Remove this Banner Ad

Stop Whinging Westaway

  • Thread starter Thread starter McCrann
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

McCrann

Premiership Player
Joined
Nov 1, 2007
Posts
3,882
Reaction score
823
Location
Australia
AFL Club
St Kilda
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25296269-661,00.html

St Kilda president Greg Westaway said of the TV fixture: ``We're disappointed with it. It's less than desirable and a lot worse than what we would have liked.

"We'd like to know what the system is. How do they work it out?''

Greg,

I have a simple explanation for you - it also explains why we had 14-15 games telecast during 2004-05-06-07 (as a hangover from previous years - as can now be proven by this year's schedule) for instance.

Its called - playing exciting and entertaining (and attacking by the way) football.

It brings in the members, brings in the money, and ultimately sees your (our) team getting telecast more on TV.

Greg, do you recall several of the St. Kilda v Sydney games over recent years? I do, I can tell you - they were boring.

Or how about the Hawthorn v St. Kilda game at the MCG a while back. 4 goals to 2 goals at 3 Quarter-time! Are you kidding me! That was an absolute disgrace.

Its no wonder our telecast numbers have dropped - despite another Top 4 finish last season. If your a club like St. Kilda, known for your flair and enterprise, if you play lock-down footy you're going to get shunted out of prime-time, and that's exactly what's happened this year.

The solution is there and obvious, play attacking enterprising footy and you'll be rewarded with increased members, increased coverage, and increased money in the kitty to spend on additional coaching and fitness related requirements for the players. It all adds up.

So, in essence, the lack of telecasts of the Saints this year can be laid squarely at the feet of Ross Lyon. And that's where responsibility lies, of course, for turning this around.

In fairness to Ross, it looks like he has modified his game plan to emphasise a more attacking mindset this year - the recruitment of Farren Ray, and the running players like Gram, Fisher and Goddard are doing through the midfield are obviously a very positive sign.

If Lyon sticks to his guns and really promotes are hard-running and attacking game style throughout this year, St. Kilda will be rewarded this year, with a better shot at the Premiership, and in following years with increased presence on TV and increasing memberships as fans are excited to see the team play.

The jury is still out on Lyon, but at least it now looks like he's going in the right direction, instead of trying to copy the Sydney game-plan of extensive, and frankly, excessive, defensive pressure.

Rewards will come his way if he keeps this up, its just a pity that the last two years have been so boring!

Including, missing the finals in 2007 - if we had made the 2007 finals we would now have a club record 5 successive finals series under our belt (2004 - 2008). Instead, we are now shooting for back-to-back finals instead of a "sixpack."
 
You lost me at hello.

Seriously mate that was long winded rubbish. Time to get over this Ross bash-fest.

You've mentioned 2 games where we were low scoring. FFS really if seeing goals kicked is the only thing that gets you going then you have obviously never even played footy.

Honestly we are winning games. And believe it or not 15 other teams are employing Hawks style zones (you referenced last years game).

Thanks for the negative post whilst we are up:thumbsu:
 
Fact 1: We made the top 4 last year, so by that reckoning exciting or not the Saints have been given a dud deal in terms of telecasting games this year!
Fact 2: Saints are currently 2-0 after playing what i would say is a more attacking brand of footy! This is a result of Lyon getting the players to work more on their defensive skills. Once you have a good defensive team the attacking game style follows.
Fact 3: Just because a team plays 'an excting brand of footy' doesn't guarentee a good finish to the year! How many exciting games did the likes of Brisbane, Carlton and Richmond play last year and where did they finish??
Fact 4: It is the AFL's fault to the bad telecasts due to the number of Sunday games - including twilight - the have given both us and the Dogs.
Fact 5: Try again Troll!!!
 
You lost me at hello.

Seriously mate that was long winded rubbish. Time to get over this Ross bash-fest.

You've mentioned 2 games where we were low scoring. FFS really if seeing goals kicked is the only thing that gets you going then you have obviously never even played footy.

Honestly we are winning games. And believe it or not 15 other teams are employing Hawks style zones (you referenced last years game).

Thanks for the negative post whilst we are up:thumbsu:

The negativity orginiates elsewhere than the post, Westaway is the one "disapointed" with the situation.

I am merely trying to explain some of the causes and effects of why that may be the case.

You obviously didn't read the post, which is a pity because I gave Ross a pat on the back for what I've seen this year - ie, much better.

If Lyon sticks to his guns and really promotes are hard-running and attacking game style throughout this year, St. Kilda will be rewarded this year, with a better shot at the Premiership, and in following years with increased presence on TV and increasing memberships as fans are excited to see the team play.

