Well
I stand by armo getting three centre clearances...
However, we are both wrong......
I never call spelling mistakes....unless it sounds funny....
I type on a touch screen and continually f***it up
Options for Armo
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
-
dragit
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 13047
- Joined: Tue 29 Jun 2010 11:56am
- Has thanked: 605 times
- Been thanked: 315 times
when are you guys going to get back onto 'think frangas', whatever they are?plugger66 wrote:The funny thing is you mention spelling. Again it sums you up. Even though I mispelt something so did you but you still bring it up. Still have no idea who your previous post was directed too. Looked at the last few posts on this page and saw nothing. Nothing more annoying than posters arrogantly thinking people know what they are on about without using the quote button.BigMart wrote:Dont use it....nothing more annoying.
Why do we have to reread the same posts in thread quotes for page after page....worst aspect of the forum
Now look back at your posts in the thread......did you use the word 'think' .... If so, it is probably you i refer to....
Nice quick reply as usual......
-
To the top
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3266
- Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2007 4:05pm
- Been thanked: 390 times
I was always of the education that when you "bring something up" you have your head over the toilet bowl.
Otherwise you raise something.
So, "when I raised the issue of ......."
Then we have "bought" (as in buy) and brought (the past tense of the verb "bring" as in "I brought with me my friend who brings up what he has eaten on a regular basis").
So it is not only spelling!
Have fun.
Armitage, Geary and Blake out.
Gardiner, Cahill and Smith in.
Smith as substitute, replacing Gardiner into the third quarter after Gardiner has supported McEvoy by playing 60% of the first half (and McEvoy spending some time deep in attack to stretch the Carlton defence which is not that tall.
This allows Riewoldt and Koschitzke to rotate up and back as they did last week when Riewoldt also went into defence.
Milne and Schnieder also in attack along with Cahill and Peake.
So:-
Dempster Dawson Gilbert
Clarke Fisher Gram
Dal Santo Goddard Montagna
Peake Riewoldt Schnieder
Milne Koschitzke Cahill
McEvoy Jones Steven
Ray Polo Gardiner Smith
Otherwise you raise something.
So, "when I raised the issue of ......."
Then we have "bought" (as in buy) and brought (the past tense of the verb "bring" as in "I brought with me my friend who brings up what he has eaten on a regular basis").
So it is not only spelling!
Have fun.
Armitage, Geary and Blake out.
Gardiner, Cahill and Smith in.
Smith as substitute, replacing Gardiner into the third quarter after Gardiner has supported McEvoy by playing 60% of the first half (and McEvoy spending some time deep in attack to stretch the Carlton defence which is not that tall.
This allows Riewoldt and Koschitzke to rotate up and back as they did last week when Riewoldt also went into defence.
Milne and Schnieder also in attack along with Cahill and Peake.
So:-
Dempster Dawson Gilbert
Clarke Fisher Gram
Dal Santo Goddard Montagna
Peake Riewoldt Schnieder
Milne Koschitzke Cahill
McEvoy Jones Steven
Ray Polo Gardiner Smith
-
dragit
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 13047
- Joined: Tue 29 Jun 2010 11:56am
- Has thanked: 605 times
- Been thanked: 315 times
Sweet, you're like the Marcel Duchamp of team selection.To the top wrote:I was always of the education that when you "bring something up" you have your head over the toilet bowl.
Otherwise you raise something.
So, "when I raised the issue of ......."
Then we have "bought" (as in buy) and brought (the past tense of the verb "bring" as in "I brought with me my friend who brings up what he has eaten on a regular basis").
So it is not only spelling!
Have fun.
Armitage, Geary and Blake out.
Gardiner, Cahill and Smith in.
Smith as substitute, replacing Gardiner into the third quarter after Gardiner has supported McEvoy by playing 60% of the first half (and McEvoy spending some time deep in attack to stretch the Carlton defence which is not that tall.
This allows Riewoldt and Koschitzke to rotate up and back as they did last week when Riewoldt also went into defence.
Milne and Schnieder also in attack along with Cahill and Peake.
