In every game since the break ...

[Oh When the Saints]

In every match since the break, we have been in front or within a goal at halftime.

Basically we have put ourselves in a position to win 10 straight.


Not many clubs do that.


We have actually played our most consistent footy since '05 ... none of this getting belted every 3-4 weeks, and then belting other teams.


We have been within 4 goals of winning 10 in a row.


Improved kicking, a bit better fitness base and a few returning from injury, and the signs are very positive for 2008.


In particular, the last 2 weeks have been outstanding in terms of moving the ball forward quickly, taking risks, and pressure and intensity around the packs.


I reckon it's looking pretty good in the long-term.

[Mr Magic]

Gotta love your optimism

[Saints43]

The past three Saturday nights have seen me chatting to a bird at 11pm only to miss out by 1am. Im lonely but hopeful for the long term.

[Oh When the Saints]

The past three Saturday nights have seen me chatting to a bird at 11pm only to miss out by 1am. Im lonely but hopeful for the long term.

Just trying to balance the perspective ... there are a lot of negative comments on here, but you can be very positive about the second half of our season.

As GT and Huddo said last night, it is plainly obvious to anyone with half a brain that RL can coach, and that given time he will build a strong outfit.

[Otiman]

Near enough is not good enough. Bodes well for 2008 if we can put a good preseason together. Keeping in mind that teams like the Hawks and Roos will have young guns with an extra year under their belt.

[To the top]

The first step Lyon should take is to lift the fitness of the team.

And by fitness I mean the ability to run out a game because you have leg speed for 100 plus minutes.

Just too often our players are seen standing when the ball has cleared their area - and the ball carrier therefore has limited support carry options and needs to seek out Riewoldt or Gehrig - including because Kossi is in the ruck and not a forward option.

It is the same when we are under pressure in the back half - we do not have the ultimate "get out of jail" option of a player working to free himself behind the line of the contest - with no opponent.

Again this cost us the game last night (along with other discretions of our own making and a couple of decisions - like the ump signalling for the ball to return to Ferguson after a free, Dal Santo being confused and airily hand balling back and then the other ump calling play on - loss of ball - goal. One ump was intimidated by another ump!

When the turn over error, free kick turn over or behind turn over comes, we seem to be under immediate pressure to stop the opposition from scoring - but whe never have the luxury of appearing so threatening.

And, on surveying the field of play last night, it is because we are not an offensive running team - once it goes to half forward, well, Roo is there so it is up to him, and the rest stand off watching.

THe upshot is that we are just too reliant on our premier half a dozen - and others are just not working hard enough to create offensive options.

Once the ball has cleared the area, they just stand there.

And that was obvious last night.

There is no doubt our lack of mid-field options adds to this appearance - and Ball's situation accentuates it.

We always have to spot someone up on the next line (and that is where turnovers occur because foot skills have to be exact) and never have players working hard enough into space to switch and carry.

I have no doubt that Lyon will be on the case.

And on Harvey's case because he does run to support.

[stinger]

i watched a replay of the match...the guys were saying that in 51 matches at the dome.....we have only once come from behind to win.......is that correct???????

[Dan Warna]

when advantage isn't advantage whatever happened to calling it back for another kick...

stupid frikken umpires.

in a game of such fine margins, between winning and losing...

some of our goal kicking didn't help either, but they had a few yips also.

[To the top]

Dan Warna, I was concentrating on the umpire who gave the decision to Ferguson for the front on spoil which took his arms out, so I was not really concentrating on Dal Santo actions, although I was aware.

The ump was marking the mark and signalling for the ball to be returned to Ferguson and continued to do so as Ferguson got to his feet and moved back to receive the ball. The ump had his arm straight out, his hand extended toward Ferguson and at no stage gave an overhead motion consistent with paying advantage.

Watching this, I was not concerned at what was happening because my full expectation was that nothing mattered because the ump was still standing there motioning toward Ferguson, who was recovering and positioning himself to take the kick.

Then West Coast win the ball because of the confusion, because I assessed the intent of the St Kilda players, at least initially, was to get the ball back to Ferguson, and a goal is kicked in the panic which ensures.

Ferguson did not even have the opportunity to impact on the play.

Cost us the game? No. Assist us in (maybe) winning the game? Definately not.

An absolute c**k up by the umps - but typical of what we see from the AFL under D with a wheel barrow on the end.

He could not even organise putting an ice tray in a freezer.

And today he comments on the fact some obviously credible information is used by the media!

Well, things that are crook, as the AFL is, are crook from the head down.

And, under this guy, the AFL is right on the nose because it has an agenda which panders to a certain few and the egos of that certain few.

