In the article covering an interview with Ball, Ball commented that Footscray had a player off the Rookie List doing the same job as Goddard does at St Kilda, Goddard being a No. 1 Draft Choice.
Lyon, for his part, has been quoted as referring to the minimal number of players St Kilda has introduced to its side over the past 4 or 5 years - I think Lyon referred to 5 or 8 depending on the number of years.
The crux of the problem St Kilda find themselves in is identified by Ball and Lyon.
In terms of on-field performance, I still can not get over the Brisbane game, which was an embarrassment because St Kilda did not give the appearance of even trying, which is a damming summary.
But that is what it looked like from a spectator's view.
And our form since then has been no better, and, having been in Brisbane and seeing what I saw, that has not surprised me one iota.
The question has to be asked about division in the ranks - been there, seen that before and the current performance of the St Kilda players says something must be wrong because footballers have egos - massive egos and they look to protect those egos. It goes with the territory. Football Clubs and egos.
This division can start from the top - being the Board and confidence in the Board.
It is also the responsibility of the Board to satisy itself that ALL connected with the St Kilda FC have the St Kilda FC as their sole commitment - St Kilda FC are, after all, the employers.
I note the Board, the Coaching Staff and the players dined together the other night - and this was said to be a useful exercise.
I would put that it was only a successsful exercise if the Football Department was put under notice as to performances on the field, and given KPI requirements to address the situation.
From yet another insipid performance against Sydney, nothing has come from the fraternising between the Board and the Football Department.
The previous Board moved against Blight, quickly and they moved against Thomas (2 years too late in my view, as now confirmed by the quotes attributed to Ball and Lyon, Thomas was lazy and self-indulgent, pandered by his own ego).
The entire Football Department now has to be on Notice, and that includes the players.
Expectation has to be put at everyone's feet - and they have the remainder of this playing season to show what they can bring to St Kilda FC and the success of St Kilda FC.
The presumption that the Football Department be given time, because change de-stabilises is based on false tenant.
Success is the driver, not stability.
Stability is stability at Board level, a stability housing itself in the conclusion that the Board know what they are up to, and why. Such that everyone connected with the Club supports the Board's decisions, no matter, because they know those decisions are in the best interests of the Club and success at the Club.
Stability is the control of the Club, including financially.
And the Board has control - totally.
Given the comments of Ball and now Lyon, I would expect that those at Casey such as McEvoy, Howard, Armitage, R. Clarke Allen and Steven (there are no others, as Ball and Lyon have told us) would be introduced to Senior football over the next immediate phase.
And certain who have reputations and do not bring their "A Grade" game, with "A Grade" impact are culled.
That will change culture, because the playing staff will recognise that no one is a "Hero" at St Kilda at this juncture.
And no one is in the side on any past performance.
The only games that count are last night's game against Sydney, and next weeks against Fremantle.
The past says that the future of St Kilda FC currently relies on the shoulders of 6 young men - and they have to take the places of the likes of the veterans, a few other long serving players who remain "cream on the cake" performers and under-performers.
Pretty big ask.
But that is what we are left with in 2008.
That and identifying and turning players thru the Draft system, including by using our Rookie List.
Our recruiting people had better be working damn hard - across every competition in the land from Under 10's up.
That said, I do believe we have a core, a solid core but with some significantly serious deficiencies in terms of key defenders, attacking mid-fielders and consistently dangerous small and mid sized forwards.
I note that certain players, and I will single out M. Gardiner, are evidencing the endeavour to improve and contribute, and enhance on their achievements in the game.
Others could take a lesson.
Ball, the facts and Lyon
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
-
To the top
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3266
- Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2007 4:05pm
- Been thanked: 390 times
-
kaos theory
- Club Player
- Posts: 1521
- Joined: Sun 14 Mar 2004 8:38pm
- Been thanked: 25 times
-
saintsRrising
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 30058
- Joined: Mon 15 Mar 2004 11:07am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 704 times
- Been thanked: 1219 times
-
Teflon
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 22850
- Joined: Sat 13 Mar 2004 11:44pm
- Has thanked: 714 times
- Been thanked: 1696 times
A balanced post TTT - good stuff and refreshing to read on here to be honest.
Our entire club have it all ahead - but the point you make in what will change culture IS valid - the message from Lyon from now has to be ego/reputations count for little. Only GENUINE effort matters. All start equals this week.
Lyon also needs to self analyse IMO. Im not a fan of the current assistants set up and to me its obvious that a key area we have fallen down this season is up fwd. He needs to hold Barker accountable and bring in someone else IMO - thats fine many assistants get turned over often. Synergy isnt just important on field.
As for our list many are STILL saying is quality etc - it has holes. Defence is one, HFF with pressure is another not to mention mids who can run and carry.
