List issues - GT as "anti-Messiah"

[WayneJudson42]

Which was the year that our injury list was so bad that the only player available against Collingwood and not picked was Houlihan? You know when the players had to introduce themselves to each other before the game?
Was it 2002/2003?
Anybody can make any statistic say whatever they want it to.
You could argue that some players got so many games because we had so many experienced players out through iunjury.

The whole argument is pointless. GT is not RL nad RL is not GT. They appear to have totally different philosophies on how to play, coach and train.

I'm really not sure that GT and Lyon have such different philosophies about coaching or list development.

I think Lyon has understandably lacked confidence and a sense of security in his first two seasons and this has led him to be more inclined to stick to his defensive gameplan and avoid taking too many risks, and also to show a bit of a bias towards hardworking, predictable and not particularly talented players such as Attard, Jones, McQualter, Dempster and Eddy.

I believe that we saw a somewhat more adventurous, attacking side of Lyon's approach to coaching emerge towards the end of the 2008 season. And he seemed to be the main promoter of the so-called "youth policy" which saw us go for the maximum number of draftees.

So I'm hoping to see Lyon engage in a bit of experimentation with lineups during 2009.

Good to see that you're still not over GT, and simply can't help but have a dig at RL.

On what basis do you think he was insecure etc? Are you a psychic?

As someone else mentioned... and you tend to ignore... GT had a bottom team and inherited high picks and was gifted Goddard thx to Carlton.

Once we moved up the ladder in 03... he recruited duds, with Gilbert and to a lesser degree Gwilt.

RL's recuits may well also turn out to be duds. But this doesn't alter the fact that the recruiting decisions from 03 onwards are hurting us today IMO. Just as RL's recruiting will affect the list in a few years time.

As for the defensive style... did us well later in the year IIRC.

[bigcarl]

During their first two seasons, the following list of Saints players played the following number of AFL games

Goddard 42
X Clarke 38
Maguire 29
Sam Fisher 28
Dal Santo 26
McQualter 17
R Clarke 17
Ball 16
Montagna 13
Leigh Fisher 10
Gwilt 5

Since 2006, we have had Armitage 16, Howard 2 (and gone), Allen 4 and, out of last season's draftees, we got a grand total of one game - McEvoy.

excellent points you raise here.


.

Excellent points.....or just highly biased in a comparison of apples and oranges?

Point 1...In that period we were at the bottom of the ladder.....and so as with Tigers at present you give the kids games to build a future.

Point 2...In that period our picks were on average lower with a lot of very early picks. If RL had had several top 3 picks no doubt some of them would have had more game time these last two seasons.


Point 3... And who did those younger players displace??? Point being back then our list was pretty awful and so therefore it was not that biga decision to play more kids.

Point 4... What was the consequences of playing more kids and this probably losing more games?
**back then = more very early draft picks (some call this tanking)
**last few years = finishinga number of places lower...but not low enough to get the gun draft picks.

Point 5...Also why is RL playing of the Rookies ignored in this comparison..???

Attard played virtually every game in his first year and no doubt if he had not wrecked his knee would have played many more..
Jones played 26 games in his first two seasons.

like i said, i don't want to buy into the whole GT v RL thing. it just goes around in circles and doesn't take us anywhere.

but it was pleasing to hear from ross's mouth on 3AW tonight that he wants to give new recruits from last year and this draft plenty of game time over the next few years.

i think he's on the right track with that. otherwise, why have a youth policy?

i dream of seeing a bunch of talented young players putting their hands up, demanding senior selection and creating huge competition for a place in the final 22.

[Teflon]

Which was the year that our injury list was so bad that the only player available against Collingwood and not picked was Houlihan? You know when the players had to introduce themselves to each other before the game?
Was it 2002/2003?
Anybody can make any statistic say whatever they want it to.
You could argue that some players got so many games because we had so many experienced players out through iunjury.

The whole argument is pointless. GT is not RL nad RL is not GT. They appear to have totally different philosophies on how to play, coach and train.

I'm really not sure that GT and Lyon have such different philosophies about coaching or list development.

I think Lyon has understandably lacked confidence and a sense of security in his first two seasons and this has led him to be more inclined to stick to his defensive gameplan and avoid taking too many risks, and also to show a bit of a bias towards hardworking, predictable and not particularly talented players such as Attard, Jones, McQualter, Dempster and Eddy.

I believe that we saw a somewhat more adventurous, attacking side of Lyon's approach to coaching emerge towards the end of the 2008 season. And he seemed to be the main promoter of the so-called "youth policy" which saw us go for the maximum number of draftees.

So I'm hoping to see Lyon engage in a bit of experimentation with lineups during 2009.

What this post conveniently ignores and which has already been pointed out in this thread is GT did his best work in his early draft years - why? he was gifted picks, including Goddard from Carlton.

Sadly when things got tougher in 2004/2005 have a look at our draft efforts - THE ONLY player we have as a genuine walk up start to our 22 from these years is Gilbert. Thats 2 complete years for 1 player. Thats a disgrace in anyones language.

