The Fox Report - Round 3

[bungiton]

Just for the sake of balance, and for the sake of how enjoyable it is I watched the game again over the last couple of hours.
I concentrated on the whipping boys and must say to watch the game for the third or fourth time you get to pick up a few things.

Blake did give away three soft hands in the back free kicks. But every disposal whether by hand or foot hit an intended target. Fisher is generally regarded as the backline general, wont argue that for a minute, but Blake would be his first lieutenant. It's easy to look at a sterile stats sheet and gather Blake might have been sloppy for his Frees against tally. But if you look at the game and realise the work he did, that was selfless and team oriented you might form another opinion.
When King was on he generally seemed to hover around defensive fifty cutting the impact Cox had going forward. If you look to the score sheet you'd realise Gardiner was amongst the goals, the fact that Gardy was able to run forward and stretch west coasts defense was due to the fact that Blake covered Cox every time he ran forward. Not only Covered but blanketed him. He outmarked, spoilt and negated Cox so that he could'nt even up the ledger.
Gwilt was responsible for at least three or four goal assists with thumping kicks long into our forward fifty, tackled like anyone else and was relatively clean with disposal.
Not only does Blake try his guts out every week, he towelled both his opponents on the day, Hansen and Hunter as well as negating Cox, the premier ruckman in the competition. If you have any dramas with Blakes disposal, it's not shared by his teammates, Blake is regularly the go to man in defensive fifty, always gets clear, takes the initial kickin or the kick back to switch play.
I would argue that Blake was close to Fisher as the best defender on the ground.

Nothing derogatory to any poster just calling it as I saw it.

[maverick]

What a waste of a thread.

It started with my assertion that Blake was in our bottom few players. Punter replied:

Blake would just about be the first picked at the moment. His game was faultless on Saturday, and his kicking was superb. He never missed a target. He is twice the player he was two years ago.

Rodger said in reply to this that the stats showed he'd made errors. Cue downward spiral.

What's the substance of this shitstorm? I don't reckon Blake was that amazing on Saturday. The three free kicks he gave away were all silly hands-in-the-back type indiscretions. I'm pretty sure he made at least a couple of errors by foot (though I don't remember a specific instance). Three frees and a couple of disposal errors adds up to an error count of at least 5. Still, he didn't look at all bad, but playing in the backline of a team which is winning by 90-odd points isn't the toughest ask in footy.

Look, I love the bloke for his efforts. I reckon I've seen just about every AFL game he's ever played, and there's no doubt he's improved slowly over his career, and he's more than serviceable now. But the fact remains he's a GOP at best. His best role is key defence (or tagging Goodes), but I reckon he's 6th in line back there, behind Hudghton, Fisher S, Gilbert, Dempster, Maguire, ahead of Dawson. He's probably in a group of players 20th to 30th on our list, which means he makes the team regularly, but could often be replaced by someone better. There's no way he's "just about first picked" as Punter asserted. We can all name 15 players picked before him.

So if you have to have a go at Rodger, do it for the substance of his argument, not the form (which I admit is sometimes lacking).

Post of the thread (by the length of the street) and here I was thinking I wasted 10 minutes of my life

[maverick]

Just for the sake of balance, and for the sake of how enjoyable it is I watched the game again over the last couple of hours.
I concentrated on the whipping boys and must say to watch the game for the third or fourth time you get to pick up a few things.

Blake did give away three soft hands in the back free kicks. But every disposal whether by hand or foot hit an intended target. Fisher is generally regarded as the backline general, wont argue that for a minute, but Blake would be his first lieutenant. It's easy to look at a sterile stats sheet and gather Blake might have been sloppy for his Frees against tally. But if you look at the game and realise the work he did, that was selfless and team oriented you might form another opinion.
When King was on he generally seemed to hover around defensive fifty cutting the impact Cox had going forward. If you look to the score sheet you'd realise Gardiner was amongst the goals, the fact that Gardy was able to run forward and stretch west coasts defense was due to the fact that Blake covered Cox every time he ran forward. Not only Covered but blanketed him. He outmarked, spoilt and negated Cox so that he could'nt even up the ledger.
Gwilt was responsible for at least three or four goal assists with thumping kicks long into our forward fifty, tackled like anyone else and was relatively clean with disposal.
Not only does Blake try his guts out every week, he towelled both his opponents on the day, Hansen and Hunter as well as negating Cox, the premier ruckman in the competition. If you have any dramas with Blakes disposal, it's not shared by his teammates, Blake is regularly the go to man in defensive fifty, always gets clear, takes the initial kickin or the kick back to switch play.
I would argue that Blake was close to Fisher as the best defender on the ground.

Nothing derogatory to any poster just calling it as I saw it.

Well i disagree.
I think Gilbert was better and even BJ as he played there for at least half a game mopping up.
Certainly not a poor game, just a solid one, which is exactly what we need from him.
Serviceable, reliable, solid, both in contesting and in disposal/ decision making.

By the way, I reckon S Fisher makes between 5-10 errors EVERY game, its just that he gets it 25 times and sets up probably the same amount of goals.

[Saints Premiers 2008]

blake is still average to below average and will struggle when we play better teams

his disposal is still poor coupled with his decision making and timing of it

in other news his body work as improved and can take players body on body

just everything else still sends shivers down my spine when he gets it

preparing to be shot down in 3...2..1...

[Unforgiven]

I reckon Blake is fine, very experienced player. With our solid backline, and real ruckman, Blake doesn't have to fight outa his weight division, has a number of strings to his bow. Blake isn't going to be a super star, but is capable of influencing a game at his best (the hawks game last year), and you know what your gonna get from him, 110%.

[rodgerfox]

I'm amazed that so people who think so little of me an my opinion, have jumped a simple one liner in which I questioned whether Jason Blake had played a 'very good' game based on some stats I saw on Pro-Stats.com.au.

To be frank, I couldn't really care if he was best on ground, or worst. I was simply discussing it.

Odd that in a thread with some very 'discussable' topics in it, people have jumped all over that one.

[perfectionist]

...Odd that in a thread with some very 'discussable' topics in it, people have jumped all over that one.

Guilty consciences! A number of the people who remorsely bagged Jason Blake over the years now see him as, well, a Saint! I have regarded him as integral to the team for the last six years, not because of his great skills but because of his flexibility and aerobic capacity (which are linked). As I have said before, his dropping in Rounds 11 and 12 in 2004 (ironically after two 100 point wins, so perhaps he should be nervous) cost us the flag that year. Thomas wanted to experiment with the team (oh, geez) and to install Kosi as number 1 ruckman. He, and we, were towelled by Sydney and Footscray and it was bye bye spots one or two and hello interstate finals.

For the record, Blake is playing well. It's Fisher who is not playing anywhere near his best, but not badly. However, as a group, the back line is stronger than at any time since Luke Penny was at full back and Matt Maguire was CHB, also in 2004.

[ThePunter]

I feel the obligation to jump back in here.

I think Gilbert has improved as well, and his upside is higher than Blake, who is 28. But Blake would be in front of Maguire at the moment, and rightfully so, as he's fitter, almost always had a bigger engine, and he's quicker as well. He suffers from the umpires for looking guilty, me thinks.

Since he moved to KP Defender last season, St Kilda has gone on in leaps and bounds. While some will still rate his game v Hawthorn last year as his best performance, my favourite Blake games also include the Freo game down in Hobart (Sirengate) where he clearly beat Sandilands in the ruck by jumping all over him, last year's Semi Final v Collingwood, and Saturday.

Some St Kilda supporters seem unable to believe a player can improve, or that we can carry any number of "GOPs" in our side. They don't believe guys like Gwilt, Blake, McQualter, Jones, Eddy or Dawson should ever play senior football.

Well, get used to it, because more players like them are going to play once the league expands. Even more if the season is lengthened to 24 matches. At least we have these guys, who are so desperate to play and attuned to the coaches ethos that they simply cannot be dropped at this stage for clearly more talented players like Xavier Clarke and David Armitage, or untried youngsters such as Tom Lynch and Nick Heyne.

I like what Tony Shaw said. "You can have all the talent in the world, but if you don't have effort, you'll get nowhere". Like him or not, he's a premiership captain, and was BOG on the day they won the flag.

[yipper]

Interesting I looked up this stats site Rodg is so interested in - states Luke Ball had 19 errors!!, Roo 15, Gram 14, King and Kosi 10 each and Jones had 9. WTF?? What type of errors are they recording?? I would hazard a guess that this particular stat is wildly inaccurate or includes situations that nobody normally considers an error. Such as a kick down the line to a contest?? There is no way Ball and Rooey had 34 errors between them on Saturday!!!

[Saints Premiers 2008]

I reckon Blake is fine, very experienced player. With our solid backline, and real ruckman, Blake doesn't have to fight outa his weight division, has a number of strings to his bow. Blake isn't going to be a super star, but is capable of influencing a game at his best (the hawks game last year), and you know what your gonna get from him, 110%.

yes we know we are going to get poor disposal....

he can be experienced all he wants...what does that have to do with poor decision making???

and blake doesnt have to fight out of his weight division as he is a big boy...great...we have a solid backline...great...what do the other players have to do with his poor disposal/decision making other than being brought into trouble because of it???

[rodgerfox]

Interesting I looked up this stats site Rodg is so interested in

I wouldn't say I'm so interested in it.

It just happened to be the first stat site I came across.

[saintspremiers]

the bottom line is you cannot judger a person's performance purely by a stat sheet.

Otherwise it well tell you Daniel Kerr had 27 touches and won 18 of them contested.
The reality is he had no impact on the game.

Blake may have in your oppinion played poorly, but I don't see how you can simply look at a stat sheet to conclude someone didn't play well.

Watch the game then decide. Surely that's reasonable?

Of course it is. Which is precisely why I didn't make a judgement call that he played poorly.

crap Roger.

YOU didn't go to the game.

Please, for the benefit of us, state how many games you went to last year.

Or are you just a TV hero???

[saintspremiers]

Interesting I looked up this stats site Rodg is so interested in - states Luke Ball had 19 errors!!, Roo 15, Gram 14, King and Kosi 10 each and Jones had 9. WTF?? What type of errors are they recording?? I would hazard a guess that this particular stat is wildly inaccurate or includes situations that nobody normally considers an error. Such as a kick down the line to a contest?? There is no way Ball and Rooey had 34 errors between them on Saturday!!!

yipper - don't worry - all the internet heros that didn't go to the game will be writing letters to Rossy demanding that this is not good enough.

Out this week will be: Roo and Gram, out next week will be King, Kosi and Jones.

[rodgerfox]

the bottom line is you cannot judger a person's performance purely by a stat sheet.

Otherwise it well tell you Daniel Kerr had 27 touches and won 18 of them contested.
The reality is he had no impact on the game.

Blake may have in your oppinion played poorly, but I don't see how you can simply look at a stat sheet to conclude someone didn't play well.

Watch the game then decide. Surely that's reasonable?

Of course it is. Which is precisely why I didn't make a judgement call that he played poorly.

crap Roger.

YOU didn't go to the game.

Please, for the benefit of us, state how many games you went to last year.

Or are you just a TV hero???

I was agreeing that it's reasonable to say you can't judge a player unless you were at the game.

[Leo.J]

Our defence is performing so well because our forwards and midfielders are applying so much pressure up the ground that the feed the opposition forwards are recieving is pressured.

Our defence is good atm, however it hasn't really been put under pressure by a good outfit yet...

Potentially our defence will be the best in the comp if Goose and Max can stay injury free and fire... I'm not sure that we can nurse both of these guys back into form at the same time, doing so could be risky.

[yipper]

Interesting I looked up this stats site Rodg is so interested in - states Luke Ball had 19 errors!!, Roo 15, Gram 14, King and Kosi 10 each and Jones had 9. WTF?? What type of errors are they recording?? I would hazard a guess that this particular stat is wildly inaccurate or includes situations that nobody normally considers an error. Such as a kick down the line to a contest?? There is no way Ball and Rooey had 34 errors between them on Saturday!!!

yipper - don't worry - all the internet heros that didn't go to the game will be writing letters to Rossy demanding that this is not good enough.

Out this week will be: Roo and Gram, out next week will be King, Kosi and Jones.

Yes indeed, why bother going to a game when you can get all this wonderful info from the net. Obviously Roo, Ball and Kosi etc all played shockers as well - it's true, the stats say so!!

[markp]

I'm amazed that so people who think so little of me an my opinion, have jumped a simple one liner in which I questioned whether Jason Blake had played a 'very good' game based on some stats I saw on Pro-Stats.com.au.

