Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
joffaboy wrote:
One of the bright spots of the change in GF1 was Gilbo up forward and this was replicated in GF2. This may well have some positive knockon effects with Gilbo up forward next season.
It was good and it was bad.
Clearly the Gilbert move was nearly a flag winning one.
So what do we see at the opening bounce the following week? What I saw was a refusal to acknowledge that the usual structure and setup just wasn't going to cut it.
I saw stubborness, with a hint of arrogance thrown in there.
Some of the assistants saw it the same way, so I'm told.
It took an entire quarter and a 3 goal quarter time deficit to reproduce something that was proven to work only a week earlier.
Anyway, that's old news.
What's important is that we do learn from what happened, and change things up a bit.
You don't throw away all the good work that made the team so well drilled, but you teach them to subtely deviate from it and leverdige off it.
Rodger, with all due respect, f*** off with the Ross bashing.
You're incessant degrading of things RL is so ridiculously dull I'm frankly disappointed in myself for drawing attention to it.
Really, mate, why not just assume everyone knows your feelings on our coach and move on?
Besides, Gilbert is a DEFENDER. He spoils and out-positions and runs. So he pinched a goal as a fwd in GF 1 in what was his first foray fwd all year. Big whoop. It certainly doesn't all of a sudden make him Riewoldt mk 2 in GF2. It makes him an option if things are going to s***. So he goes fwd in GF2 when we were all but ruined and showed two things - potential AND a horribly inaccurate left foot.
What any of that has to do with Ross this and Ross that simply escapes me. All it does is give you a window of opportunity to fabricate a reason to dust off your bugbear.
I love Ross....but fair dinkum.... and if poster believe it, they would believe the sky is Green if Ross said so....
We have been somewhat successful playing the way Ross has coached for 10 years..... his 'structures' will ensure exciting football does not happen...but successful footy will.... he aint changing, he is drumming up memberships from any supporters who may be thinking of jumping off. Why be so niaive??
BigMart wrote:I love Ross....but fair dinkum.... and if poster believe it, they would believe the sky is Green if Ross said so....
We have been somewhat successful playing the way Ross has coached for 10 years..... his 'structures' will ensure exciting football does not happen...but successful footy will.... he aint changing, he is drumming up memberships from any supporters who may be thinking of jumping off. Why be so niaive??
Do we expect exciting Pressers also??
I'm not expecting a revolution, but I am expecting a commitment to scoreboard pressure, our sole weakness.
Call me naive, I just don't think Ross will be content with second best. I reckon he wants a premiership and that means we must evolve and improve.
Defending well and kicking lots of goals aren't mutually exclusive, just ask Collingwood.
16 coaches want a premiersjp...I am guessing he was not satisfied with second in 09....
Collingwood had a much better balance than us.....by balance it all has to do with fwd structure and midfied positioning...
Our mids (Goddard in particular) but Ray, Gram also won a lot of footy centre back...too much....and our HF's played super high, leaving mostly a 3 to 5 fwd set up....and one of those doing a defensive job!
We looked very slow due to lack of options going fwd, and purposely had to hold the ball up and wait for nick to find space to lead into or double back...the only player who did not slow play when there was no options was Gilbo - and what did he regularly do??
but if we rob the back half support of to Gwilt, Gilbert, Blake, Dawson.....we will leak more goals as the panic one out with opponents
BigMart wrote:I love Ross....but fair dinkum.... and if poster believe it, they would believe the sky is Green if Ross said so....
We have been somewhat successful playing the way Ross has coached for 10 years..... his 'structures' will ensure exciting football does not happen...but successful footy will.... he aint changing, he is drumming up memberships from any supporters who may be thinking of jumping off. Why be so niaive??
Do we expect exciting Pressers also??
I am an unashamed Ross Lyon fan but I too have questioned the very outwardly zealous..."we will now attack" stuff.
