September 2006

[perfectionist]

It was the night that ended an era - the Grant Thomas era. Preliminary finals in the previous two years did not prepare us for a loss to Melbourne in the EF, although they had beaten us earlier in the season. David Neitz was too strong that night, too strong for any of our backs. The game was comfortable for us at half time (20 points up) but, after ten minutes of the third quarter, the momentum had shifted. Still in front at three quarter time (9 points), we were outscored 5 goals to one in the last. Our expectations were that we would do better. Certainly the Board thought so and Grant Thomas was replaced by Ross Lyon.

From that game, until the present, Melbourne have not beaten us for points. Twelve wins straight, equalled by our winning streak against Carlton and only exceeded by our record winning streak of 13 games against Richmond. Both of these streaks spanned the Thomas and Lyon eras.

Tomorrow's game is not for points, but it is for something else - direction. Both teams have just one player each from that Elimination Final of 2006 - Nathan Jones for them, who was playing just his 7th game at the time, and Nick Riewoldt for us, who had already played more than 100.

There are those who say that "practice" games do not matter. Certainly intra-club games don't tell you much, other than fitness levels. However, the competitive urge inherent in most players means that they try as much in these games against opposition teams despite the fact that it is not for points. Of course, if a coach takes half his team off the ground, or rests best players when they are not tired, then that will influence the score at the end. But the score is less important than "how" the team plays - particularly after the coach has been there for a few years. The third year for a coach is generally make or break - unless progress up the ladder is made then he will be disposed of sooner rather than later. Contracts matter little.

The one indicator of improvement from my point of view is disposal efficiency. Unless this improves, no amount of effort, positional or style changes, will have any significant effect. Put simply, if a player gets the ball, then he must have an efficiency level of 80+%. We have no high draft picks to look forward to or to be pleasantly surprised by. Our team this year, will be 95% of our team last year. Our oldest player remains our most skilled player. I am hoping for a good result.

[ctqs]

They beat us that night because we were the walking wounded that game.

[dragit]

80+%?

Are there any players in the league that do that?

[samuraisaint]

It was the night that ended an era - the Grant Thomas era. Preliminary finals in the previous two years did not prepare us for a loss to Melbourne in the EF, although they had beaten us earlier in the season. David Neitz was too strong that night, too strong for any of our backs. The game was comfortable for us at half time (20 points up) but, after ten minutes of the third quarter, the momentum had shifted. Still in front at three quarter time (9 points), we were outscored 5 goals to one in the last. Our expectations were that we would do better. Certainly the Board thought so and Grant Thomas was replaced by Ross Lyon.

From that game, until the present, Melbourne have not beaten us for points. Twelve wins straight, equalled by our winning streak against Carlton and only exceeded by our record winning streak of 13 games against Richmond. Both of these streaks spanned the Thomas and Lyon eras.

Tomorrow's game is not for points, but it is for something else - direction. Both teams have just one player each from that Elimination Final of 2006 - Nathan Jones for them, who was playing just his 7th game at the time, and Nick Riewoldt for us, who had already played more than 100.

There are those who say that "practice" games do not matter. Certainly intra-club games don't tell you much, other than fitness levels. However, the competitive urge inherent in most players means that they try as much in these games against opposition teams despite the fact that it is not for points. Of course, if a coach takes half his team off the ground, or rests best players when they are not tired, then that will influence the score at the end. But the score is less important than "how" the team plays - particularly after the coach has been there for a few years. The third year for a coach is generally make or break - unless progress up the ladder is made then he will be disposed of sooner rather than later. Contracts matter little.

The one indicator of improvement from my point of view is disposal efficiency. Unless this improves, no amount of effort, positional or style changes, will have any significant effect. Put simply, if a player gets the ball, then he must have an efficiency level of 80+%. We have no high draft picks to look forward to or to be pleasantly surprised by. Our team this year, will be 95% of our team last year. Our oldest player remains our most skilled player. I am hoping for a good result.

We also beat Fitzroy 13 times in a row in the 60s.
If we bring up our 13th win in a row against Melbourne this year, we will break the 90 win barrier against an opponent in head to head wins too. If we beat them both times it will be 14 wins in a row against an opponent, which will be another club record. Let's hope we do it. Playing them three times this year at Etihad (including tomorrow's practice match) is a big opportunity for this team to do that. I actually think Melbourne will improve significantly this year and win half their games, finishing ninth or tenth, so it won't be an easy task.
Funnily enough, their only surviving player from that game, Jones, grew up barracking for the Sainters.

[Rosco]

80+%?

Are there any players in the league that do that?

he is a perfectionist.

[skeptic]

They beat us that night because we were the walking wounded that game.

Yes if I recall correctly, we lost both Clarke brothers in the first half... Then someone else too. And then right on the break, Gehrig did a hamstring. That was the killer because he was killing it.

I think we then lost a 5th player and Gehrig had to come back on despite the fact that he couldn't run.

Rough night.

[saint-stu]

They beat us that night because we were the walking wounded that game.

Yes if I recall correctly, we lost both Clarke brothers in the first half... Then someone else too. And then right on the break, Gehrig did a hamstring. That was the killer because he was killing it.

I think we then lost a 5th player and Gehrig had to come back on despite the fact that he couldn't run.

Rough night.

Maxy Hudghton almost never beaten, was absolutely pantsed by Neitz in that game.

[Bluthy]

I was thinking the other day about the psychological edge we might have on several teams due to our decade of dominance. You can see from Collingwood and Geelong who lost grand finals and then when on to win a flag with their next generation how such a domination can give advantages to the next generation:

1) The club knows it can win a flag and reloads properly with confidence and belief to go again and learn from mistakes that saw them fall short
2) but also it can give the club a psychological advantage having a beaten teams into a pulp for close to a decade - those scars live on

I wondered if even in the dogs come back game there weren't some players or a subconscious belief from the dogs saying "oh no here it comes again - we lose to this bloody team!" and they just froze. Same with Melbourne, Bombers, Blues who could all be our rivals for a flag. It could be a really handy edge up our sleeve. Even with other teams higher up we want to be damn competitive (and even steal a win) so we can say "Hey we are way behind you on our rebuild but we're already right at you, be afraid". Its why you don't want to bumble around the bottom of the ladder for too long.

There is no doubt Rooey, Joey, Fish, Gilbo will be constantly drumming into the young players "We are St Kilda. What we know is success and winning and crushing the opposition. It's yours, take it". That is such a valuable tool to create a winners mentality.

[gringo]

80+%?

Are there any players in the league that do that?

I seriously doubt it, unless they get minimal stats.

[samuraisaint]

I was thinking the other day about the psychological edge we might have on several teams due to our decade of dominance. You can see from Collingwood and Geelong who lost grand finals and then when on to win a flag with their next generation how such a domination can give advantages to the next generation:

1) The club knows it can win a flag and reloads properly with confidence and belief to go again and learn from mistakes that saw them fall short
2) but also it can give the club a psychological advantage having a beaten teams into a pulp for close to a decade - those scars live on

I wondered if even in the dogs come back game there weren't some players or a subconscious belief from the dogs saying "oh no here it comes again - we lose to this bloody team!" and they just froze. Same with Melbourne, Bombers, Blues who could all be our rivals for a flag. It could be a really handy edge up our sleeve. Even with other teams higher up we want to be damn competitive (and even steal a win) so we can say "Hey we are way behind you on our rebuild but we're already right at you, be afraid". Its why you don't want to bumble around the bottom of the ladder for too long.

There is no doubt Rooey, Joey, Fish, Gilbo will be constantly drumming into the young players "We are St Kilda. What we know is success and winning and crushing the opposition. It's yours, take it". That is such a valuable tool to create a winners mentality.

There is truth in what you are posting here Bluthy.
Sometimes I read the opposition boards threads over on BigFooty and I have noticed that certain sides' supporters really hate us - Melbourne, Footscray, Brisbane and Fremantle's especially. You can add Essendon and Carlton to that list too.
Collingwood and Geelong's seem to view us a bit more sympathetically these days, possibly because of the GFs we played them in - Adelaide's supporters too, they must look back nostalgically at 1997.
Hawthorn, North, Swans, and Richmond's tend to post generally positive things in the main.
In the case of Melbourne, the Bulldogs, and Brisbane, it is because we are seen as media darlings, with our kids getting their tyres pumped up, but probably also because Joey, Roo and Chips are still beating them year in and year out, and there's a bit of the frustration factor creeping in. If we beat Melbourne today do youself a favour and check out their board. Freo because we beat them when we shouldn't. I think Carlton and Essendon's hatred of us is going to intensify after this year as I can see us beating them comprehensively and scoring freely against the both of them again, as we did regularly between 2003-1012.

[#gosaintas]

They beat us that night because we were the walking wounded that game.

Yes if I recall correctly, we lost both Clarke brothers in the first half... Then someone else too. And then right on the break, Gehrig did a hamstring. That was the killer because he was killing it.

I think we then lost a 5th player and Gehrig had to come back on despite the fact that he couldn't run.

Rough night.

Maxy Hudghton almost never beaten, was absolutely pantsed by Neitz in that game.

Didn't Neitz kick something like 5 goals from outside 50, a legue record?

[samuraisaint]

I was thinking the other day about the psychological edge we might have on several teams due to our decade of dominance. You can see from Collingwood and Geelong who lost grand finals and then when on to win a flag with their next generation how such a domination can give advantages to the next generation:

1) The club knows it can win a flag and reloads properly with confidence and belief to go again and learn from mistakes that saw them fall short
2) but also it can give the club a psychological advantage having a beaten teams into a pulp for close to a decade - those scars live on

I wondered if even in the dogs come back game there weren't some players or a subconscious belief from the dogs saying "oh no here it comes again - we lose to this bloody team!" and they just froze. Same with Melbourne, Bombers, Blues who could all be our rivals for a flag. It could be a really handy edge up our sleeve. Even with other teams higher up we want to be damn competitive (and even steal a win) so we can say "Hey we are way behind you on our rebuild but we're already right at you, be afraid". Its why you don't want to bumble around the bottom of the ladder for too long.

There is no doubt Rooey, Joey, Fish, Gilbo will be constantly drumming into the young players "We are St Kilda. What we know is success and winning and crushing the opposition. It's yours, take it". That is such a valuable tool to create a winners mentality.

FunFact: We have never beaten Carlton in a final. Or Melbourne ...

[saynta]

They beat us that night because we were the walking wounded that game.

Wasn't that the game where Neitz kept kicking goals out of his arse from outside the 50 Metre line?

[ctqs]

They beat us that night because we were the walking wounded that game.

Wasn't that the game where Neitz kept kicking goals out of his arse from outside the 50 Metre line?

Maybe. I can't remember. But Melbourne and all the moron football media types were cockahoop about the gutsy comeback win and how they were going to roll Fremantle the next week. Pffft.