Saints playing finals at the G

saintsrule

Premiership Player
Joined
Apr 30, 2002
Posts
4,437
Likes
29
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
St Kilda
Thread starter #1
It's funny to note how followers of other teams here, and on talkback,(coincidentally mostly Geelong) and some 'experts' including often, Fat Billy, in the media, underestimate Saints ability to transfer their gameplan to the G. The reasons go as follows:

Saints play 'indoors' and it sometimes rains and is windy at the G - Well both teams are playing in exactly the same conditions.

The G is wider than Docklands and this will create a problem for Saints' gameplan - Saints have won at Subi and AAMI. Geelong's home ground is the skinniest in Australia.

Saints play only one game, round 22 v Melbourne, on the G - Seems interstate teams have won premierships on the G without having played there often. How many games did Geelong play on the G prior to their GF win in 2007 and indeed did they only lose 2008 because Hawthorn plays more games at their home ground?

The MCG argument is a crock and smacks of desperation to find a fault with the Saints gameplan. It is finals style football and has proven to work on a variety of grounds.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

goodie23

Tragic Saint
Joined
Dec 25, 2006
Posts
6,504
Likes
3,917
Location
Home
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Australia, Victoria
#3
The G is wider than Docklands and this will create a problem for Saints' gameplan - Saints have won at Subi and AAMI. Geelong's home ground is the skinniest in Australia.
MCG: 160m x 141m
Docklands: 159.5m x 128.8m.
AAMI: 165m x 133m
Subiaco: 175.6m x 122.4m
Kardinia: 170m x 115m
 

Zagg

Club Legend
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Posts
1,215
Likes
31
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Norwich City
#4
I don't have the exact stats on me, but our record at the G isn't too bad. It's just at Docklands we're so awesome it's always going to be worse in comparison.

If we play like we can at our best we stand a very good chance of winning. The venue shouldn't make much of a difference, but other fans are wanting to find any possible weakness.
 

Rough_Edges

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jul 7, 2003
Posts
19,645
Likes
5,729
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Swansea, Wizards
#5
It's all just codswallop created by the media to try and have something to hang on to so they can continue to doubt us. We have stepped up to everyother 'worry' they've created and played on

.Adelaide in Adelaide
.Port Adelaide in Adelaide
.Geelong
.West Coast After Geelong
.Adelaide after West Coast and Geelong
.Bulldogs after Adelaide, West Coast and Geelong with 2 KP players out after a very tough month of footy


MCG is skinnier than AAMI and we won convincingly ther twice, one team is battling it out for top 4, the other top 8. Also won well (after half time) at the GC which is also a big ground.

Who cares what our record looks like?

What was our record like at AAMI vs. PA before this year? Awful.

What was our record at subi? Awful.

It doesn't matter, its a big patch of grass with 4 sticks at either end. If we are good enough we will win, it has nothing to do with grounds, it has to depend with how we play and how hard we work.
 

IllBeTheJudge

Premiership Player
Joined
Jun 21, 2008
Posts
3,395
Likes
1,590
Location
Insert witty location here
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
New Orleans Saints, Sth Dragons
#6
We're now assured of a top two finish

In Round 22, we should be practising our game style and using the opportunity to adapt to the wider expanses of the MCG. Can't hurt

If at the end of the season the top 4 remains as is now (4 Victorian teams) would our first final be at the G or at Docklands? I'm guessing G to take advantage of the crowds

Or would we be playing at the G regardless of who we play, Victorian team or otherwise?
 

The Sultan

Club Legend
Joined
Mar 29, 2007
Posts
2,954
Likes
1,628
Location
Rand McNally
AFL Club
Carlton
#7
Sydney played most of their games at the scg, and rarely played at the MCG yet they were able to adapt their close, scraggy game style to the "wide expanses" of the mcg and win a GF, and lose the next one by a point.

anyone who mentions that the sints will stuggle come september as they have only played on game is a fool, as mentioned they have won at Subi, and AAMI (twice), and with a SCG and a Auraua game (will be a tough one) to come they should be well prepared.
 

krusden

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Aug 7, 2008
Posts
8,951
Likes
30
Location
34 55' 54"S, 138 36'04" E
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
When they're not belting us, NZ
#8
MCG: 160m x 141m
Docklands: 159.5m x 128.8m.
AAMI: 165m x 133m
Subiaco: 175.6m x 122.4m
Kardinia: 170m x 115m
apart from the fact i can't believe in 2009 we have such a difference between grounds in australian rules, our style worked well at aami which is only 8m thinner than the "g".

I think critical opposition people neglect the fact that: if they or we can think of it then the coaching staff have thought of it and therefore have/are adopting plans in regards of it.

Surely, these people think Roscoe is going to get to the end of round 21 and say "okay we're playing WHERE next week? oh crap, i forgot that we are playing at the mcg. oh noes i have no plan to combat this"
 

The Sultan

Club Legend
Joined
Mar 29, 2007
Posts
2,954
Likes
1,628
Location
Rand McNally
AFL Club
Carlton
#11
the saints coaching staff will be rubbing their hands in glee with the the attention that the saints "cant play the 'G", they will play the same style that has work all year and go far into september.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

StFly

Space to Rent
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Posts
14,017
Likes
5,843
Location
Sunbury
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Sunbury Lions
#13
MCG is skinnier than AAMI and we won convincingly ther twice, one team is battling it out for top 4, the other top 8. Also won well (after half time) at the GC which is also a big ground.
Carrara Stadium (Gold Coast) is about 160m x 134m, so slightly skinnier on the edges.

For completion sake;

Aurora (Tassie) 135m x 165m
Manuka (Canberra) 162.5m x 138.4m
ANZ / Homebush (West Sydney) 160m x 118m
Tio (Darwin) 175m x 135m

In saying this however, I also don't see how ground sizes could play that much difference when there's only a few metres separating them, it is like saying if conditions were the same a 40m kick could not be kicked 42m or 38 because of the ground itself. Or that players who already run hard and run several km a game would struggle to run an extra 2m on average, or less.

And really, how ridiculous is that?

Then of course there is the weather card that's played that when you think about it, if true the converse must also be true and thus you wonder why sides who aren't Dome tenants have such good records there (looking at Geelong here) You don't play in wind and rain you automatically suck when you do, when you play without them should sides not suck against sides suited to those non conditions because they would not be automatically compensating? And yet did Geelong not have a similar record to ours at the Dome for that to be proven false?

Of course, that is also ridiculous.

Good on the media for trying to look for excuses as to why we can't, good on opposition supporters for doing the same as well. In the end the only thing that matters is that regardless of what has been thrown at us this year we've surpassed the challenge.

This does not need to change irregardless of however many people want it to, ground sizes are therefore only 1 factor of many we've conquered thus far this year, why would the G be any different than any other ground? Simple fact is it won' be.
 

The Sultan

Club Legend
Joined
Mar 29, 2007
Posts
2,954
Likes
1,628
Location
Rand McNally
AFL Club
Carlton
#14
I can see it being one of those things where by the media and "experts" rabbit on about how the saints cant win due to:
not playing at the G
having a loosing culture
geelong didn't have Steve J when they played last.
saints cant win away from the dome
the have to loose a game before the win the GF
they cant go undefeated.
.
.
.
.

but if/when they do win the big dance the will all jump on the bandwagen and wank over how good they are and how well they have been coached and they never doubted they were going to win etc etc.....
 

Look2Me4Guidance

Not A Campaigner
Joined
Sep 10, 2007
Posts
29,625
Likes
12,007
Location
On the punt
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Phoenix Suns
#15
Try this on for size brothers.

More space at the G means to me;

More space for Riewoldt to work in.
More space for Kosi to work one on one.
If we force teams wide (which we aren't too shabby at) it'll take an extra kick to get into their attacking area.

Don't buy into this media rubbish brothers. We could have played the Hawks and Cats in tiddlywinks last year and they would have smashed us. They were simply better teams. Things have changed.

IT'S OUR TIME NOW.
 

sainter

ENGLISH PREMIER LEAGUE
Joined
Mar 5, 2000
Posts
14,466
Likes
33
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Southampton,Victory,Storm
#16
I don't think it's a big factor either for many of the reasons that you've all mentioned already.

Personally I don't think it's acceptable that we would only be drawn there once. Not because I see it as harming our prospects, more because it's the home of footy and we should be entitled to play there a few times. It's clearly something that will be addressed for next season. After all, we're a club that has the potential to draw big crowds and it's in the AFL's interest to have us there more often.

At least we're in the fortunate position that our one and only game at the G just happens to be the week before our finals campaign starts. Add a couple of familiarisation sessions at the ground between now and then and even if it was a problem, that should more than address it.

If it wasn't the lack of games of the G, there would be another reason why people would be saying why we won't be successful. They'd just have to come up with something. :)
 

IllBeTheJudge

Premiership Player
Joined
Jun 21, 2008
Posts
3,395
Likes
1,590
Location
Insert witty location here
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
New Orleans Saints, Sth Dragons
#17
I'm starting to think we should be shouting from the rooftops that we agree and in fact we can't play at the G

Let the opposition be lulled into that false sense of security, and let the opposition teams relax and be of the mindset that they're only playing St Kilda at the MCG, who can't play there
 

Cuz2Plugger

All Australian
Joined
Jun 13, 2009
Posts
985
Likes
2
Location
Madness? THIS IS STKILDA!
AFL Club
St Kilda
#18
I'm starting to think we should be shouting from the rooftops that we agree and in fact we can't play at the G

Let the opposition be lulled into that false sense of security, and let the opposition teams relax and be of the mindset that they're only playing St Kilda at the MCG, who can't play there

Yeah that's right, we certainly are the underdog there.....
 

sammm

Premium Gold
Joined
Nov 15, 2000
Posts
6,686
Likes
4,296
Location
heidelberg
AFL Club
St Kilda
#19
Carrara Stadium (Gold Coast) is about 160m x 134m, so slightly skinnier on the edges.

For completion sake;

Aurora (Tassie) 135m x 165m
Manuka (Canberra) 162.5m x 138.4m
ANZ / Homebush (West Sydney) 160m x 118m
Tio (Darwin) 175m x 135m

In saying this however, I also don't see how ground sizes could play that much difference when there's only a few metres separating them, it is like saying if conditions were the same a 40m kick could not be kicked 42m or 38 because of the ground itself. Or that players who already run hard and run several km a game would struggle to run an extra 2m on average, or less.

And really, how ridiculous is that?

Then of course there is the weather card that's played that when you think about it, if true the converse must also be true and thus you wonder why sides who aren't Dome tenants have such good records there (looking at Geelong here) You don't play in wind and rain you automatically suck when you do, when you play without them should sides not suck against sides suited to those non conditions because they would not be automatically compensating? And yet did Geelong not have a similar record to ours at the Dome for that to be proven false?

Of course, that is also ridiculous.

Good on the media for trying to look for excuses as to why we can't, good on opposition supporters for doing the same as well. In the end the only thing that matters is that regardless of what has been thrown at us this year we've surpassed the challenge.

This does not need to change irregardless of however many people want it to, ground sizes are therefore only 1 factor of many we've conquered thus far this year, why would the G be any different than any other ground? Simple fact is it won' be.
let us not forget that the saints train in the wind and rain,

they do train outdoors. even if they play partially indoors.

i don't know it may be a problem for the 1st five minutes that then the saints should be able to adapt.
 

LennyLeonard

Team Captain
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Posts
384
Likes
0
Location
Carlton
AFL Club
Carlton
#20
Try this on for size brothers.

More space at the G means to me;

More space for Riewoldt to work in.
More space for Kosi to work one on one.
If we force teams wide (which we aren't too shabby at) it'll take an extra kick to get into their attacking area.

Don't buy into this media rubbish brothers. We could have played the Hawks and Cats in tiddlywinks last year and they would have smashed us. They were simply better teams. Things have changed.

IT'S OUR TIME NOW.

Couldn't agree more. The game could be played in the Chadstone carpark and you would still manage to shut teams down. You blokes are miles ahead of the rest. All the Best.
 
Top Bottom