So:-
Dempster Dawson Gilbert
Clarke Fisher Gram
Dal Santo Goddard Montagna
Peake Riewoldt Schnieder
Milne Koschitzke Cahill
McEvoy Jones Steven
Ray Polo Gardiner Smith
Surely our aim is to win and get a home final. It is to late to get a priority pick. Cahill wouldnt get a game if 10 blokes went down and Smith is probably nearly as far away. MG, Ben, Rooy and Kosi in the same side. Where is any of the team balance?To the top wrote:I was always of the education that when you "bring something up" you have your head over the toilet bowl.
Otherwise you raise something.
So, "when I raised the issue of ......."
Then we have "bought" (as in buy) and brought (the past tense of the verb "bring" as in "I brought with me my friend who brings up what he has eaten on a regular basis").
So it is not only spelling!
Have fun.
Armitage, Geary and Blake out.
Gardiner, Cahill and Smith in.
Smith as substitute, replacing Gardiner into the third quarter after Gardiner has supported McEvoy by playing 60% of the first half (and McEvoy spending some time deep in attack to stretch the Carlton defence which is not that tall.
This allows Riewoldt and Koschitzke to rotate up and back as they did last week when Riewoldt also went into defence.
Milne and Schnieder also in attack along with Cahill and Peake.
So:-
Dempster Dawson Gilbert
Clarke Fisher Gram
Dal Santo Goddard Montagna
Peake Riewoldt Schnieder
Milne Koschitzke Cahill
McEvoy Jones Steven
Ray Polo Gardiner Smith
-
SaintPav
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 18647
- Joined: Wed 16 Jun 2010 9:24pm
- Location: Alma Road
- Has thanked: 1544 times
- Been thanked: 1900 times
what is this sh!t?dragit wrote:when are you guys going to get back onto 'think frangas', whatever they are?plugger66 wrote:The funny thing is you mention spelling. Again it sums you up. Even though I mispelt something so did you but you still bring it up. Still have no idea who your previous post was directed too. Looked at the last few posts on this page and saw nothing. Nothing more annoying than posters arrogantly thinking people know what they are on about without using the quote button.BigMart wrote:Dont use it....nothing more annoying.
Why do we have to reread the same posts in thread quotes for page after page....worst aspect of the forum
Now look back at your posts in the thread......did you use the word 'think' .... If so, it is probably you i refer to....
Nice quick reply as usual......
Holder of unacceptable views and other thought crimes.
-
To the top
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3266
- Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2007 4:05pm
- Been thanked: 390 times
For those critical:-
1) McEvoy is still a very much developing ruckman and is of more value around the ground with his football skills - he was absolutely smashed by Mumford up in the delightful west of Sydney (where we were smashed at the ruck contests and at the stoppages, accordingly resulting in the ball being at the wrong end of the ground for most of the day) and was well beaten at the stoppages at Docklands last weekend, but returned the favour around the ground with his positioning and marking.
If we are going to get anywhere this season, we need a genuine ruck presence, hence Gardiner to assist McEvoy.
2) My preference is for a forward who can actually kick goals, and at 192cm Cahill has the ability and the nous. He is a natural forward. Give me Cahill over Geary as a "defensive forward" any day. You may just be surprised by the skill this kid has. Has fought hard to get back from injury and my "mail" was that he was very, very good v. Geelong last week at Geelong after being good v. Collingwood the week before on a wing.
3) Smith has pace and is a dogged performer. Good engine and, again, my mail was that he was very, very good v. Collingwood in the VFL the match before last and was solid v. Geelong. Worth consideration as a substitute. Better option than Blake as a substitute - and it is a pity neither Cripps or Ledger are ready because they would be your naturals.
Now, exactly who do these players replace?
Armitage - suspended.
Blake - with Fisher as the "general" and the player we look to "free up" in the back half, there is no position for Blake, who is not a ruckman and particularly not a ruckman at finals time. Full back (where he can not play), CHB and the defensive flanks are taken, so where are the options for Blake except to ruck? Can not go forward and take a "grab".
Geary - an honest footballer being spoken of as a "defensive forward", whatever that is. So, what does he do as a "defensive" forward? If he is to stop a small running Carlton defender why even concede that? Why not leave the small Carlton running defender with the job on Milne or Schnieder and look for either of those 2 to damage him on the scoreboard - and make sure he does not get off with the pill? They will not give him Cahill because Cahill will take him to the square where we will have a very significant height advantage. Again, why play the game on your opponent's terms? Why concede and waste one of your 22 available players and particularly a forward?
