Those Saints under the pump in 2008

[CURLY]

A game plan mastrefully thought out and played out to restrict margins in unavoidable defeats due to injuries. Lyon limited the damage to at least give us a chance when we had some resembalnce of our best side up and going.

What about the easily winnable games?

We just fell over the line in most of them. Even when we played 'well', we weren't convincing at all.

As a result of injuries the team was never really able to gain momentum and confidence. Changes everyweek blokes coming back after a few weeks out trying to find touch young blokes finding there feet and players filling gaps to cover dont help create fluent football.

[Saints43]

A game plan mastrefully thought out and played out to restrict margins in unavoidable defeats due to injuries. Lyon limited the damage to at least give us a chance when we had some resembalnce of our best side up and going.

That gameplan that restricted margins is why there was only about two goals difference in most of our wins in the second half of the season with plenty of talent out on the park. Including against hack teams like Carlton & Richmond.

[rodgerfox]

A game plan mastrefully thought out and played out to restrict margins in unavoidable defeats due to injuries. Lyon limited the damage to at least give us a chance when we had some resembalnce of our best side up and going.

What about the easily winnable games?

We just fell over the line in most of them. Even when we played 'well', we weren't convincing at all.

As a result of injuries the team was never really able to gain momentum and confidence. Changes everyweek blokes coming back after a few weeks out trying to find touch young blokes finding there feet and players filling gaps to cover dont help create fluent football.

Our injuries were horrendous in 05 and 06 also - yet we were only % off being top 4 in both of those years.

Injuries are the most important part of footy, yet they can't explain the drop from top 4 to easy beats.

[CURLY]

A game plan mastrefully thought out and played out to restrict margins in unavoidable defeats due to injuries. Lyon limited the damage to at least give us a chance when we had some resembalnce of our best side up and going.

What about the easily winnable games?

We just fell over the line in most of them. Even when we played 'well', we weren't convincing at all.

As a result of injuries the team was never really able to gain momentum and confidence. Changes everyweek blokes coming back after a few weeks out trying to find touch young blokes finding there feet and players filling gaps to cover dont help create fluent football.

Our injuries were horrendous in 05 and 06 also - yet we were only % off being top 4 in both of those years.

Injuries are the most important part of footy, yet they can't explain the drop from top 4 to easy beats.

Easybeats? I cant remember any game that we were considered easybeats. If I remember right we finished a game and half out of the eight last year hardly easybeats.

[Saints94]

A game plan mastrefully thought out and played out to restrict margins in unavoidable defeats due to injuries. Lyon limited the damage to at least give us a chance when we had some resembalnce of our best side up and going.

What about the easily winnable games?

We just fell over the line in most of them. Even when we played 'well', we weren't convincing at all.

As a result of injuries the team was never really able to gain momentum and confidence. Changes everyweek blokes coming back after a few weeks out trying to find touch young blokes finding there feet and players filling gaps to cover dont help create fluent football.

Our injuries were horrendous in 05 and 06 also - yet we were only % off being top 4 in both of those years.

Injuries are the most important part of footy, yet they can't explain the drop from top 4 to easy beats.

Easybeats? I cant remember any game that we were considered easybeats. If I remember right we finished a game and half out of the eight last year hardly easybeats.

Thanks to Adelaide!

[rodgerfox]

A game plan mastrefully thought out and played out to restrict margins in unavoidable defeats due to injuries. Lyon limited the damage to at least give us a chance when we had some resembalnce of our best side up and going.

What about the easily winnable games?

We just fell over the line in most of them. Even when we played 'well', we weren't convincing at all.

As a result of injuries the team was never really able to gain momentum and confidence. Changes everyweek blokes coming back after a few weeks out trying to find touch young blokes finding there feet and players filling gaps to cover dont help create fluent football.

Our injuries were horrendous in 05 and 06 also - yet we were only % off being top 4 in both of those years.

Injuries are the most important part of footy, yet they can't explain the drop from top 4 to easy beats.

Easybeats? I cant remember any game that we were considered easybeats. If I remember right we finished a game and half out of the eight last year hardly easybeats.

Worth noting that both Richmond and Carlton tanked against us.

[CURLY]

A game plan mastrefully thought out and played out to restrict margins in unavoidable defeats due to injuries. Lyon limited the damage to at least give us a chance when we had some resembalnce of our best side up and going.

What about the easily winnable games?

We just fell over the line in most of them. Even when we played 'well', we weren't convincing at all.

As a result of injuries the team was never really able to gain momentum and confidence. Changes everyweek blokes coming back after a few weeks out trying to find touch young blokes finding there feet and players filling gaps to cover dont help create fluent football.

Our injuries were horrendous in 05 and 06 also - yet we were only % off being top 4 in both of those years.

Injuries are the most important part of footy, yet they can't explain the drop from top 4 to easy beats.