Ross is a defensive coach. I have listened to him defend his approach by claiming we are an attacking side....we were what...second highest scoring 09?...to most we still played defensive footy. To Ross we were free flowing and attacking.....
Point is....Im sure in Ross's world we will hopefully kick 2 more goals a game next year and that will mean we are an attacking, exciting, free flowing side......reality is I cant see us morph into some excitement machine ditching defense at all cost. BUT that may be ok......I could care less about excitement machine tbh.....09 I was excited...we won. IF we can get the balance between attack/defense right.....we will be much more difficult to stop.
SainterK wrote:I think Tef, that defence is probably an instinctive part of the boys makeup now?
If they are instructed to be more attacking, I would still bank on them finding themselves laying a tackle where appropriate.
Ive no doubt thats true andthis year will/should be more about the balance of defence/attack.
To me Id like to see us pick those times to move the ball with speed, decisiveness forward and probably more of it. Limited shut down perhaps to stop run ons is all...
I do think though some supporters will listen to Lyon and conclude we will morph into Cats 2007-09.....we wont.
Just getting back to the 'roles' bit, in reference to what Teflon has said above....
Part of the reason we get held up and don't attack is because the opposition know that certain players are not allowed to kick the ball forward.
Jason Blake in his role for example, isn't allowed to break a line with kicking - even if the opportunity to do so is blatant.
This type of game plan, means that we only attack when the ball finds itself in the hands of certain guys - meaning that certain players have to have good games for us to score.
It also means we have to play certain guys in defence as they are designated kickers. If they don't get the ball down back, there's simply no one back there who can move the ball forward by foot.
This slipped under the guard of clubs in 09, and even in 08 to an extent. But in 2010 it was obvious to everybody. Shut down our desingated kickers in the back half (Gilbert and Fisher to name 2) and we stagnate horribly.
So really, the inflexibility in the game plan and the roles of players is the thing that needs to change in order for us to become more attacking, or more to the point - better at attacking.
It's one thing having a more attacking mindset .. that's fine.
But the fact still remains ...if our forwards can't/don't finally control/restrict the rebound from the opposition half back lines - the Harbrows, Shaws, Thomases getting career best run and carry possessions against us - we will still be largely treading water.
A goal saved is a goal earned .. we need to clamp down on those damaging half backs.
We need some speedy/hard tackling medium sized forwards .. to wrest control and stop the rebound - apart from kicking a goal or 2 - I hope a couple of our fast youngsters are fast tracked .. before the window closes.
I think this year was a compromise on his pre season plan. He was hoping with Raph off half back and Lovett running and linking with Farren Ray we could have one or both of the Sams run forward.
Added to that we had Roo go down and Kosi never get back to 09 form. Apart from losing Schnieder further up the ground and Mini losing potency when Gwilt wasn't near him to help screen him, we showed other teams how to zone.
We have got Gamble in as a specialist forward and polo as a replacement/ back up for the multi position utilities like Eddy or Geary.
I expect that Jack Steven if his body is right to play large parts of the season, Hudson to give some valuable instruction to the forward line, and Goddard to get more of a licence to roam around the ground. This will be an exiting season coming up and I'm already hanging out.
rodgerfox wrote:Just getting back to the 'roles' bit, in reference to what Teflon has said above....
Part of the reason we get held up and don't attack is because the opposition know that certain players are not allowed to kick the ball forward.
Jason Blake in his role for example, isn't allowed to break a line with kicking - even if the opportunity to do so is blatant.
This type of game plan, means that we only attack when the ball finds itself in the hands of certain guys - meaning that certain players have to have good games for us to score.
It also means we have to play certain guys in defence as they are designated kickers. If they don't get the ball down back, there's simply no one back there who can move the ball forward by foot.
This slipped under the guard of clubs in 09, and even in 08 to an extent. But in 2010 it was obvious to everybody. Shut down our desingated kickers in the back half (Gilbert and Fisher to name 2) and we stagnate horribly.
So really, the inflexibility in the game plan and the roles of players is the thing that needs to change in order for us to become more attacking, or more to the point - better at attacking.
Who says there is such a rule?
You just make s*** up.
"The inches we need are everywhere around us. They're in every break in the game. Every minute, every second. On this team we fight for that inch. On this team we tear ourselves and everyone around us to pieces for that inch. We claw with our fingernails for that inch. Because we know when we add up all those inches that's gonna make the f***in' difference between winning and losing! Between living and dying!'
rodgerfox wrote:Just getting back to the 'roles' bit, in reference to what Teflon has said above....
Part of the reason we get held up and don't attack is because the opposition know that certain players are not allowed to kick the ball forward.
Jason Blake in his role for example, isn't allowed to break a line with kicking - even if the opportunity to do so is blatant.
This type of game plan, means that we only attack when the ball finds itself in the hands of certain guys - meaning that certain players have to have good games for us to score.
It also means we have to play certain guys in defence as they are designated kickers. If they don't get the ball down back, there's simply no one back there who can move the ball forward by foot.
This slipped under the guard of clubs in 09, and even in 08 to an extent. But in 2010 it was obvious to everybody. Shut down our desingated kickers in the back half (Gilbert and Fisher to name 2) and we stagnate horribly.
So really, the inflexibility in the game plan and the roles of players is the thing that needs to change in order for us to become more attacking, or more to the point - better at attacking.
Who says there is such a rule?
You just make s*** up.
It's also naive to suggest that the other clubs, including Collingwood & Geelong, don't have players performing "roles".
rodgerfox wrote:Just getting back to the 'roles' bit, in reference to what Teflon has said above....
Part of the reason we get held up and don't attack is because the opposition know that certain players are not allowed to kick the ball forward.
Jason Blake in his role for example, isn't allowed to break a line with kicking - even if the opportunity to do so is blatant.
This type of game plan, means that we only attack when the ball finds itself in the hands of certain guys - meaning that certain players have to have good games for us to score.
It also means we have to play certain guys in defence as they are designated kickers. If they don't get the ball down back, there's simply no one back there who can move the ball forward by foot.
This slipped under the guard of clubs in 09, and even in 08 to an extent. But in 2010 it was obvious to everybody. Shut down our desingated kickers in the back half (Gilbert and Fisher to name 2) and we stagnate horribly.
So really, the inflexibility in the game plan and the roles of players is the thing that needs to change in order for us to become more attacking, or more to the point - better at attacking.
Who says there is such a rule?
You just make s*** up.
I also doubt there is such a 'rule'
Perhaps the players highlighted are hesitant to kick forwards, because it's not a strength, rather than a specific directive?
Would you agree that Baker and Dempster played the same role in 2010?
Each played 14 games, yet one had only 6 inside 50's, the other 18...
Yet I am pretty confident they would be under the same instructions, and playing the same role, so why was one more inclined to kick the ball forward?
For effective forwards ..
The forwards must have a dual role .. kicking goals is only one part of it.
I'd choose players who could restrict Shaw, Thomas and O'Brien say to 40 possessions between them .. not their usual 80.
If we could do that - that would be a massively improved forward performance by us just there.
rodgerfox wrote:Just getting back to the 'roles' bit, in reference to what Teflon has said above....
Part of the reason we get held up and don't attack is because the opposition know that certain players are not allowed to kick the ball forward.
Jason Blake in his role for example, isn't allowed to break a line with kicking - even if the opportunity to do so is blatant.
This type of game plan, means that we only attack when the ball finds itself in the hands of certain guys - meaning that certain players have to have good games for us to score.
It also means we have to play certain guys in defence as they are designated kickers. If they don't get the ball down back, there's simply no one back there who can move the ball forward by foot.
This slipped under the guard of clubs in 09, and even in 08 to an extent. But in 2010 it was obvious to everybody. Shut down our desingated kickers in the back half (Gilbert and Fisher to name 2) and we stagnate horribly.