By contrast our "running defenders" are Dempster (191cm), Gilbert (194cm), Clarke (188cm) and Gram (186cm).
We should have learnt from the Collingwood game, where a small defender cut us up because he did not have an opponent all night and no one was responsible for him.
This is the problem with 4/5 forwards - and Collingwood exposed this with their small defender BOG.
We should have made him responsible for a dangerous forward forcing him to do what defenders do - negate your opponent.
There are lessons from recent games and the NM ultimate scoreboard result does not wash these lessons away.
Not to me, anyway.
1) McEvoy is still a very much developing ruckman and is of more value around the ground with his football skills - he was absolutely smashed by Mumford up in the delightful west of Sydney (where we were smashed at the ruck contests and at the stoppages, accordingly resulting in the ball being at the wrong end of the ground for most of the day) and was well beaten at the stoppages at Docklands last weekend, but returned the favour around the ground with his positioning and marking.
If we are going to get anywhere this season, we need a genuine ruck presence, hence Gardiner to assist McEvoy.
2) My preference is for a forward who can actually kick goals, and at 192cm Cahill has the ability and the nous. He is a natural forward. Give me Cahill over Geary as a "defensive forward" any day. You may just be surprised by the skill this kid has. Has fought hard to get back from injury and my "mail" was that he was very, very good v. Geelong last week at Geelong after being good v. Collingwood the week before on a wing.
3) Smith has pace and is a dogged performer. Good engine and, again, my mail was that he was very, very good v. Collingwood in the VFL the match before last and was solid v. Geelong. Worth consideration as a substitute. Better option than Blake as a substitute - and it is a pity neither Cripps or Ledger are ready because they would be your naturals.
Now, exactly who do these players replace?
Armitage - suspended.
Blake - with Fisher as the "general" and the player we look to "free up" in the back half, there is no position for Blake, who is not a ruckman and particularly not a ruckman at finals time. Full back (where he can not play), CHB and the defensive flanks are taken, so where are the options for Blake except to ruck? Can not go forward and take a "grab".
Geary - an honest footballer being spoken of as a "defensive forward", whatever that is. So, what does he do as a "defensive" forward? If he is to stop a small running Carlton defender why even concede that? Why not leave the small Carlton running defender with the job on Milne or Schnieder and look for either of those 2 to damage him on the scoreboard - and make sure he does not get off with the pill? They will not give him Cahill because Cahill will take him to the square where we will have a very significant height advantage. Again, why play the game on your opponent's terms? Why concede and waste one of your 22 available players and particularly a forward?
By contrast our "running defenders" are Dempster (191cm), Gilbert (194cm), Clarke (188cm) and Gram (186cm).
We should have learnt from the Collingwood game, where a small defender cut us up because he did not have an opponent all night and no one was responsible for him.
This is the problem with 4/5 forwards - and Collingwood exposed this with their small defender BOG.
We should have made him responsible for a dangerous forward forcing him to do what defenders do - negate your opponent.
There are lessons from recent games and the NM ultimate scoreboard result does not wash these lessons away.
Not to me, anyway.
Some well thought out points.....especially the surprise one...cahill
Not sure the kosi, gardiner, kosi trio can work.......if we do not trust mcevoy to ruck....he should make way....not be helped, because we will under utilise one of them and lose a rotation......2 ruckman days....with a ruck fwd...probably gone with the sub rule....essendon tried it
Smith and geary.....six of one, half a dozen....
The basis of thinking is lateral, but thought provoking......using a tall to force the running small to take milne or scnieder
Not sure the kosi, gardiner, kosi trio can work.......if we do not trust mcevoy to ruck....he should make way....not be helped, because we will under utilise one of them and lose a rotation......2 ruckman days....with a ruck fwd...probably gone with the sub rule....essendon tried it
Smith and geary.....six of one, half a dozen....
The basis of thinking is lateral, but thought provoking......using a tall to force the running small to take milne or scnieder
-
SaintPav
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 18647
- Joined: Wed 16 Jun 2010 9:24pm
- Location: Alma Road
- Has thanked: 1544 times
- Been thanked: 1900 times
-
whiskers3614
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4516
- Joined: Thu 20 May 2010 11:49pm
- Has thanked: 118 times
- Been thanked: 299 times