What was and wasn't finals quality v GWS?
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
- carn_sainter
- Club Player
- Posts: 1470
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 4:49pm
- Been thanked: 62 times
What was and wasn't finals quality v GWS?
Let's assess the game in the context of a final.
Not up to finals standard:
- the opposition: they played slow, dumb, allowed us to set-up our defence and generally looked disinterested. Thought they were better than that.
- Dean Kent: as far as I saw, everything he did was not up to scratch. He went slow when he should have gone fast, he went fast when he should have gone slow, his handballs missed, he dropped several marks, some off his chest. I was completely underwhelmed.
- still some foot skills which were the difference between a fast rebound turning into a goal or a boundary throw in on our 50m arc
Up to finals standard:
- the backline: had a relatively easy task tonight given how GWS played, but Wilkie, Paton, Coffield, Carlisle, Howard all were rock solid. Long still could be in the play a bit more and Geary didn't do much but he also didn't do anything poorly.
- Steele and Clark in the middle: especially their ability to take the opponent away by accepting contact and still releasing the ball.
- wings holding position: I get frustrated by how unimpactful Billings especially, and Hill, can be but they're playing smart, well structured footy to hold their position and provide options on the fat side. Good play.
- King: his contesting was excellent. His 3rd quarter put them away.
- even contribution was great. As mentioned elsewhere, difficult to drop people from that team, though I would drop Kent.
Not up to finals standard:
- the opposition: they played slow, dumb, allowed us to set-up our defence and generally looked disinterested. Thought they were better than that.
- Dean Kent: as far as I saw, everything he did was not up to scratch. He went slow when he should have gone fast, he went fast when he should have gone slow, his handballs missed, he dropped several marks, some off his chest. I was completely underwhelmed.
- still some foot skills which were the difference between a fast rebound turning into a goal or a boundary throw in on our 50m arc
Up to finals standard:
- the backline: had a relatively easy task tonight given how GWS played, but Wilkie, Paton, Coffield, Carlisle, Howard all were rock solid. Long still could be in the play a bit more and Geary didn't do much but he also didn't do anything poorly.
- Steele and Clark in the middle: especially their ability to take the opponent away by accepting contact and still releasing the ball.
- wings holding position: I get frustrated by how unimpactful Billings especially, and Hill, can be but they're playing smart, well structured footy to hold their position and provide options on the fat side. Good play.
- King: his contesting was excellent. His 3rd quarter put them away.
- even contribution was great. As mentioned elsewhere, difficult to drop people from that team, though I would drop Kent.
- Devilhead
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8277
- Joined: Mon 08 Mar 2004 11:56pm
- Has thanked: 135 times
- Been thanked: 1151 times
Re: What was and wasn't finals quality v GWS?
Is there a couple of GWS guns that would like to jump ship?
The Devil makes work for idle hands!!!
-
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2490
- Joined: Mon 19 Mar 2012 8:54pm
- Has thanked: 140 times
- Been thanked: 546 times
Re: What was and wasn't finals quality v GWS?
Pretty fair call over all . Will need to be a bit more accountable against the Dogs or the Pies but we did what we had to do tonight , a bit harsh on Kent thought he played his role nothing great but serviceable IMO, agree our skills were sloppy at times in the first half but lifted in the second but was that due to oppositions will for the contest or our did we actually start to believe in ourselves could have been a bit of both. At least we live to find out Go Sainters
- WellardSaint
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8075
- Joined: Sat 26 May 2012 11:25am
- Location: Perth- the best weather in Oz, but the worst rednecks.
- Has thanked: 1768 times
- Been thanked: 819 times
Re: What was and wasn't finals quality v GWS?
Wasn't as exciting as the Power or Swans wins, I worked tonight and was really looking forward to watching the replay but the quality was a bit scrappy.
But it's a huge win so that's good
But it's a huge win so that's good
A real Sainter will pledge allegiance to the ❤ and despise the Pies, the Blues, and the Injectors.
Remember one of the 10 Commandments : Thou shalt have no other team before thee
Remember one of the 10 Commandments : Thou shalt have no other team before thee
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8999
- Joined: Wed 29 Jun 2005 10:39pm
- Location: A distant beach
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 416 times
Re: What was and wasn't finals quality v GWS?
Slow first quarter from the midfield- lucky GSW didn't kick straight. Need to do better in contested marks. Still a bit slow to move the ball up the ground from defence. A win is a good tonic though.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 23139
- Joined: Sat 13 Mar 2004 11:44pm
- Has thanked: 728 times
- Been thanked: 1761 times
Re: What was and wasn't finals quality v GWS?
