oh Terry, dear oh dear

[Sausage roll]

Do you know the difference between four and six?

Who was in the forward line when Pettifer and Brown went on the ball - as they both did?

If you are going to have a crack Razor, get your facts right.
Read my original post . I said four players inside 30, so that could still allow us to play a six man forward line, just not all of them inside 30.

Where is the confusion? I never said a four man forward line but rather four talls insisde 30. Read it again razor.

 

[Delids]

I have said this in earlier post before season commenced, with regards of Terry use of small defenders on tall forwards, last year he played Raines on Nick R twice. A quote from the age today

'The King match-ups were redolent, if less dramatic, than the 1998 preliminary final, when Rohan Smith, a very good mid-sized player, was smashed by Jonathan Robran, a moderately performed key position forward. Robran booted six goals'.
In the hearld sun Terry dosent think it was a bad match even after the game. He still hasnt learnt.
Why didnt Rance play for Coburg on the weekend?

 

[Delids]

We need to draft a small crumbing forward we have not got one. I would like us to use a late pick or even rookie they are out there if you are prepared to look. Aaron Davey Rookie his brother a late pick, one of the Roo boys was a rookie Cambell? Even Eddie Betts would be ok for us he was a rookie.
Our small forwards are marking targets, Morton, Pet, Brown not quick crumbers.
I think our first pick still needs to be used to address other deficiencies.
But i agree forward set up was wrong, when u have too many big blokes too close they will spoil each other and ball will hit the ground and we have no one there waiting.

 

[deliberate!!]

Wallace got it wrong today. Especially the defensuve match ups

Not just Kingy. Raines was in a panic from the first kick. Moore was Moore. He is a rubbish defender

Well said 1980.......Terry got it horribly wrong.

 

[Suds_Mcduff]

We need to draft a small crumbing forward we have not got one. I would like us to use a late pick or even rookie they are out there if you are prepared to look. Aaron Davey Rookie his brother a late pick, one of the Roo boys was a rookie Cambell? Even Eddie Betts would be ok for us he was a rookie.
Our small forwards are marking targets, Morton, Pet, Brown not quick crumbers.
I think our first pick still needs to be used to address other deficiencies.
But i agree forward set up was wrong, when u have too many big blokes too close they will spoil each other and ball will hit the ground and we have no one there waiting.

isnt Collard a small crumbing forward type? edwards did a decent job last year when he played around goals, bring him in and give him 5 minutes a quarter in the middle and rest Foley down in the forward line?

 

[tony_montana]

Team rule. Kick to a 2 on 1 or more in the forwardline and you get ****ing benched and dropped for the next week. That'd work.

amen to that

 

[Rayzorwire]

If you are going to have a crack Razor, get your facts right.
Read my original post . I said four players inside 30, so that could still allow us to play a six man forward line, just not all of them inside 30.

You weren't watching closely enough SR. Deledio spent much of the game deep in the forward line and he is a marking medium-size player (not a tall), but also a player you'd hope would be better value than a Krakouer because he can also do well at ground level. Pattison and Simmo spent a fair bit of time on the bench and around the ground (were only rested in attack now and again), Hughes played genuine CHF much of the night, which leaves Richo and Schulz as the only semi-permanent talls deep inside 50 - and you'll recall Shulz also spent time back and at CHF.

We played a combination of Brown, Pettifer, McMahon, Bowden and Hyde high across half forward alongside Hughes/Schulz/Richo, and also rotating through the centre.

Why do you reckon we rotated most of our *supposed* best ball users across half forward then played two talls and Deledio deep? To me it's pretty obvious that we hoped we'd win a decent amount of ball out of the middle, then set up our deep forwards with good delivery from the *good ball users* we stacked the half-forward line with, who were also supposed to be at the fall of the ball deep inside 50 when they weren't actually delivering it.

That was the forward setup which came down from the coaching staff.

Instead, we got midfielders who couldn't win enough ball, half-forwards who didn't get enough supply from the centre , but also didn't run hard enough either way nor apply any genuine pressure, and when they did get the ball they butchered it.