So really, the inflexibility in the game plan and the roles of players is the thing that needs to change in order for us to become more attacking, or more to the point - better at attacking.
rodgerfox wrote:
Part of the reason we get held up and don't attack is because the opposition know that certain players are not allowed to kick the ball forward.
Jason Blake in his role for example, isn't allowed to break a line with kicking - even if the opportunity to do so is blatant.
rodgerfox wrote:
Part of the reason we get held up and don't attack is because the opposition know that certain players are not allowed to kick the ball forward.
Jason Blake in his role for example, isn't allowed to break a line with kicking - even if the opportunity to do so is blatant.
Who else?
Steven Baker in his defensive role, is another with limits on what he is allowed to do by foot.
Our forwards have restrictions on where they are allowed to lead and which space they are allowed to occupy also.
Other clubs have roles aswell, however ours are far too restricting and clearly squash instinctive footy in many players. It in some cases, makes life easier for guys who have limitations and aren't great 'thinkers'.
But overall, I believe the level we've taken it too is hindering us.
rodgerfox wrote:
Part of the reason we get held up and don't attack is because the opposition know that certain players are not allowed to kick the ball forward.
Jason Blake in his role for example, isn't allowed to break a line with kicking - even if the opportunity to do so is blatant.
Who else?
Steven Baker in his defensive role, is another with limits on what he is allowed to do by foot.
Our forwards have restrictions on where they are allowed to lead and which space they are allowed to occupy also.
Other clubs have roles aswell, however ours are far too restricting and clearly squash instinctive footy in many players. It in some cases, makes life easier for guys who have limitations and aren't great 'thinkers'.
But overall, I believe the level we've taken it too is hindering us.
It's why Milne and Dal were dropped, and why certain guys get games whilst the fans scratch their heads at selection time.
If guys break rules in relation to their role, they get in strife.
If guys can come into the team, and follow the rules, they continue to get a game - even if to the average supporter, they appear to playing woeful footy.
This type of discipline worked really well when it had the rest of the comp unawares. But once it was obvious what was happening to everyone (except a couple of nuffies on here it seems) we became very predictable and relatively easy to defend against.
The continued recruitment of lowly skilled players who are brought in to play roles that don't require them to kick, is hurting.
Good sides (even ordinary ones) ensure the ball ends up in the hands of poorly skilled players who are directed not to kick.
Last edited by rodgerfox on Mon 29 Nov 2010 12:04pm, edited 1 time in total.
rodgerfox wrote:
Part of the reason we get held up and don't attack is because the opposition know that certain players are not allowed to kick the ball forward.
Jason Blake in his role for example, isn't allowed to break a line with kicking - even if the opportunity to do so is blatant.
Who else?
Steven Baker in his defensive role, is another with limits on what he is allowed to do by foot.
It also means we have to play certain guys in defence as they are designated kickers. If they don't get the ball down back, there's simply no one back there who can move the ball forward by foot.
So does that essentially mean anyone but Baker or Blake?
I would suggest that getting the ball in the hands of your players that either use it the best or run and create is good coaching.
Limiting players like Blakey & Bakes from being the players that bring the ball out of deep defence is common sense.
I think RF & a few others would rather see a game plan akin to a local game at Under 10 level, where everyone chases the ball, is free to kick wherever they like & structures are unheard of.
2009 we played defensive footy but that allowed us to slingshot the ball forward & score heavily.
2010 we had a number of players up & down form wise (Chips, Gilby, Joey, Dal), struggle for form all year (Mini, Zac, Kosi) or injured (Raph, Roo, Gram). It was a HUGE effort to get where they got & despite how shattering it was to have it end in a horrible way, the indications are that in 2011 we will be challenging again.
Let's hope that the filth suffer a bit of what we copped this year... I'm not sure they are mentally strong enough to deal with what our boys did.
