Very well said.saintsRrising wrote:It is actually not that important at all.BallBanger wrote:ExactlyMoods wrote:I guess equally important a question - did Eddy play better than what we would expect from Ball?
The important question is how well did the TEAM play.
I have seen more brilliant players that we fielded today (ie Plugger, Winmar, George Young, Ditterich.....) ..BUT I have NEVER EVER seen a St Kilda TEAM play as a TEAM as this one does and DID today.
The Crows entered this game in white hot form...so much so that many pundits picked them to win....and The saints made them look ridiculous today.
We are a MAGNIFICENT team....
Did we miss Ball?
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3152
- Joined: Tue 02 Jun 2009 2:44am
- Location: Next to what's next to me.
- Has thanked: 71 times
- Been thanked: 35 times
YOU GET WHAT YOU SETTLE FOR.
Under your theory Bakes would have been dropped last week so he wouldnt of had a chance to prove himself.AnythingsPossibleSaints wrote:Absolutely not, but maybe the team as a whole did, as a result of Bally not being picked. They all knew their spots could be on the line if they didn't play their best (especially guys like Bakes, who I think had a career high 32 possies) and they played accordingly. They were back to their early season form and had it not been for a lot of poor finishing in front of goal, we would probably have won by over 100 points (maybe well over).Moods wrote:I guess equally important a question - did Eddy play better than what we would expect from Ball?
And then there's the fact that when Bally comes back he'll probably play much better, as a result of being left out.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 130
- Joined: Sun 19 Jul 2009 9:24pm
- Location: Moorabbin
- Been thanked: 4 times
Did we miss Ball?
Eddy may not have played as well as we could have expected Bally, but what valuable game time into another young player..? Hindsight is a great thing, but this sort of experience will stand Eddy in good stead... especially around list management time... if you get my drift?
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3152
- Joined: Tue 02 Jun 2009 2:44am
- Location: Next to what's next to me.
- Has thanked: 71 times
- Been thanked: 35 times
And maybe we'd have won by more and been stronger still in finals. Anyway, they're your words YET AGAIN. I wouldn't have necessarily left Bakes out, because, as I said in the Bakes thread the other day, even though he's been getting very little of it, I'm not sure whether the guys he's been on have been getting a touch (but again, you don't let the truth get in the way of a good story). And it's also fair to say that he wouldn't have gotten 32 had Bally been there, because Bally missing meant that Bakes spent much more time in the midfield/wing (especially later in the game when he had most of those 32).plugger66 wrote:Under your theory Bakes would have been dropped last week so he wouldnt of had a chance to prove himself.AnythingsPossibleSaints wrote:Absolutely not, but maybe the team as a whole did, as a result of Bally not being picked. They all knew their spots could be on the line if they didn't play their best (especially guys like Bakes, who I think had a career high 32 possies) and they played accordingly. They were back to their early season form and had it not been for a lot of poor finishing in front of goal, we would probably have won by over 100 points (maybe well over).Moods wrote:I guess equally important a question - did Eddy play better than what we would expect from Ball?
And then there's the fact that when Bally comes back he'll probably play much better, as a result of being left out.
You still seem completely blind to the fact that when our guys feel their spots are "under pressure" they perform BETTER (like last year, after Dal and Milne were "dropped", early this year, before Ross came out and said he wanted to keep the same team each week) and yesterday, after Bally was left out, (on top of Geary the week before). It seems everyone in else football sees it but you. Or is this just more of your sarcasm?
Last edited by AnythingsPossibleSaints on Mon 20 Jul 2009 10:14am, edited 1 time in total.
YOU GET WHAT YOU SETTLE FOR.
No it seems you dont understand team morole. Players can be dropped. I have never said they shouldnt be but you want to drop players who play poorly the week before even if their form before that is good. Makes no sense at all but i have gathered you have never been involved in a team sport. Luckily RL has a great knowledge of footy and team sports.AnythingsPossibleSaints wrote:And maybe we'd have won by more and been stronger still in finals. Anyway, they're your words YET AGAIN. I wouldn't have necessarily left Bakes out, because, as I said in the Bakes thread the other day, even though he's been getting very little of it, I'm not sure whether the guys he's been on have been getting a touch (but again, you don't let the truth get in the way of a good story).plugger66 wrote:Under your theory Bakes would have been dropped last week so he wouldnt of had a chance to prove himself.AnythingsPossibleSaints wrote:Absolutely not, but maybe the team as a whole did, as a result of Bally not being picked. They all knew their spots could be on the line if they didn't play their best (especially guys like Bakes, who I think had a career high 32 possies) and they played accordingly. They were back to their early season form and had it not been for a lot of poor finishing in front of goal, we would probably have won by over 100 points (maybe well over).Moods wrote:I guess equally important a question - did Eddy play better than what we would expect from Ball?
And then there's the fact that when Bally comes back he'll probably play much better, as a result of being left out.
You still seem completely blind to the fact that when our guys feel their spots are "under pressure" they perform BETTER (like last year, after Dal and Milne were "dropped", early this year, before Ross came out and said he wanted to keep the same team each week) and yesterday, after Bally was left out, after Geary the week before. It seems everyone in else football sees it but you.
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3152
- Joined: Tue 02 Jun 2009 2:44am
- Location: Next to what's next to me.
- Has thanked: 71 times
- Been thanked: 35 times
What's "morole"?plugger66 wrote:
No it seems you dont understand team morole. Players can be dropped. I have never said they shouldnt be but you want to drop players who play poorly the week before even if their form before that is good. Makes no sense at all but i have gathered you have never been involved in a team sport. Luckily RL has a great knowledge of footy and team sports.
What I understand is that the "proof" is in the "pudding" and you seem to refuse to taste the pudding. Maybe the teams that you've been involved with have weak character, or were fragile and that's why they didn't respond to this sort of tactic, but we're not talking about them, or you. We're talking about the Saints and they've responded brilliantly to this, which you seem unwilling to, or incapable of admitting. (Or you just don't follow St Kilda at all and are just talking about your own experiences).
And YET AGAIN (this is like talking to a brick wall) I said I'd only "not pick someone who played poorly the week before even if their form before that is good" only if there was a legitimately better option in the VFL and it made the team STRONGER. You say this "makes no sense", but in your "vast experience" have you ever actually tested this out, to be sure it doesn't work? I'd dare say you haven't, which is like commenting on a place you've never been to.
As for saying "i have gathered you have never been involved in a team sport" I guess that goes to show just how little you do know and how bad your instinct/intuition is. But as I said previously, it doesn't matter much how much "experience" you have, if you have the IQ of a peanut.
YOU GET WHAT YOU SETTLE FOR.