What Grant Thomas did well was keep the list together. To do this we paid right on our salary cap limit - no problems from me here AS ALONG as you also have the ABILITY and CAP ROOM to select players who can bolster the bottom end of your list to complement your elite and take you to the next level. FACTS are Grant Thomas got us lots of high priced recruits, some gun players in early draft rounds and not enough "serviceable" players at the bottom end to make a difference (the Hamill 5 yr deal HAD to be the most stupid decision going round when all other clubs were abandoning these).

I wonder if Grant actually HAD the ability to snaffle (or see the need...) for a Dempster or even some serviceable players in Geary/Eddy off the rookie list to provide some support instead of Raymonds, Murrays, McGoughs, Stones, Brooks, Sweeneys, Fergusons et al where we may have actually gone. I am a firm believer that it is what you can draw from your bottom end that plays an enormous part in where you end up - you simply know what a Riewoldt is going to give you every week. Can you say the same for Gwilt?

I laugh at the above posts attempted backhander at Lyon for choosing "safe yet hardworking players" - did it ever occur to you babblelots that he knows his top 12 - 15 are as good as anyones and now he must introduce solid players to provide support ??- players like Dempster who are btw easily now in our best 22 and I think an absolute bargain get by Lyon.. as was Attard, doing great jobs before being crulled by injury? OR players like Stephen King to address (finally after failures under Thomas) St Kilda's laughing stock of the league ruck situation??

So far from what Ive seen Id easily back Lyons ability to:

1. Identify our list holes and recruit to fix them (see King/Dempster and now Ray)
2. Select solid footballers that can at least get on the park and hold their own

Remember Ross Lyon does not have the luxury of numerous top 10 picks - Lyon inherited a good list at the core with little depth beyond that and hes now trying to bolster it while still making prelims....his gig is a lot harder than Thomas' (who when he took over had a club that couldnt get any lower lets face it...)

Bottom line is we are certainly dry for talented youth and IMHO the 2004 and 2005 draft failures are biting - we now pray that Armitage/Stevens/McEvoys can quickly bridge the gap while our best is still in their prime and at the same time attempt to cobble together some depth.

Lyons job isnt an easy one but I suspect he handles the pressure well and is up to it - instead of constantly looking back in the rear view mirror at false demi gods....I'll back him.

[Teflon]

Which was the year that our injury list was so bad that the only player available against Collingwood and not picked was Houlihan? You know when the players had to introduce themselves to each other before the game?
Was it 2002/2003?
Anybody can make any statistic say whatever they want it to.
You could argue that some players got so many games because we had so many experienced players out through iunjury.

The whole argument is pointless. GT is not RL nad RL is not GT. They appear to have totally different philosophies on how to play, coach and train.

I'm really not sure that GT and Lyon have such different philosophies about coaching or list development.

I think Lyon has understandably lacked confidence and a sense of security in his first two seasons and this has led him to be more inclined to stick to his defensive gameplan and avoid taking too many risks, and also to show a bit of a bias towards hardworking, predictable and not particularly talented players such as Attard, Jones, McQualter, Dempster and Eddy.

I believe that we saw a somewhat more adventurous, attacking side of Lyon's approach to coaching emerge towards the end of the 2008 season. And he seemed to be the main promoter of the so-called "youth policy" which saw us go for the maximum number of draftees.

So I'm hoping to see Lyon engage in a bit of experimentation with lineups during 2009.

Good to see that you're still not over GT, and simply can't help but have a dig at RL.

On what basis do you think he was insecure etc? Are you a psychic?

As someone else mentioned... and you tend to ignore... GT had a bottom team and inherited high picks and was gifted Goddard thx to Carlton.

Once we moved up the ladder in 03... he recruited duds, with Gilbert and to a lesser degree Gwilt.

RL's recuits may well also turn out to be duds. But this doesn't alter the fact that the recruiting decisions from 03 onwards are hurting us today IMO. Just as RL's recruiting will affect the list in a few years time.

As for the defensive style... did us well later in the year IIRC.

Great post Wayne - spot on.

[Saints Premiers 2008]

Which was the year that our injury list was so bad that the only player available against Collingwood and not picked was Houlihan? You know when the players had to introduce themselves to each other before the game?
Was it 2002/2003?
Anybody can make any statistic say whatever they want it to.
You could argue that some players got so many games because we had so many experienced players out through iunjury.

The whole argument is pointless. GT is not RL nad RL is not GT. They appear to have totally different philosophies on how to play, coach and train.

I'm really not sure that GT and Lyon have such different philosophies about coaching or list development.

I think Lyon has understandably lacked confidence and a sense of security in his first two seasons and this has led him to be more inclined to stick to his defensive gameplan and avoid taking too many risks, and also to show a bit of a bias towards hardworking, predictable and not particularly talented players such as Attard, Jones, McQualter, Dempster and Eddy.

I believe that we saw a somewhat more adventurous, attacking side of Lyon's approach to coaching emerge towards the end of the 2008 season. And he seemed to be the main promoter of the so-called "youth policy" which saw us go for the maximum number of draftees.