Lyon needs to develop AND coach. IMHO that was my biggest critcism of Thomas - he coached but didnt have the technical understanding of the game in my view to teach.
Our entire club have it all ahead - but the point you make in what will change culture IS valid - the message from Lyon from now has to be ego/reputations count for little. Only GENUINE effort matters. All start equals this week.
Lyon also needs to self analyse IMO. Im not a fan of the current assistants set up and to me its obvious that a key area we have fallen down this season is up fwd. He needs to hold Barker accountable and bring in someone else IMO - thats fine many assistants get turned over often. Synergy isnt just important on field.
As for our list many are STILL saying is quality etc - it has holes. Defence is one, HFF with pressure is another not to mention mids who can run and carry.
Lyon needs to develop AND coach. IMHO that was my biggest critcism of Thomas - he coached but didnt have the technical understanding of the game in my view to teach.
“Yeah….nah””
-
To the top
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3266
- Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2007 4:05pm
- Been thanked: 390 times
Running thru the current list, those who have appeared for the first time in AFL football, in a St Kilda jumper since and including 2004 have been :-
2004 - R. Clarke
2005 - McQualter
Gwilt
2006 - Gilbert
Rix (from another Club's Rookie List)
2007 - Armitage
Howard
Jones (from the Rookie List)
2008 - Geary (from the 2007 Rookie List)
How does that compare with other Clubs?
Given that there are questions over McQualter, Gwilt, Rix and Geary in regards prospects at this level, that Howard has managed 2 games to date, that R. Clarke needs to identify a flank position and make it his own, that Armitage is still a work in progress and needs to show continuing improvement and Jones needs to show consistency and improve his "polish", we are left with Gilbert (at 194cm and 92kg a developing defender).
Who have we lost over the same period, and exactly where is/are the like for like replacement/s?
Whilst not to the same alarming magnitude, the errors of 2004/05/06 have continued in 2007/08.
And this is why we are stagnating around a solid core, have no excitement and have no vibrancy.
It is also the reason we keep rotating the same players, because there is no central core which has been developed post obtaining high draft picks after the abysmal 2000, 2001 and 2002 seasons.
We have grabbed some rejects from other sides - and I do not include Gram because he could not force his way into a triple premiership side.
These other sides have cleaned out the likes of Ackland, Guerra, C. Gardiner, Schnieder. McGeogh etc. etc. etc. (so many I forget them!) to make room on their lists - and St Kilda FC fell for the 3 card trick.
The other sides have progressed.
St Kilda have gone the other way.
No matter the quality of the core, a core which is still being pushed into the ground (as it was in 2004) because it does not have the support it commands.
Therein lies the lesson, and the reason I say that St Kilda FC is so fragile at the moment that it relies exclusively on the shoulders of 6 young men, young men who have had very limited exposure to date at AFL level, to stand up and support the core.
Mind you, among that 6, we do not have the 2 key position defenders we require and that is a very real concern.
Sides who do not play finals have a player at CHB who would be on a flank in a premiership team.
Sam Fisher, and where he has to play is the barometer for St Kilda's improvement.
2004 - R. Clarke
2005 - McQualter
Gwilt
2006 - Gilbert
Rix (from another Club's Rookie List)
2007 - Armitage
Howard
Jones (from the Rookie List)
2008 - Geary (from the 2007 Rookie List)
How does that compare with other Clubs?
Given that there are questions over McQualter, Gwilt, Rix and Geary in regards prospects at this level, that Howard has managed 2 games to date, that R. Clarke needs to identify a flank position and make it his own, that Armitage is still a work in progress and needs to show continuing improvement and Jones needs to show consistency and improve his "polish", we are left with Gilbert (at 194cm and 92kg a developing defender).
Who have we lost over the same period, and exactly where is/are the like for like replacement/s?
Whilst not to the same alarming magnitude, the errors of 2004/05/06 have continued in 2007/08.
And this is why we are stagnating around a solid core, have no excitement and have no vibrancy.
It is also the reason we keep rotating the same players, because there is no central core which has been developed post obtaining high draft picks after the abysmal 2000, 2001 and 2002 seasons.
We have grabbed some rejects from other sides - and I do not include Gram because he could not force his way into a triple premiership side.
These other sides have cleaned out the likes of Ackland, Guerra, C. Gardiner, Schnieder. McGeogh etc. etc. etc. (so many I forget them!) to make room on their lists - and St Kilda FC fell for the 3 card trick.
The other sides have progressed.
St Kilda have gone the other way.
No matter the quality of the core, a core which is still being pushed into the ground (as it was in 2004) because it does not have the support it commands.
Therein lies the lesson, and the reason I say that St Kilda FC is so fragile at the moment that it relies exclusively on the shoulders of 6 young men, young men who have had very limited exposure to date at AFL level, to stand up and support the core.
