn't really be expected to,(yet the premiers had 2 kids drafted at the same time as a couple of ours who led them to a flag). Not only that but you expect our kids to play 10-30% above what they should be reasonably expected to consistently produce, when consistency has been a major problem in our side the whoe time under Wallace.

Yet you still seem mto believe that we're a genuine contender for the top 8. Now you tell me whats not to be confused about?

Still learning their trade - which is my entire point.

But those players who are learning their trade aren't the match winners I was talking about. I was talking about the ones who are seen as match winners already. They were doing what they usually do and that is look out for number 1 first and then worry about everyone else second. We cannot be a team that pushes for finals when we have players like that still running around.

Which is precisely why I commented that either stance was six of one and half a dozen of another.

One thing Wallace can't be accused of is not 'taking one game at a time.'

My point was how can TW push for a finals spot when he can't even get the side to play consistent football week after week. Look at most of the sides that play finals, they have a consistent level that they play at week after week. Not play a brilliant game one week and then fold like a deck of cards the next. I just don't believe a side that delivers such inconsistent efforts can be viewed upon as a finals contender. Perhaps that is why none of the AFL captains voted for us as a side that can make the finals, yet voted for the Blues. Perhaps they are seen as being the more consistent side while yet we're still looked upon as the side that can be great one week and crap the next.

Would St. Kilda agree with that after being thumped by Brisbane and being comfortably beaten by West Coast on their way to a preliminary final?

Saints average losing margin against top 8 sides last year was 27.5 points per game in H&A games. Our average losing margin against top 8 sides was 43.1. They were at least able to be competitive in their games against top 8 sides. We clearly weren't.

Your blatant avoidance of my question..."History says we haven't come close to winning a flag since well before the draft was brought in. Therefore it must be impossible...should we fold the club now or aim towards making a new history?" is once again noted, and I'll add in your avoidance of the FACT that if Wallace had claimed at the beginning of the season that we were simply aiming to be 'competitive,' you would have made a thread about that not being an acceptable aim about an hour after he said it.

As I said above Ray, when we're looking at winning a flag then I'll discuss our chances of doing so despite not winning one for 30 odd years. The topic at the moment is the fact that we're not going to make finals and the reasons why.

As for making a thread. I took the finals aim comments made by Wallace and the club and took them on board and the made a thread saying that if we are to be a finals contender we can't continue to hide behind excuses: http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=524719

Yet 3 weeks into the seasona and once more Wallace is rolling out the excuses and asking for more time while he gets things right after an 0-3 start. We have 1 game in the next 3 weeks that I feel comfortable about winning.

So what happens Ray in 3 weeks time when we're a fair chance of being 1-5, will you still be sitting their thinking that we're a good chance of making the finals or will you continue to throw us reasons to suggest that we can still make it?

 

[GhostofJimJess]

My mate turnd to me yesterday and said 'Why do they stop, prop, look and then kick it backwards or sideways?'.
I told him that when they do that, it looks like they're hitting a target. They play it safe by kicking it backwards to a teammate and then it's not his problem anymore. The mindset is that as long as your kick has his a target regardless of where he is kicking to, then he hasn't stuffed up and he is not the one who is looking bad. As long as your kick hits someone on the chest, even if it's 20metres behind him, then you can wash your hands of it and then it's the next bloke's problem.
It's a selfish mindset and it's a vicious cycle to break out of.

You sure I wasn't the mate sitting next to you, Tugga? I used almost those exact words at the game on Monday. The shift from forward to non-existent momentum with our disposal and ball movement was just so glaringly obvious after quarter time.

Some credit to the Dogs who clearly lifted their defensive rating, but the number of times we stopped, propped, stuttered, and ignored blokes like White and Tambling who were clear in the middle of the ground was astonishing. Credit to Foley and Newman for trying to get things rolling at times, but there were so many culprits any positivity was stifled.

That whole "it's now someone else's problem" was very evident. Good call.

I thought our 3rd quarter against Geelong was one of the best we've played under Wallace 1980, and that our effort level against the Dogs was around where it should be for the majority of the game.

In the interest of preserving the page, I won't quote the whole post Rayzor.

I know we have agreed to disagree on some matters, and that's alright too, but this one was a fantastic post. A great read.

We were outscored after 1/4 time 16.8 to 5.11. We were outscored 6.1 to 1.5 in the last quarter. That is folding without a whimper in my book happened the week before as well against the Cats when they scored 4.4 to our 1.1.