Clearly there were times the Roos took the ball out of defence from a spilled mark far too easily, but it wasn't a problem caused by our forward structure, it was all the above.

 

[Sausage roll]

You weren't watching closely enough SR. Deledio spent much of the game deep in the forward line and he is a marking medium-size player (not a tall), but also a player you'd hope would be better value than a Krakouer because he can also do well at ground level. Pattison and Simmo spent a fair bit of time on the bench and around the ground (were only rested in attack now and again), Hughes played genuine CHF much of the night, which leaves Richo and Schulz as the only semi-permanent talls deep inside 50 - and you'll recall Shulz also spent time back and at CHF.

We played a combination of Brown, Pettifer, McMahon, Bowden and Hyde high across half forward alongside Hughes/Schulz/Richo, and also rotating through the centre.

Why do you reckon we rotated most of our *supposed* best ball users across half forward then played two talls and Deledio deep? To me it's pretty obvious that we hoped we'd win a decent amount of ball out of the middle, then set up our deep forwards with good delivery from the *good ball users* we stacked the half-forward line with, who were also supposed to be at the fall of the ball deep inside 50 when they weren't actually delivering it.

That was the forward setup which came down from the coaching staff.

Instead, we got midfielders who couldn't win enough ball, half-forwards who didn't get enough supply from the centre , but also didn't run hard enough either way nor apply any genuine pressure, and when they did get the ball they butchered it.

Clearly there were times the Roos took the ball out of defence from a spilled mark far too easily, but it wasn't a problem caused by our forward structure, it was all the above.

Balderdash! I was sitting right behind the goals.

We had for good portions of the game inside 30-shultz, hughes, richo and one of deledio, Jackson, pattison. I wouldn't describe any of them as crumbers.
How many times did we have richo in a one on one? The delivery wouldn't have mattered as we had a cast of thousands in the 30 metre arc.

Disgraceful coaching

 

[duckboy]

Balderdash! I was sitting right behind the goals.

We had for good portions of the game inside 30-shultz, hughes, richo and one of deledio, Jackson, pattison. I wouldn't describe any of them as crumbers.
How many times did we have richo in a one on one? The delivery wouldn't have mattered as we had a cast of thousands in the 30 metre arc.

Disgraceful coaching

Have to agree with Sausage Roll here Rayzor (that doesn't happen very often). Especially given that I'm sure you weren't at the ground living where you do. We plonked three or four guys in a very small space, way too close so that defenders could easily run 20m off their man and create 3rd or 4th man up in a contest. When Lids was forward he was often high or in space on the fat side but the ball wasn't getting there. He wasn't often at the feet of anyone.

 

[Mario Speedwagon]

Wallace needs to go....absolutely NFI. The game has now well and truly passed Sheeds by.....so not him either........bring on Vossy....if nothing else he'll harden us the **** up and we won't have to hear his godawful commentary for at least a couple of years!!

 

[Rayzorwire]

Balderdash! I was sitting right behind the goals.

We had for good portions of the game inside 30-shultz, hughes, richo and one of deledio, Jackson, pattison. I wouldn't describe any of them as crumbers.
How many times did we have richo in a one on one? The delivery wouldn't have mattered as we had a cast of thousands in the 30 metre arc.

Disgraceful coaching

So essentially, given that Schulz started down back and played up the ground a bit, Pattison rucked and spent time on the bench, Hughes took a number of marks and was involved around CHF quite a bit, and Deledio spent almost 3/4 of the game in the forward line, we may for a very brief period of a 120 minute game, have had 4 actual talls deep in the forward line.

Which is not what you've implied.

Deledio isn't a tall, neither is Jackson. They are players who can take a grab, compete at ground level, and put some pressure on the backline. Which player would you like as a designated crumber? Would you rather have a Krakouer/Betts clone who can't mark, or Collard get a free pass to the seniors?

In 2005 'Terry's Triangle' was all the rage as an innovative forward line coaching strategy which had us kicking plenty and looking finals bound. Three talls and Brown rotating around deep in the forward line.