So I'm hoping to see Lyon engage in a bit of experimentation with lineups during 2009.

Good to see that you're still not over GT, and simply can't help but have a dig at RL.

On what basis do you think he was insecure etc? Are you a psychic?

As someone else mentioned... and you tend to ignore... GT had a bottom team and inherited high picks and was gifted Goddard thx to Carlton.

Once we moved up the ladder in 03... he recruited duds, with Gilbert and to a lesser degree Gwilt.

RL's recuits may well also turn out to be duds. But this doesn't alter the fact that the recruiting decisions from 03 onwards are hurting us today IMO. Just as RL's recruiting will affect the list in a few years time.

As for the defensive style... did us well later in the year IIRC.

Great post Wayne - spot on.

as per usual..i wonder how long it will take before wayne is run out of town though like plugger and stone cold before him

[rodgerfox]

But this doesn't alter the fact that the recruiting decisions from 03 onwards are hurting us today IMO.

But you do realise this is why the draft works the way it does? The top sides get the bottom picks, and the bottom sides get the top picks? The idea being that it balances out the lists?

[WayneJudson42]

But this doesn't alter the fact that the recruiting decisions from 03 onwards are hurting us today IMO.

But you do realise this is why the draft works the way it does? The top sides get the bottom picks, and the bottom sides get the top picks? The idea being that it balances out the lists?

No sh1t Sherlock... I don't think anyone's disputing this.

The draft has a delayed effect on lists, so technically, decisions from 3 years ago affect us now, and so, decisions taken this year will have their impact in a few years time. Then we can all judge the wisdom of said decisions accordingly.

The only exceptions to the rule are when you have players like Selwood and Rioli, and even Roo... who come out of nowhere in their first year or so.

There's a good chance that we'll be here in 2012 talking about how RL stuffed up ecruiting etc.

What's that? Oh, it's my stop... Im getting off this thread.

Peace.

[rodgerfox]

But this doesn't alter the fact that the recruiting decisions from 03 onwards are hurting us today IMO.

But you do realise this is why the draft works the way it does? The top sides get the bottom picks, and the bottom sides get the top picks? The idea being that it balances out the lists?

No sh1t Sherlock... I don't think anyone's disputing this.

The draft has a delayed effect on lists, so technically, decisions from 3 years ago affect us now, and so, decisions taken this year will have their impact in a few years time. Then we can all judge the wisdom of said decisions accordingly.

The only exceptions to the rule are when you have players like Selwood and Rioli, and even Roo... who come out of nowhere in their first year or so.

There's a good chance that we'll be here in 2012 talking about how RL stuffed up ecruiting etc.

What's that? Oh, it's my stop... Im getting off this thread.

Peace.

The whole argument confuses me.


There are a small bunch who wanted GT gone. They stated their reasons. When Lyon came on board, they wanted to believe that he was doing all the things that they felt GT wasn't.
He had to be! They were hanging their hats on it!

The problem was, that Lyon wasn't. He was recruiting old rejects. We had injuries. He played Milne up the ground. We're still losing assistant coaches every week. We still 'kicked it to Roo'. Blake still played in the ruck. We were still soft. We were still unfit. We were poor defensively.

All the things that GT was ignoring!

The problem was that we were actually getting worse. We were letting more goals through. We were givnig up easily. We couldn't even kick a score. We couldn't win games. We missed the 8 for the first time in 4 years.

This posed a problem for those declaring that Lyon was the messiah who was going to implement and fix everything that GT was oblivious to. It still poses a problem for them.

Which is why the only safe bet for saving face, was the declare that GT infact ruined the list. And that they were right all along - and that big bad GT set a time bomb at the club before he left....he'd sabotaged the list 3 years ago!

It's the only logical explanation as to why the club has gone backwards since GT left.

[saint66au]

Which was the year that our injury list was so bad that the only player available against Collingwood and not picked was Houlihan? You know when the players had to introduce themselves to each other before the game?
Was it 2002/2003?
Anybody can make any statistic say whatever they want it to.
You could argue that some players got so many games because we had so many experienced players out through iunjury.

The whole argument is pointless. GT is not RL nad RL is not GT. They appear to have totally different philosophies on how to play, coach and train.

I'm really not sure that GT and Lyon have such different philosophies about coaching or list development.

I think Lyon has understandably lacked confidence and a sense of security in his first two seasons and this has led him to be more inclined to stick to his defensive gameplan and avoid taking too many risks, and also to show a bit of a bias towards hardworking, predictable and not particularly talented players such as Attard, Jones, McQualter, Dempster and Eddy.

I believe that we saw a somewhat more adventurous, attacking side of Lyon's approach to coaching emerge towards the end of the 2008 season. And he seemed to be the main promoter of the so-called "youth policy" which saw us go for the maximum number of draftees.

So I'm hoping to see Lyon engage in a bit of experimentation with lineups during 2009.

