03-03-2018, 11:16 AM
(03-02-2018, 10:40 PM)DJC link Wrote: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?
"Forget the result" says Peter Ryan - I'd accept that if they'd played their kids or threw them around positionally. But they didn't - and they really wanted to win. They seemed to throw everything at that game and had their first choice midfield in the middle for the bulk of the game. We seemed to be putting time into some experimental centre square setups with Cripps often absent - and we had 2 fewer players!
"Forget the result"... I'm sure Richardson won't be.
They got beaten by a team that was pulling away (against the wind).