St Kilda /Gehrig

[NMWBloods]

Re: Re: Re: St Kilda /Gehrig

Originally posted by barry
In reality, the only difference between 2003 Swans and 2004 swans has been kicking accuracy.

I don't think so. We are not playing the same standard of football this year.

As for accuracy, last year after 10 rounds we had 59.7% accuracy. Now, as everyone said at the time, that is fantastic and mid to high 50s is normally pretty good. So far this year we are 53.1%, which is a bit below average, but if you take the last two weeks of shockers (both of which we won) our accuracy is still a very good 57.2%.

More accurate kicking wouldn't have made a difference in any of the outcomes of the games, except Brisbane, but they had 2 more shots than us anyway. In our four losses in a row, our accuracy was a phenomenal 63.3%!!

As an idea of accuracy, prior to this round St.Kilda led with 59.9%. Prior to this week we were 6th and prior to last week we were 4th. The average to rd 9 was 54.1% and the lowest was Collingwood with 47.6%.

Last year, as a comparison, we finished with 59%, the next highest was 56.1%, the lowest was 51.5%, and the average was 54.6%.

You need to remember that we in those 5 losses this year we have had to travel to Perth and Brisbane. And hit the D's and Dons in peak form. A horror draw.

Hardly. Melbourne and Essendon have both been beaten by better teams this year. We struggled to beat Geelong at home. We lost to Richmond at home. The difference to last year is the Brisbane trip.

The swans form has been a bit missing, and Schuabs is missnig, but we were hit and miss early 2003 too.

I think it is specious reasoning to compare the beginning of 2004 with 2003.

I just saw something against the dogs that showed we are back. If you beleive forwards kicking straight is partly luck, then it wont be as bad again.

I don't think we're back - looking better, but not certainly not back yet.

As for kicking at goal, it's a skill of the game, not luck, and is not an excuse.

As for Gehrig, Barry gives away over 4" and 13kg - that's a lot of difference!!

[stellation]

Those matchups are good for me... only thing I would add is I'd like to see James come back to start on Gehrig and then have whoever out of Goodes or Barry doesn't take Reiwoldt (I think Leo would do well on him) floating around the true CHB spot or deeper as a loose man in defence to fill the gap in front of Gehrig. If our main gun forwards (BH, MO and ND) are all available and fit they would be capable of covering the missing man up front...

[barry]

Ok you doubting thomases, if my arguments havent convinced you yet we are a good chance this week:
If you assume the dogs are a better team than Carlton this year (fair enough I think, or at worst they are equal), then ponder this:

This weekend gone:

Sydney has 16 more scoring shots than Dogs
Saint Kilda has 18 more scoring shots than Carlton

Sydney's defense lets in 17 scoring shots on the high scoring SCG
Saint Kilda's defense lets in 23 scoring shots, without Carltons main FF Fevola playing up forward.

Add in that the game is in Sydney this week, and draw your own conclusions.

[dendol]

Originally posted by barry
Ok you doubting thomases, if my arguments havent convinced you yet we are a good chance this week:
If you assume the dogs are a better team than Carlton this year (fair enough I think, or at worst they are equal), then ponder this:

This weekend gone:

Sydney has 16 more scoring shots than Dogs
Saint Kilda has 18 more scoring shots than Carlton

Sydney's defense lets in 17 scoring shots on the high scoring SCG
Saint Kilda's defense lets in 23 scoring shots, without Carltons main FF Fevola playing up forward.

Add in that the game is in Sydney this week, and draw your own conclusions.

That doesnt compute at all. Different ground, different weather conditions, and the fact that some teams naturally match up better on others. If games were decided like the way you think, then we could have predicted every result this year based on last years games.

So, St Kilda beat Brisbane this year. We lost to Brisbane.
Therefore we cant beat St Kilda.

[Mike_B]

I reckon we'll see Monty line-up on Aussie Jones - he plays a very similar role for St Kilda as Smith does for the Dogs and we saw what Monty did last night!

Hopefully Roosy will take the same attitude here as he has said before games with Brisbane - if you spend all your time trying to get their matchwinners out the game, you generally have to use all of yours to do it, meaning you have nobody to win the game for you.

[barry]

Originally posted by dendol
That doesnt compute at all. Different ground, different weather conditions, and the fact that some teams naturally match up better on others. If games were decided like the way you think, then we could have predicted every result this year based on last years games.

So, St Kilda beat Brisbane this year. We lost to Brisbane.
Therefore we cant beat St Kilda.

I think you missed my point.

This weekends game in isolation are very very similar, and you are only as good as your last game.

[dendol]

Originally posted by barry
I think you missed my point.

This weekends game in isolation are very very similar, and you are only as good as your last game.

No I didnt. Im saying that your logic only draws the positives out of our win, and the negative out of the Saints - and saying we can win because of it. You cant compare scoring shots of two games played in different conditions with different players, coaches, and tactics (lets put Bazza on Gehrig ala Fevola) and realistically base your predictions on that.