What this post conveniently ignores and which has already been pointed out in this thread is GT did his best work in his early draft years - why? he was gifted picks, including Goddard from Carlton.

Sadly when things got tougher in 2004/2005 have a look at our draft efforts - THE ONLY player we have as a genuine walk up start to our 22 from these years is Gilbert. Thats 2 complete years for 1 player. Thats a disgrace in anyones language.

What Grant Thomas did well was keep the list together. To do this we paid right on our salary cap limit - no problems from me here AS ALONG as you also have the ABILITY and CAP ROOM to select players who can bolster the bottom end of your list to complement your elite and take you to the next level. FACTS are Grant Thomas got us lots of high priced recruits, some gun players in early draft rounds and not enough "serviceable" players at the bottom end to make a difference (the Hamill 5 yr deal HAD to be the most stupid decision going round when all other clubs were abandoning these).

I wonder if Grant actually HAD the ability to snaffle (or see the need...) for a Dempster or even some serviceable players in Geary/Eddy off the rookie list to provide some support instead of Raymonds, Murrays, McGoughs, Stones, Brooks, Sweeneys, Fergusons et al where we may have actually gone. I am a firm believer that it is what you can draw from your bottom end that plays an enormous part in where you end up - you simply know what a Riewoldt is going to give you every week. Can you say the same for Gwilt?

I laugh at the above posts attempted backhander at Lyon for choosing "safe yet hardworking players" - did it ever occur to you babblelots that he knows his top 12 - 15 are as good as anyones and now he must introduce solid players to provide support ??- players like Dempster who are btw easily now in our best 22 and I think an absolute bargain get by Lyon.. as was Attard, doing great jobs before being crulled by injury? OR players like Stephen King to address (finally after failures under Thomas) St Kilda's laughing stock of the league ruck situation??

So far from what Ive seen Id easily back Lyons ability to:

1. Identify our list holes and recruit to fix them (see King/Dempster and now Ray)
2. Select solid footballers that can at least get on the park and hold their own

Remember Ross Lyon does not have the luxury of numerous top 10 picks - Lyon inherited a good list at the core with little depth beyond that and hes now trying to bolster it while still making prelims....his gig is a lot harder than Thomas' (who when he took over had a club that couldnt get any lower lets face it...)

Bottom line is we are certainly dry for talented youth and IMHO the 2004 and 2005 draft failures are biting - we now pray that Armitage/Stevens/McEvoys can quickly bridge the gap while our best is still in their prime and at the same time attempt to cobble together some depth.

Lyons job isnt an easy one but I suspect he handles the pressure well and is up to it - instead of constantly looking back in the rear view mirror at false demi gods....I'll back him.

I agree with much of this Teffers, but its such a shame that you have to demean your otherwise well-written thoughts with the mocking of people nicknames..you do it constantly and it just makes you come across as a smartass..but anyway..

I'm still not sold on Gilbo being a "Walk-up start" yet. Played well in the Pies game when the team did..but copped one of the ALL-TIME finals floggings by Williams in the Prelim. Raph on the other hand battled his guts out and was in our best 5-6 in both finals losses imo.

I agree that our drafts picks in the last few years havent come on as well as me might have liked..but..we of course would demand that every 1-2nd rounder is a Joel Selwood and every late pick a Sam Fisher. What has to be factored into those lists of course are career-ending (and imo that what are were) injuries to Fergus Watts and Barry Brooks. Who knows what they might have been without the serious injuries they copped early in the careers in RW&B. Allen now will be gone for most of 2009. Throw in rookie Attard who played every game only to do an ACL and get delisted. Add those names to the 2004-on list, without injuries and it MAY have looked rosier.

No doubting tho that the "new" generation have a gap to jump. That gap is the one between Roo, Dal, Kosi, Bally, Goose, X....and Eddy, McEvoy, Armo, Geaary and the new kids. To take the next step, more than a couple of those guys HAVE to jump that gap..sooner rather than later.

[rodgerfox]

What has to be factored into those lists of course are career-ending (and imo that what are were) injuries to Fergus Watts and Barry Brooks. Who knows what they might have been without the serious injuries they copped early in the careers in RW&B. Allen now will be gone for most of 2009. Throw in rookie Attard who played every game only to do an ACL and get delisted. Add those names to the 2004-on list, without injuries and it MAY have looked rosier.

Finally!!

This is one of the funniest things to come out of this whole debate.

Brooks was a GT disaster, as was Watts. They've almost become the 'pin ups' for the failure of GT's recruitment.

One broke his leg in half, the other did an ACL.

That get's forgotten conveniently.


However when talking about the value of Attard and Dempster, it's often described as 'before they did their knees they were looking Ok'. Hilariously hypocritical.

And what a waste of a pick Allen is!! Where is he?? In the grandstands??


Brooks and Watts both suffered what turned out to be career ending injuries. Was Thomas supposed to to foresee this?

[WayneJudson42]

But this doesn't alter the fact that the recruiting decisions from 03 onwards are hurting us today IMO.