Easybeats? I cant remember any game that we were considered easybeats. If I remember right we finished a game and half out of the eight last year hardly easybeats.

Worth noting that both Richmond and Carlton tanked against us.

Worth noting it probably happened in 05 and 06 and that teams that finished that game and a half in front eg Collingwood had those two plus Melb a 1 degree Friday night game at the G game against Freo. Point is who cares we had injuries and never recoverd. Players like Fiora L Fisher Gilbert and Attard took advantage and played good footy easing preasure on their spots.

[Oh When the Saints]

The Richmond game was understandable, we had nothing to play for.


Despite not being "convincing" when we won, we still won.

We weren't convincing on a September afternoon in '66, but we still won.

[rexy]

Think it is fair to say that accountability and defensive preassure were improved in 07 but at the expense of free flow and attack at times.

I like to think that the idea of 07 was for the guys to learn an accountable style so that we knew how to shut a team down or change tactics when we needed to.

I hope in 08 to see a fit side play attacking, long kicking football but have the discipline needed to work hard back and help the defense as well as have the ability to close games down when conditions, injuries or form of the other side suggest that we should.

I may be a wishful thinker though, if we are as negative as we were in 07 in 08 then we will miss the 8 again and have a new coach for 09 IMO.

[saintsRrising]

L Fisher - was shopped round wasnt he? if so whats that say?

Interesting point, many seem to forget that he was offered to Sydney but they refused because of the fitness test/scan.

I think that was the rumour yes...but did not L Fisher come out and say that he was not tested and never went to Sydney despite the rumours and press articles stating that he did?????


As to be shopped around..I think most clubs have their untouchables...and others who are not...

As a he is nota "core" player it would not surprise me if he was along with others.

But also remember that to be "shopped" around that you must actually have trade value.....

http://saints.com.au/Season2007/News/Ne ... wsId=52450

4:13 PM Fri 12 October, 2007 | Back


for saints.com.au

News
St Kilda Football Club has concluded its activity in the AFL Trade Week, with the Club today confirming it has acquired four new players.

In relation to discussions involving Leigh Fisher as a possible trade to Sydney, the Club would like to clarify that the Swans did show interest in Leigh, however at no stage did he fly to Sydney nor did he meet with their medical staff in person.While Leigh was considered an option to the Swans, St Kilda is extremely satisfied to have retained the young backman / midfielder.

“Leigh is both a quality player and person and the Club is very pleased to have been able to retain himâ€

[Saints94]

L Fisher - was shopped round wasnt he? if so whats that say?

Interesting point, many seem to forget that he was offered to Sydney but they refused because of the fitness test/scan.

I think that was the rumour yes...but did not L Fisher come out and say that he was not tested and never went to Sydney despite the rumours and press articles stating that he did?????


As to be shopped around..I think most clubs have their untouchables...and others who are not...

As a he is nota "core" player it would not surprise me if he was along with others.

But also remember that to be "shopped" around that you must actually have trade value.....

http://saints.com.au/Season2007/News/Ne ... wsId=52450

4:13 PM Fri 12 October, 2007 | Back


for saints.com.au

News
St Kilda Football Club has concluded its activity in the AFL Trade Week, with the Club today confirming it has acquired four new players.

In relation to discussions involving Leigh Fisher as a possible trade to Sydney, the Club would like to clarify that the Swans did show interest in Leigh, however at no stage did he fly to Sydney nor did he meet with their medical staff in person.While Leigh was considered an option to the Swans, St Kilda is extremely satisfied to have retained the young backman / midfielder.

“Leigh is both a quality player and person and the Club is very pleased to have been able to retain himâ€

[saintsRrising]

I wouldn't think that the Swans were interested in Leigh! because they were rebuilding there team with speed and youth especially the back-line!

http://saints.com.au/Season2007/News/Ne ... wsId=52450
In relation to discussions involving Leigh Fisher as a possible trade to Sydney, the Club would like to clarify that the Swans did show interest in Leigh

[Saints94]

I wouldn't think that the Swans were interested in Leigh! because they were rebuilding there team with speed and youth especially the back-line!

http://saints.com.au/Season2007/News/Ne ... wsId=52450
In relation to discussions involving Leigh Fisher as a possible trade to Sydney, the Club would like to clarify that the Swans did show interest in Leigh

I know that they were interested I just didn't think they would because he's a bit slow if they wan't to rebuild!

[rodgerfox]

Think it is fair to say that accountability and defensive preassure were improved in 07 but at the expense of free flow and attack at times.

I know this was a popular theory throughout 07 Rexy, but I didn't actually see anything to really back it up.

We had more scores kicked against us than before, and oppostiion midfields seemed to run amock.

[To the top]

2007 was a very poor year, with no stand-out performances. The win against Melbourne in Round 1 was put into context by the season Melbourne had.