Guess what? Innovative coaching which exploits an opposition's weakness (and North's defensive weakness is tall marking players fed by fast, accurate delivery - exactly what we aimed at), only works when you get the basics right - starting with winning the ball out of the centre and at the clearances, then moving it quickly, not attacking from the backline constantly - usually at a snail's pace.

In a decent side, if the attack is deep then when the ball carrier gets to 70m out they have other midfielders who have run hard to present 40m out. King did exactly that - what nobody else could - three times. Imagine if half a dozen other running players had done the same.

The strategy's not the problem, it's the execution on a number of levels.

Have to agree with Sausage Roll here Rayzor (that doesn't happen very often). Especially given that I'm sure you weren't at the ground living where you do. We plonked three or four guys in a very small space, way too close so that defenders could easily run 20m off their man and create 3rd or 4th man up in a contest. When Lids was forward he was often high or in space on the fat side but the ball wasn't getting there. He wasn't often at the feet of anyone.

I watched the game in wide view (Fox Active feature) duck, so I saw half the ground at all times, even had the crowd noise.

I'm not arguing we didn't play deep forwards, just that for very little of the game did we have 4 genuine talls in the 30m arc.

If we'd won the battle in the centre we'd have got our one on ones, the talls would have kicked 12+ between them (with poor supply and not enough of it they had that many shots on goal), and people would be raving about the return of 'Terry's Triangle.'

We backed our midfield to break even and instead they got smashed. Aggressive forward line setups can often look stupid and ineffective when that happens, but that doesn't mean they are stupid.

 

[Tigersman]

Simple solution to the smallish forward issue. Instead of rotating Foley through the bench, play him in a pocket/on the hff for 5 minutes a quarter, seeing he is a clearance specialist he should be able to crumb a pack just like roving a ball up and definitely knows how to kick a goal, add to that he would add some much needed defensive pressure when the opposition are trying to bring the ball out.

The answer is sitting in the twos tearing them apart for the last few weeks.
Morton.
Geez he looked good in the first half against Geelong for Coburg.

 

[Sausage roll]

So essentially, given that Schulz started down back and played up the ground a bit, Pattison rucked and spent time on the bench, Hughes took a number of marks and was involved around CHF quite a bit, and Deledio spent almost 3/4 of the game in the forward line, we may for a very brief period of a 120 minute game, have had 4 actual talls deep in the forward line.

Which is not what you've implied.

Deledio isn't a tall, neither is Jackson. They are players who can take a grab, compete at ground level, and put some pressure on the backline. Which player would you like as a designated crumber? Would you rather have a Krakouer/Betts clone who can't mark, or Collard get a free pass to the seniors?

In 2005 'Terry's Triangle' was all the rage as an innovative forward line coaching strategy which had us kicking plenty and looking finals bound. Three talls and Brown rotating around deep in the forward line.

Guess what? Innovative coaching which exploits an opposition's weakness (and North's defensive weakness is tall marking players fed by fast, accurate delivery - exactly what we aimed at), only works when you get the basics right - starting with winning the ball out of the centre and at the clearances, then moving it quickly, not attacking from the backline constantly - usually at a snail's pace.

In a decent side, if the attack is deep then when the ball carrier gets to 70m out they have other midfielders who have run hard to present 40m out. King did exactly that - what nobody else could - three times. Imagine if half a dozen other running players had done the same.

The strategy's not the problem, it's the execution on a number of levels.



I watched the game in wide view (Fox Active feature) duck, so I saw half the ground at all times, even had the crowd noise.

I'm not arguing we didn't play deep forwards, just that for very little of the game did we have 4 genuine talls in the 30m arc.

If we'd won the battle in the centre we'd have got our one on ones, the talls would have kicked 12+ between them (with poor supply and not enough of it they had that many shots on goal), and people would be raving about the return of 'Terry's Triangle.'

We backed our midfield to break even and instead they got smashed. Aggressive forward line setups can often look stupid and ineffective when that happens, but that doesn't mean they are stupid.

Wasting my time arguing with a guy who wasn't even there!

To say it was a good plan but wasn't well excuted is just rubbish.
So what was the plan when the ball hit the ground?
Please enlighten me.