But you do realise this is why the draft works the way it does? The top sides get the bottom picks, and the bottom sides get the top picks? The idea being that it balances out the lists?

No sh1t Sherlock... I don't think anyone's disputing this.

The draft has a delayed effect on lists, so technically, decisions from 3 years ago affect us now, and so, decisions taken this year will have their impact in a few years time. Then we can all judge the wisdom of said decisions accordingly.

The only exceptions to the rule are when you have players like Selwood and Rioli, and even Roo... who come out of nowhere in their first year or so.

There's a good chance that we'll be here in 2012 talking about how RL stuffed up ecruiting etc.

What's that? Oh, it's my stop... Im getting off this thread.

Peace.

The whole argument confuses me.


There are a small bunch who wanted GT gone. They stated their reasons. When Lyon came on board, they wanted to believe that he was doing all the things that they felt GT wasn't.
He had to be! They were hanging their hats on it!

The problem was, that Lyon wasn't. He was recruiting old rejects. We had injuries. He played Milne up the ground. We're still losing assistant coaches every week. We still 'kicked it to Roo'. Blake still played in the ruck. We were still soft. We were still unfit. We were poor defensively.

All the things that GT was ignoring!

The problem was that we were actually getting worse. We were letting more goals through. We were givnig up easily. We couldn't even kick a score. We couldn't win games. We missed the 8 for the first time in 4 years.

This posed a problem for those declaring that Lyon was the messiah who was going to implement and fix everything that GT was oblivious to. It still poses a problem for them.

Which is why the only safe bet for saving face, was the declare that GT infact ruined the list. And that they were right all along - and that big bad GT set a time bomb at the club before he left....he'd sabotaged the list 3 years ago!

It's the only logical explanation as to why the club has gone backwards since GT left.

GT was sacked long before I jumped on this forum. For me, it didn't bother me one way or the other if he was sacked or not.

I believe that injuries cost us big time. What I didn't like was the embarrasiing stuff like whispers in the sky and the cr@p between himself and RB. As we always said... GT had the players behind him. But I always thought his match day tactics were 2nd class against better coaches, and was concerned about the "revolving door" of fitness staff and assist coaches.

That said, I can only support his replacement.

To quote John Howard "you change the gov't you change the nation". Likewise, you change the coach you change the team.

Problem is, that someone's true legacy can only be judged retrospectively.

Although I believe that both RB and GT have let themselves down with their public comments, both did some great things for their club. I respect them for having a go.

SO I'll give RL time to get his sh1t together. He has a different game philosophy, and I'll stand by my comments that it takes time to reprogram players as well as build the right list to match the style.

With GT, we couldn't beat the flood. With RL we still can't. But what we can now do is counterflood. Which is ugly, but effective. They stop us, so we choke them.

The fitness aspect seems to have improved with the club spending and recruiting some of the best available. Which I suspect would never have happened under GT due to his autocratic style, and his personal conflict with the board.

As for the Assist coaches... I honestly can't answer that.

If we want to make a fair comparison, give RL 5 years then compare. Simple.

And as for the GT haters and the RL haters.. that's their problem. I'd prefer to focus on the "now" and hope that the club is working on the things it can control.

Have we gone backwards? In a sense, on field, yes we have. But maybe you have to before you can truly go forward. Then again, we have out some structures in place that will auger well for the future. Our on field decline was inevitable as the veterans of 04 and 05 departed.

History will tell.

[saint66au]

On the other hand though Rog..that was the pointy end..same drafts gave us Sweeney, Raymond, et al at the other end. Whilst noone expects 300 games from them, they werent exactly great value either.

The trouble with debates like this is that the main protagonists (imo) fall into the trap of being too polarised. RL era vs GT era..RB era vs GW era. You HAVE to be in one camp or the other and never the twain shall meet it seems. God forbid that a GT fan should ever say anything nice about RL..oh hell no thats not allowed

Fact is....GT, RB, GW and RL have all done some good things for St Kilda and also made some mistakes. Some people need to stand back, forget their agendas for a second..and look at the biiiiiiiiiig picture...of the St Kilda Football Club

[rodgerfox]

GT was sacked long before I jumped on this forum. For me, it didn't bother me one way or the other if he was sacked or not.

I believe that injuries cost us big time. What I didn't like was the embarrasiing stuff like whispers in the sky and the cr@p between himself and RB. As we always said... GT had the players behind him. But I always thought his match day tactics were 2nd class against better coaches, and was concerned about the "revolving door" of fitness staff and assist coaches.

That said, I can only support his replacement.

To quote John Howard "you change the gov't you change the nation". Likewise, you change the coach you change the team.

Problem is, that someone's true legacy can only be judged retrospectively.

Although I believe that both RB and GT have let themselves down with their public comments, both did some great things for their club. I respect them for having a go.

SO I'll give RL time to get his sh1t together. He has a different game philosophy, and I'll stand by my comments that it takes time to reprogram players as well as build the right list to match the style.

With GT, we couldn't beat the flood. With RL we still can't. But what we can now do is counterflood. Which is ugly, but effective. They stop us, so we choke them.

The fitness aspect seems to have improved with the club spending and recruiting some of the best available. Which I suspect would never have happened under GT due to his autocratic style, and his personal conflict with the board.

As for the Assist coaches... I honestly can't answer that.

If we want to make a fair comparison, give RL 5 years then compare. Simple.

And as for the GT haters and the RL haters.. that's their problem. I'd prefer to focus on the "now" and hope that the club is working on the things it can control.

Have we gone backwards? In a sense, on field, yes we have. But maybe you have to before you can truly go forward. Then again, we have out some structures in place that will auger well for the future. Our on field decline was inevitable as the veterans of 04 and 05 departed.

History will tell.

And although I don't agree with some points, what you're saying is completely valid.

No one will take umberidge with views like yours (they certainly may disagree), expressed in the way you've expressed them.

The problem with Saintsational over the past 3 years, is that people don't really share opinions and discuss/debate them - they pick a side and fight til the bitter end with those on the other side.

Maybe it was coincidence with world politics at the time, but the attitude clearly was, and still is, "You're either with us, or against us".

People expressed views at the time, and now, 4 years on, are still attempting to justify them. The views were that GT was hopeless and was neglecting pretty much everything, and he was the only thing between us and flag.

Now that that has been quite obviously put to rest (or at least you'd think so), those who wanted him gone, have been trying desperately to find other ways to justify their views at the time.

Rather than saying "I was wrong. Maybe he wasn't that bad after all", a hate and smear campaign began.

It's still going.


The funniest thing is, only 1 or maybe 2 posters seem to legitimately 'love GT'. The rest who have been pigeon holed as 'GT lovers' or are seen to be "against us" simply seem to think he was Ok, pretty good even.

The other funny thing is, that if you critique Ross Lyon, you're a GT lover aswell! The two, it seems, go hand in hand.


There you go, that's a brief history of Saintsational over the past 5 years.

[rodgerfox]

Fact is....GT, RB, GW and RL have all done some good things for St Kilda and also made some mistakes.

I agree that GT, RB and GW have done good things for St.Kilda, but I can't see what Lyon has done as yet.

Not saying he won't do anything, but as yet I just can't see what there is to be excited about.

Infact I'm as unexcited about our prospects in the short-medium term than I ever have been.

[rodgerfox]

God forbid that a GT fan should ever say anything nice about RL..oh hell no thats not allowed

I believe I'm one that is considered a 'GT fan' (although a 'fan' isn't a great choice of words). Regardless, you'll find I was very pleased with the Lyon appointment and made several threads about it.

Early on, I was heavy in my praise for Lyon in many areas.

However, since then I have been heavy in my criticism of him. Reason being - we're not going any good! Simple. There's no sinsiter motive or 'agenda' behind it - we're just very average on the footy field!

[meher baba]

Fact is....GT, RB, GW and RL have all done some good things for St Kilda and also made some mistakes.

I agree that GT, RB and GW have done good things for St.Kilda, but I can't see what Lyon has done as yet.

Not saying he won't do anything, but as yet I just can't see what there is to be excited about.

Infact I'm as unexcited about our prospects in the short-medium term than I ever have been.

And here's where you and I part company RF. I actually think that Lyon may well eventually turn out to be a far better coach than GT. I'm still worried that we don't quite have the team to go all the way: we probably only ever did with this group of players when Hamill was fully fit, and we haven't even come close to finding an adequate replacement (I still have hopes for Gwilt as a star medium forward, but I suspect that I don't have too many fellow supporters).

As WJ said, Lyon has improved our ability to choke opposing teams. Also, while I believe that he selects too many hard-working, low talent players (IMO, having Jones, Eddy, Dempster, Blake and McQualter all in the same 22 is 1-2 too many such players), but I also like the tough line he has taken towards fringe players: ie, they have to earn their spots. Like Lyon, I think that the "play the kids, get some games into them" thing is a load of rubbish. Except when you are at the bottom of the table and have the luxury of being able to experiment a bit (eg, 2002-03, but not in any season since then), you pick your best 22 every week.

Lyon has also shown faith in some players that are regular scapegoats on here (McQualter, Raph, Gwilt), and his faith has been rewarded. And I thought our attack was starting come good towards the end of 2008.

A parting comment: I'm so happy to see sRr and Teflon finally admit that GT started with a crap list and built it up to become a better one, and also that the core of the list that Lyon inherited from GT was one of the best in the league.

Good on you both: the truth will set you free.

[joffaboy]

Finally!!

This is one of the funniest things to come out of this whole debate.

Brooks was a GT disaster, as was Watts. They've almost become the 'pin ups' for the failure of GT's recruitment.

One broke his leg in half, the other did an ACL.

That get's forgotten conveniently.

What had Brooks done prior to doing his ACL? What had Watts done prior to breaking his foot?

Watts can be excused but Brooks got well and truly over his knee and never lived up to his potential.

However when talking about the value of Attard and Dempster, it's often described as 'before they did their knees they were looking Ok'. Hilariously hypocritical.

Not at all - Dempster was a premiership player and had played well for the Swans. he had forged an AFl football career and was starting to play very good football prior to doing his knee for the Saints.

Attard had played well as a stopper for the whole season in the seniors before doing his knee.

There is a vast difference between Watts and Brooks who never ever looked like it.

And what a waste of a pick Allen is!! Where is he?? In the grandstands??

So you are writing off a listed player? Even though we can look at Watts and Brooks because they are gone, how can you compare Allen who may well still have an AFL career?

Brooks and Watts both suffered what turned out to be career ending injuries. Was Thomas supposed to to foresee this?

Watts suffered a career ending injury. Brooks didn't. We trade pick 6 and 17 for Brooks, and 17 for Watts.

We used #26 for Dempster (and Schneider) and elevated Attard off the rookie list, and Allen as #59.

Just raw stats can show how Dempster, Attard, and even Allen has been more value for much lower picks (or in Attards case no pickl at all) for the loss of a first and two second round picks on Brooks and Watts.

Even taking out Watts we still wasted a first and seconf round pick on Brooks who was physically fit after his ACL but just couldn't cut it.

A terrible and disasterous trading decision, but hey we all know that GT took no part in trading, had no say in it, and left it all to JB, ( from his own mouth), so I suppose the whole argument is moot anyway.

[saint66au]

Still dunno about Brooks JB

As you say, the point is moot and its all hypothetical, but I just have this feeling that Brooks felt the pain from that ACL above his shoulders well after his knee healed. I dunno, maybe he was massively overrated, but that one game up at the Gabba notwithstanding, he just didnt look like a bloke who had full confidence in his body after that.

For the sake of the argument, you may conveniently forget that I believe we both had him a cert for the 2007 Brownlow as we stood at Crown and watched him play up at the Gabba that night

[rodgerfox]

A terrible and disasterous trading decision, but hey we all know that GT took no part in trading, had no say in it, and left it all to JB, ( from his own mouth), so I suppose the whole argument is moot anyway.

It is.


Especially considering that we have a 'list manager' who does all the work.


So Lyon is being lauded for fixing an area GT neglected, when Lyon doesn't even do it - and GT didn't do it!

[Joffa Burns]

Early on, I was heavy in my praise for Lyon in many areas.

However, since then I have been heavy in my criticism of him.

What was he doing so well when you praised him?
Give me a couple of examples of what deserved your praise.

When did he cease doing the things you praised him for?
What did he do that made you recant on the praise and become so critical?

What has to be factored into those lists of course are career-ending (and imo that what are were) injuries to Fergus Watts and Barry Brooks.

Brooks was a GT disaster, as was Watts. They've almost become the 'pin ups' for the failure of GT's recruitment.

One broke his leg in half, the other did an ACL.

That get's forgotten conveniently.

Can’t have the injury cop out for these two.

Brooks did an ACL and it finished his career?
How many players let an ACL finish their career?
Joel smith came back from an ACL that made Brook’s injury look like a bruised knee cap. Brooks didn’t come back (BTW he was never there before injury) because he didn’t have what it takes to play AFL football at the highest level.

FWIW I agreed with the recruitment of Brooks (although we paid over the odds with 2 picks), he was a highly rated young ruckman what was exactly what we needed to grow with the list. One first round pick was the right price but they had to give to get their man. One look at brooks at training and I thought we had a gun in the making. Kick mark and mobile!

Watts had a break to the fibula and cracked tibia – hardly shattering and played 10 weeks later. Nathan Brown, Jason Snell & Matt Maguire would probably give their left knackers to swap severity of leg breaks with Fergus (who is still playing Amo’s is he not?)

At the time I was peeved (and so were plenty other posters on this forum) that we recruited a slow KPP with our first pick when midfield depth was needed. The nepotism factor seemed to weigh heavier than Fergus’ ability or need at the club. Watching him at training and he was one paced, slow and had the turning circle of the Queen Mary.

Both Fergus and Barry had limitations that stopped them making AFL Footy.

I believe hindsight judges GT harshly on Brooks as he was a calculated risk; however the level of ambiguity involved with Watts means GT rightly cops a serve.

[bozza1980]

At the end of the day I don't understand how supporting one is denigrating the other or critisizing one is praising the other.

I don't believe that you have to denigrate GT's reign to support Ross Lyon. I hope that once Lyon takes us to the premiership we have all craved for that we can all look back more positively on the role Thomas had in rebuilding the club at the start of this decade.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

A couple of things to put to you- would our list be better or worse if GT was still in charge? i think it would be worse!!! we would probably trade our first 3 picks for a player like Thorntan cause we lack depth in the back line

We have not topped up with players.... we have brought in King, Schneider, Dempster and Gardiner and Ray and Begley

All these players cost us were, pick 90, pick26 and pick 31, what would have given us more over that 2 year period? the way Ross approached it

Dempster and Schneider were both under 24 when they were recruited they could still be 10 year + players and play 200 games for us...