I thought we still could provide more lead up forward options
The class difference when they hit it right was stark .....L Cameron must be a shyte coach things are off there
Battle forward threw them off imo he gives us another dimension up there
Mids first qtr stood back at times
Ryder was huge plus Marshall
Sinclair did some nice things in traffic
Clark is a mid now
We at least didn’t zone out for a whole qtr like last week and when it’s not going bout way we just need to turn up the pressure efforts
Did what was needed in the end which was great for confidence
The class difference when they hit it right was stark .....L Cameron must be a shyte coach things are off there
Battle forward threw them off imo he gives us another dimension up there
Mids first qtr stood back at times
Ryder was huge plus Marshall
Sinclair did some nice things in traffic
Clark is a mid now
We at least didn’t zone out for a whole qtr like last week and when it’s not going bout way we just need to turn up the pressure efforts
Did what was needed in the end which was great for confidence
“Yeah….nah””
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4243
- Joined: Thu 25 Mar 2004 2:47pm
- Location: incarnate
- Has thanked: 286 times
- Been thanked: 694 times
Re: What was and wasn't finals quality v GWS?
What wasn't:
Intensity in first half was poor, a finals side would slice us apart.
Their kick ins had no heat on them at all.
What was:
Paddy ruck work and Steeles attack on the man and the ball.
Intensity in first half was poor, a finals side would slice us apart.
Their kick ins had no heat on them at all.
What was:
Paddy ruck work and Steeles attack on the man and the ball.
Nee!
- carn_sainter
- Club Player
- Posts: 1470
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 4:49pm
- Been thanked: 62 times
Re: What was and wasn't finals quality v GWS?
Agree with this. Forward line looked really good with Battle, Membrey, King, Marshall, Lonie, Butler. I'm a fan of Battle big time.
Which gets me thinking about which players do we have which are built to play finals? From last night's team
- Coffield
- Hill
- Steele
- Hannebery
- Clark
- Butler
- Ryder
- Marshall
- Long
- Battle
- Paton
- Wilkie
- Jones (though didn't play against GWS, is assumed to be back in)
Borderline
- King
- Geary
- Howard
- Membrey
Could make a huge difference if playing at their best
- Billings
- Ross
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10937
- Joined: Sun 11 Sep 2011 2:26pm
- Has thanked: 3376 times
- Been thanked: 2344 times
Re: What was and wasn't finals quality v GWS?
This thread seems to me about bagging one player only and focussing on the errors of one Saints playercarn_sainter wrote: ↑Sat 19 Sep 2020 2:59am Let's assess the game in the context of a final.
- Dean Kent: as far as I saw, everything he did was not up to scratch.
- even contribution was great. As mentioned elsewhere, difficult to drop people from that team, though I would drop Kent.
We had a coach who used to do that. Focus on negatives. It’s unproductive and it’s a blame blame scapegoat mentality.
Firstly I’d love someone like DownAtTheJunction to do impact scores and especially to look at Kunty’s impact in that first half where the game was in the balance. Watch the replay and without listening to the muppet commentators try looking at our players and how each contribute.
Dean Kent worked his butt off. He dropped a couple of marks but he took plenty also. He wasn’t standing motionless to take the marks either. He sometimes runs 50-100 metres to lead and provide an option. I think we look at Members and King and applaud the way they get up the ground to take a mark on the wing, but we sometimes ignore the same thing from a bloke like Kent. I think Ratts asked him to do a specific role and be that marking leading get out option out of defense.
The other positives which seem to be ignored are his body shape and his impact at contests. He’s a solid man. He hits hard and he tackles hard and he hurts opponents. Seb doesn’t, Lonie doesn’t and generally JB doesn’t although he laid a beauty of a tackle in the game last night.
Anyhow, food for thought. I thought Kunty went ok
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 22739
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 3:53pm
- Has thanked: 8648 times
- Been thanked: 3789 times
Re: What was and wasn't finals quality v GWS?
Stupid commentators get the tattoos mixed up and often call Membrey when it is Kent with the ball and last night were getting Seb and Hanners mixed up. Taylor was the dill I'm thinking.
- ace
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10708
- Joined: Sun 16 Dec 2007 3:28pm
- Location: St Kilda
- Has thanked: 29 times
- Been thanked: 809 times
Re: What was and wasn't finals quality v GWS?
With their incompetent coach having his contract renewed I would think every one of the GWS guns would like to jump ship.
Fantastic list but a coach who can not even pi55 into a toilet bowl.
The more you know, the more you know you don't know.
When I was a young child, I knew that I knew so much about so much.
Now that I am old and know so much more, I know that I know so much about so little, and so little about so much.
If you are not engaging AI actively and aggressively, you are doing it wrong.
You are not going to lose your job to AI.
You are going lose your job to somebody who uses AI.
Your company is not going to go out of business because of AI.
Your company is going to go out of business because another company used AI.
- Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA
When I was a young child, I knew that I knew so much about so much.
Now that I am old and know so much more, I know that I know so much about so little, and so little about so much.
If you are not engaging AI actively and aggressively, you are doing it wrong.
You are not going to lose your job to AI.
You are going lose your job to somebody who uses AI.
Your company is not going to go out of business because of AI.
Your company is going to go out of business because another company used AI.
- Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA