List issues - GT as "anti-Messiah"

[meher baba]

I've been interested to read on a couple of threads lately the good old line of "GT ruined the list and now Lyon is rebuilding". I have also been reading once more about our alleged "Messiah" complex and how it has "held us back".

What I'm more bothered about on this forum is actually the "anti-Messiah" complex around GT: if there's something we don't like about our current list, then it was all GT's fault. Added to this, we have a bit of the good old "throw them to the lions" mindset in relation to the "dead wood" on our list.

It's all so1st century AD, isn't it!!

Seriously, if you look at our list as it currently stands, around 3/4 of our top 22 are either players who were recruited under GT or developed into top-liners under his coaching.

Our real problem remains the fact that we are plagued with injuries and - like most other clubs - run into trouble when we are forced to start drawing too frequenly on the players ranked beyond our top 30 or so. Compare the performance of the Bulldogs in 2007, when they got down to around 25 fit players, and 2008, when they had most people available.

I would agree that an unusually large number of players have retired or been delisted in the short time since GT was sacked. Have we "rebuilt" our list behind them? I'm not sure.

We have brought in a lot of recycled players of whom only one, King, has been a standout success. We have elevated some rookies, none of whom look to me like budding superstars. We have had two top 10 draft picks on whom the jury is still out, and a range of lower draft picks whom we've barely seen (and, one of whom, Howard, has turned out to be a waste of a reasonably good pick). Steven looked ok in the NAB cup this year, but we really don't know much about how he is going to go at AFL level.

And we have drafted 6 guys in 2008, mostly with pretty low picks (which suggests that they weren't in huge demand from other clubs). Some posters on here are creaming their pants about these guys they haven't seen, but I prefer to reserve my judgement.

At the end of the day, we missed out on the one guy who has been available for us to recruit and who (even though I'm not personally a great fan) would clearly have made a huge difference in 2009: and I don't meen Cousins, I mean Ryan O'Keeffe.

Why didn't we get him? I would suspect because of lack of room in our salary cap: ie, a bit like why we didn't recruit more superstars when GT was in charge.

My concluding point is that it is easy to criticise list management at a club from your armchair.

Did GT destroy the list? Is Lyon rebuilding the list? Or is it more a case of you do what you can with the options available to you.

[Batnoe]

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

[rodgerfox]

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.

[WayneJudson42]

The only deadwood appears to be between your ears, MB

GT's been gone for a while now. If the arguments are so 1st century AD, why start another thread.

Is see this nothing more than list re-generation. Let's stop keeping score and playing tit-for-tat on which recruits made it under whom.

GT inherited some great youngsters and benefited from Carlton's penalties.

RL has not had that luxury.

Tip for the day: If you constantly look in the rear view mirror... you'll eventually slam up someone's backside".

[rodgerfox]

Tip for the day: If you constantly look in the rear view mirror... you'll eventually slam up someone's backside".

That's assuming that you're driving forward.

[SENsei]

Farting at thunder with this argument.

[WayneJudson42]

Tip for the day: If you constantly look in the rear view mirror... you'll eventually slam up someone's backside".

That's assuming that you're driving forward.

I'll pay that.

[meher baba]

Tip for the day: If you constantly look in the rear view mirror... you'll eventually slam up someone's backside".

I'm not one of the people who constantly blames GT for everything that is allegedly now wrong with our list.

We have made the finals in 4 out of the last 5 seasons and have reached the PF 3 times. This is mainly because we have had one of the best lists in the AFL for that period.

Our list isn't full of holes, and hasn't been for over 5 years now. It's main problem is that it has too many injury-prone players on it (and/or is forced to play too many games on the unsafe surface of Docklands Stadium: an underrated culprit for our injury problems IMO).

I don't think that our current list is much worse or much better than it was in 2004-06. Most of the players who have gone fall into one of two categories (a) retired or (b) were delisted after playing relatively few AFL games for us. Fiora is an exception, but we were effectively forced to take him.

[St. Luke]

Thomas single-handedly turned our clubs culture around. IF that was all he did, which it wasn't, then his tenure was an important one. I don't think you can turn something around in the timeframe he manged to and not step on toes or annoy people.

I'm enjoying Ross Lyons appointment and was a little sceptical at the start (as were quite a few). I think we're in for some exciting times and heading in a positive direction. It had to start from somewhere.

[WayneJudson42]

Tip for the day: If you constantly look in the rear view mirror... you'll eventually slam up someone's backside".

I'm not one of the people who constantly blames GT for everything that is allegedly now wrong with our list.

Ain't THAT the bleeding truth!

We have made the finals in 4 out of the last 5 seasons and have reached the PF 3 times. This is mainly because we have had one of the best lists in the AFL for that period.

Fair enough.

Our list isn't full of holes, and hasn't been for over 5 years now. It's main problem is that it has too many injury-prone players on it (and/or is forced to play too many games on the unsafe surface of Docklands Stadium: an underrated culprit for our injury problems IMO).

Crap injury management IMO under the former regime. Plus, other clubs have taken the game in a new direction, and in order to compete, we need some different player types IE not slow bulky players.