On the recruiting side, the coaches have minimal say on who we draft and it has always been our mindset to get the best available with that pick, not matter where the draft is....

Under GT we would have delisted 3 players, and picked one back for a change of 2 people for the year

Under RL we get rid of the 'dead wood' and pick up 6 kids... dead wood meaning they are taking space on our list

Our list has changed in 2 years and for the better i say

i would hate to see our list if GT was still in charge.....



Sweeney, Rix, Ferguson would all be retained and all wouldnt play any games

oh and Meher' GT is not our coach how about you back our current one

I love how everyone knows what would have happened if GT was still in charge.

He's not. And Lyon is. And our list is no better than it was.

Which is disastrous considering the key players still on our list should be at their peak having had another 2 years under their belts.

What confounds me is the frequency with which those predictions involve a 180 on actual events that took place.

Such as the above. Thornton? A 1st, 2nd and 3rd? I can't remember the last time St Kilda got involved in an acquisition like that.

...

By this time, most of the "GT" debates tend to tell us more about us posters than anything new about the ex-coah/new coach themselves.

Alright, we never said we wanted Thornton, i was just throwing a crap name that GT would have rated and traded away picks for


Watts.... Brooks, do they ring a bell?

Out of those two players we traded 3 draft picks..

6, 17 and 21 possibly

what a shamble

In hindsight, they're pretty bad. Bust players for high picks.

What would you expect to pay today for Leuenberger and Gumbleton?

Probably a similar price - and if it worked out, both those guys are better prospects than any we have, and it could well be a coup. On the other hand, if they both amounted to nothing (for whatever reason), it could well be time for another firing.

Neither trade bears any semblance to the Thornton analogy.

[WayneJudson42]

That we are still debating this after 3 years is sad (myself included).

It seems that we not only have pro and anti GT crowds... we also appear to be creating an "I told you so" crowd.

Anyone wanna talk about next year and which players to expect to improve or be the "X" factor?

[BAM! (shhhh)]

Let's see some facts. GT was in charge for five off-seasons:

<SNIP: Excellent supporting work>

Of course, many of those are gone. We retain 13 out of the 38 players he brought to the club as of the end of 08, or 34%. Obviously we got absolutely nothing off the rookie list, but even taking out the 11 rookies, it's 13 out of 27 = 48%.

That's not great figures.

Are you sure? The 34/48% is interesting, but I certainly have never gone over a number of lists over a 7 year period to try and quantify what normal turnover is, what healthy turnover is, or what ideal turnover is.

Since teams are required to delist 3 a year for mandated turnover, we'd be expecting there to be at least 21 moved on over the period. In the first couple of years, you'd expect players recruited by others to be moved on, but similarly, in the first couple after a coach has moved on, you'd be expecting a new coach to endevour to put their stamp on a team with a larger number of delistings (as Lyon has done)... given that my perception is an average AFL career is 2 years long, I'd be expecting somewhere around 33/50% (depending on whether you count rookies, which are going to increase turnover further) to be high numbers (not that high means good), as my perception of Thomas was that he was a conservative, low turnover list manager.

Can anyone provide some context around the numbers?

[Mr Magic]

At the end of the day I don't understand how supporting one is denigrating the other or critisizing one is praising the other.

I don't believe that you have to denigrate GT's reign to support Ross Lyon. I hope that once Lyon takes us to the premiership we have all craved for that we can all look back more positively on the role Thomas had in rebuilding the club at the start of this decade.

My own opinion on this is that too many posters are still upset with teh sacking of GT and take it out unfairly on RL.

The passage of time has seen the 'legend of GT' rise in some posters eyes who almost feel 'disloyal' to his 'legend' by mantioning any praise to RL. In fact they go out of their way to try and find a reson why RL is not involved in the 'good' that occurs with our team. Musch in a similar way that some posters go out of their way to denigrate GT for everything.

like WJ42 I was not around on here before the sacking and have only posted since last year.
For teh record I thought initially GT was fantastic for us. I didn't care how he got the job. I only cared that he was doing a great job.
But I felt he had reached his 'use by ' date. I didn't feel he could take us further. He needed to be replaced by someone who could take us those next steps.
Does that mean he should have been sacked? Yes if he refused to leave on his own volition.

Was RL the right choice to replace hm? I have no idea as I'm not qualified to make that decision. But what I've seen so far leads me to believe that the people who made the decision to employ him as senior coach were better prepared to make that decision than those of us on here bagging him for everything, just because he was the guy who replaced GT.

Did RL demand extra staff/resources as part of his job application? I don't know but if it was just co-incidental, then he appears very fortunate to be the beneficiary of that co-incidence.\I tend to believe that his view of how a football department should be run was quite markedly different to GT's and what we are seeing today is as a result of that. Please don't forget that GT was a very 'forceful' character who normally got what he wanted, and if he really wanted more staff/resources I'm sure he would have convinced those in charge to get them. My strong suspicion is that he either felt he had enough or didn't want to give up any of the control he had.