The jury is still out on Lyon, but at least it now looks like he's going in the right direction, instead of trying to copy the Sydney game-plan of extensive, and frankly, excessive, defensive pressure.

Rewards will come his way if he keeps this up, its just a pity that the last two years have been so boring!

Ok, there have been good points during the last two years. But i'm sure it was as excruciating for you as it was for me to sit through the finals against Geelong and Hawthorn last year. A team like Hawthorn, that we had probably won 10/12 games against going into that final - and we were well and truly thrashed. That was dispiriting and extremely disappointing from my point of view.

Also, I've taken the time to find out some facts.

St. Kilda (Home Averages at Docklands: 2004 - 2008)

2004 - 41,219
2005 - 41,278
2006 - 39,473
2007 - 37,921
2008 - 37,034

All those figures are facts. Clearly, there was some drop off in 2006 - which was a year cruelled by injuries - and we only just scraped into the finals - but you can't deny that between 2004/05 and 2007/08 there has been about a 10% fall in St. Kilda home game attendances at Docklands.

Guess what, we made the Top 4 last year - so you obviously can't put the fall down to ladder position.

What's your explanation of why a team that has hardly made finals in its entire history is experiencing a drop-off of 10% of supporters when its challenging for a Top 4 berth - and gets it.

Consider also, that in 2008 the Australian economy was absolutely booming until September (so no effect on the footy season) - and yet we have a drop-off in crowd numbers?

I will be interested to see how things are this year given the economic slowdown.

So please, can you enlighten me why there was a 10% fall in attendances between 2005 (Top 4) and 2008 (Top 4)?

Please let me know, I've had a go - how do you explain it?
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Sir Bob don't like Mondays?
bob-geldof-003.jpg


The "Stop Whinging Westaway" was a bit infammatory, but a guy I've been going to the footy with for 20 years is not renewing as he didn't enjoy watching even though we were winning last year. My wife hasn't renewed either and she won't watch it on TV (especially any game v Sydney).

I'm also glad we are not trying to win games from the backline this year, and I think the OP was alluding to a more positive game plan this year.

Having watched us for years get pantsed, I still turned up cause they were giving it a crack and it was full-on when we won playing an attacking brand. Winning 51-49 just should not happen.

If we don't recognise that people like to be entertained (as well as winning more than their fair share) then we're kidding ourselves.

I don't know what the logic of the TV stations was, but wouldn't surprise if the entertainment factor was there in relation to the Saints. But also the expected resurgence of the Navy Poos and to a lesser extent those that eat their young (Tigers).
 
Also, I've taken the time to find out some facts.

St. Kilda (Home Averages at Docklands: 2004 - 2008)

2004 - 41,219
2005 - 41,278
2006 - 39,473
2007 - 37,921
2008 - 37,034

All those figures are facts. Clearly, there was some drop off in 2006 - which was a year cruelled by injuries - and we only just scraped into the finals - but you can't deny that between 2004/05 and 2007/08 there has been about a 10% fall in St. Kilda home game attendances at Docklands.

So please, can you enlighten me why there was a 10% fall in attendances between 2005 (Top 4) and 2008 (Top 4)?

Please let me know, I've had a go - how do you explain it?

You might want to factor in that we use to play our smallest drawing games in Tasmania...but now play these at Docklands.
 
You might want to factor in that we use to play our smallest drawing games in Tasmania...but now play these at Docklands.

Bingo!!!!!
Our friend McCrann has to be the most boring, negative poster I have ever seen......nearly went to sleep reading his diatribe.Must be related to the political reporter!
 
Okay, lets talk FACTS. Well, St Kilda scored 90+ points in 14 matches last year, winning 10 of them - INCLUDING the amazing win against the future premiers, the 100 point thrashing of Essendon to get us to Top-4, and the Finals win against Collingwood.

In many games, the lower scores (80ish, 90ish) have NOTHING to do with how often we attacked - they have to do with poor accuracy at goal: we kicked 6.15 against Sydney Rnd 1, 13.16 against the Cats Rnd 4, 18.15 against the Dons Rnd 5 and 19.15 against Melbourne Rnd 10 (now THOSE two wasn't attacking!), 14.17 against Port in Rnd 18, and 13.17 against the Crows in Rnd 21. Nothing wrong with the attacking attitude in those games, only the execution - which has been rectified by Tudor.

We scored about 60 points 4 times - 2 of which were in the home and away season. Three of those we lost, including against Geelong and the Hawks, which seems to indicate to me that something went wrong those games (ie, it was NOT what the coach or team wanted...). Yes the season started poorly with the 51-49 game against Sydney, but that was ONE GAME, and it was marked by poor accuracy at goal, as I've said. In one of those low games, the one against Port, Lyon publicly lamented that the boys were not playing to his specific instructions, and subsequently brought them in line to his more attacking game plan.