I don't think that our current list is much worse or much better than it was in 2004-06. Most of the players who have gone fall into one of two categories (a) retired or (b) were delisted after playing relatively few AFL games for us. Fiora is an exception, but we were effectively forced to take him.

From a relevant viewpoint comaperd to the top 3 teams of the last few years... I agree. We have not closed the gap. We tried but a new gap has now opened.

Our current recruiting is trying to address the problem. Which will take a few years to show full results.

The point is, that it appears that under your demi-god man manager, not enough emphasis was given to the future, and that too much was given to the "here and now". IMO of course.

[rodgerfox]

The point is, that it appears that under your demi-god man manager, not enough emphasis was given to the future, and that too much was given to the "here and now". IMO of course.

Odd views.

Which players were recruited who were 22 or over?

All players that came to club, came under the expectation that they 'play for 10 years and 150 games' or whatever.

The thinking was along the lines of buying a racehorse. Most horses bought at the yearling sales never make it to the track. And even fewer win races.
Some people prefer to buy horses that have already raced. There may not be scope for them to be a champion, but at least if they're still a 3yo you'll at least get them to the track and there's a big chance that they'll be better than the unknown quantity that you can get at the yearlong sale.

Now obviously, drafting kids has a vastly superior strike rate to yearling sales, but the thinking can be the same.

We only picked up young guys who had 10 years in front of them, and who we knew could actually play regular AFL footy.

Whether it worked or not, is open for debate - but to say that we only worried about the 'now' is wierd and I can't see where the evidence of that is?

[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.

Changes I've noted in style of recruitment:
- Playing much safer with 1st rounders rather than trading them for up and comers like Watts and Brooks.
- Making short term picks with rookie selections, and showing a willingness to use those rookies (Attard, Jones, Geary, Eddy).
- Willing to bring in veteran players (King, Gardiner) where he feels a short term hole exists.

One thing that hasn't changed is the trading of mid level picks for mature (22-25) age recruits, though Lyon seems to be a better horsetrader from a pure assett management POV (though in hindsight, I wish he'd hung out for the doggies unused 3rd in the Ray trade... but hindsight is 20/20).

I lean toward thinking the biggest actual difference in our recruiting is a big dollop of common sense in leveraging the rookie list better for our purposes.

The bigger change is the perception, which has partly to do with the name of the coach, and partly to do with a maturing of expectation... when you're not down the bottom of the ladder, it's harder on a number of fronts to recruit guns, something we'd become used to. Immediate expectations of each draft class have lowered, while the requirements to graduate to AFL class have risen.

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.

[bergholt]

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

2001:
drafted Ball [2], Clarke X [5], Dal Santo [13], Maguire [23], Montagna [37], Houlihan [49]
drafted rookies Dicketts, Schwarze B, Jones
traded away Hall
traded for Knobel, Black

2002:
drafted Goddard [1], Ferguson [22], Fisher L [46]
drafted Powell [PS 1]
drafted rookies Murray, Barham
traded away Everitt
traded for Brooks, Penny

2003:
drafted Clarke R [8], Fisher S [55], Callaghan [65]
drafted rookies Pfitzner, Stone
traded for Gram, Guerra

2004:
drafted McQualter [17], Ackland [33], McGough [49], Gwilt [63]
drafted rookies Mullins, McDonnell
traded away Black
traded for Fiora

2005:
drafted Gilbert [33], Rix [49], Raymond [63], Sweeney [71]
drafted rookies Corr, Pfitzner
traded for Watts

So overall, here's who we gained during his tenure, with how many games we got out of them by the end of 08:

Dal Santo: 144*
Ball: 122*
Goddard: 113*
Clarke X: 105*
Maguire: 99*
Montagna: 98*
Fisher S: 96*
Gram: 75*
Powell: 68
Fiora: 62
Fisher L: 55*
Black: 54
Penny: 45
Ackland: 41
Clarke R: 41*
Knobel: 41
Gilbert: 39*
McQualter: 35*
Guerra: 31
Rix: 29
Gwilt: 26*
Murray: 15
Ferguson: 12
McGough: 12
Brooks: 10
Stone: 3
Watts: 1
Barham, Callaghan, Corr, Dicketts, Houlihan, Jones, McDonnell, Mullins, Pfitzner, Raymond, Schwarze B: 0

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.

[Saints43]

Let's see some facts.

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.

How exactly does that compare with other lists where the coach left two seasons ago after five and a half years? On a Sunday... at the 'Gabba... during the second test?

[SydneySainter]

Am I the only one who has just about had it with these threads?

GT IS GONE AND AINT COMING BACK!!! Build a bridge and please get over it. Would have, should have, could have...I'm done to death with these arguments.

Might as well start an Alves or Blight thread!

[Batnoe]

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.

Changes I've noted in style of recruitment:
- Playing much safer with 1st rounders rather than trading them for up and comers like Watts and Brooks.
- Making short term picks with rookie selections, and showing a willingness to use those rookies (Attard, Jones, Geary, Eddy).
- Willing to bring in veteran players (King, Gardiner) where he feels a short term hole exists.

One thing that hasn't changed is the trading of mid level picks for mature (22-25) age recruits, though Lyon seems to be a better horsetrader from a pure assett management POV (though in hindsight, I wish he'd hung out for the doggies unused 3rd in the Ray trade... but hindsight is 20/20).

I lean toward thinking the biggest actual difference in our recruiting is a big dollop of common sense in leveraging the rookie list better for our purposes.

The bigger change is the perception, which has partly to do with the name of the coach, and partly to do with a maturing of expectation... when you're not down the bottom of the ladder, it's harder on a number of fronts to recruit guns, something we'd become used to. Immediate expectations of each draft class have lowered, while the requirements to graduate to AFL class have risen.

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

[meher baba]

Am I the only one who has just about had it with these threads?

GT IS GONE AND AINT COMING BACK!!! Build a bridge and please get over it. Would have, should have, could have...I'm done to death with these arguments.

Might as well start an Alves or Blight thread!

But nobody talks about recruitment in the Alves, Watson or Blight era, whereas, even over the past 6 months or so, there would have been an average of a dozen posts a week asserting that "GT ruined our list".

[meher baba]

Some of the stuff I read on here is a giggle. "GT didn't plan for the future, he let the veterans go on too long clogging up our list, he topped up with recycled players", etc.

Let's look at how GT went at developing some of the young blokes he brought to the club.

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.

Meanwhile, we have seen more than I would ever want to see of Birss (gone), M Clarke (old and gone), M Gardiner (old and slow), Dempster (nothing special), Schneider (ditto), King (good, but old), Attard (recycled, nothing special and now gone), Ferguson (why on earth was he redrafted in 2007) and Clinton Jones (seen as young by some on here, but is actually older than most of the above list).

Where is this magical rebuilding, planning for the future, etc. since GT was sacked? Could somebody please explain it to me, as I must be missing something?

[WayneJudson42]

Am I the only one who has just about had it with these threads?

GT IS GONE AND AINT COMING BACK!!! Build a bridge and please get over it. Would have, should have, could have...I'm done to death with these arguments.

Might as well start an Alves or Blight thread!

But nobody talks about recruitment in the Alves, Watson or Blight era, whereas, even over the past 6 months or so, there would have been an average of a dozen posts a week asserting that "GT ruined our list".

Maybe because the Alves or Watson era have no direct relelvance and impact right here, right now... apart from the great draft picks due to Watson.

[Mr Magic]

Some of the stuff I read on here is a giggle. "GT didn't plan for the future, he let the veterans go on too long clogging up our list, he topped up with recycled players", etc.

Let's look at how GT went at developing some of the young blokes he brought to the club.

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.

Meanwhile, we have seen more than I would ever want to see of Birss (gone), M Clarke (old and gone), M Gardiner (old and slow), Dempster (nothing special), Schneider (ditto), King (good, but old), Attard (recycled, nothing special and now gone), Ferguson (why on earth was he redrafted in 2007) and Clinton Jones (seen as young by some on here, but is actually older than most of the above list).

Where is this magical rebuilding, planning for the future, etc. since GT was sacked? Could somebody please explain it to me, as I must be missing something?

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.

The interesting point for me in your OP that so far hasn't been commented on by anybody else is the fact that we appeared to have been restricted in our 'recruiting' by having no room in our salary cap.

There can be no doubt that GT did an excellent job in keeping the list together.
There can also be no doubt that he spent every available penny in doing so and left himself no 'wriggle room'. He also left his successor, at least early on, with a similar position of 'no wriggle room' in terms of the salary cap.

Did GT's desire to 'handle everything' including players contracts hurt us?
Who can definitively say, other than Hawthorn just won a premiership and seem to be well under the salary cap.
Have they over-achieved or were they more prudent in not paying the players and their managers what they were asking for than we seemed to be at a similar point of our plauer evolution?

[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.

i don't want to buy into the whole GT/RL thing but as i said recently in another thread, if it comes to a choice between an emerging talent and a safe option, we're better served by taking a punt on the young guy.

it's not much use having a youth policy unless you're prepared to back the young talent. we need to get some games into them ASAP.

obviously, though, they need to earn a game with solid form for sandy.

[bobmurray]

Apart from Gilbert the 2004 and 2005 drafts were stinkers as far as the Saints are concerned.....

[onlooker]

This are a no winners o losers post. From a totally subjective viewpoint the I can summarise the points that stick in my brain when the side struggled or wonder why we have salary cap issues with no 'wriggle' room, wonder why there were no decent ruckmen there to give our midfield a flying chance or looking at the performance of some recycled recruits. On the other side of the agenda, and I dont underestimate this, GT had the side playing at its absolute maximum, sometimes seeming to lack adequate strategy but definitely playing for each other in an attacking game from the outset. He was able to do this by leading the way; a winners outlook that was contagious and consistently full of enthusiasm. A super feat considering where he started from including the loss of Barry Hall at the time. I dont think there is any point comparing the outlooks/philosophies of RL and GT.

[meher baba]

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.

[saintsRrising]

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.