Wednesday, May 19, 2010

2009 was Saints’ best chance

Regular readers will know that we at AussieRulesBlog are long-time Bombers fans, so it’s important to state at the outset that this post is not (intended to be) a case of grandstanding after a victory.

 

We wonder whether, after a stellar 2009, the Saints can again scale those same heights.

 

We look back at the experience of Essendon’s Matthew Lloyd, who was never the same dominant player after tearing his hammy from the bone.

 

Nick Riewoldt’s injury would appear to be less severe than that extreme (Lloyd’s), but nevertheless is likely to restrict his famously high in-game workrate to at least some extent.

 

What makes Riewoldt’s absence more troubling for a Saints Premiership tilt is the failure, so far, of his teammates to step up to the breach.

 

We are firmly of the opinion that the secondary effect of Riewoldt’s absence — after the loss of his possessions and presence — has been the Saints’ remaining big forwards suddenly finding themselves matched against a better class of defender. It’s fair to assume that the opposition’s best tall defender would normally go to Riewoldt, but is now pitted against Koschitzke (or Fisher or Goddard).

 

When the Saints’ game style was already under attack as opposition coaches developed strategies to combat it, the loss of Riewoldt’s lead-up presence and strong contested marking has left the Saints somewhat leaderless up forward.

 

The writing had been faintly visible on the wall later in the 2009 season when the Saints lost two games, but has blazed into full view as Riewoldt’s absence in 2010 suggests they will struggle to maintain the same game style and intensity.

 

The big question will be how well Riewoldt heals and how close to his former output he can achieve. His expected return later in the 2010 season can hardly be expected to produce much more than increased morale, as he’ll be severely underdone for match practice at least.

 

As each year passes, and Riewoldt’s body ages, his output and impact on matches would be naturally diminishing anyway. Factor in this serious hamstring injury and the fall away will be more pronounced.

 

Can the current Saints win a Premiership without Riewoldt? Three losses in four weeks would suggest they can’t. Can they win with Riewoldt-lite? It would seem to be unlikely at best. It’s unfortunate that this most effective example of the benefits of the AFL’s equalisation strategy should have run up against what may yet turn out to be as good a team as the competition has seen in its history.

2 comments:

Kick2Kick said...

Think you may be onto something here ARB, I'm surprised just how reliant they are on st Nick, bit like West Coast loosing Judd & Cousins. Yes he is a big loss but if Geelong lost Ablett they would still be a threat..

Murph said...

The comparison with the Cats is stark, isn't it. I think an Ablett-less Geelong would still be a genuine flag favourite.

2009 was Saints’ best chance

Regular readers will know that we at AussieRulesBlog are long-time Bombers fans, so it’s important to state at the outset that this post is not (intended to be) a case of grandstanding after a victory.

 

We wonder whether, after a stellar 2009, the Saints can again scale those same heights.

 

We look back at the experience of Essendon’s Matthew Lloyd, who was never the same dominant player after tearing his hammy from the bone.

 

Nick Riewoldt’s injury would appear to be less severe than that extreme (Lloyd’s), but nevertheless is likely to restrict his famously high in-game workrate to at least some extent.

 

What makes Riewoldt’s absence more troubling for a Saints Premiership tilt is the failure, so far, of his teammates to step up to the breach.

 

We are firmly of the opinion that the secondary effect of Riewoldt’s absence — after the loss of his possessions and presence — has been the Saints’ remaining big forwards suddenly finding themselves matched against a better class of defender. It’s fair to assume that the opposition’s best tall defender would normally go to Riewoldt, but is now pitted against Koschitzke (or Fisher or Goddard).

 

When the Saints’ game style was already under attack as opposition coaches developed strategies to combat it, the loss of Riewoldt’s lead-up presence and strong contested marking has left the Saints somewhat leaderless up forward.

 

The writing had been faintly visible on the wall later in the 2009 season when the Saints lost two games, but has blazed into full view as Riewoldt’s absence in 2010 suggests they will struggle to maintain the same game style and intensity.

 

The big question will be how well Riewoldt heals and how close to his former output he can achieve. His expected return later in the 2010 season can hardly be expected to produce much more than increased morale, as he’ll be severely underdone for match practice at least.

 

As each year passes, and Riewoldt’s body ages, his output and impact on matches would be naturally diminishing anyway. Factor in this serious hamstring injury and the fall away will be more pronounced.

 

Can the current Saints win a Premiership without Riewoldt? Three losses in four weeks would suggest they can’t. Can they win with Riewoldt-lite? It would seem to be unlikely at best. It’s unfortunate that this most effective example of the benefits of the AFL’s equalisation strategy should have run up against what may yet turn out to be as good a team as the competition has seen in its history.

2 comments:

Kick2Kick said...

Think you may be onto something here ARB, I'm surprised just how reliant they are on st Nick, bit like West Coast loosing Judd & Cousins. Yes he is a big loss but if Geelong lost Ablett they would still be a threat..

Murph said...

The comparison with the Cats is stark, isn't it. I think an Ablett-less Geelong would still be a genuine flag favourite.