St Kilda kicked 31.10
Sydney kicked 12.21

I reckon we'll lose by 19 goals???

[sharpie]

I think Bevo will take Milne in the forward line. This will leave Crouch to run with a midfielder. Kirk and Crouch will take Hayes and Harvey. Not sure who takes who, but these guys will have to be as good as they were against Johnson and West the other night.

[barry]

Originally posted by dendol
No I didnt. Im saying that your logic only draws the positives out of our win, and the negative out of the Saints - and saying we can win because of it. You cant compare scoring shots of two games played in different conditions with different players, coaches, and tactics (lets put Bazza on Gehrig ala Fevola) and realistically base your predictions on that.

St Kilda kicked 31.10
Sydney kicked 12.21

I reckon we'll lose by 19 goals???

You are basing that entirely on the difference between a dozen feet of air space at the pointy end of the ground.
Our forwards could, no should, have kicked 21.12, and the our defense played better than St Kildas (at least conceed that!).

You are just looking at the final score, not the context of the game. We controlled it like we havent done for a while now. Like St Kilda controlled the carlton game, except in our case the dogs didnt throw in the towel as we didnt break them with straight kicking.

[dendol]

Originally posted by barry
You are basing that entirely on the difference between a dozen feet of air space at the pointy end of the ground.
Our forwards could, no should, have kicked 21.12, and the our defense played better than St Kildas (at least conceed that!).

You are just looking at the final score, not the context of the game. We controlled it like we havent done for a while now. Like St Kilda controlled the carlton game, except in our case the dogs didnt throw in the towel as we didnt break them with straight kicking.

Now you are basing you arguments on "should have"? Our defense SHOULD HAVE stopped every goal, and our forwards SHOULD HAVE kicked every one. Kicking for goal is part of the game, just like getting clearances, and taking marks. You say we are only as good as our last week. By that token, our goal kicking is what is going to let us down against the Saints.

I understand the point you are trying to make, but Im not one to blindly build up optimism based on the scoring shots of 4 teams played with different tactics, played in different states with different weather conditions. You also have to look at the matchups. We DONT have any available players to match up on Gehrig.

That said, I do have a good feeling about next Sunday's game though - whether it be we win or just put up a very good fight, im not sure. But Im basing my feelings on what I have seen in the last two weeks, not scoring shots.

[Old Royboy]

Originally posted by DST
Here is a go for match-ups:

C Bolton v Hamil
Goodes v Reiwolt
Barry v Gehrig
Crouch v Milne
Mathews v Guerra

DST

Gehrig mainly stays at home & wins his ball in wrestling contests one on one. He will cause trouble on whever gets him. I think given Leo's ability to spoil against the lead, he will be better up the ground on Hamill. I would also start Bevan on Milne - don't think he will let us down and we need Crouchy in the midfield.

[barry]

Originally posted by dendol
Now you are basing you arguments on "should have"? Our defense SHOULD HAVE stopped every goal, and our forwards SHOULD HAVE kicked every one. Kicking for goal is part of the game, just like getting clearances, and taking marks. You say we are only as good as our last week. By that token, our goal kicking is what is going to let us down against the Saints.

I understand the point you are trying to make, but Im not one to blindly build up optimism based on the scoring shots of 4 teams played with different tactics, played in different states with different weather conditions. You also have to look at the matchups. We DONT have any available players to match up on Gehrig.

That said, I do have a good feeling about next Sunday's game though - whether it be we win or just put up a very good fight, im not sure. But Im basing my feelings on what I have seen in the last two weeks, not scoring shots.

So I am, and scoring shots is part of my evidence, not just "gut feel".

I admit the big question remains that we need convert more shots on goal into actual goals. But IMO thats far easier to fix than defense or midfield problems which plagued us earlier in the year. At least half of those missed shots against the dogs were outright clangers which should be easy to rectifiy.

[Bart]

B: Crouch, Barry, Bevan
F: Milne, Gehrig, Koschitzke

HB: Kennelly, Bolton, Goodes
HF: Guerra, Hamill, Riewoldt

C: Maxfield, Williams, Mathews
C: Harvey, Ball, Dal Santo

HF: O?Keefe, Hall, Davis
HB: Schwarze, Maguire, Jones

F: Buchanan, Doyle, O?Loughlin
B: Baker, Penny, Hudghton

FOLL: Ball, Kirk, Bolton,
FOLL: Knobel, Hayes, Powell

I/C: Ablett, Fosdike, McVeigh, Nicks
I/C: Goddard, Thompson, Blake, Clarke

[Donners]

I'd throw Hall to full back, just for something different. Use O'Loughlin and maybe Doyle out of the goalsquare, Goodes/O'Keefe/Davis across half-forward and have Hall matching Gehrig one-on-one. He's the only player we've got who can go body-on-body with Gehrig, and our forward half is strong enough to cope without Hall for a game.

[ScottH]

Not a bad team/matchup Roos, I mean Bart.
The only two I question might be switching Bevan and Kennelly.

Are you sure you are not Roos in disguise??