A closer look should be taken at D with a wheel barrow on the end.

Including what the relationships are between certain people operating under the AFL banner.

[plugger66]

The umpire was right on this occasion. Dal could have refused advantage but idnt as simple as that. They are the rules. No use blaming the umps.

[cowboy18]

The umpire was right on this occasion. Dal could have refused advantage but idnt as simple as that. They are the rules. No use blaming the umps.

I don't agree because that's not the case in practice - missed goals get called back (e.g. Wirrpanda's second would have been called back had it not gone through). The advantage rule is routinely dicated by the umpire, not the players.

The umpire applied the rule poorly.

[cowboy18]

The past three Saturday nights have seen me chatting to a bird at 11pm only to miss out by 1am. Im lonely but hopeful for the long term.

Work on the hard ball gets for a while until your 1%ers bear fruit.

Or play in a less competitive league?

[plugger66]

The umpire was right on this occasion. Dal could have refused advantage but idnt as simple as that. They are the rules. No use blaming the umps.

I don't agree because that's not the case in practice - missed goals get called back (e.g. Wirrpanda's second would have been called back had it not gone through). The advantage rule is routinely dicated by the umpire, not the players.

The umpire applied the rule poorly.

He actually said you can take advantage and he chose to. Having said that I think the ball came out in the tackle so it should have been play on.

[cowboy18]

Fair enough - I didn't hear the sound where I was. I would argue that the umpire has the imperative to ensure that the advantage is real - players are not in a position to judge that.

That decision cost us dearly (not saying the game though) because it really gave WCE further momentum. It seemed apparent that there was no genuin advantage (60:40 at best) - I would argue that in codes where advantage is better applied (union and football particularly) the onus is on the ref to use common sense.

[Solar]

Fair enough - I didn't hear the sound where I was. I would argue that the umpire has the imperative to ensure that the advantage is real - players are not in a position to judge that.

That decision cost us dearly (not saying the game though) because it really gave WCE further momentum. It seemed apparent that there was no genuin advantage (60:40 at best) - I would argue that in codes where advantage is better applied (union and football particularly) the onus is on the ref to use common sense.

agreed, but in union especially they use a different but more effective umpiring technique in calling "advantage" and not whistling unless the advantage is over a certain spot. This is the problem with AFL though, because we can't have a advantage line because we don't just go forward but also backwards and sideways.

I still think that umpires need to hold back on the whistle and call advantage (hold a card or flag up to call it if maybe, but don't whistle, players just stop when that happens. Then if the advantage ends up not being there in the umpires opinion bring it back

[Oh When the Saints]

Meanwhile, in every match since the break we have been within 6 points at some point in the last quarter.


That's called consistent football.

It shows we are not far off.

[Liam_G]

Hate to break it to all RE: the ferguson/dal advantage free kick incident but the umps were all good. I was listening to Triple M who had the umps miked up for the game. After that play, Triple M replayed what the umpire mikes picked up. The umpire is heard saying, not just once but at least 4 times, "The advantage is there if you want it Dal, the advantage is there if you want it Dal".

Dal, who was only metres from the umpire, complied with the umpires advantage intentions and didn't stop to give the free kick back. As soon as he did this, all options given for no advantage by the umpire are forfeit. If he wanted, he could have stopped when the umpire told him advantage was there, and said he would not take it.

[To the top]

You miss the point.

The player must firstly extract the ball from the "spoil" contest, find space and then look for options.

The options were not there, resulting in Dal Santo giving a lose, high and speculative handball backwards in the direction of Ferguson who was recovering from the high impact and preparing to take the free.

Dal Santo may have run a few paces whilst surveying any options, but are you going to immediately stop if the umpire is giving you an advantage on the basis that Dal Santo can take possession of the loose ball, if it is there.

No advantage was there, as confirmed by Dal Santo's action once he had the opportunity to size up whether any advantage was there.


To get back to the smell of the AFL coming from the head, in the press today (The Sunday Age) is a story re Tony Shaw saying that the Corrupt One influenced tribunal decisions - and was instructed to retract that statement on air by the Corrupt One, which Shaw did with disgust.

The sensitivity of the Corrupt One is there for all to see, and there is always a resaon for sensitivity - the comment is too close for comfort.

It is no surprise that, in the wake of comment re interstate sides and their dominance, Collingwood, Hawthorn and North Melbourne are in the eight.

And who was the Corrupt One with at the footy last night?

AsI say, there are certain in AFL circles who piss in each others pockets, and view that they control the game.

And the rest can take a running jump.

If the medical records referred implicated St Kilda, what would the AFL reaction had been?

Full enquiry, no doubt.