There is a need for improvement, including an improvement in fitness and focus, across the club.

When we somehow scraped into the eight late in the season and had our destiny (or, at least a finals appearance - would have only been one on the season's performance) in our own hands we could not find enough to carry on with the challenge.

That summed up the year.

All associated with the club are "under the pump" because, quite frankly, we did not have a player who performed consistently to expectations in 2007, and also rans was the result.

We should stop looking thru rose coloured glasses and look at what improvement each and every player needs to bring to the table, and what the coaching staff, support staff and the administration and board of Directors needs to bring to then table, because 2007 was totally unacceptable.

Reputations count for nothing - it is performances, and consistent winning performances in 2008 that will define all associated with the club.

And very, very few came out of 2007 with their reputations enhanced - the competition by-passed them and St Kilda was by-passed.

That is the fact of the matter.

[Teflon]

Think it is fair to say that accountability and defensive preassure were improved in 07 but at the expense of free flow and attack at times.

I like to think that the idea of 07 was for the guys to learn an accountable style so that we knew how to shut a team down or change tactics when we needed to.

I hope in 08 to see a fit side play attacking, long kicking football but have the discipline needed to work hard back and help the defense as well as have the ability to close games down when conditions, injuries or form of the other side suggest that we should.

I may be a wishful thinker though, if we are as negative as we were in 07 in 08 then we will miss the 8 again and have a new coach for 09 IMO.

your wasting good sense in this joint rexy.

carry on.

[st_Trav_ofWA]

forget blake being in trouble .. the coach loves players he can set a task and they will follow it to the letter thats blake his spot is as safe as houses (as much as most on here would have him in the worst players he plays his role every week)

raph and x will be on the edge as both still have some trading worth if they do nothing this year

leigh fisher would be thinking hes replaced Vossy from last year , not in the coaches plans

gwilt needs to show hes got somthing to offer i think hes kept as a last resort on the injury front

CJ will be seen as a competitor for shnides and milne if either start going downwards CJ will get their spot for the week

ferg i think is already half out the door

rix is safe as hes the back up with a fragile ruck combo of gardi &king and bigmac and VR still a way off hes gunna get a run through injury/form

[rodgerfox]

forget blake being in trouble .. the coach loves players he can set a task and they will follow it to the letter thats blake

I guess we have to question what the tasks are that he is being set then??

[saintsRrising]

quote="rodgerfox"]

forget blake being in trouble .. the coach loves players he can set a task and they will follow it to the letter thats blake

I guess we have to question what the tasks are that he is being set then??[/quote]

Yes the task in 2008 will be most interesting.

The coach in 2008 has more options avaialable to him in 20081/ througha better list and 2/ through we hope more fit players to choose from.

forget blake being in trouble .. the coach loves players he can set a task and they will follow it to the letter thats blake

Yes he does...and that is one reason why I think Dempster was added to our list....

Question is though that in a 22 is there room for both Blake and Dempster?? Both are tallish, can run...and tend to mainly have negating roles...though Blake has had use as a ruckman. With King and Kosi available as ruckmen though in 2008 this "string to his bow" may not be as important.


Is Dempster a better version of Blake.....or is Blake a better version of Dempster??


Other players could hold the key as well....

* How Raph goes
* Whether L Fisher can play asa tagger
* Whether Goose and Max playa reasonable number of games. If they do....there will bea lot of competion for the HBF and BP roles...
* BJ coming back to play as our "spare backmen come midfielder playing back.... BJ combined with gram and S fsher (if free to play asa HBF) provides fora very attacking HB line to set up play.



The good news is that it means competition for places in the 22 in 2008 is most likely going to be lifted toa new standard requiring those that earn the right to be in the 22 to be on average playing ata higher level.

[terry smith rules]

2007 was a very poor year, with no stand-out performances. The win against Melbourne in Round 1 was put into context by the season Melbourne had.

There is a need for improvement, including an improvement in fitness and focus, across the club.

When we somehow scraped into the eight late in the season and had our destiny (or, at least a finals appearance - would have only been one on the season's performance) in our own hands we could not find enough to carry on with the challenge.

That summed up the year.

All associated with the club are "under the pump" because, quite frankly, we did not have a player who performed consistently to expectations in 2007, and also rans was the result.

We should stop looking thru rose coloured glasses and look at what improvement each and every player needs to bring to the table, and what the coaching staff, support staff and the administration and board of Directors needs to bring to then table, because 2007 was totally unacceptable.

Reputations count for nothing - it is performances, and consistent winning performances in 2008 that will define all associated with the club.

And very, very few came out of 2007 with their reputations enhanced - the competition by-passed them and St Kilda was by-passed.

That is the fact of the matter.

How many times do we have to debate this point.

Injuries slaughtered us in 07, can't you remember the Hawthorn game.

No team in the AFL could have coped with losing the quality players that we lost.

many of the players who may be deemed to have under performed are in fact the injured players, (8, 31 spring to mind)

I am certainly not looking through rose coloured glasses but I think many people on this subject are a little harsh

fqf

[Teflon]

2007 was a very poor year, with no stand-out performances. The win against Melbourne in Round 1 was put into context by the season Melbourne had.

There is a need for improvement, including an improvement in fitness and focus, across the club.

When we somehow scraped into the eight late in the season and had our destiny (or, at least a finals appearance - would have only been one on the season's performance) in our own hands we could not find enough to carry on with the challenge.

That summed up the year.

All associated with the club are "under the pump" because, quite frankly, we did not have a player who performed consistently to expectations in 2007, and also rans was the result.

We should stop looking thru rose coloured glasses and look at what improvement each and every player needs to bring to the table, and what the coaching staff, support staff and the administration and board of Directors needs to bring to then table, because 2007 was totally unacceptable.

Reputations count for nothing - it is performances, and consistent winning performances in 2008 that will define all associated with the club.

And very, very few came out of 2007 with their reputations enhanced - the competition by-passed them and St Kilda was by-passed.

That is the fact of the matter.

How many times do we have to debate this point.

Injuries slaughtered us in 07, can't you remember the Hawthorn game.

No team in the AFL could have coped with losing the quality players that we lost.

many of the players who may be deemed to have under performed are in fact the injured players, (8, 31 spring to mind)

I am certainly not looking through rose coloured glasses but I think many people on this subject are a little harsh

fqf

well said Terry -you could probably add Hayes back from a knee reco, Goddard going with one, Ball with Osteities Mystery, Attard et al to your list.....but apparently we have simply just had a poor year and should have the depth of a list with 84 players to cover major injuries......

ahhh why bother with analysis and context when dumb grand statements are easier and make you look good?

[rodgerfox]

No team in the AFL could have coped with losing the quality players that we lost.

We nearly won a prelim in 05 (took until the last 15 minutes for Sydney to get over us) with 8 of best 22 missing and 2 injured during the game

We won the final a fortnight earlier with 7 missing and 2 injured during the game.

[milney044]

we still didnt go the whole way though did we. if we'd had just 3 more of those injured players playing, we may have lasted those extra 15 minutes against sydney... GT did well to get what he got out of the players he had, but until we go all the way and hold that flag, it's not really enough is it.
if we have just one year with a lucky break without these damn injuries, i can really see us going the distance.

[Teflon]

No team in the AFL could have coped with losing the quality players that we lost.

We nearly won a prelim in 05 (took until the last 15 minutes for Sydney to get over us) with 8 of best 22 missing and 2 injured during the game

We won the final a fortnight earlier with 7 missing and 2 injured during the game.

In the words of Grant Thomas - his "injury" woes during his tenure were lessoned by the FACTS he was able to keep his midfield contingent and support rotations largely intact - AND in 04 and a lot of 05 had a fit and firing Luke Ball at his disposal.

Fast forward to 07 not only has Lyon lost experience in Powell, Peckett to rotate through there - Balls a shell, Lenny a knee reco victim, Harvey 36, Thompsons injured and his output decreased, Jones is gone (more experience), Goddards gawn........the list goes on...

04 and 05 also saw the best of Hamill and Maguire had stellar seasons not to mentioen Gehrig as a Coleman medallist during these years....

Once again its simplistic to look at finals performances and place absolutely no context around where the two sides from different years were at for different reasons....we also skipped over 06 (which to me saw the start of a team slide).........but that supports the argument doesnt it ?......

[BallBanger]

As for Ferg....all I have said in this string is that he was lucky to be retained and in my view he was, and that he will needa better year in 2008 than he had in 2007 to be reatained......all based on yes watching him and the others play.


Cheers s Rr

Please spear me the drama of it all...

Please enlighten me and our coach, on to why he was "LUCKY'

I am sure that RL would welcome your remarks (even though it does become tiresome at times)


You have based "your opinion" on just what???


Again...

Fergs can play tall or small in defence and was recruited as a prospect as a possible forward....

Fergs has proven to be on the list, for that reason. The very fact that you and others suggest that he is mentioned to be under the pump ahead of some other players, to me suggests that you have really never seen much of him at all..

But hey...

I am used to you "waffle" and most times I go along with it...

IMO Fergs is a "class act" and I hope he proves it this year...

The point about L Fisher is......

IMO Fergs is far better than him and maybe you should look at some training instead of your tiresome facts that is becoming boring.......

Totally agree with u StFid, Ferg has never had a chance to play on his terms. I also think L.Fisher has many flaws but admire the way he gets the most out of himself....for me Ferg way ahead of L.Fisher and L.Fisher >>>>>Gwilt.

Confused with hostility, obvious histoy here