Pickett was fine but the guy that the Saints were running with was Bruton level.
Printable View
Pickett was fine but the guy that the Saints were running with was Bruton level.
This was basically what I expected from the Saints when they started this recruitment drive. A spike in performance but ultimately falling well short of being a contender.
I think sides are playing them better and NOT letting them get the 'over the back/forward of the ball' goals they were last year. As a result, they are getting hammered around the contest and look putrid defensively.
The recruitment of Hanners was always stupid, he's been cooked since the 2016 GF after the incident with Wood. Crouch is bog average and Hill is cream, but it does surprise me how much he's struggled last year and this year.
I was the same. And its not just the acquisitions from last year. Going back Hannebery, and even in 2016 they traded their 1st round pick which was a top 10 pick.
They've traded heavily for players that will give the club an on field boost, but ultimately don't fit into a cohesive longer term plan that positions them for a tilt at the flag.
None of Hill, Hannebery or Carlisle will be there when they can expect to challenge for a flag.
They had an opportunity to rebuild when they first appointed Ratten, and instead chose to go the Michael Voss Brisbane Lions approach. I think they're in for some pain over the next few years.
They have added some young talent to the list over the past few years (Clark, Coffield*, King) and a few of their trade acquisitions are long termers (Howard & Butler) so it isn't totally sell your farm stage, but quite a few list mgt. decisions look puzzling based on output so far.
Hannebery & Ryder torched us in the EF last year so when on the park their output is still there, but for reasons known that part is missing.
* Thinking in hindsight they should have selected a high marking WA lad with this selection. ;)
I have mixed feelings about them. I could relate with them and their fans as a kid, when we were both inconsequential clubs.
From the Grant Thomas days through to Ross Lyon I think a bit of a rivalry began to be cultivated as we both were striving for success.
I have two very good friends who are Saints fans... and over the past few years I've queried their club's list and recruiting decisions, but they have disagreed, or at least justify why they've pursued this approach over bottoming out and rebuilding. They both think that the club was so low during Richardson's era that the clubs needed a bump to keep supporters on board... I think its a false premise, especially if all it does is just put off the inevitable and they end up needing to do a full rebuild anyway.
We're paying Treloar 2/3rds of what the saints are paying Brad Hill.
This makes me happy.
Dan Butler was phenomenal for most of last year but I wondered how much “new club dead cat bounce” there was about it.
To be fair I think he is a good average player (and overall one of their better acquisitions), but I don’t think they can rely on him being the AA contending, second in the B&F world beater each year that they need. He has certainly been anything but that so far this year.
This looked fairly obvious last season. They like playing one way and one way only. The games they won they had the majority of goals kicked from around the goal square. What I don't understand is why it takes AFL clubs so long to adjust to a teams strategy. The only team I saw last season play against the saints with an intention to stop their style was Geelong. And they absolutely belted them. Another reason I was so disappointed with our loss to them in the finals. We let them play exactly how they wanted to. Come to think of it, I can't remember a time in recent history where the saints actually beat us. We always let them beat us.