Hypothetical - Ben Cousins

[rodgerfox]

Seeing as we have a top 2 spot wrapped up, and the following 7 weeks will be like sitting through 7 weeks of previews at the movies, I thought it may be a good chance to raise a hypothetical.


Massive mistake not to take Ben Cousins.

Imagine having another quick, hard running, posession gathering, highly skilled, goal kicking midfielder with GF experience in our current line up? Another midfielder that would require a tight tag.

Just imagine it for a minute.

If he can get 35 quality touches in a Richmond midfield, imagine what he'd be doing with us right now?

Huge error not picking up one of the top 15 midfielders in the comp for free.


Or was it?

One thing that Lyon commented on (amongst all the other lies flowing out of the club at the time) was that he addressed the players and told them basically, to step up so we didn't need a Ben Cousins. We didn't need someone to come in and add to what we already had - we just needed what we already had, to lift.

And perhaps that's why we're 15-0? (although most realise that the reason we're 15-0 is that for the first time in 6 years we have a fit and available list)


Thoughts?

[SENsei]

No need for regurgitated history lessons.

Cousins was not taken for what he brings OFF field, not ON.

Move on. He never came.

[asiu]

i wanted him

hard to complain about the decision made

hmmmmm

hmmmmm


hard one........ummmm....ya just dont know .....he'd be handy

'

[rodgerfox]

No need for regurgitated history lessons.

Cousins was not taken for what he brings OFF field, not ON.

Move on. He never came.

You're obviously not familiar with the term 'hypothetical'.

[ausfatcat]

this has been done before roger



We don't know what effect cousins would've had or even if he would have been playing in the seniors right now.... Getting injured twice and playing average games in the first half of the season may have used all his brownie points up at the saints. everyone would like a player who played that game on the weekend but would have having cousins made it that Monty wouldn't have developped or Gilbert not have played a attacking role.

But being 15-0 I say they made the right choice and why muck with it?

Trying to find the other thread for you now (can't have a new thread everytime he plays a half decent game).

[DWOODROW]

Stuff Cousins. He can play but he is not a Saint. I would much rather watch Armitage get going, as with the rest of the young guns coming through. OLD

[SENsei]

No need for regurgitated history lessons.

Cousins was not taken for what he brings OFF field, not ON.

Move on. He never came.

You're obviously not familiar with the term 'hypothetical'.

Very familiar with the term. Just not into could've, would've and should've talk.

[BringBackMadDog]

interesting hypothetical.....the upside of Cousins in the side is tantalizing, the down side, could he have taken the focus from the side? would Geary and Jones flourished as much or given the same opportunity? Would Joey and Dal grown to the players they have become without the extra responsibility?

All in all I think we made the right decision, sure there would have been some short term gain, but long term we are much better off.

[asiu]

long term we are much better off.

i'll go with that

[saint66au]

the following 7 weeks will be like sitting through 7 weeks of previews at the movies,

Lost me right there

Anyone care to start a "Where would we be if we'd drafted Nathan Carroll?" thread while we are at it

Yes it hypothetical, but just personally I'm looking forward to the rest of the year far too much to argue about what might hafve happened 3 months ago.

The way the cards have fallen are doing me quite nicely right now...silly ol' dumb too easy to please fan I am

[markp]

And perhaps that's why we're 15-0? (although most realise that the reason we're 15-0 is that for the first time in 6 years we have a fit and available list)

Nice try

I wouldn't change a thing about this team....

[joffaboy]

Haven't we got Gram to run around like a sheep dog getting cheap kicks out the back?

Why would we need another? if need be we can get Dal and Joey to do the same thing.

15-0 would argue that Cousins is a very good fit at the circus known as Richmond.

[SaintDebi]

May I suggest its easier to get touches and look good when the rest of the team are playing at a fairly mediocre standard.
We are playing well due to a combination of on field skills, team focus, dedication and a much improved off field culture. I'm not convinced Ben Cousins could tick all of those boxes.
If this second chance at Richmond has done anything to help him turn his life around, thats wonderful, and good luck to him. But I'm still glad he didn't come to the Saints.

[Russman]

I think you answered the question at the end of your post.

told them basically, to step up so we didn't need a Ben Cousins. We didn't need someone to come in and add to what we already had - we just needed what we already had, to lift.

The players have stepped up. Each player has a role, and knows what he has to do.

[saintsrus]

Who would make way for him?

[SainterK]

You must of missed the recent thread, according to some Ben would be running around in Sandringham on his current form.

If he can continue to improve, and turn his life around, then that's a powerful message to send to someone battling any kind of addiction. Not fussed that he is not at the Saints, but happy he is playing AFL.....

[B W and R all over]

I think this hypothetical has been suggested not as a way of improving what we've done (15-0 is pretty well flawless) but more what could make a difference at the end of the season.

Imagine if we got done by Geelong by less than a kick in the GF and just a bit more depth in the midfield would have made the difference.

Yes it is a hypothetical, but hypothetically it could end up being the costliest mistake the club has ever made.

[InkerSaint]

If this is just a hypothetical then why do you feel compelled to include terms such as "massive mistake" and "huge error"?

Up to your old fox tricks?

35 touches - so what? Maybe his teammates feed him the pill because they don't have any confidence themselves?

Like BringBackMadDog says - what would he have cost us in terms of the development of other players?

Would he have fit into the group culture?

Would he have adhered to the team roles?

Very easy to say he's a star in a mediocre side. Proves little about whether he would have made it in the Saints, or that we'd still be 15-0 if he did.

To this stage it's really not possible to argue that he could have "improved on perfection" (to quote Ross Lyon)... unless a less-than-perfect season finish beckons... but that's just more hypotheticals isn't it?

And the point of this hypothetical is... ?

[Thinline]

I'm gonna use the FFS here...
FFS FFS FFS!

There...

Cousins is a class above in a team of underskilled, undertrained underperformers...

In our midfield he would be competing with 4 or 5 elite or near elite ball getters...

He would simply be another player in St Kilda colours. Somewhere between Geary and whoever the next one is up the tree. Gram?

At Richmond he looks like a star because he hovers behind the contest and doubles his stats with a give and go.

[rodgerfox]

Like BringBackMadDog says - what would he have cost us in terms of the development of other players?

Would he have fit into the group culture?

Would he have adhered to the team roles?

Ummm, pretty sure I said that in the OP.

Very easy to say he's a star in a mediocre side.

That's just madness. If you were a midfielder, do you think you'd rather get Cameron Ling playing on you, or Shannon Byrnes? I'd prefer Byrnes, but if I was the best midfielder in my team I'd get Ling.
If I was the 3rd or 4th best, I'd get Byrnes.

What a stupid thing to say.

Proves little about whether he would have made it in the Saints, or that we'd still be 15-0 if he did.

I think the Brownlow Medal, the premiership - in addition to the 30+ touches he's getting this year suggest that he would be quite handy.

And the point of this hypothetical is... ?

Maybe re-read the OP. It's pretty clear.

It's to discuss whether or not the decision not to draft Cousins has played a bigger part in our current success (in terms of the values it instilled in the group) than the on-field output that Cousins would have had.

[rodgerfox]

He would simply be another player in St Kilda colours. Somewhere between Geary and whoever the next one is up the tree. Gram?

Funniest post of the decade.

You should use emoticons. Some people won't get your jokes unless you do.

[Sobraz]

This thread is a troll, trying to get the GT 'debate' started again...

Stick to the weekly reports, or disguise your agenda a little better....

[matrix]

big whoops
35 touches

gonna get another 4 years from him???
pffft.
so if we had cousins now would we be 18 and 0 already??

[reincarnated]

the following 7 weeks will be like sitting through 7 weeks of previews at the movies,

Lost me right there

Anyone care to start a "Where would we be if we'd drafted Nathan Carroll?" thread while we are at it

Yes it hypothetical, but just personally I'm looking forward to the rest of the year far too much to argue about what might hafve happened 3 months ago.

The way the cards have fallen are doing me quite nicely right now...silly ol' dumb too easy to please fan I am

Some would argue that Carroll would be doing a much similar job to Zac Dawson right now

Fact is this team can play choking defensive football when it has to, the backs benefit and there are not many instances of being one out/long leads getting the desired result for the opposition

This is not a slant on Zac's performance, but our style is really helping out our key backs

[B W and R all over]

35 touches - so what? Maybe his teammates feed him the pill because they don't have any confidence themselves?

Then how do you explain all the high-possession games he had for West Coast when he was in the midfield with Judd and Kerr - two players not exactly short on ability and confidence.