03-02-2018, 10:40 PM
Peter Ryan has an article in today’s Age in which he analyses St Kilda’s options for “taking the next step”. He effectively dismisses their loss to us with the statement:
Yes, we did adapt quickly and our defenders playing several metres in front of their opponents in the first quarter led to many intercept possessions and forward thrusts.
It is true that the Saints outscored us - by five points - but that has little meaning when you are trying to make up a 27 point deficit. The fact that we outscored them in the last quarter - against the wind - is pertinent.
I’m not really sure that they “controlled plenty of play” either. They certainly strung together some good passages of play, and we did get a couple of goals against the flow, but I reckon we were more in control.
I guess it’s a reasonable article but why dismiss what was well planned and well executed victory?
Quote:The Blues adapted more quickly to the windy conditions kicking the first four goals but the Saints outscored them, and controlled plenty of play from that point on.
Yes, we did adapt quickly and our defenders playing several metres in front of their opponents in the first quarter led to many intercept possessions and forward thrusts.
It is true that the Saints outscored us - by five points - but that has little meaning when you are trying to make up a 27 point deficit. The fact that we outscored them in the last quarter - against the wind - is pertinent.
I’m not really sure that they “controlled plenty of play” either. They certainly strung together some good passages of play, and we did get a couple of goals against the flow, but I reckon we were more in control.
I guess it’s a reasonable article but why dismiss what was well planned and well executed victory?
“Why don’t you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don’t you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?” Oddball