Discussion Ryan Gamble - Has he done enough?

[Persevering Saint]

Given what happened to Patto last year, I wouldn't be utterly astonished if Vegas was culled this year... but I'd be pretty disappointed.

When we wasn't being played as the 2nd tall, he was pretty darn good. Defensively, I saw him harrass THREE players who otherwise were on their own in the backline, just bang, bang, bang, one after another. That kind of pressure is worth gold. He has a bit of pizazz around the goals, which is something we need. He can kick goals from the wing (Roo can't seem to do that). He has a good tank to get the ball up the wing, which took pressure off of Riewoldt to do that.

Simple question: How many times did we see the following forward line this year?

HF: Gamble, Kosi/resting-McEvoy, Armitage/resting-mid
FF: Schneider, Riewoldt, Milne

(Recognising Schneids or Milne might go up the ground for a bit, along with Gamble, and that Riewoldt and Kosi might swap roles for a while).

Now, if we EVER had that forward set-up, how many times did we lose? What scores did we get overall? How much did every player contribute?

I may be wrong, but I suspect that when we had that setup, we were our most dangerous. And if we'd done what Lyon usually does, which is set it up that way over a long time and let the boys develop some chemistry, I think we would have done MUCH better, especially by the time Finals came.

That setup represents this:

HF: "3rd" Medium-Tall, 2nd Tall/Ruck, Defensive Forward/Resting Mid
FF: Ist Small, 1st Tall, 2nd Small

That to me is the forward setup that will win us games. We haven't done that NEARLY enough. Inexplicably, Gamble's 3rd tall role was taken out of the side, so that Blake AND Dawson could both play as Tall Defenders... sometimes even when there was barely an opposition player for ONE of them to play that role, let alone TWO.

Utterly inexplicable, and one of the biggest tragedies of this season for us, imo, simply because it was unavoidable. We couldn't avoid much else of the crap we got this year - can't help what happened to Lenny and Gwilt. The Kimmy scandal was dealing with crap that had already happened and was thus now unavoidable. But Vegas not getting selected for a necessary role was a decision made week-in, week-out, every week. Every week they had the chance to realise their mistake, and every week they didn't.

 

[BJtoSTNICK]

Our best hit up forward? He's played five games!

and your point? 5 games or 100 he is our best hit up forward...did you not go to a game last season?

 

[saintsrfreak]

and your point? 5 games or 100 he is our best hit up forward...did you not go to a game last season?

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/...1=1651&tid2=16&pid2=3514&type=A&fid1=S&fid2=S

 

[Persevering Saint]

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/...1=1651&tid2=16&pid2=3514&type=A&fid1=S&fid2=S

And hear endeth the lesson...

(good work, Freaky!)

 

[saintsrfreak]

And hear endeth the lesson...

(good work, Freaky!)

Just doin my job PS

 

[BJtoSTNICK]

i think the point has been missed....there is 5 years age difference between Sippo & Gamble!!! 5 years!!

In 5 years, of Gamble was any good, Geelong would have played him in 3 Grand Final sides and 2 Premierships....unless they know nothing at Geelong

Gamble is simply NOT AFL standard lads!!!!

 

[saintsrfreak]

i think the point has been missed....there is 5 years age difference between Sippo & Gamble!!! 5 years!!

In 5 years, of Gamble was any good, Geelong would have played him in 3 Grand Final sides and 2 Premierships....unless they know nothing at Geelong

Gamble is simply NOT AFL standard lads!!!!

At this point in time Gamble is the better player, that is fact. Sippos will probably be better in time but right now Gamble is better.

 

[Persevering Saint]

i think the point has been missed....there is 5 years age difference between Sippo & Gamble!!! 5 years!!

In 5 years, of Gamble was any good, Geelong would have played him in 3 Grand Final sides and 2 Premierships....unless they know nothing at Geelong

Gamble is simply NOT AFL standard lads!!!!

Okay, I'm going to try to assume you're an intelligent poster.

Using Geelong in your argument doesn't work. Gamble suffered from "Stuart MacGill syndrome there. How good he could be was never able to be discovered, because his role was being played by one of the finest players in that role that has ever been seen, Stevie J.

In terms of his time with us, alot of the time he was not played in the specific role he is meant to play. He was used in roles that he cannot do - and that comparable players, such as Stevie J, couldn't do either. When Gamble DID play this year in the role he's designed to play, he actually did quite well.

If you want to talk about who's better out of him and Sippos, that remains to be seen, because there is simply too little data. Sippos shows great potential, but lots of young players show potential. All things being equal, he should get much better - but I'm not ready to ditch somebody who hasn't really been given a fair go, and throw all my eggs into Sippos' basket.

 

[Squizz]

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/...1=1651&tid2=16&pid2=3514&type=A&fid1=S&fid2=S

So Siposs contributed more goals per game?

Gamble is AFL-hardened and works his butt off during games, and that is good to have on a list.

He was pretty stiff not to have been able to get games towards the end of the year (and I suggested that he was the most likely option to come in for round 24, but was gazumped by Gardiner which even in retrospect seems odd).

I'm just thinking that most AFL defenders have him for height and pace, so he's needed to work right up the ground for a kick.

And I'm not sold on him being consistent enough in his kicking for goal given the limited opportunities he gets within range. When he played the VFL game before round 24 (his chance to press his claim) he kicked 1.4 in a game we lost by a kick.

And forgive me if he's kicked a goal from 50, but I just don't think that's a tool he has. I've been of the view for a while that we need more players who can take shots from 50 and outside - mostly because we struggle to get any sort of quality ball inside the arc these days.

But then Armitage shouldn't be played as a forward, and maybe two of Siposs/Walsh/Gamble can co-exist with Riewoldt, Koschitzke, Milne and Schneider. Or Goddard

But remember we are looking at 2012. We're going to mark Siposs on 5 games he had in his first season (the last being in round 11), which was a period where the Saints played some awful footy? And where many of the games he came off to allow Cripps on as a sub? Really?

 

[Look2Me4Guidance]

Whilst he has some fans from his good workrate and ability to pinch a goal here and there, he's not a great size for someone who relies on marking and doesn't have a left foot or any serious pace.

I could deal with another year as depth if the club believes we remain in genuine contention and our cap allows it.

But surely Sippa will become the preferred option, and Walsh would get more opportunity in the forward line?

Surely Pelchin will look at contracts like Vegas's quite harshly.

Cue Guide for comment

Well seeing you asked!

It's difficult now to see what happens with what a new coach will bring. I believe he has the ability to offer quite a bit but as I said earlier in the year a few times, it ain't easy being a Saints forward. Totally agree he needs to work on his set shots with about 10 other blokes.

 

[Tom12]

Read he was injured, maybe under a fitness cloud.

Think he's done enough to warrant a spot tbh.

 

[Studbuddy]

Yeh, I reckon Gamble done enough to keep a spot.

 

[Savatage]

He is a terrible footballer & would consider himself very lucky if he somehow avoided being cut.

 

[saintsrfreak]

He is a terrible footballer & would consider himself very lucky if he somehow avoided being cut.

Better than Heyne, Cahill, Smith etc

 

[MCG-Unit]

I reckon he has done enough to keep his spot on the list, don't mind Gamble - but gee I bet it's borderline.
Again it will depend on the new coach and Pelchen's review of the list - or the other way around

 

[Savatage]

Better than Heyne, Cahill, Smith etc

When did I compare him to them? Heyne & Cahill aren't AFL footballers. Smith I disagree with - whether he stays is a different question.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

You dont just delist the players who arent good enough, you only do it if there is someone else to come in.
I think I'd keep Gamble ahead of Cahill.
Not sure about Heyne, he may still have enough potential upside to persevere with.
So far we have three off our main list ( Gardiner, McQualter, Baker ) but Walsh will surely take one of the spots. ( I think I'd try to see if we can get Archer to go another year as a Rookie ).
We wont take a massive draft this year, but we'll probably want at least three or four.
I'm thinking Cahill is gone and Heyne maybe onto the rookie list.
Gamble safe by the skin of his teeth.

 

[Squizz]

Much will depend on whether the Saints have a list of targets long enough to suggest that (in their mind) there is enough depth in the draft to get some talent with our picks.

Whilst some might say there is only 20 decent kids, they probably said the same thing last year (and we picked up good ones with 24, 43, 59 and 75).

Smith has improved - not sure you discard 21yo's who are getting better.

Heyne might go, but it might come down to whether they think he will get better at playing with soreness. It dogged him in 2011, but there was a late season spark. He's a good type for us (mobile forward who is good overhead and kicks 55m), but he's looked restricted and hasn't had anywhere near enough of the ball.

Cahill will probably be one of those guys who matures late (too late). Has tricks but can't seem to put it together consistently or bulk up sufficiently.

It seems Pelchen has form with trading out older players (who might be in decline). A new coach won't have any attachment to these players. Probably a bad time to implement this type of plan (when loyalty appears an important commodity) but I can't see him stopping now.

Gamble's age might be in his favour. Gram, Jones and Montagna might be the main bait (along with Gilbert, Armitage and Dawson given their contract situations). That's if I was going to guess.

 

[mysainters]

Depends if the new coach wants to play a forward line

 

[stkildathunda]

Depends if the new coach wants to play a forward line

Whats a forward line? Is this some new craze going through the AFL?

 

[FlyingSledghamer]

Do you know Kosi's contract situation?

I'm thinking under a new coach and a good preseason we will see players such as Walsh and Stanley get regular games next year. Possibly along side Sipposs and Cripps. I can see Lynch getting a regular spot in defence and possibly Simpkin. Hopefully Ledger will also get a regular gig in the centre.

What it means though is that some senior players may have to go if those guys are going to get their spots and IMO Gilbert, Kosi, Gram Blake, Dawson might be traded or retired.

 

[stkildathunda]

Do you know Kosi's contract situation?

I'm thinking under a new coach and a good preseason we will see players such as Walsh and Stanley get regular games next year. Possibly along side Sipposs and Cripps. I can see Lynch getting a regular spot in defence and possibly Simpkin. Hopefully Ledger will also get a regular gig in the centre.

What it means though is that some senior players may have to go if those guys are going to get their spots and IMO Gilbert, Kosi, Gram Blake, Dawson might be traded or retired.

Kosi is contracted til end 2012, same as Gilbert & Gram.

 

[mysainters]

Whats a forward line? Is this some new craze going through the AFL?

So I've heard

 

[Squizz]

Geez, you can be silly sometimes thunda!

Everyone knows what a forward line is. Three players who are occasionally within 50 metres of our goals. One of which doesn't go for the ball (he only tackles or runs to the boundary in the hope his opponent follows him).

 

[mysainters]

Geez, you can be silly sometimes thunda!

Everyone knows what a forward line is. Three players who are occasionally within 50 metres of our goals. One of which doesn't go for the ball (he only tackles or runs to the boundary in the hope his opponent follows him).

It also must have at least one, maybe even two, forwards with the 'd' word in front of their title.