None of the players mentioned are crumbers and all it did was create packs for richo to fly against.
Even when we won the ball and "moved it quickly" it still didn't work due to congestion, no crumbers and the quality of the talls trying to exploit their so called weakness.
Hughes also lost a number of contests, is totally hopeless at ground level and missed two absolute sitters.

Gee he was really going to exploit north's weaknessess. Bet they were packing themsleves wehn he wlaked down there.

The manhattan skyline forward line might work if you are st kilda but not with slow very average players( hughes. shultz)

Two talls deep is too many let alne three or four. How could you possible set up a forward 6( yes we played 6 guys in the forward line) and not have a genuine crumber?? Please dont call petrified a crumber.

 

[Rayzorwire]

Wasting my time arguing with a guy who wasn't even there!

Gee, how did I know in advance you'd gleefully resort to a lame response like that?

If you 'sat behind the goals' then you spent half the game with our forward line 200m away and you were 100m away from anything that happened in the centre of the ground. Do you really want to claim you saw the game better?

To say it was a good plan but wasn't well excuted is just rubbish.

And yet you say later on that it's a good plan for St Kilda. It's a good plan for St Kilda - and has been for us - when we break even in the centre.

So what was the plan when the ball hit the ground?

Get midfielders and half-forwards to the fall of the ball, and kick enough goals from marks to make up for any easy rebounds which occur because nobody has run hard enough to be at the fall of the ball.

None of the players mentioned are crumbers and all it did was create packs for richo to fly against.

Who is this magical crumber we possess that Wallace could have used? I assume you'll avoid this question like you've avoided all the others. You want to whinge at Wallace and anyone else in sight, never bothering to work out why things occur the way they do.

Even when we won the ball and "moved it quickly" it still didn't work due to congestion, no crumbers and the quality of the talls trying to exploit their so called weakness.

When we did move the ball quickly and with some degree of skill, we mostly got shots on goal as a result. It's perfectly obvious from the fact we had more shots on goal than clearances what actually went on. The transition from defence to attack is at 50% of what Wallace wants. The clearances were at 20-30% - not good enough.

Congestion is caused by not moving the ball quickly. If you can't see that from your vantage point a country mile from the play, then you don't know what quick ball movement is.

There's nothing wrong with our key forwards. Schulz and Hughes were good considering their age/experience and the supply they got.

Hughes also lost a number of contests, is totally hopeless at ground level and missed two absolute sitters.

You pretend you're some sort of football quality inspector with high standards, but in reality, you're just a compulsive whinger with an axe to grind against anyone who you perceive didn't make your Friday/Saturday/Sunday go perfectly. Oblivious to what actually happened, oblivious to where we are actually at, where the end of the road lies, all the work which has been done, and all the work which needs to be done.

Translate that as 'harsh' or 'balderdash' if you like, and whinge and bleat to your heart's content. I'll be there with the real Tiger supporters the year we get to the point we're aiming at, and I'll be the first one to extend my arm and invite you back onboard, despite your whinging.

 

[Sausage roll]

Gee, how did I know in advance you'd gleefully resort to a lame response like that?

If you 'sat behind the goals' then you spent half the game with our forward line 200m away and you were 100m away from anything that happened in the centre of the ground. Do you really want to claim you saw the game better?



And yet you say later on that it's a good plan for St Kilda. It's a good plan for St Kilda - and has been for us - when we break even in the centre.



Get midfielders and half-forwards to the fall of the ball, and kick enough goals from marks to make up for any easy rebounds which occur because nobody has run hard enough to be at the fall of the ball.



Who is this magical crumber we possess that Wallace could have used? I assume you'll avoid this question like you've avoided all the others. You want to whinge at Wallace and anyone else in sight, never bothering to work out why things occur the way they do.



When we did move the ball quickly and with some degree of skill, we mostly got shots on goal as a result. It's perfectly obvious from the fact we had more shots on goal than clearances what actually went on. The transition from defence to attack is at 50% of what Wallace wants. The clearances were at 20-30% - not good enough.

Congestion is caused by not moving the ball quickly. If you can't see that from your vantage point a country mile from the play, then you don't know what quick ball movement is.

