Arrogant R-sole

[saintkev]

In today's The Game section of the West Australian newspaper Buckley is quoted as saying, "We had a narrow victory (over the Saints) that should have been a lot more substantial than that." Perhaps??!! If umpiring decisions (paid and unpaid) are taken into consideration.
However, statistics would indicate otherwise. Apart from the lopsided free-kick count and shots at goal (inaccurate kicking indicates poor football and implies substantial pressure by the Saints), possessions were relatively close with 373 to Collingwood and 376 to St Kilda. Inside 50s were about even. Tackles 66 to the Saints and 63 to the 'Pies.
The discrepancies are in effective kicks 59% to the Saints and 68% to the 'Pies and critical errors 59 to the Saints and 49 to the Magpies. What these statistics suggest is that the Saints were more effective in using their lesser percentage of effective kicks, by kicking more accurately. In fact, making 10 more critical errors didn't really hurt us on the scoreboard due to Magpie incompetence.
Collingwood were fortunate to escape with a win. Had the Saints been a little more composed and efficient, in spite of the skewed umpiring, the outcome could have been different.
I could go on with "whatevers." They won't alter the result. The Saints lost.... but if Buckley was being truly honest with the public, supporters and himself he should have thanked the umpires for the win instead of belittling St Kilda's efforts.
Hopefully he continues to keep his head buried in the sand and a ruthless Sydney slaughters Collingwood on Saturday.

[plugger66]

We had less errors than the Pies except we gave away more frees which gave us more errors. Good luck understanding that. Dont see what Biuckley said was arrogant or wrong.

[saintspremiers]

Inside 50's were not even. They had about 14 more than us.

[Austinnn]

Collingwood 12.19.91
St Kilda 13.7.85

Buckley's team scores less goals than the losing team and 19 behinds. Nineteen behinds.
Buckley says afterwards that his team should have won by a lot more.

He's right.
Move on.

Likewise we should have beaten Western Bulldogs by 186 points but because we scored 22 behinds instead, we only beat them by 76 points. Does that make me arrogant?

[dragit]

Likewise we should have beaten Western Bulldogs by 186 points but because we scored 22 behinds instead, we only beat them by 76 points. Does that make me arrogant?

Yes.

Buckley was a smug prick straight after the game, when asked about the O'brien free he replied "I thought it was a good mark" with a pathetic grin on his face, he knew very well it wasn't a mark. In light of the umpires official mistake, he could be graceful enough to say "we got out of jail and were probably a bit lucky in the end, but good sides find a way to win"

His nickname isn't FIGJAM for nothing.

As MCGunit pointed out, they kick more points than any other side because they bomb it in so often, there were a lot of rushed points too. We dominated one quarter each and were even for another 2, the scoreboard reflected that - an even contest.

[Austinnn]

And that is a proven winning strategy that we are trying to emulate this year.

you are taking the words of a press conference far too seriously; oh well, its your heart.

I wouldn't dream of telling you how to live your life, but as much as this loss hurts, I don't get upset over the winning coach's slightly biased opinion of the game.

[thejiggingsaint]

Buckley is a good coach, and has shown himself to be a far better communicator than his predecessor. I respected him as a player, and respect him as a coach.

[SaintPav]

I didn't read into Buckley's comment about "good mark" that way. I took it that he didn't want to comment on it as It was probably not the correct decision. It's what coaches do because they can't comment on umpiring remember.

Filth smashed us in the second quarter and we were still lucky to be in it.

[jays]

he is a wank

[R. Harvey 3 votes!]

I'm over this game....

[dragit]

I don't get upset over the winning coach's slightly biased opinion of the game.

I wasn't upset either until kev posted this thread, twice no less!
Now i have just kicked our cat, actually both of them, punched a hole in the wall, thrown my dinner at my wife, smacked my kids and pushed my tellie out the window, pfiew… now I am feeling calm and relaxed, I should be over this by next weekend.

[gringo]

We had less errors than the Pies except we gave away more frees which gave us more errors. Good luck understanding that. Dont see what Biuckley said was arrogant or wrong.

That's because you're arrogant and wrong though

[St Lenny]

It was a high pressure game, both sides made mistakes.

[kalsaint]

Collingwood 12.19.91
St Kilda 13.7.85

Buckley's team scores less goals than the losing team and 19 behinds. Nineteen behinds.
Buckley says afterwards that his team should have won by a lot more.

He's right.
Move on.

Likewise we should have beaten Western Bulldogs by 186 points but because we scored 22 behinds instead, we only beat them by 76 points. Does that make me arrogant?

The difference is that all the scores were made by players including the efficiency stats. The one decision that stopped Saints achieving a vistory was an umpires decision. This is deemed acceptable by Geishen as he accepts an 80% correctness.

This mentality fits well with the AFL manamgement's level of decision making for "the business". Unfortunately the business is not of equal opportunity and I just hope someone, one day has the money and ethics to challenge this in court.

[Scollop]

Buckley finished his career well and I think he finally lived up to his reputation in has last few years. The media built this guy up because he was a fabulous kick, but half his possessions were so ineffectual that he consistently failed to impact matches. Buckley is a legend at the filth footy club, but seriously...for those of us who saw him play for the first 3/4 of his footy career, we saw a very selfish footballer.

His CV is not evidence of Bucks the star!! It's laughable that they mention his name alongside Black, Voss, Hird, Harveywallbanger, and a string of other classy midfielders of his era. He wasn't a matchwinner and in fact I'd go as far as to say that Buckley is one of the most over rated footballers in modern history.

[plugger66]

Collingwood 12.19.91
St Kilda 13.7.85

Buckley's team scores less goals than the losing team and 19 behinds. Nineteen behinds.
Buckley says afterwards that his team should have won by a lot more.

He's right.
Move on.

Likewise we should have beaten Western Bulldogs by 186 points but because we scored 22 behinds instead, we only beat them by 76 points. Does that make me arrogant?

The difference is that all the scores were made by players including the efficiency stats. The one decision that stopped Saints achieving a vistory was an umpires decision. This is deemed acceptable by Geishen as he accepts an 80% correctness.

This mentality fits well with the AFL manamgement's level of decision making for "the business". Unfortunately the business is not of equal opportunity and I just hope someone, one day has the money and ethics to challenge this in court.

Stop it. very Boring especially when most of what you said yesterday was factually wrong.

[evertonfc]

Meh, I'm over it now. Hoping we use the rest of the season to blood youngsters, give fringe players a go and build towards a more successful 2013.

[Austinnn]

The difference is that all the scores were made by players including the efficiency stats. The one decision that stopped Saints achieving a vistory was an umpires decision. This is deemed acceptable by Geishen as he accepts an 80% correctness.

This mentality fits well with the AFL manamgement's level of decision making for "the business". Unfortunately the business is not of equal opportunity and I just hope someone, one day has the money and ethics to challenge this in court.

Hold on, are we talking about Buckley or the Umpires association here?

I'm confused by this post. The scores were made by players. Who made the 19 behinds that the Pies scored, causing the game to be so tight?

The point is that people don't like Buckley because he thinks he's so good, same as why they don't like Dermie. They will use any reason to pot those two. Not everyone is as humble a champ as Robert Harvey or Lenny Hayes. Bucks said the game was tighter than it should have been, meaning that his team had plenty of chances to ice the game and put it beyond us, but continually missed their chances. Is that disputable?

You could also say that the Saints had a chance to ice this game and put it beyond the Pies, so why didn't the 'arrogant' Buckley mention that?

Because he is the PIES COACH. What would you expect him to say? Have I missed the point somewhere? I would imagine that if the tables were turned that Scott Watters would be saying exactly the same thing. It's unbelievable how childish some people here are being about this loss.

[Austinnn]

While I'm on the subject, anyone with half an ounce of sense could see that when asked about the Non Free Kick, Harry O and Bucks smiled and said it was a mark more ironically than anything. They knew, we knew everyone knew it wasn't a mark, but their smilies were more out embarrassment from getting away with it than smugness or arrogance. Put yourself in their position; what would you say? Yeah, they could have said "It probably wasn't a mark but we'll take it", but maybe they would have been worried that the decision could actually be reversed. The fact they were so happy to beat us means they feared losing to us. How is that arrogance?