A couple of player negatives

[derby Street]

Good to get the 4 points over a mob who are chasing a place in the 8 I was disappointed in a couple of things. Gwilt - after seeing some steady progress (agree not spectacular) what happened last night - some of his free kicks against , 50 metre penalties and efforts were diabolical.
Whats with Gilberts kicking - he burnt the ball a number of times with his kicking. - he's better than that and needs to show it.
Anyhow still 3 in a row.

[twirlyhair]

oooh be careful! I dont think your allowed to say anything negative about any of the saints players on this forum! If you do, they will be after you!!!

[Winmar7Fan]

I agree unfortunately I really don't believe Gwilt is quite up to the level but we have plenty of kids who are showing some promise that will hopefully strengthen that bottom end of the 22.

[iremember66]

I disagree.

I thought James was thereabouts on Friday.
He made a couple of mistakes, but he made a couple of mistakes because he was there at the contest - if you get what I mean. You have to be in it to get pinged.
There were a couple of soft ones too! - one where he was a bit exuberent - but he got straight back into it, (and then banger came in and gave a "too high tackle" and HE was pinged (how dare they))!!

I think BJ's comment is spot on - "we can't compete".
It must be sooo frustrating when you tackle hard (but fairly) and you are pinged by a dill umpire.
I think we have all witnessed where suddenly we get a couple of dud decisions like that and it costs us dearly (always seems to happen when it costs us a goal) - and then we are too scared to touch an opponent because we don't want to be pinged.

But overall I would rather see the level of intensity that James put in - he did some great work throughout the game - solid tackles and strong running and chasing, a cople of good contested marks. Hopefully he can take a bit of confidence from the game and build on it... Given the chances and a few more games like that and he will be a much valued regular.

[derby Street]

Iremember66 I hear what you are saying about Gwilt - as I said I thought he had been making progress but I was disappointed with Fridays night game.
Confidence is a great thing and often hard to come by. I would hate to see James "go back into his shell" BUT I don't want to see some of the dumb arsed things he did on Friday become a regular feature of his game. RL seems to be giving him a bit over a go so we will wait & see.

[spert]

I would be hesitant to change a winning team, but if it comes down to the wire and seeing Kozi has found some form, maybe Allen might need to return to Casey, and Gilbert worries me a bit, but I would leave Gwilt and Eddy in the team..Eddy is tougher than I thought and could develop into a Hamill type of HF when he matures, while Gwilt really puts his body into the contest.

[iremember66]

I don't think we differ on this either derby Street -

I thought he just seemed to be a step closer on Friday - seemed prepared to back himself a bit more - and its probably the slight diffference where a couple of those efforts come off and suddenly that confidence starts to kick in.
As you say I would hate to see him retreat from that effort ("go back into his shell"), I think another effort like last Friday's, and hopefully it could start to slip into place - I don't believe there's any doubt he's got the skills - I believe its just a confidence thing...

I wondered (as you apparently did) whether Ross the boss may have given him a bit of licence - I hope James keeps building on this. I don't mind a couple of clangers along the way if he keeps improving. I suspect James is one tf those who. with patience, will deliver unto us big rewards...

[To the top]

To cut to the chase on Gwilt, when he arrived fractionally late and his body size saw the Carlton player crumble (result 50 metres, or effectively 25 metres because it was 25 metres out from the Carlton goal), who was the Carlton player's opponent?

Which one of our players allowed their direct opponent to set up un-opposed 25 metres out from the opponent's goal?

It was NOT Gwilt's direct opponent.

So turn the attention to where the attention should be focussed.

I thought BOTH Gwilt and Gilbert held their direct opponents in pretty reasonable check particularly given some of the free ball Carlton got out of the centre and around the flanks - except for the little Carlton guy snagging a couple which were flukes from a pocket - but they do those things sometimes - and because of where they are pressured to with the ball, they also miss.

Better you pressure them to the boundary for a flying low percentage shot than let them back into the corridor for a "gimee".

[st_Trav_ofWA]

i didnt mind Gwilts game it obviously wasnt his best but it wasnt his worst. the frees well thats up to interpriation had gwit been fletcher or glass doing the same thing half of those wouldnt of been payed in the end a win is a win so cant complain here

[Sobraz]

To cut to the chase on Gwilt, when he arrived fractionally late and his body size saw the Carlton player crumble (result 50 metres, or effectively 25 metres because it was 25 metres out from the Carlton goal), who was the Carlton player's opponent?

Which one of our players allowed their direct opponent to set up un-opposed 25 metres out from the opponent's goal?

It was NOT Gwilt's direct opponent.

So turn the attention to where the attention should be focussed.

I thought BOTH Gwilt and Gilbert held their direct opponents in pretty reasonable check particularly given some of the free ball Carlton got out of the centre and around the flanks - except for the little Carlton guy snagging a couple which were flukes from a pocket - but they do those things sometimes - and because of where they are pressured to with the ball, they also miss.