Animal Enclosure wrote:
I think RF & a few others would rather see a game plan akin to a local game at Under 10 level, where everyone chases the ball, is free to kick wherever they like & structures are unheard of.
??
Why would you think that?
If you'd read what I wrote in this thread you wouldn't think that.
Animal Enclosure wrote:I would suggest that getting the ball in the hands of your players that either use it the best or run and create is good coaching.
Limiting players like Blakey & Bakes from being the players that bring the ball out of deep defence is common sense.
I think RF & a few others would rather see a game plan akin to a local game at Under 10 level, where everyone chases the ball, is free to kick wherever they like & structures are unheard of.
2009 we played defensive footy but that allowed us to slingshot the ball forward & score heavily.
2010 we had a number of players up & down form wise (Chips, Gilby, Joey, Dal), struggle for form all year (Mini, Zac, Kosi) or injured (Raph, Roo, Gram). It was a HUGE effort to get where they got & despite how shattering it was to have it end in a horrible way, the indications are that in 2011 we will be challenging again.
Let's hope that the filth suffer a bit of what we copped this year... I'm not sure they are mentally strong enough to deal with what our boys did.
Yup.
2009 missed a flag by a kick (effectively).
2010 missed a flag by a kick.
I blame our missed chances in front of goal... from players who are highly paid to slot them when it counts.
We'll rightly see evolution next year, not revolution.
Animal Enclosure wrote:I would suggest that getting the ball in the hands of your players that either use it the best or run and create is good coaching.
Limiting players like Blakey & Bakes from being the players that bring the ball out of deep defence is common sense.
I think RF & a few others would rather see a game plan akin to a local game at Under 10 level, where everyone chases the ball, is free to kick wherever they like & structures are unheard of.
2009 we played defensive footy but that allowed us to slingshot the ball forward & score heavily.
2010 we had a number of players up & down form wise (Chips, Gilby, Joey, Dal), struggle for form all year (Mini, Zac, Kosi) or injured (Raph, Roo, Gram). It was a HUGE effort to get where they got & despite how shattering it was to have it end in a horrible way, the indications are that in 2011 we will be challenging again.
Let's hope that the filth suffer a bit of what we copped this year... I'm not sure they are mentally strong enough to deal with what our boys did.
Yup.
2009 missed a flag by a kick (effectively).
2010 missed a flag by a kick.
I blame our missed chances in front of goal... from players who are highly paid to slot them when it counts.
We'll rightly see evolution next year, not revolution.
Yep
This time the story was 8 behinds in 30 mins of football.
Animal Enclosure wrote:I would suggest that getting the ball in the hands of your players that either use it the best or run and create is good coaching.
Limiting players like Blakey & Bakes from being the players that bring the ball out of deep defence is common sense.
I think RF & a few others would rather see a game plan akin to a local game at Under 10 level, where everyone chases the ball, is free to kick wherever they like & structures are unheard of.
2009 we played defensive footy but that allowed us to slingshot the ball forward & score heavily.
2010 we had a number of players up & down form wise (Chips, Gilby, Joey, Dal), struggle for form all year (Mini, Zac, Kosi) or injured (Raph, Roo, Gram). It was a HUGE effort to get where they got & despite how shattering it was to have it end in a horrible way, the indications are that in 2011 we will be challenging again.
Let's hope that the filth suffer a bit of what we copped this year... I'm not sure they are mentally strong enough to deal with what our boys did.
Yup.
2009 missed a flag by a kick (effectively).
2010 missed a flag by a kick.
I blame our missed chances in front of goal... from players who are highly paid to slot them when it counts.
We'll rightly see evolution next year, not revolution.
Yep
This time the story was 8 behinds in 30 mins of football.
You don't think Collingwood's 7.13 to our 7.5 at 3/4 time in GF1 was at all the slightest bit relevant?
Or is inaccuracy only a factor when it's us missing shots?