There's nothing wrong with our key forwards. Schulz and Hughes were good considering their age/experience and the supply they got.



You pretend you're some sort of football quality inspector with high standards, but in reality, you're just a compulsive whinger with an axe to grind against anyone who you perceive didn't make your Friday/Saturday/Sunday go perfectly. Oblivious to what actually happened, oblivious to where we are actually at, where the end of the road lies, all the work which has been done, and all the work which needs to be done.

Translate that as 'harsh' or 'balderdash' if you like, and whinge and bleat to your heart's content. I'll be there with the real Tiger supporters the year we get to the point we're aiming at, and I'll be the first one to extend my arm and invite you back onboard, despite your whinging.

What a tragic little man. Obvoiusly not a great contributor to society, locked away in isolation posting in the midle of the night. Quite sad really.

Well, genuis he could have tried McMahon as a small forward?? I reckon he has played there before . Or how about selecting one prior ot the game ? Questioned answered, not avoided.

Gee, hughes and shultz( fifth season, not a kid anymoe) are hardly kosi, rewiedlt and g-trian are they?? Did you know that on saturday night st kilda only ever had two of these on the ground at once?

Oh, i forgot, they also have two specialist small forward crumbers-milne and schnieder.
Come to think of it, don't hawhtorn as well( rioli, stokes)?
No, lets stick to your plan of hoping that one of the giants can take a contested mark amongst 7 people and pray that the ball never hits the ground. Good one.

I repeat, a flawed plan as the ball is on the ground a fair bit of the time in an AFL match

 

[SKOULIKI]

Raines on Corey Jones early was bad. Real bad. Jones had 2.2 to his name before we made a change. But who do we decide to put on 188cm Jones? 174cm Jake King!! No matter how hard he is, you can't combat 14cm with grunt and determination. Jones was clearly the difference. Not to mention ****ing Shannon Grant! This bloke has been finished for 2-3 years but continues to have days out against us. I hate losing to North more than just about any other team. Not because I dislike the club, but because I always think their list is worse than ours. Bad afternoon. Opportunity lost.

Spot on!!!!

 

[Rayzorwire]

What a tragic little man. Obvoiusly not a great contributor to society, locked away in isolation posting in the midle of the night. Quite sad really.

You're the sad one whinger. I wrote my post at about 7pm, friends dropped around, and I posted it before I shut the computer down and went to bed. I do and have done more for society than you'll ever do pal.

Well, genuis he could have tried McMahon as a small forward?? I reckon he has played there before . Or how about selecting one prior ot the game ? Questioned answered, not avoided.

McMahon did spend time across half forward. I guess you didn't realise that because you spent half a game 200m away.

We were beaten in the midfield and never got anywhere near enough decent supply to our forwards. St Kilda and Hawthorn don't have this problem because they have a fleet of mature midfielders who can run all game. We don't, just incase you missed that from 100m away.

The 'Whinging Sausage Solution' to our midfield problem is to pick a specialist crumber or two who can't rotate through the middle at all, rather than use players who all can in an area where we are still vulnerable. Getting doubled in clearances and far less inside 50's would have been solved by having specialist crumbers in the forward line.

LMAO...clearly your abilities as a tactician rank right up there with your ability to not be a brainless whinger.

 

[IDGAF]

WTF does Hall have to do with anything? We started clearing out our worst/oldest players first, and very few of our other players had any trade currency. I'm quite sure we bandied a few names about, but clearly nobody offered anything worth taking.

Ironically, a fit Hall would be getting a game at Hawthorn right now because they look vulnerable against decent sides with Croad out. I don't think even his worst critic would say he wasn't a better player than Dawson.

Your infatuation and almost dillusional insistence that Ray Hall could play football is most comical ...

I do and have done more for society than you'll ever do pal.

Gee Whiz ... looking forward to seeing you on the queens honours list next year for services to buffoonery

PM me your address and i will send you a packet of Tally Ho papers around so you can wrap yourself up a little more

 

[Rayzorwire]

Your infatuation and almost dillusional insistence that Ray Hall could play football is most comical ...

As comical as your inability to ever come up with anything vaguely resembling a counter argument? As comical as you not even being capable of blessing us with your tremendous wit on the appropriate thread?

PM me your address and i will send you a packet of Tally Ho papers around so you can wrap yourself up a little more

I can understand how you wouldn't recognise the cheap shot which provoked my comment for what it was, because after all, most of your posts are full of the same type of comment.

 

[Magnificence]

I actually have been rather tolerant of TW until now.

Can someone explain what he was thinking playing four talls inside 30 metres with no small crumbing player? It was like Bourke street in our forward 50 with Richo constantly up against three opponents and shultz and hughes all flying.
What about how many times they just swept the ball away at gorund level.
Ever heard of isolating players Terry?

Totally outcoahced re Jake king. Was it six goals he had kicked on him till half time with north constantly using whoever he was on? Jones got two on him, grant three and I think it was harvey who got one. How could we leave him isolated( there's that word again) in the 50 on Grant?
That was giving north exactly what they wanted. Never let King talk to the press again. Talk about back down to earth with a thud!

Thought Simmonds was a total disgrace with his "efforts" today. What about his tap back into the north corridor 20 metres out from goal?

Please select a small crumbing forward as north managed to get about 8 goals from theirs.

Simmonds ist half was sensational.

The bigger issue is what is wrong with N Brown?

 

[Sausage roll]

You're the sad one whinger. I wrote my post at about 7pm, friends dropped around, and I posted it before I shut the computer down and went to bed. I do and have done more for society than you'll ever do pal.



McMahon did spend time across half forward. I guess you didn't realise that because you spent half a game 200m away.

We were beaten in the midfield and never got anywhere near enough decent supply to our forwards. St Kilda and Hawthorn don't have this problem because they have a fleet of mature midfielders who can run all game. We don't, just incase you missed that from 100m away.

The 'Whinging Sausage Solution' to our midfield problem is to pick a specialist crumber or two who can't rotate through the middle at all, rather than use players who all can in an area where we are still vulnerable. Getting doubled in clearances and far less inside 50's would have been solved by having specialist crumbers in the forward line.

LMAO...clearly your abilities as a tactician rank right up there with your ability to not be a brainless whinger.

Gee wouldn't that be radical playing some specialist crumbers as the top three teams do. milne, schneider, rioli stokes( haw and geelong!) etc etc.
I lilke the way you conveniently ignore the reference to hawthorn and stkilda's specialist crumbers.
No, let's do it your way with the land of the giants in the goalsquare and no crumbers. I repeat , how many times did they clear the ball away when it hit the ground? How many goals did their small and medium forwars kick?? Good one Mr Tactiican. McMahon didn't play as a crumber...i was 200 metres closer than you flog.

Just stick to working on the cure for cancer and don't forget it's lights out at midnight in the caravan park.

 

[Rayzorwire]

Gee wouldn't that be radical playing some specialist crumbers as the top three teams do. milne, schneider, rioli stokes( haw and geelong!) etc etc.
I lilke the way you conveniently ignore the reference to hawthorn and stkilda's specialist crumbers.

You evidently read as well as you watch and analyse football:

We were beaten in the midfield and never got anywhere near enough decent supply to our forwards. St Kilda and Hawthorn don't have this problem because they have a fleet of mature midfielders who can run all game. We don't, just incase you missed that from 100m away.

McMahon didn't play as a crumber...i was 200 metres closer than you flog.

He was named at half-forward and he spent a fair bit of time there while rotating through the midfield. Only in the last quarter was he moved to the backline. You were probably too busy whinging to notice.

Just stick to working on the cure for cancer and don't forget it's lights out at midnight in the caravan park.

I'll take your word for that - we own our house outright thanks very much.

Do you really think you're helping your argument with these lame attempts to insult me which are failing miserably?

A smarter person would realise you're only confirming my points about your character - that you'll grasp at any straw to justify having a whinge and throw a few lame, clueless insults around.

 

[Sausage roll]

You evidently read as well as you watch and analyse football:





He was named at half-forward and he spent a fair bit of time there while rotating through the midfield. Only in the last quarter was he moved to the backline. You were probably too busy whinging to notice.



I'll take your word for that - we own our house outright thanks very much.