Better you pressure them to the boundary for a flying low percentage shot than let them back into the corridor for a "gimee".

Good sensible post... Both have weaknesses in thier games that need attention, and comparibly i think Gilbo has more upside, but both are improving... I would persist with both this week....

[BAM! (shhhh)]

While it was a bonehead play, I'm still wondering how that play in front of goal was a 50 metre penalty... The ball bounced loose - so either Gwilt took down the man without the ball and it was a free (this is what it looked like to me, and it was a bonehead play because Gwilt had turned a Carlton stuff up into our stuff up), or Gwilt knocked it loose which means he was in the contest... I mean, I can see *how* the umpire came to that decision, it just looked to me (and I wasn't sitting far from there) like a bread and butter free kick, not a 50.

Regardless, I saw that as a mistake of over-agression, which I'd rather than under agression.

Not a mistake I'd expect someone to make twice, but then, I wouldn't expect most AFL players to drop that mark either.

[Solar]

While it was a bonehead play, I'm still wondering how that play in front of goal was a 50 metre penalty... The ball bounced loose - so either Gwilt took down the man without the ball and it was a free (this is what it looked like to me, and it was a bonehead play because Gwilt had turned a Carlton stuff up into our stuff up), or Gwilt knocked it loose which means he was in the contest... I mean, I can see *how* the umpire came to that decision, it just looked to me (and I wasn't sitting far from there) like a bread and butter free kick, not a 50.

Regardless, I saw that as a mistake of over-agression, which I'd rather than under agression.

Not a mistake I'd expect someone to make twice, but then, I wouldn't expect most AFL players to drop that mark either.

I must say it wasn't late, it looked like a great bump that made the ball spill) Personally I think the ball was within 5 metres and the bump was fair. Would have to see it again but live it looked far. the guy had not completed the mark and gwilts hips forced the ball out. Would have been a knock on in rugby

[plugger66]

While it was a bonehead play, I'm still wondering how that play in front of goal was a 50 metre penalty... The ball bounced loose - so either Gwilt took down the man without the ball and it was a free (this is what it looked like to me, and it was a bonehead play because Gwilt had turned a Carlton stuff up into our stuff up), or Gwilt knocked it loose which means he was in the contest... I mean, I can see *how* the umpire came to that decision, it just looked to me (and I wasn't sitting far from there) like a bread and butter free kick, not a 50.

Regardless, I saw that as a mistake of over-agression, which I'd rather than under agression.

Not a mistake I'd expect someone to make twice, but then, I wouldn't expect most AFL players to drop that mark either.

I must say it wasn't late, it looked like a great bump that made the ball spill) Personally I think the ball was within 5 metres and the bump was fair. Would have to see it again but live it looked far. the guy had not completed the mark and gwilts hips forced the ball out. Would have been a knock on in rugby

Wrong.

[Solar]

While it was a bonehead play, I'm still wondering how that play in front of goal was a 50 metre penalty... The ball bounced loose - so either Gwilt took down the man without the ball and it was a free (this is what it looked like to me, and it was a bonehead play because Gwilt had turned a Carlton stuff up into our stuff up), or Gwilt knocked it loose which means he was in the contest... I mean, I can see *how* the umpire came to that decision, it just looked to me (and I wasn't sitting far from there) like a bread and butter free kick, not a 50.

Regardless, I saw that as a mistake of over-agression, which I'd rather than under agression.

Not a mistake I'd expect someone to make twice, but then, I wouldn't expect most AFL players to drop that mark either.

I must say it wasn't late, it looked like a great bump that made the ball spill) Personally I think the ball was within 5 metres and the bump was fair. Would have to see it again but live it looked far. the guy had not completed the mark and gwilts hips forced the ball out. Would have been a knock on in rugby

Wrong.

what an insightful piece of clap trap

d**khead ALERT

(I find it hard to ignore dickheads)

[plugger66]

While it was a bonehead play, I'm still wondering how that play in front of goal was a 50 metre penalty... The ball bounced loose - so either Gwilt took down the man without the ball and it was a free (this is what it looked like to me, and it was a bonehead play because Gwilt had turned a Carlton stuff up into our stuff up), or Gwilt knocked it loose which means he was in the contest... I mean, I can see *how* the umpire came to that decision, it just looked to me (and I wasn't sitting far from there) like a bread and butter free kick, not a 50.

Regardless, I saw that as a mistake of over-agression, which I'd rather than under agression.

Not a mistake I'd expect someone to make twice, but then, I wouldn't expect most AFL players to drop that mark either.

I must say it wasn't late, it looked like a great bump that made the ball spill) Personally I think the ball was within 5 metres and the bump was fair. Would have to see it again but live it looked far. the guy had not completed the mark and gwilts hips forced the ball out. Would have been a knock on in rugby

Wrong.

what an insightful piece of clap trap

d**khead ALERT

(I find it hard to ignore dickheads)

You must have fun when you look in the mirror then. I again you are wrong.