To be frank, I couldn't really care if he was best on ground, or worst. I was simply discussing it.

Odd that in a thread with some very 'discussable' topics in it, people have jumped all over that one.

In all fairness rodge, it's your posting style that I think people find grating (but you know that)... rather than clarify immediately, you draw it out with smug four or five word replies... 'did I say that?'... and you obviously enjoy it. In fact I think this game is one of your main motivations. Then you play the 'well I am shocked/amazed' card... seems a lot like trolling to me.

[Leo.J]

I thought blake played pretty well, however the three frees he gave away could be the difference between winning and losing against a good side...

Blake still makes too many basic errors for a guy of his experience.

[HarveysDeciple]

Interesting I looked up this stats site Rodg is so interested in

I wouldn't say I'm so interested in it.

It just happened to be the first stat site I came across.

so based on his post did Riewoldt, Ball, CJ play very well?

[markp]

Interesting I looked up this stats site Rodg is so interested in - states Luke Ball had 19 errors!!, Roo 15, Gram 14, King and Kosi 10 each and Jones had 9.

We'll never win a game with hacks like that in our team.

[rodgerfox]

Interesting I looked up this stats site Rodg is so interested in

I wouldn't say I'm so interested in it.

It just happened to be the first stat site I came across.

so based on his post did Riewoldt, Ball, CJ play very well?

I don't know, did they?

[matrix]

i cant believe you stil havent watched the game.
a) couldve flown over.
b) it was on fox sports.
c) there has been replays on fox sports.
d) there is a friggin torrent of it on line (and the link HAS been posted in the forum...kinda silly, but its there).
e) bigpond video.
f) im sure someone has a copy and u could have asked for one...plenty of peeps would have been willing to post u a copy.

obviously u dont wanna watch it.
and obviously u are an armchair supporter.
hopefully u actually have a membership

[bergholt]

YOU didn't go to the game.

Please, for the benefit of us, state how many games you went to last year.

vendetta much?

surely there are many reasons why someone doesn't go to games. maybe they've got small kids to look after. maybe they work weekends. maybe they're chronically unwell. maybe they live in another country. maybe they're broke. maybe they just can't be bothered.

none of this makes them any less of a supporter than you. i presume you go to 25 games a year and all the reserves games as well? and donate forty hours a week to wash the training jumpers or whatever? just because i don't have time or money to do these things, does that mean i can't comment on st kilda?

on the other hand, it seems to me that 5500 posts on a fan forum over almost five years probably qualifies you as a pretty solid supporter. regardless of all the other stuff, rodger obviously has a fairly solid connection to the club and cares about what happens to it. he posted the report and said that he hadn't seen the game. if he hadn't posted the report you woulda screamed blue murder. what more do you want?

[HarveysDeciple]

Interesting I looked up this stats site Rodg is so interested in

I wouldn't say I'm so interested in it.

It just happened to be the first stat site I came across.

so based on his post did Riewoldt, Ball, CJ play very well?

I don't know, did they?

lol

[mbogo]

Review of the Fox Report
I just hope that Rodge never stops his hilarious weekly diatribe.
Surely many of us were waiting for this one - being the poor, bored, ignorant, lying, but optimistic illiterates that we all are.
And this week my review of the Fox report has it that this one was one of the best ever.
In a week when the Saints put together one of the most comprehensive annihilations of the opposition witnessed for some years, it was a mystery how Rodge could cast this in the negative - and it took a couple of days - but - to his credit - he was hugely successful.
Firstly, controversy was inevitable when he admitted he did not bother to go and or watch it – replays included – what could rile the diehards more than this?
Secondly, how could he criticise the team? His response to this intangible was brilliant – find some obscure and overly sensitive statistics and pick on a fringe player that some others have a history of targeting – hence dividing the readers.
Thirdly, sit back and watch and make personal borderline insults without revealing the source of the stats until the excitement was almost gone.
The end result was priceless. Well worth the read – entertainment for an hour or two is guaranteed as reader after reader is sucked into the vortex of irrational conjecture and counter conjecture.
Students of Epistemology would be well advised to focus on the next installment – particularly in a year when the Saints look like doing quite well – challenging the cynic in Rodger to even greater heights of indefeasibility as he walks the fine line between Pierre Gassendi and Rene Descartes.
With this in mind let's all hope that the Saints win equally well again this week.