Saints Gameplan

[Ritchie8]

I think that is really the reason we are not playing as well as we should. There are many parts of the gameplan that need to change:

1. Handballing out of defence - You will rarely see the Saints handball it out of defence and this lack of run hurts us when we eventually get it to the forward line.
2. Kicking to a player by themselves - This is fine to do but they are overly obsessive with it now. I think they are now too scared to kick to a contest. Too many times we've seen them kick across the ground or backwards (and risk losing it in a dangerous place) when the better option would be to kick it straight into the 50.
3. Putting pressure on - They just don't do it enough. How many times do you see a Saints player casually jogging along side or behind their opponent when they could easily speed up a bit and put some pressure on.

I'm sure there is many other things they could change for the better but these are the main ones that are hurting them.
Your thoughts.

 

[moosha]

went to the game on friday night, possibly one of the worst games i have seen in a long time. the thing that stood out was st.kildas lack of options across half forward. nick is obvously underdone and he was not presenting up the ground as he usually does and without hamill or kosy as other targets across half forward, we got sucked into overusing handball across half back, making it easy to force turnovers. penny started well but struggled all night. we really missed maguire dropping back and cutting off the crown attack. first qtr was good. good also to see powell back, even if he looked like he was stuck in 2nd gear, looked terribley unfit but a few games and he will b very handy. the return of harvey, thomo, kosy, maguire and hamill will make a huge difffernce. without harveyand thomo to rotate with the other boys in the midfeild, a higher workload than usual was required and as good as they are the appeared to struggle to run out the game. fiora......well lets just say he brings a hole new definition to the word sheep dog, but spose heath black was no better. keep your heads up saints fans, and take the $6 for the saints to win the flag!

 

[david boon]

The over-riding impression I am getting, from reading interviews with GT and comments from fans actually being at the game, is that GT is not reactive, and tactically inept, he is reluctant to make moves/change players around, is a bit too proud to believe his way might be wrong...
But on the other hand, I think Dermot Brereton mentioned in an article in maybe late 2003, that at least one senior coach had confided in Dermie that GT was very tough to coach against because he comes up with some brilliant moves...I seem to recall Dermie using the word "scared" about that coach.
So what has happened? Is GT a good coach or not?
Does he listen to others in the box? When he won't move a player who is getting beaten, is it due to pig-headed stubbornness or is there a valid reason?

 

[Kildonan]

The jury is still out on Grant Thomas as a tactical coach.

Grant became caretaker coach under a cloud of controversy. He didn't take the usual route of coaches (a long appreticeship under an accomplished coach who was well versed in traditional coaching techniques).

Grant Thomas wasn't gifted a champion side, he inherited a team that had finished last the previous season and when he took over they were second-last. He managed to salvage one win from his first seven games to end the season.

In 2002 GT was appointed as the Coach. This year St Kilda suffered tragic injuries to many of the key senior players and were forced to play kids as replacements for these. Thomas started innovating with his squad of players - mostly kids with little or no experience. They were soundly beaten on a few occasions but as the season progessed St Kilda began to become more consistent. The squad was improving but the results were invisible because of the loss of the senior players. St Kilda again finished second last (5 wins, 1 draw), having missed out on a priority pick by half a game – this indicated that despite the dismal performance, we were trying to win rather than collect highly ranked recruits.

In 2003 the Saints had a break-even year (11 wins, 11 losses) with wins over highly ranked Adelaide and Brisbane. After the win against Brisbane we had a drop in form. Injuries to a few key defenders showed up our lack of depth. The improvement being shown by all players but especially the younger brigade augured well for the future. The Saints finished the season with four impressive wins and a narrow loss to Geelong. The style of play that was demonstrated in these wins was a fast paced exciting brand of football. After the season they traded for depth.

In 2004 the Saints started like a bull at a gate, winning the Wizard Cup, then going on to win the first ten in a row of the H&A season. Again we played the fast paced game style that saw us winning late in 2003. A feature of this gameplan was the enormous pressure that the players put on their opposition counterparts. There was a mid-season slump followed by a recovery that saw them fail by a goal in making an appearance in the Grand Final. The early season success focused a lot of attention on the Saints. For the first time since 97/98 they became the hunted. They had a long season of intensity and gained finals experience. The slump in form was probably directly associated with our earlier good form. Teams were doing their homework and developing different tactical ploys to expose our weaknesses. After the season they again traded for depth.

In 2005, the Saints started with a whimper rather than a bang. We lost the first match in Brisbane, we lost Nick Riewoldt to injury but came out and won in Tasmania against an ordinary Fremantle outfit. They then lost to the Kangaroos (the first loss at TD after a sequence of 16 wins) then came the win against the (then) hottest team of the league, Melbourne. The loss of midfield players for Melbourne to rotate played a big factor in the win. The confidence derived from that win carried with us as we knocked off Richmond without a wimper from the opposition. The next match we played was against Collingwood who were highly motivated to honour Mick Malthouse's 500th match. We struggled to overcome the pies but a win was recorded and we faced Geelong at TD, ironically losing due to a similar midfield depletion that Melbourne had suffered against us. The loss was painful but understandable in a way. Next up we played WCE at Subiaco and it was a torrid affair - a low scoring, high pressure match with a number of skill errors and an inability for either team to break the shackles (despite WCE gaining an early break whick they were able to hold onto).

5 days after the Subiaco match, St Kilda played Adelaide at TD. Everyone expected that the Saints would return to the form they were showing before the Geelong/WCE matches. As the loss seems inexplicable - the easy answer is to suggest that they were poorly coached.

I think that the whole team were fatigued, (as may have been WCE for they subsequently lost to Collingwood after an extra day break). Adelaide are a worthy opponent. We only needed to be a little off our game and they pounced.

I think that St Kilda are capable of winning almost all of their remaining games this season and I believe that we can still afford to drop one more game and still finish top 2. Such is the closeness of the competition this year.

In order for the Saints to win almost all of their remaining games, Grant Thomas will have to be "on his game". I think he is the right man for the job, and I expect to make the finals and win.