Attrocious accuracy when kicking for goal does not constitute "giving up without a whimper" in my book. Maybe we've got a different personal definition?

My definition involves a significant proportion who fail to lead, fail to run with the ball, fail to chase, fail to take their position in the zone, fail to compete, and/or fail to be man up at stoppages.

This wasn't the case. We went inside 50 just as often as the Dogs in Q4, andhad as many shots at goal. That blokes like Simmonds, Richo and others are unreliable when kicking from distances that U/18 players would be ashamed of missing doesn't mean they "gave up", but that they lack their required level of skill.

And that we were able to force the Dogs wide so often out of their defensive 50, at least three times causing them to kick out on the full coming out anti-clockwise from the Coventry end, is testimony to the fact that our zone was generally holding up pretty well.

Again, that we ended up repeatedly turning the ball over from the boundary kick-ins is more due to ineptitude than attitude.

We didn't just come up short against 2 much better sides, we were soundly beaten by 2 much better sides playing well below their best

And your point is?

Why do these teams (Cats & Dogs) warrant such empathy for "playing well below their best", yet Richmond are condemned for playing well below our best.

Maybe these two teams were "playing well below their best" because the opposition applied some decent contested pressure on them, prompting them to play that way?

Or is it purely coincidental that two top teams chose the same team to drop their guard, and that they won't always be vulnerable to such solid pressure?

 

[Rayzorwire]

The problem is Ray, there is little point making the 8 to go out and embarrass ourselves because we can't compete with the other 7 sides in the 8.

We won't make the eight unless we beat a few of the top-8 sides from last year, so obviously if we're playing finals we have been 'competitive' against several of them.

As for making up the difference in %, making up 150 points might sound easy, but you're basing that on the the difference not getting any greater. Lets say we lose to the Roos and Swans by 7 goals each and beat the Dees by 60. The difference then grows to be 174 points, meaning each win has to be by a greater margin. So in effect it isn't really that easy at all.

Nothing's easy if you continually take the worst-case scenario and make that your reality.

Therein lies the problem, we're a side that is capable on its day, I would prefer us to be a side that is capable every week. When we reach that, then we'll be a side that deserves to make finals.

You just ignore every point and ramble along your own narrow pathway with the blinkers on RT.

The Saints played a prelim after getting smashed by Brisbane and beaten by the Eagles. They deserved to play finals because they had enough points to make it - losing to Melbourne by 200 points wouldn't change that.

Hawthorn got rid of most of their senior players 3-4 years ago and their membership fell by a little, yet with the success that they have had they now have the biggest membership in Victoria. Amazing what a bit of sustained success on the field can do to your membership total, instead of clever marketing.

Hawthorn were in better financial shape than us due to the Tassie deal, but more importantly, the club was united from board level, to coterie supporters, to the coaching staff, right down to the players.

We are not united. We had coterie members plotting backroom coups to bring Sheedy back, a board who showed Wallace support in public only (and often not even then), coaching staff appointed who only unsettle the existing coaching staff, and we still have selfish cancers like Bowden on the playing field.

In 04 Schwab made the statement...

None of what you wrote has anything even remotely to do with the question I asked:

Do you really think the dimwitted suits on the board and in the coterie groups will magically demand something other than what they have always demanded?

Why bother quoting me if 9/10 times you're off on a totally different tangent?

The raw fact is nearly 80% of sides that have started 0-3 in the last 10 years have missed the finals.

But so you can't say I'm avoiding it, here is the record of the 18 sides that did miss out. They played a combined 54 games of those games, of those games 37 were against top 8 sides. Of those 37, 18 were against top 4 sides. So to summarise it for you: 69% of the games were against top 8 sides and 50% of those games against top 8 sides were against top 4 sides.

Of the 18 sides that missed out 5 of them played all 3 games against top 8 sides.
2001 North played 2 top 4 sides & 1 top 8.
2002 Dogs played 1 top 4 side & 2 top 8.
2006 Tigers played 1 top 4 & 2 top 8.
2008 Dees played 3 top 4 sides. Port played 1 top 4 and 2 top 8.

Does that put the stats into some perspective for you Ray?

Yes it does. It shows that out of 18 sides who missed finals, only two had a draw which was relatively comparable.

Without being bothered to look it up, no doubt a couple/few of the sides who did make finals from 0-3 also had tough early draws.

Suddenly your 'history' looks very different and your sample size has shrunk to a point where it has bugger all relevance.

I could go on, but I won't.

We're talking about us being a chance of coming back from a 0-3 start to making the finals. Thats the topic here, not winning flags...

You made 'history' the topic, I threw some history back at you.

History says we have never won a flag since the draft. That's no less relevant than your 'history,' but it's not going to stop us trying is it?

Now you tell me whats not to be confused about?

There's nothing confusing in what I said. I'm not going to rehash it over and over again for you.

We cannot be a team that pushes for finals when we have players like that still running around.

We 'pushed' for finals last year with the same senior players, now our juniors are a year older. Which part of that is so difficult for you to grasp?

My point was how can TW push for a finals spot when he can't even get the side to play consistent football week after week.

Again, points get sides into finals, not supporters who arbitrarily decide whether they deserve it or not.

Saints average losing margin against top 8 sides last year was 27.5 points per game in H&A games. Our average losing margin against top 8 sides was 43.1. They were at least able to be competitive in their games against top 8 sides. We clearly weren't.

Just another avoid the question statistical spin session RT.

So what happens Ray in 3 weeks time when we're a fair chance of being 1-5, will you still be sitting their thinking that we're a good chance of making the finals or will you continue to throw us reasons to suggest that we can still make it?

I'm not going to waste time speculating about maybe's and what-if's.

While we remain a mathematical chance then I see zero point in altering our objective.

 

[_RT_]

We won't make the eight unless we beat a few of the top-8 sides from last year, so obviously if we're playing finals we have been 'competitive' against several of them.

So to make finals we need to be competitve against top 8 sides to make it, yet in the first 3 weeks we haven't been.

Nothing's easy if you continually take the worst-case scenario and make that your reality.

Not taking the worst case scenario in those 2 games, both the Roos and Swans beat us by 7+ goals last year.

You just ignore every point and ramble along your own narrow pathway with the blinkers on RT.

The Saints played a prelim after getting smashed by Brisbane and beaten by the Eagles. They deserved to play finals because they had enough points to make it - losing to Melbourne by 200 points wouldn't change that.

What am I ignoring? Your comment was on our day we're capable of beating anyone, my response was I would prefer to be a side that is capable every week.

The Saints made the finals last year because they were able to win the games they needed to. We missed out because we couldn't thats the cold hard truth.

Yes it does. It shows that out of 18 sides who missed finals, only two had a draw which was relatively comparable.

Without being bothered to look it up, no doubt a couple/few of the sides who did make finals from 0-3 also had tough early draws.

Suddenly your 'history' looks very different and your sample size has shrunk to a point where it has bugger all relevance.

I could go on, but I won't.

Something to think about Ray:

1. Between 99-now: only 5 of 23 sides that started 0-3 have ever gone on to make the finals.
2. Between 99-now: only 1 of the 5 sides that have made it played 3 top 8 sides from that season.
3. Between 99-now: only 5 of the 18 sides played 3 top 8 sides from that year. At the moment we would be the 6th.
4. Between 99-now: 13 sides have had an easier draw to start the year than we have and yet haven't made it.

Not sure about others, but to me, thats some pretty damning evidence right there about what we're up against if we want to make finals this year.

You made 'history' the topic, I threw some history back at you.

History says we have never won a flag since the draft. That's no less relevant than your 'history,' but it's not going to stop us trying is it?

The history I'm talking about involves us making the finals, the history you want to deflect to can only be discussed when we finally make the finals.

There's nothing confusing in what I said. I'm not going to rehash it over and over again for you.

Yeah there is, but if you can't see it then I'm not going to bother again either. But I will say this how someone can think our senior players aren't worth a pinch of shit but the list is still capable of finals is beyond me.

We 'pushed' for finals last year with the same senior players, now our juniors are a year older. Which part of that is so difficult for you to grasp?

Why the use of the inverted comma's Ray? Is it because we didn't actually push for finals last year, we just finished the season better than the rest of the also rans?

Again, points get sides into finals, not supporters who arbitrarily decide whether they deserve it or not.

How do you get enough points? Winning games? Can't win games when the side isn't competitive in enough of them.

Just another avoid the question statistical spin session RT.

Ah no, it shows that we weren't competitive against the top 8 sides last year and so far nothing has changed this year and yet you still believe we can make the finals.

I'm not going to waste time speculating about maybe's and what-if's.

While we remain a mathematical chance then I see zero point in altering our objective.

Yet you're quite happy waste time with if's when it suits you:

We're good enough to make finals IF our senior players give us a consistent 80% of what they're capable of, IF our juniors play 10-30% above what they should be reasonably expected to consistently produce, and IF the very few in between perform somewhere close to 100%.

So come on Ray what happens IF we are 1-5 in 3 weeks time? Surely you can answer that seeing as you believe we can make the finals IF the above happens. A bit hypocritical to avoid my questions while having a go at me for apparently avoiding yours.

 

[getthefooty]

1. Between 99-now: only 5 of 23 sides that started 0-3 have ever gone on to make the finals.
2. Between 99-now: only 1 of the 5 sides that have made it played 3 top 8 sides from that season.
3. Between 99-now: only 5 of the 18 sides played 3 top 8 sides from that year. At the moment we would be the 6th.
4. Between 99-now: 13 sides have had an easier draw to start the year than we have and yet haven't made it.

Not sure about others, but to me, thats some pretty damning evidence right there about what we're up against if we want to make finals this year.

I know I've already attacked you for this, but really RT. Those stats aren't 'evidence'. They are figures that can be twisted and spun to suit any argument you wish. Statistics mean **** all, RT. They don't take into account the individual variables of the different situations each club finds themselves in. The numbers you keep putting in your posts can't and won't stop us from getting in the 8. It's how we play that determines whether we get in the 8. Statistical records are formed every week. That only 5/23 sides have made finals from this position doesn't mean we have a 5/23 chance. Far from it.
Please just put them to bed.

 

[Rayzorwire]

So to make finals we need to be competitve against top 8 sides to make it, yet in the first 3 weeks we haven't been.

So therefore it's impossible that we will be at some stage this year?

Despite the fact we've played only 3 of a possible 10 teams who will challenge for the eight, and 3 of 7 who will almost definitely make - assuming we do as the 8th team?

Do you actually read this stuff before you post it?

Not taking the worst case scenario in those 2 games, both the Roos and Swans beat us by 7+ goals last year.

Ah, yes.

Historical precedents with a huge sample size again.

What am I ignoring? Your comment was on our day we're capable of beating anyone, my response was I would prefer to be a side that is capable every week.

No it wasn't. My question was:

"Would St. Kilda agree with that after being thumped by Brisbane and being comfortably beaten by West Coast on their way to a preliminary final?"

And it was in relation to your contention that a side who isn't competitive week in week out doesn't make finals.

The Saints were comprehensively beaten by two sides out of the eight, one of whom even qualified for priority draft picks they were so bad.

In the end, despite not being 'competitive' for all 22 weeks of the season, they played off to go into a grand final, because they had enough points to qualify.

Something to think about Ray:

...

4. Between 99-now: 13 sides have had an easier draw to start the year than we have and yet haven't made it.

Not sure about others, but to me, thats some pretty damning evidence...

Damning evidence of you not being even able to remember the point you're arguing then support it adequately.

If they had an easier draw that would make it harder for them to make the eight than it currently is for us.

You've been arguing that we can't make the eight because of 'historical precedence,' then you go and kick a goal for the opposition by showing statistics which clearly show that a significant majority of the teams which make up your 'damning historical precedence,' had a harder run home than we do.

But I will say this how someone can think our senior players aren't worth a pinch of shit but the list is still capable of finals is beyond me.

That wasn't what I said, I said they gave us good football far too inconsistently.

Even inconsistent footballers are good sometimes. If enough players are consistent enough - or improve enough in the case of the inexperienced players - we play finals.

It's hardly confusing and it happens to some side every season.

Why the use of the inverted comma's Ray?

Because I was quoting your "pushes" but needed to use 'pushed' to give my sentence correct grammatical structure.

Or it could be a conspiracy of international proportions...

So come on Ray what happens IF we are 1-5 in 3 weeks time? Surely you can answer that...

I did the last time you asked me, right after the above quote you cherry-picked:

While we remain a mathematical chance then I see zero point in altering our objective.

 

[deliberate!!]

Ray....there is medical treatment for 'multi-quote mania'.
You could be released by the start of season 2010.

Call you a taxi now?



Even RT has caught it!! lol
Is there an ethical way to 'put down' a Mod, like the Bondi Vet does with creatures that are too far gone?