Mind you, among that 6, we do not have the 2 key position defenders we require and that is a very real concern.
Sides who do not play finals have a player at CHB who would be on a flank in a premiership team.
Sam Fisher, and where he has to play is the barometer for St Kilda's improvement.
-
3rd generation saint
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: Thu 28 Dec 2006 8:34am
- Location: Jurassic Park
Some very good points here, I find it interesting that Malcolm Blight made some unsavoury comments about the club and it's history just before he got sacked.
Some say those comments were the last straw for the sacking.
The really sad thing about Malcolm Blight's comments is that they were true and as they say the truth hurts.
We have too acknowledge our miserable history and thoroughly admit the mistakes that have been made.
Because to date we haven't and as a result we keep making the same mistakes over and over, which maintains the club's total lack of success.
Some say those comments were the last straw for the sacking.
The really sad thing about Malcolm Blight's comments is that they were true and as they say the truth hurts.
We have too acknowledge our miserable history and thoroughly admit the mistakes that have been made.
Because to date we haven't and as a result we keep making the same mistakes over and over, which maintains the club's total lack of success.
-
Animal Enclosure
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2364
- Joined: Mon 04 Apr 2005 2:37pm
- Location: Saints Footy Central
One question about the coaching staff.
Barker seems to be public enemy no.2 due to our ordinary fwd set up. Rock has been mentioned by a number as the one to stay. Who is coaching the midfielders who kick the ball to the forwards? As far as I see, that is a bigger problem than a poor forward structure.
You would hope that the head coach would be able to influence forward tactics anyway. Is Barker just coaching Lyon's game plan?
Barker seems to be public enemy no.2 due to our ordinary fwd set up. Rock has been mentioned by a number as the one to stay. Who is coaching the midfielders who kick the ball to the forwards? As far as I see, that is a bigger problem than a poor forward structure.
You would hope that the head coach would be able to influence forward tactics anyway. Is Barker just coaching Lyon's game plan?
-
Teflon
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 22850
- Joined: Sat 13 Mar 2004 11:44pm
- Has thanked: 714 times
- Been thanked: 1696 times
Yep thats how I see it also.To the top wrote:Running thru the current list, those who have appeared for the first time in AFL football, in a St Kilda jumper since and including 2004 have been :-
2004 - R. Clarke
2005 - McQualter
Gwilt
2006 - Gilbert
Rix (from another Club's Rookie List)
2007 - Armitage
Howard
Jones (from the Rookie List)
2008 - Geary (from the 2007 Rookie List)
How does that compare with other Clubs?
Given that there are questions over McQualter, Gwilt, Rix and Geary in regards prospects at this level, that Howard has managed 2 games to date, that R. Clarke needs to identify a flank position and make it his own, that Armitage is still a work in progress and needs to show continuing improvement and Jones needs to show consistency and improve his "polish", we are left with Gilbert (at 194cm and 92kg a developing defender).
Who have we lost over the same period, and exactly where is/are the like for like replacement/s?
Its all hindsight but facts are we moved away from developing and continuing to bring in kids - you can understand that in some way as we were going for a flag - BUT what this tells me and the lesson is: If you punt for a top up and dont at least attempt to keep bringing in some quality kids.......and dont get that flag......you pay a premium price.
“Yeah….nah””
-
To the top
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3266
- Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2007 4:05pm
- Been thanked: 390 times
So let's go to the next level.
And watch the sparks fly now!
I have made reference to Board responsibility.
I remain firmly of the belief that the previous Board was "turfed out" at precisely the wrong time, and we now have an in-experienced Board, again precisely at the wrong time.
This is also the history of St Kilda FC. And its membership.
The previous Administration had got past the "Learner Wheels" period, had correctly addressed the eradication of debt as the primary and necessary first action, had acted contrary to that by appointing Blight on the salary he was on, bit the bullet on Blight (for a raft of reasons), moved onto Thomas because he also had learnt the lesson at the Board table, did it on the cheap with Thomas (by necessity), cleared the debt, lifted the sole focus to matters football, recognised those factors I have highlighted (and probably more), realised the Thomas "model" was not sustainable and issued instruction Thomas did not embrace and ultimately sacked him (and, quite frankly, he should have been sacked at the end of the 2004 season - but even my mates disagreed with me on this at that time because superficially 2004 was seen as a successful season, by St Kilda FC standards. Even though a young side had been absolutely run into the ground by the Carlton game at Docklands - in which we kicked 30 plus goals but a number of players were physically spent - and we have paid the price ever since - exacerbated by list management issues as covered).
Now we have a "new board" courtesy of the cancer which is Thomas, we have the real emergence of the problem and the reason the previous Board belatedly acted against Thomas (after instructing that he embrace the model the Board directed he follow), a problem the "new board" did not know of and is not equipped to handle except for the President saying the Coach was safe for 10 years because the "instability" of the Board changing coaches is not good for the club - after talks with Costa at Geelong where hindsight is a wonderful thing because Thompson was "gone" at the end of 2006, and survived on a split vote.
The statement of our President shows he, and his Board, are still learning.
And I repeat, at precisely the wrong time in this club's history.
The previous Board addressed a problem they had identified.
The current Board are now finding out about that problem, and are searching around for answers by asking others such as Costa, and repeating Costa to us - but Costa is the President of Geelong and only has the interests of Geelong in his sights - definately not St Kilda.
We have a Rookie Coach, a Rookie Board and a dysfunctional list not doing service to a solid core of good footballers.
Stability starts at the top.
We do not have that stability, and we are in rough waters.
The financial performance of the Club encompassing this current season will be of interest.
The previous President and his Board should have been backed to the hilt by the membership in regards the Thomas saga - because that shows a stable club.
When the Board said that Thomas had not embraced the model the Board had directed he follow, and had railed against it the Board should have been backed by the members.
Because the Board was the Football Club, not the (erstwhile) Coach.
A right call followed by a wrong call.
Now we have our collective fingers crossed.
And watch the sparks fly now!
I have made reference to Board responsibility.
I remain firmly of the belief that the previous Board was "turfed out" at precisely the wrong time, and we now have an in-experienced Board, again precisely at the wrong time.
This is also the history of St Kilda FC. And its membership.
The previous Administration had got past the "Learner Wheels" period, had correctly addressed the eradication of debt as the primary and necessary first action, had acted contrary to that by appointing Blight on the salary he was on, bit the bullet on Blight (for a raft of reasons), moved onto Thomas because he also had learnt the lesson at the Board table, did it on the cheap with Thomas (by necessity), cleared the debt, lifted the sole focus to matters football, recognised those factors I have highlighted (and probably more), realised the Thomas "model" was not sustainable and issued instruction Thomas did not embrace and ultimately sacked him (and, quite frankly, he should have been sacked at the end of the 2004 season - but even my mates disagreed with me on this at that time because superficially 2004 was seen as a successful season, by St Kilda FC standards. Even though a young side had been absolutely run into the ground by the Carlton game at Docklands - in which we kicked 30 plus goals but a number of players were physically spent - and we have paid the price ever since - exacerbated by list management issues as covered).
Now we have a "new board" courtesy of the cancer which is Thomas, we have the real emergence of the problem and the reason the previous Board belatedly acted against Thomas (after instructing that he embrace the model the Board directed he follow), a problem the "new board" did not know of and is not equipped to handle except for the President saying the Coach was safe for 10 years because the "instability" of the Board changing coaches is not good for the club - after talks with Costa at Geelong where hindsight is a wonderful thing because Thompson was "gone" at the end of 2006, and survived on a split vote.
The statement of our President shows he, and his Board, are still learning.
And I repeat, at precisely the wrong time in this club's history.
The previous Board addressed a problem they had identified.
The current Board are now finding out about that problem, and are searching around for answers by asking others such as Costa, and repeating Costa to us - but Costa is the President of Geelong and only has the interests of Geelong in his sights - definately not St Kilda.
We have a Rookie Coach, a Rookie Board and a dysfunctional list not doing service to a solid core of good footballers.
Stability starts at the top.
We do not have that stability, and we are in rough waters.
The financial performance of the Club encompassing this current season will be of interest.
The previous President and his Board should have been backed to the hilt by the membership in regards the Thomas saga - because that shows a stable club.
When the Board said that Thomas had not embraced the model the Board had directed he follow, and had railed against it the Board should have been backed by the members.
Because the Board was the Football Club, not the (erstwhile) Coach.
A right call followed by a wrong call.
Now we have our collective fingers crossed.
-
Teflon
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 22850
- Joined: Sat 13 Mar 2004 11:44pm
- Has thanked: 714 times
- Been thanked: 1696 times
TTT I wish you all the best in the next life...your about to learn that to some STILL on here that Grant Thomas WAS the club - Board and all.
I didnt support the Westaway appointment BUT I acknowledge that Rod Butters did not handle Thomas and the preception game via the media well and that hurt him. His Board IMHO did a fine job for this club and since his departure he has conducted himself with class. The same cant be said for Thomas who is constantly attempting to be controversial to maintain a media career because he knows NO OTHE AFL CLUB will touch this bloke.
All that aside we coud handle a rookie coach, rookie board IF ONLY we werent now in a dire predicament that sees GC teams coming in and compromised drafts for the next 5 yrs......as Essendon CEO said tonight....Hawks, Carltons, are gonna benefit enormously from bottoming out at the right time.....we wont and may struggle for a while I fear.
This coach and board have got their work cut out.