Seriously, the claim that the Saints in 2008 were clamping teams down, flooding like crazy, not trying to score goals and playing boring footy is just a fallacy. The stats don't lie.

I've edited this post twice now, because I find more and more proof of this as I look.
 
thanks for those interesting facts PS.

McCrann: I was at that infamous hawks vs saints game. We were not the only ones flooding. From memory, both teams had a lot of key players out.

I agree that more attacking football is more exciting to watch, especially to kids. it was a concern of mine last year, memberships drop off & tv broadcasting.

However, - let's see what 2009 brings. You've already said that you're liking our game plan better.
 
Okay, lets talk FACTS. Well, St Kilda scored 90+ points in 14 matches last year, winning 10 of them - INCLUDING the amazing win against the future premiers, the 100 point thrashing of Essendon to get us to Top-4, and the Finals win against Collingwood.

In many games, the lower scores (80ish, 90ish) have NOTHING to do with how often we attacked - they have to do with poor accuracy at goal: we kicked 6.15 against Sydney Rnd 1, 13.16 against the Cats Rnd 4, 18.15 against the Dons Rnd 5 and 19.15 against Melbourne Rnd 10 (now THOSE two wasn't attacking!), 14.17 against Port in Rnd 18, and 13.17 against the Crows in Rnd 21. Nothing wrong with the attacking attitude in those games, only the execution - which has been rectified by Tudor.

We scored about 60 points 4 times - 2 of which were in the home and away season. Three of those we lost, including against Geelong and the Hawks, which seems to indicate to me that something went wrong those games (ie, it was NOT what the coach or team wanted...). Yes the season started poorly with the 51-49 game against Sydney, but that was ONE GAME, and it was marked by poor accuracy at goal, as I've said. In one of those low games, the one against Port, Lyon publicly lamented that the boys were not playing to his specific instructions, and subsequently brought them in line to his more attacking game plan.

Seriously, the claim that the Saints in 2008 were clamping teams down, flooding like crazy, not trying to score goals and playing boring footy is just a fallacy. The stats don't lie.

I've edited this post twice now, because I find more and more proof of this as I look.

Percy - the facts can be dodgy (even to someone who likes his stats).

Sometimes its the vibe :
CastleR4c.jpg

If you remember some of the games from 2008:
- Rnd 1 v Syd was universally hailed as one of the worst ever.
- We kicked 100 pts once against a top 8 team in the regular season.
- The return game against Sydney was a write-off with 3 goals to 1/2 time.
- Winning 65-57 against Freo wasn't far off the Sydney game. An awful game of flooding.
- The next round against North we barely scored a point in the first quarter, and had a miserable 6 goals to 3/4 time in good conditions.
- We might have scored 95 points against Brisbane, but had 3 goals to half time!!! Junk time goals don't make for excitement.

You wouldn't want to go back to 2007 when we had 8 scores under 70 points including 43 and 44.

If you ask most footy observers, they would say that St Kilda has played a flooding game in recent times. They can't all be wrong. Remember that we are not Collingwood or Essendon supporters who cannot see fault in their team or players ever.

But at the end of the day I think we are all happy with the way the team is playing this year - particularly the Adelaide game. Seeing the players flat punt the ball into space, and over the top to a runner, has not featured in our game plan in 2007-08 which was maintain possession at all costs (even if sideways / backwards / waiting until the umpire gets sick of you standing there pretending to move it on).

C'mon Perc - sneak a peak out the side of the rose-coloureds. I know it's ugly out there sometimes! :D
 
There's no doubt we have played some dull, unattractive football in the past two seasons. Although thankfully we appear to be playing a more attractive, attacking brand this year.

This may have been a factor in us recieving less FTA coverage this year, although I don't think it is the main reason. I think it is mainly due to the TV stations preferring to cover more games with the so called big 4 clubs. It's no coincidence that big drawing teams like Collingwood, Carlton, Essendon and Richmond are getting the most FTA coverage. Whilst so called battlers like the Saints, North and the Bulldogs get the rough end of the stick.

If it was just down to style of play then surely the Bulldogs, who play some of the most entertaining, attractive football in the comp., would be getting more FTA coverage. As it is they have the same, or worse, FTA coverage than we do.
 
If it was just down to style of play then surely the Bulldogs, who play some of the most entertaining, attractive football in the comp., would be getting more FTA coverage. As it is they have the same, or worse, FTA coverage than we do.

Makes sense when you put it like that. They play a pretty good brand but are rarely on the box. The morons in TV land are pretty ruthless - no girls on TV unless they are "do-able", repeat TV shows even though not advertised as a repeat, go as far over time as you like to screw people's VCRs, start a series at Episode 3, allow the Footy Show to go for 1.5 hours even though there is 15mins of entertainment on it, and allow Matthew Newton to expose his face to the public.
 