Do you really think you're helping your argument with these lame attempts to insult me which are failing miserably?

A smarter person would realise you're only confirming my points about your character - that you'll grasp at any straw to justify having a whinge and throw a few lame, clueless insults around.

Sorry I must be missing soemthong here. Please outline you response to the FACT that the tops sides all play specialist small forwards but you don't think we should? Please answer that for the third time. I am curious why you can't/don't attend games

You would suggest that we rely on cleve hughes and jay shultz to copete with richo and kick a winning score.

You started the personal insults flog . owning our house is all relative...i own mine in a proper suburb in a real town.

Yours? Dimboola?

 

[Rayzorwire]

Sorry I must be missing soemthong here.

Force of habit.

Please outline you response to the FACT that the tops sides all play specialist small forwards but you don't think we should? Please answer that for the third time.

Let me walk you through it reeeaaaalllyyyy slowly.

The Hawks and Saints can generally get away with playing specialist crumbers because they also have mature midfields with good depth, full of players who can run all day.

We cannot afford specialist crumbers because we need our small forwards to be able to compete in the centre and leading up across half-forward. We don't have a mature midfield, we don't have good depth in midfield, and we lack midfielders who can run all day.

Is that simple enough for you?

How did the Saints perfect forward setup go tonight when they got smashed in the midfield after quarter time?

Did having crumbing forwards save the day?

Nope, they kicked to Reiwoldt 2-3 on 1 for a large chunk of the game in a crowded forward line and couldn't find a target inside-50 for love or money after quarter time. This happened for precisely the same reason it happened to us last week; they got smashed in the centre, and that plus slow and inept ball movement from the backline gave their forwards no chance. When their tall forwards were on top their midfield was winning the ball out of the centre.

You would suggest that we rely on cleve hughes and jay shultz to copete with richo and kick a winning score.

Put your strawman argument away. What I have 'suggested' is that we'll improve when we start winning enough quality ball out of the centre, move the ball quicker and more accurately, and run hard all game to get to contests (including the fall of the ball in the forward line). When we don't do these things to an adequate level, we'll get beaten, regardless of what our forward line setup is.

You started the personal insults flog .

I called you a whinger, because based on your comments since registering you have nothing positive to say - all you do is endlessly whinge on the basis of either clueless analysis, or totally unrealistic expectations.

You, on the other hand, decided to resort to wholesale invented lame insults which have zero to do with football or anything I've written on the board.

Go ahead and have your whinge, but don't expect that nobody will challenge you on your endless negativity. Go ahead and invent whatever silly insult you want about me because that's all you've got left, I find it hilarious.

 

[Sausage roll]

this just gets better....extraordinary

have mature midfields with good depth, full of players who can run all day.
We don't have a mature midfield, we don't have good depth in midfield, and we lack midfielders who can run all day.

So the other sides have midfielders who can "run all day" do they? What, they don't come off and sit on the interchange, they simply "run all day"? What a stupid comment. Hardly a single player( other than perhaps a key defender) stays on the ground al day, so the other sides don't have guys that "run all day" SImply wrong...again. Unless you define all day as spending time on the bench?

winning enough quality ball out of the centre, move the ball quicker and more accurately, and run hard all game to get to contests (including the fall of the ball in the forward line).

Your 'plan' is nonsenical. Let me get it right, win the clearance and get down quickly( you said we have to move it quicker!) to four giants gathered 30 metres out from goal. Acording to you, they won't spoil each other and in the rare event that this does happen, our midfielders( who can't run as well as other clubs) will run all the down there to crumb it! Is that right? LMAO

Wouldn't, by moving the ball quicker as you suggest, make it harder for theses unfit, non-mature, non-hard running midfield to then get on their bikes to crumb. Amongst all the dribble you have produced, you still haven't explained who is going to crumb the ball ? Surley not our tired, immature midfielders?

Sides with players who run all day...good one tool. Perhaps we should speak to the fitness staff given our midfield isn't mature and fit enough( i would have though johnston, tuck, foley could just about be classed as mature).

hopefully you never coach or have anything to do with football...please.

Are you nocturnal?