I didnt support the Westaway appointment BUT I acknowledge that Rod Butters did not handle Thomas and the preception game via the media well and that hurt him. His Board IMHO did a fine job for this club and since his departure he has conducted himself with class. The same cant be said for Thomas who is constantly attempting to be controversial to maintain a media career because he knows NO OTHE AFL CLUB will touch this bloke.
All that aside we coud handle a rookie coach, rookie board IF ONLY we werent now in a dire predicament that sees GC teams coming in and compromised drafts for the next 5 yrs......as Essendon CEO said tonight....Hawks, Carltons, are gonna benefit enormously from bottoming out at the right time.....we wont and may struggle for a while I fear.
This coach and board have got their work cut out.
“Yeah….nah””
-
Shaggy
- Club Player
- Posts: 1404
- Joined: Fri 26 May 2006 4:29pm
- Has thanked: 31 times
- Been thanked: 132 times
TTT you can't be serious.
The reason why 29 players on our list with finals experience are mostly playing below their abilities is because of the change in Board
.
Thats hilarious
The reason why 29 players on our list with finals experience are mostly playing below their abilities is because of the change in Board
.Thats hilarious
Last edited by Shaggy on Tue 17 Jun 2008 1:20am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Teflon
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 22850
- Joined: Sat 13 Mar 2004 11:44pm
- Has thanked: 714 times
- Been thanked: 1696 times
Not sure hes saying the relationship is that simple but one things for certain....we've got a new Board, New coach and a list requiring some change. That call for stability and nerve to make some change I agree with that.Shaggy wrote:You can't be serious.
The reason why 29 players on our list with finals experience are mostly playing below their abilities is because of the change in Board
Thats hilarious
“Yeah….nah””
-
To the top
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3266
- Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2007 4:05pm
- Been thanked: 390 times
-
rodgerfox
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 9059
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 9:10am
- Has thanked: 425 times
- Been thanked: 327 times
Passed them by?To the top wrote:Shaggy, are those 29 playing below their ability - or has the competition passed them by?
23-25yo's being 'passed by'??
What's the point of drafting kids then? If players are passed by by this modern game we keep hearing about after only 5 years in the system - why would you even bother drafting anyone under 22?
A 17 could be perfect for today's game, but by the time he's 23 he'll be washed up? So, if he isn't ready to play until he's 20 - you only get 60 games out of him if you're lucky?
I still cannot fathom that people think players such as Ball, Dal Santo, Montagna, Gram, Roo, Kosi, Baker, Hayes, Maguire, X, Fisher, BJ have been passed by and are duds. Thrown in a Premiership Ruckman, and AA ruckman plus two 23yo running premiership players, plus a dual Brownlow medallist and the best FB our club has seen since Danny Frawley.
As a list, a starting 18 on paper, that is an awesome list. Well balanced with maturity both physically and mentally, experienced and extremely skillful. Attacking, defensive with some of the best runners in the game.
I'm amazed that people can't just concede that these are seriously talented AFL footballers that simply have no direction and no serious desire at the moment - and coincidentally haven't had for the precise time that Lyon walked in the door.
These are guys that all clubs were falling over to throw bags of cash at only 2 years ago.
The racehorse is in good nick, it's the jockey that is the problem.
The race car is in the top 4 of the starting grid, but the driver is Raul Boesel.
Except the racehorse has a bad case of the yips, is slow and keeps forgetting how to run in a straight line. The race car is very much like Webbers, prone to just general failure. Potential is good, but is let down by poor performance.rodgerfox wrote:The racehorse is in good nick, it's the jockey that is the problem.
The race car is in the top 4 of the starting grid, but the driver is Raul Boesel.
Your analogy is completely inaccurate... you need to finish it for it be even close to realistic.
You're complaining that people are laying it at the foot of the players, but all you do is lay the blame at the feet of RL...
There is no point hiding your opinion. You don't like RL, so why hide behind "cryptic" analogies.
-
rodgerfox
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 9059
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 9:10am
- Has thanked: 425 times
- Been thanked: 327 times
Hide it??AP Erebus wrote:Except the racehorse has a bad case of the yips, is slow and keeps forgetting how to run in a straight line. The race car is very much like Webbers, prone to just general failure. Potential is good, but is let down by poor performance.rodgerfox wrote:The racehorse is in good nick, it's the jockey that is the problem.
The race car is in the top 4 of the starting grid, but the driver is Raul Boesel.
Your analogy is completely inaccurate... you need to finish it for it be even close to realistic.
You're complaining that people are laying it at the foot of the players, but all you do is lay the blame at the feet of RL...
There is no point hiding your opinion. You don't like RL, so why hide behind "cryptic" analogies.
I thought my stance and feelings on where we're at is very clear. What am I hiding??
I like Ross Lyon. Loved him as a player (even though I was a young kid when he was going around) and was happy with his appointment. I like him as a guy from what I've seen.
However, he isn't coaching us well.
He is coaching us very, very poorly.
Good players aren't playing well. Bad players aren't playing well. As a team, we reek.
Is it not clear enough for you now?? I've been saying this for weeks now.
In terms of my analogies, obviously you disagree, however I don't believe the car or the horse is flawed as such. I believe our list is very good and at a stage where it should be peaking almost. If not peaking, only 1 trade week away from being ideal.
It's the fact that we're not being coached well that is the problem.
-
spert
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8936
- Joined: Wed 29 Jun 2005 10:39pm
- Location: A distant beach
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 398 times
I agree rodgerfox.. Lyon was a good solid player and appears to be a nice bloke, but our team clearly displays a lack of purpose and direction, and a coach really needs to instill purpose and direction in his players. At the moment, I see an unmotivated team, dragging their heels. No real evidence of a positive coaching influence.
I'm almost starting to believe some rumours going around, that things may be a bit uneasy at the club between playing and coaching personnel.
I'm almost starting to believe some rumours going around, that things may be a bit uneasy at the club between playing and coaching personnel.
-
lewdogs
- Club Player
- Posts: 640
- Joined: Tue 17 Jun 2008 2:11pm
- Has thanked: 107 times
- Been thanked: 179 times
Why do these rumours seemt to come up each season. I just wish the players would pull their fingers out and show the kind of passion that would win us games, no matter who our coach is. If Nick could start kicking goals it would be a start. I mean, I love the guy with my whole heart but he has to dob those shots.
And please Ross, drop Blake he is a perennial dud.
And please Ross, drop Blake he is a perennial dud.
-
degruch
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8948
- Joined: Mon 19 May 2008 4:29pm
- Location: Croydonia
- Has thanked: 146 times
- Been thanked: 237 times
Don't believe Caro, or her minions. It's easy to say there's a 'problem at St Kilda', and it's easy to make everyone believe there's unrest...but can the club not just be out of form? Does there have to be a civil war involved as well?spert wrote:I agree rodgerfox.. Lyon was a good solid player and appears to be a nice bloke, but our team clearly displays a lack of purpose and direction, and a coach really needs to instill purpose and direction in his players. At the moment, I see an unmotivated team, dragging their heels. No real evidence of a positive coaching influence.
I'm almost starting to believe some rumours going around, that things may be a bit uneasy at the club between playing and coaching personnel.
-
SaintWodonga
- Club Player
- Posts: 1868
- Joined: Wed 04 Jul 2007 12:01am
- Location: Wodonga
- Contact:
Mate you nailed it... I agree. Our list management has been shocking to say the least. We have to go back to the youth policy and get some speed into our side.To the top wrote:Running thru the current list, those who have appeared for the first time in AFL football, in a St Kilda jumper since and including 2004 have been :-
2004 - R. Clarke
2005 - McQualter
Gwilt
2006 - Gilbert
Rix (from another Club's Rookie List)
2007 - Armitage
Howard
Jones (from the Rookie List)
2008 - Geary (from the 2007 Rookie List)
How does that compare with other Clubs?
Given that there are questions over McQualter, Gwilt, Rix and Geary in regards prospects at this level, that Howard has managed 2 games to date, that R. Clarke needs to identify a flank position and make it his own, that Armitage is still a work in progress and needs to show continuing improvement and Jones needs to show consistency and improve his "polish", we are left with Gilbert (at 194cm and 92kg a developing defender).
Who have we lost over the same period, and exactly where is/are the like for like replacement/s?
Whilst not to the same alarming magnitude, the errors of 2004/05/06 have continued in 2007/08.
And this is why we are stagnating around a solid core, have no excitement and have no vibrancy.
It is also the reason we keep rotating the same players, because there is no central core which has been developed post obtaining high draft picks after the abysmal 2000, 2001 and 2002 seasons.
We have grabbed some rejects from other sides - and I do not include Gram because he could not force his way into a triple premiership side.
These other sides have cleaned out the likes of Ackland, Guerra, C. Gardiner, Schnieder. McGeogh etc. etc. etc. (so many I forget them!) to make room on their lists - and St Kilda FC fell for the 3 card trick.
The other sides have progressed.
St Kilda have gone the other way.
No matter the quality of the core, a core which is still being pushed into the ground (as it was in 2004) because it does not have the support it commands.
Therein lies the lesson, and the reason I say that St Kilda FC is so fragile at the moment that it relies exclusively on the shoulders of 6 young men, young men who have had very limited exposure to date at AFL level, to stand up and support the core.
Mind you, among that 6, we do not have the 2 key position defenders we require and that is a very real concern.
Sides who do not play finals have a player at CHB who would be on a flank in a premiership team.
Sam Fisher, and where he has to play is the barometer for St Kilda's improvement.
-
To the top
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3266
- Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2007 4:05pm
- Been thanked: 390 times
Yes, RogerFox, passed them by.
Age has nothing to do with it.
It is your ability to compete on the field of play.
That, and that alone, is the criteria.
IF the fault is entirely with Lyon, as you assert, then the Board should act.
IF the fault is with the List, then the Lyon has to convince the Board that he is the person to design and engineer change.
Regardless, all at the club should have KPI's, and they should be measured against those KPI's on an on-going basis.
You see the absolute importance of the Board?
And why I comment on the Board and the transition?
I have said that we have the core of a competative side, but that that core is being beaten into submission because it does not have the support it deserves.
Therefore the pressure is on the shoulders of 6 young men who have had limited AFL experience, and I have identified them.
I have also pointed to the fact that we are short (excuse the pun) of 2 key-position defenders, one playing at CHB and the other in a Back Pocket - this is exacerbated by Hudgden's age and Gilbert being the only option - and the reason we have "torched" R. Clarke by mis-matching him solely because he is 189cm.
Once you get past this core, and some are playing out of position by necessity, then you get very, very quickly to those the game has by-passed - and that is our problem as evidenced by the players we currently continually rotate.
In terms of our 29 players who have played Finals football, and are still only young, add to this side :-
xxxxxxx Hudgden Gilbert
Gram xxxxxxx S. Fisher
Hayes Goddard Riewoldt
X. Clarke Koschitzke xxxxxxxx
Ball xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx
M. Gardiner Dal Santo Montagna
King, Harvey, xxxxxxx, xxxxxxx
Then allow for Hudgden and Harvey being toward the end of their careers.
It may be that Maguire comes good, but that would be icing on the sponge.
Apart from that, we look to Armitage, Allen, McEvoy, Steven, R. Clarke and Howard.
Still leaves some holes, doesn't it? Plus at least 4 of the xxxxxx's need some toe, to add the much needed pace and vitality to the side.
Outside the core I have put together and the six I list, the remainder of our list has been by-passed. Totally.
IF it had not been, we would NOT be in the position we are in today.
I have detailed the reasons I believe have contributed to our current situation - and the lessons the new Board should learn very, very quickly, because they are responsible.
Age has nothing to do with it.
It is your ability to compete on the field of play.
That, and that alone, is the criteria.
IF the fault is entirely with Lyon, as you assert, then the Board should act.
IF the fault is with the List, then the Lyon has to convince the Board that he is the person to design and engineer change.
Regardless, all at the club should have KPI's, and they should be measured against those KPI's on an on-going basis.
You see the absolute importance of the Board?
And why I comment on the Board and the transition?
I have said that we have the core of a competative side, but that that core is being beaten into submission because it does not have the support it deserves.
Therefore the pressure is on the shoulders of 6 young men who have had limited AFL experience, and I have identified them.
I have also pointed to the fact that we are short (excuse the pun) of 2 key-position defenders, one playing at CHB and the other in a Back Pocket - this is exacerbated by Hudgden's age and Gilbert being the only option - and the reason we have "torched" R. Clarke by mis-matching him solely because he is 189cm.
Once you get past this core, and some are playing out of position by necessity, then you get very, very quickly to those the game has by-passed - and that is our problem as evidenced by the players we currently continually rotate.
In terms of our 29 players who have played Finals football, and are still only young, add to this side :-
xxxxxxx Hudgden Gilbert
Gram xxxxxxx S. Fisher
Hayes Goddard Riewoldt
X. Clarke Koschitzke xxxxxxxx
Ball xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx
M. Gardiner Dal Santo Montagna
King, Harvey, xxxxxxx, xxxxxxx
Then allow for Hudgden and Harvey being toward the end of their careers.
It may be that Maguire comes good, but that would be icing on the sponge.
Apart from that, we look to Armitage, Allen, McEvoy, Steven, R. Clarke and Howard.
Still leaves some holes, doesn't it? Plus at least 4 of the xxxxxx's need some toe, to add the much needed pace and vitality to the side.
Outside the core I have put together and the six I list, the remainder of our list has been by-passed. Totally.
IF it had not been, we would NOT be in the position we are in today.
I have detailed the reasons I believe have contributed to our current situation - and the lessons the new Board should learn very, very quickly, because they are responsible.
-
Ray Broughton
- Club Player
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Fri 04 Apr 2008 9:57pm
You're dreaming, even if we had Malthouse, Sheeds or Mathews are list would not peak, it has already peaked and is now in decline. Argue with ladder positions .rodgerfox wrote: In terms of my analogies, obviously you disagree, however I don't believe the car or the horse is flawed as such. I believe our list is very good and at a stage where it should be peaking almost. If not peaking, only 1 trade week away from being ideal.
It's the fact that we're not being coached well that is the problem.
2008 (10) somewhere b/w 10 and 14 IMO
2007 9
2006 6
2005 3
2004 3
2003 11
2002 15
2001 15
Its a cycle, no matter who's coaching thats the way it happens.
Ray Broughton
~Fish Catcher and Saints Barracker~
"When I'm not watching saints, I'm catchin barra wearing my saints scarf in the 35 degree heat - that's the kinda fan I am"...
~Fish Catcher and Saints Barracker~
"When I'm not watching saints, I'm catchin barra wearing my saints scarf in the 35 degree heat - that's the kinda fan I am"...
-
rodgerfox
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 9059
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 9:10am
- Has thanked: 425 times
- Been thanked: 327 times
PortRay Broughton wrote:You're dreaming, even if we had Malthouse, Sheeds or Mathews are list would not peak, it has already peaked and is now in decline. Argue with ladder positions .rodgerfox wrote: In terms of my analogies, obviously you disagree, however I don't believe the car or the horse is flawed as such. I believe our list is very good and at a stage where it should be peaking almost. If not peaking, only 1 trade week away from being ideal.
It's the fact that we're not being coached well that is the problem.
2008 (10) somewhere b/w 10 and 14 IMO
2007 9
2006 6
2005 3
2004 3
2003 11
2002 15
2001 15
Its a cycle, no matter who's coaching thats the way it happens.
2003 - 1st
2004 - 1st
2005 - 8th
2006 - 12th
2007 - 2nd
Geelong
2003 - 12th
2004 - 4th
2005 - 6th
2006 - 10th
2007 - 1st
-
BAM! (shhhh)
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: Thu 24 May 2007 5:23pm
- Location: The little voice inside your head
Add in interstate teams such as West Coast, Sydney and Adelaide, take a look at the length of time it took Essendon to truly sink long after large parts of the awesome team of '99-'01 had gone.
There have been erratic fluctuations (Bulldogs, Geelong), and dips (Port) in the ladder over the last decade, and if we take a long view, the draft does appear to present a cycle...
it also appears that cycle can be managed, and that a team certainly does not peak over a period of 2 years and go into rapid decline. The curve that St Kilda finishes would form on a graph is co-incidental, it is not reflective of a trend in results as a whole. Taken by itself, the curve may look pretty, but it lacks context and sufficient data to draw any conclusion other than that.
There have been erratic fluctuations (Bulldogs, Geelong), and dips (Port) in the ladder over the last decade, and if we take a long view, the draft does appear to present a cycle...
it also appears that cycle can be managed, and that a team certainly does not peak over a period of 2 years and go into rapid decline. The curve that St Kilda finishes would form on a graph is co-incidental, it is not reflective of a trend in results as a whole. Taken by itself, the curve may look pretty, but it lacks context and sufficient data to draw any conclusion other than that.
"Everything comes to he who hustles while he waits"
- Henry Ford
- Henry Ford
-
Ray Broughton
- Club Player
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Fri 04 Apr 2008 9:57pm
Are you actually backing up my theory here? Though not as accentuated as STK the cycle of lulls and highs still exist, and unfortunately we are not GFC/Port so the comparison is irrelevant anyway.rodgerfox wrote:PortRay Broughton wrote:You're dreaming, even if we had Malthouse, Sheeds or Mathews are list would not peak, it has already peaked and is now in decline. Argue with ladder positions .rodgerfox wrote: In terms of my analogies, obviously you disagree, however I don't believe the car or the horse is flawed as such. I believe our list is very good and at a stage where it should be peaking almost. If not peaking, only 1 trade week away from being ideal.
It's the fact that we're not being coached well that is the problem.
2008 (10) somewhere b/w 10 and 14 IMO
2007 9
2006 6
2005 3
2004 3
2003 11
2002 15
2001 15
Its a cycle, no matter who's coaching thats the way it happens.
2003 - 1st
2004 - 1st
2005 - 8th
2006 - 12th
2007 - 2nd
Geelong
2003 - 12th
2004 - 4th
2005 - 6th
2006 - 10th
2007 - 1st
2007 9
2006 6
2005 3
2004 3
2003 11
2002 15
2001 15
2000 Last
1999 10
1998 6
1997 1
1996 10
1995 14
1994 13
1993 12
1992 6
1991 4
1990 9
Nope no cycle there.... better sack the coach as our list is about explode and take the competition by storm
Ray Broughton
~Fish Catcher and Saints Barracker~
"When I'm not watching saints, I'm catchin barra wearing my saints scarf in the 35 degree heat - that's the kinda fan I am"...
~Fish Catcher and Saints Barracker~
"When I'm not watching saints, I'm catchin barra wearing my saints scarf in the 35 degree heat - that's the kinda fan I am"...