Makes sense when you put it like that. They play a pretty good brand but are rarely on the box. The morons in TV land are pretty ruthless - no girls on TV unless they are "do-able", repeat TV shows even though not advertised as a repeat, go as far over time as you like to screw people's VCRs, start a series at Episode 3, allow the Footy Show to go for 1.5 hours even though there is 15mins of entertainment on it, and allow Matthew Newton to expose his face to the public.

:D ha ha
 

Remove this Banner Ad

I tend to agree with the OP on "stop whinging". But I disagree with him on linking it with style of play - we shouldn't change one iota to attempt to lure TV coverage. Let's work to win premierships and the coverage will look after itself.


However, I do agree that the last two years have been less attractive football and less enjoyable to watch. I've felt that myself at games, when even though you're winning you just want it to be over, because it's just not very interesting. That changed a bit on Friday night, which was the most enjoyable St Kilda game for me - last year's win over the Hawks aside - in a few years.

Here's some stats which may or may not support my argument.

Average scores for:

2002: 12.0 g, 8.9 b = 80.9 p, 20.9 shots, acc 57%
2003: 14.0 g, 11.5 b = 95.5 p, 25.5 shots, acc 55%
2004: 16.8 g, 10.1 b = 110.9 p, 26.9 shots, acc 62%
2005: 16.1 g, 12.6 b = 109.2 p, 28.7 shots, acc 56%
2006: 13.7 g, 11.9 b = 94.1 p, 25.6 shots, acc 54%
2007: 12.1 g, 12.3 b = 84.9 p, 24.4 shots, acc 50%
2008: 14.0 g, 12.4 b = 96.4 p, 26.4 shots, acc 53%
2009: 13.5 g, 9.5 b = 90.5 p, 23.0 shots, acc 59%

Average scores against:

2002: 15.2 g, 12.1 b = 103.3 p, 27.3 shots, acc 56%
2003: 14.6 g, 11.9 b = 99.5 p, 26.5 shots, acc 55%
2004: 13.1 g, 9.6 b = 88.2 p, 22.7 shots, acc 58%
2005: 12.4 g, 9.1 b = 83.5 p, 21.5 shots, acc 58%
2006: 11.5 g, 11.5 b = 80.5 p, 23.0 shots, acc 50%
2007: 12.9 g, 11.4 b = 88.8 p, 24.3 shots, acc 53%
2008: 12.6 g, 11.6 b = 87.2 p, 24.2 shots, acc 52%
2009: 9.5 g, 10.0 b = 67.0 p, 19.5 shots, acc 49%

Average scores whole game:

2002: 184.2 p, 48.2 shots, 56% acc
2003: 195.0 p, 52.0 shots, 55% acc
2004: 199.1 p, 49.6 shots, 60% acc
2005: 192.7 p, 50.2 shots, 57% acc
2006: 174.6 p, 48.6 shots, 52% acc
2007: 173.7 p, 48.7 shots, 51% acc
2008: 183.6 p, 50.6 shots, 53% acc
2009: 157.5 p, 42.5 shots, 54% acc

Probably ignore the 09 stats because there's not enough data to work with. So obviously games we were involved with had significantly less scoring after 05 - when we started trying to build a game that would be successful under the pressure of finals football. Apparently that scoring was driven by an overall drop in accuracy?

Do more interesting games have more scoring?
 
Sir Bob don't like Mondays?
bob-geldof-003.jpg


The "Stop Whinging Westaway" was a bit infammatory, but a guy I've been going to the footy with for 20 years is not renewing as he didn't enjoy watching even though we were winning last year. My wife hasn't renewed either and she won't watch it on TV (especially any game v Sydney).

I'm also glad we are not trying to win games from the backline this year, and I think the OP was alluding to a more positive game plan this year.

Having watched us for years get pantsed, I still turned up cause they were giving it a crack and it was full-on when we won playing an attacking brand. Winning 51-49 just should not happen.

If we don't recognise that people like to be entertained (as well as winning more than their fair share) then we're kidding ourselves.

I don't know what the logic of the TV stations was, but wouldn't surprise if the entertainment factor was there in relation to the Saints. But also the expected resurgence of the Navy Poos and to a lesser extent those that eat their young (Tigers).

i wonder if they miss going to the game after yesterdays game against west coast.
 
i wonder if they miss going to the game after yesterdays game against west coast.

They should, as that is the way we want to see the boys play.

I started going to the VFL and actually enjoyed these games more than the AFL. Much less tagging/flooding and many more long kicks and contests.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom