I'll watch with a keen eye

[skeptic]

I've been arguing over the course of the seasons passt that the previous coaching regime were very poor at devloping our junior talent.

In particular I was very frustrated at the fact that we desperately needed a new key forward this season yet Walsh, Johnson, and Cahill who all had periods of sustained good form at Sandy managed 1 game between them.

Another forumite here suggested to me that this perhaps could be explained by the fact that perhaps the coaching team felt that our KPP simply weren't good enough to make it hence no point in playing them.
Wasn't sure I agreed with that but it was an intersting thought nonetheless.

On another thread, "a list of new players for 2012" all the traded/delisted players have been listed. It really got me thinking...

Obviously it's difficult for me to make an argument that a player like Will Johnson should/would/could have made it when he has now been cut and no one else picked him... truth be told I cna't make that argument at all but on the other I simply can't fathom that our recruiters really are that bad...
you go through that list and there's poorly chosen player after poorly chosen player with gems falling either side of them. Even when John Beveridge was the only guy we had we were fluking the odd pick right at least every draft or so.

I'm going to watch with interest now because...
a) with RL gone, lets check out what some of these long standing stagnating players can do e.g. Stanley, Winmar etc (not as many on this list)

b) there's a reasonable number of former Saints spread around other clubs now... lets see what they can do. They include:

Walsh: could not get a single game with us yet reported to be pencilled in for rd1 at Syd

Lynch: Handfull of games over several seasons

Pattison: Thrown a lifeline by the Hawks, after being cut by us to the surprise of many forumites and delight of others

Nick Heyne: Stagnated and went nowhere slowly... Carlton rookie'd him

Dawson: Fair to say that whilst we didn't cut him... he didn't improve enough with us to be worth what he wanted (granted he's gone to Fro to be with RL so that point is somewhat mute)

Luke Ball: We may not have forced him out but IMO RL really didn't work too hard to keep him

Andrew McQualter: went nowhere for two years before being cut

Yep... will watch all of these guys keenly... me thinks we'll learn a lot about how good our ex coach really is/was

[hungry for a premiership]

Interesting observations.

Let us know when you've collected enough data to draw some conclusions...

[st_Trav_ofWA]

Fact is Walsh was going to debut under Watters if he stayed ... Lynch got chances and did little with them ... Mini is at GC for leadership not his ability .. Heyne obviously showed enough in trials With the blues that he is worth a rookie spot ... Luke ball made a decision that was best for himand reached the ultimate with it the fact we got nothing for him is more our fault then his ... Dawson was required we just couldn't afford him

[st_Trav_ofWA]

As for Pattison he was as much a saint as gamble or Lovett or Jessie smith was ... Waste of time picks

[stinger]

I've been arguing over the course of the seasons passt that the previous coaching regime were very poor at devloping our junior talent.

In particular I was very frustrated at the fact that we desperately needed a new key forward this season yet Walsh, Johnson, and Cahill who all had periods of sustained good form at Sandy managed 1 game between them.

Another forumite here suggested to me that this perhaps could be explained by the fact that perhaps the coaching team felt that our KPP simply weren't good enough to make it hence no point in playing them.
Wasn't sure I agreed with that but it was an intersting thought nonetheless.

On another thread, "a list of new players for 2012" all the traded/delisted players have been listed. It really got me thinking...

Obviously it's difficult for me to make an argument that a player like Will Johnson should/would/could have made it when he has now been cut and no one else picked him... truth be told I cna't make that argument at all but on the other I simply can't fathom that our recruiters really are that bad...
you go through that list and there's poorly chosen player after poorly chosen player with gems falling either side of them. Even when John Beveridge was the only guy we had we were fluking the odd pick right at least every draft or so.

I'm going to watch with interest now because...
a) with RL gone, lets check out what some of these long standing stagnating players can do e.g. Stanley, Winmar etc (not as many on this list)

b) there's a reasonable number of former Saints spread around other clubs now... lets see what they can do. They include:

Walsh: could not get a single game with us yet reported to be pencilled in for rd1 at Syd

Lynch: Handfull of games over several seasons

Pattison: Thrown a lifeline by the Hawks, after being cut by us to the surprise of many forumites and delight of others

Nick Heyne: Stagnated and went nowhere slowly... Carlton rookie'd him

Dawson: Fair to say that whilst we didn't cut him... he didn't improve enough with us to be worth what he wanted (granted he's gone to Fro to be with RL so that point is somewhat mute)

Luke Ball: We may not have forced him out but IMO RL really didn't work too hard to keep him

Andrew McQualter: went nowhere for two years before being cut

Yep... will watch all of these guys keenly... me thinks we'll learn a lot about how good our ex coach really is/was

interesting observations.....

[stinger]

I've been arguing over the course of the seasons passt that the previous coaching regime were very poor at devloping our junior talent.

In particular I was very frustrated at the fact that we desperately needed a new key forward this season yet Walsh, Johnson, and Cahill who all had periods of sustained good form at Sandy managed 1 game between them.

Another forumite here suggested to me that this perhaps could be explained by the fact that perhaps the coaching team felt that our KPP simply weren't good enough to make it hence no point in playing them.
Wasn't sure I agreed with that but it was an intersting thought nonetheless.

On another thread, "a list of new players for 2012" all the traded/delisted players have been listed. It really got me thinking...

Obviously it's difficult for me to make an argument that a player like Will Johnson should/would/could have made it when he has now been cut and no one else picked him... truth be told I cna't make that argument at all but on the other I simply can't fathom that our recruiters really are that bad...
you go through that list and there's poorly chosen player after poorly chosen player with gems falling either side of them. Even when John Beveridge was the only guy we had we were fluking the odd pick right at least every draft or so.

I'm going to watch with interest now because...
a) with RL gone, lets check out what some of these long standing stagnating players can do e.g. Stanley, Winmar etc (not as many on this list)

b) there's a reasonable number of former Saints spread around other clubs now... lets see what they can do. They include:

Walsh: could not get a single game with us yet reported to be pencilled in for rd1 at Syd

Lynch: Handfull of games over several seasons

Pattison: Thrown a lifeline by the Hawks, after being cut by us to the surprise of many forumites and delight of others

Nick Heyne: Stagnated and went nowhere slowly... Carlton rookie'd him

Dawson: Fair to say that whilst we didn't cut him... he didn't improve enough with us to be worth what he wanted (granted he's gone to Fro to be with RL so that point is somewhat mute)

Luke Ball: We may not have forced him out but IMO RL really didn't work too hard to keep him

Andrew McQualter: went nowhere for two years before being cut

Yep... will watch all of these guys keenly... me thinks we'll learn a lot about how good our ex coach really is/was

interesting observations.....

[Gershwin]

I have also pondered along similar lines.

If a club is in "development cycle" then you can give many young players a run in the seniors under the banner of "let's see what they can do at the highest level" and if you lose then so be it.
The problem is that when you are going for the flag every game is crucial and giving Walsh a game instead of Blake could result in the loss of 4 points.
Similarly you know what you are going to get out of Ray, Clarke, Gram and McQualter but not out of Cripps, Ledger and Winmar.

It takes a very strong mindset to say we will keep one half-back-flank for a developing player regardless of the circumstance - thus blooding young players. Or one place on the bench. When 4 points are so critical it must be hard to take this risk.
But I would like to see us do it.

I think our ex coach was excellent. Coached to win us a flag and so bloody close!

[gringo]

I have also pondered along similar lines.

If a club is in "development cycle" then you can give many young players a run in the seniors under the banner of "let's see what they can do at the highest level" and if you lose then so be it.
The problem is that when you are going for the flag every game is crucial and giving Walsh a game instead of Blake could result in the loss of 4 points.
Similarly you know what you are going to get out of Ray, Clarke, Gram and McQualter but not out of Cripps, Ledger and Winmar.

It takes a very strong mindset to say we will keep one half-back-flank for a developing player regardless of the circumstance - thus blooding young players. Or one place on the bench. When 4 points are so critical it must be hard to take this risk.
But I would like to see us do it.

I think our ex coach was excellent. Coached to win us a flag and so bloody close!

I begrudgingly agree, Lyon was a good coach who went full pelt at a flag for the now. 2011 saw what happens when you put all your eggs in one basket and then a few things go wrong. I think he was pressured by the board when things started to go wrong and it became a fairly toxic environment.

I think he could find his new job restricting as Freo have a board with set ideas on how things should be run. Should be interesting to watch, he has already been over ruled on his recruiting initiatives according to a mate who supports them.

[Devilhead]

Seems to me that Lyon had no idea on how to develop our young players and he bailed out when the going got tough.

Lyon has pretty much walked into a ready made Freo side that Harvey has painfully developed and put together over the last few years and now most likely won't change too much in the upcoming years.

Easy peasy for Lyon - once this Freo group ages good chance that he will move on once again without having developed or played any of their players that will be draftted over the next upcoming years.

Whether he can get a Premiership out of this ready to go Freo side remains to be seen

[crippa2sipa]

"Ready to go Freo side"? Surely you're dreaming.

[Devilhead]

"Ready to go Freo side"? Surely you're dreaming.

Please look at their run in 2010 (won 14 lost 10) and tell me whether their core starting line up towards the end of that year will be any different from their 2012 starting line up - if all up and running

They have a blend of relatively experienced younger players - Fyfe, Mayne, Suban, Hill, Barlow, Ibbotson, Pearce, Clarke, Roberton, De Boer, Ballantyne, Morabito, Van Berlo - all have played over 20 games - and a decent mix of handy older guys between 30 & 25 - Pavlich, Sandilands, Mundy, Johnson, Broughton, Duffield, Crowley, Dawson - given the relative youth of the side above and bar injury Freo have a very good side in the making - as I stated Lyon has a ready made side that has scope for improvement!!

Lyon will preserve with that side or thereabouts - I will be very suprised if any youngsters drafted within the next few years will get a look in

[Scoop]

I have also pondered along similar lines.

If a club is in "development cycle" then you can give many young players a run in the seniors under the banner of "let's see what they can do at the highest level" and if you lose then so be it.
The problem is that when you are going for the flag every game is crucial and giving Walsh a game instead of Blake could result in the loss of 4 points.
Similarly you know what you are going to get out of Ray, Clarke, Gram and McQualter but not out of Cripps, Ledger and Winmar.

It takes a very strong mindset to say we will keep one half-back-flank for a developing player regardless of the circumstance - thus blooding young players. Or one place on the bench. When 4 points are so critical it must be hard to take this risk.
But I would like to see us do it.

I think our ex coach was excellent. Coached to win us a flag and so bloody close!

Both Collingwood and Geelong managed to introduce young players to their teams.....and both won premierships.

It can be done.....either Lyon couldn't develop our younger players......or they were no good. Probably a bit of both.....

[bobmurray]

Lyon did go close to a flag at the expense of player development and that strategy failed.....hence....the new focus....

Welcome Scott Watters

[crippa2sipa]

I have also pondered along similar lines.

If a club is in "development cycle" then you can give many young players a run in the seniors under the banner of "let's see what they can do at the highest level" and if you lose then so be it.
The problem is that when you are going for the flag every game is crucial and giving Walsh a game instead of Blake could result in the loss of 4 points.
Similarly you know what you are going to get out of Ray, Clarke, Gram and McQualter but not out of Cripps, Ledger and Winmar.

It takes a very strong mindset to say we will keep one half-back-flank for a developing player regardless of the circumstance - thus blooding young players. Or one place on the bench. When 4 points are so critical it must be hard to take this risk.
But I would like to see us do it.

I think our ex coach was excellent. Coached to win us a flag and so bloody close!

Both Collingwood and Geelong managed to introduce young players to their teams.....and both won premierships.

It can be done.....either Lyon couldn't develop our younger players......or they were no good. Probably a bit of both.....

It can be done...if like Collingwood and Geelong you have your own dedicated reserves team.

It was one of Lyon's biggest bugbears that our development programme was one of the worst in the League.

Not until now, courtesy of AFL handouts, has the club been prepared to address the problem.

[saintsRrising]

In particular I was very frustrated at the fact that we desperately needed a new key forward this season yet Walsh, Johnson, and Cahill who all had periods of sustained good form at Sandy managed 1 game between them.

Another forumite here suggested to me that this perhaps could be explained by the fact that perhaps the coaching team felt that our KPP simply weren't good enough to make it hence no point in playing them.
Wasn't sure I agreed with that but it was an intersting thought nonetheless.

On another thread, "a list of new players for 2012" all the traded/delisted players have been listed. It really got me thinking...

Obviously it's difficult for me to make an argument that a player like Will Johnson should/would/could have made it when he has now been cut and no one else picked him... truth be told I cna't make that argument at all but on the other I simply can't fathom that our recruiters really are that bad...

Past tense, and present tense are very important.

Our recruiters WERE that bad....the last two drafts they have been quite good IMO.


Personally I am of the view that it is not surprising that Lyon made such use from trading/drafting experienced players....for with substandard recruiting of kids occurring deft trades for ready-made players delivered greater return.

As it turns out such trades have on the whole delivered excellent value.
Drafting of recycled players has been a lot more problematic, even allowing for the their being in the main very late picks.

However our drafting of kids over many seasons (ie under BOT Lyon and GT) was basically dreadful.

While other clubs moved on to more scientific, and more systematic, drafting of kids in particular and players in general, the Saints stuck with an essentially "gut-feel" recruiting system which was also under-resourced.

End result was the Saints were simply uncompetitive in this vital area with most clubs clearly out-performing us in this area.

This gave us year after year an underwhelming batch of kids.

So while YES more and better development would have assisted no doubt....it still will not make a silk purse out a of a sow's ear.


Last years draft was a breath fresh of air. Right from the start BEFORE any real development could have occurred one could see that we at last had a batch of promising kids.

After many seasons wandering in the recruiting wilderness, we at last had found our way.

this year we have maintained this welcome trend, and indeed under Pelchen appear to have upped our game in this regard.

PS: However despite what I just wrote above I am puzzled that Walsh never gained a senior game despite showing signs that he was capable of it, and in particular in 2011 when so many debutants were played.

[plugger66]

In particular I was very frustrated at the fact that we desperately needed a new key forward this season yet Walsh, Johnson, and Cahill who all had periods of sustained good form at Sandy managed 1 game between them.

Another forumite here suggested to me that this perhaps could be explained by the fact that perhaps the coaching team felt that our KPP simply weren't good enough to make it hence no point in playing them.
Wasn't sure I agreed with that but it was an intersting thought nonetheless.

On another thread, "a list of new players for 2012" all the traded/delisted players have been listed. It really got me thinking...

Obviously it's difficult for me to make an argument that a player like Will Johnson should/would/could have made it when he has now been cut and no one else picked him... truth be told I cna't make that argument at all but on the other I simply can't fathom that our recruiters really are that bad...

Past tense, and present tense are very important.

Our recruiters WERE that bad....the last two drafts they have been quite good IMO.


Personally I am of the view that it is not surprising that Lyon made such use from trading/drafting experienced players....for with substandard recruiting of kids occurring deft trades for ready-made players delivered greater return.

As it turns out such trades have on the whole delivered excellent value.
Drafting of recycled players has been a lot more problematic, even allowing for the their being in the main very late picks.

However our drafting of kids over many seasons (ie under BOT Lyon and GT) was basically dreadful.

While other clubs moved on to more scientific, and more systematic, drafting of kids in particular and players in general, the Saints stuck with an essentially "gut-feel" recruiting system which was also under-resourced.

End result was the Saints were simply uncompetitive in this vital area with most clubs clearly out-performing us in this area.

This gave us year after year an underwhelming batch of kids.

So while YES more and better development would have assisted no doubt....it still will not make a silk purse out a of a sow's ear.


Last years draft was a breath fresh of air. Right from the start BEFORE any real development could have occurred one could see that we at last had a batch of promising kids.

After many seasons wandering in the recruiting wilderness, we at last had found our way.

this year we have maintained this welcome trend, and indeed under Pelchen appear to have upped our game in this regard.

PS: However despite what I just wrote above I am puzzled that Walsh never gained a senior game despite showing signs that he was capable of it, and in particular in 2011 when so many debutants were played.

There was no doubt that the recruiting under Peake was disgraceful. The 2008 and 2009 draft has set us back 2 years. Certainly more than RL's coaching has.

[Con Gorozidis]

Good thread.
I have nothing extra to add but all the posts are interesting and sensible reflection of where we have been.

[skeptic]

Interesting feedback...
Question for SR and Plugger.

Your opinions are contrary to my own but i don't think thay any of us can really definitively say we're right and you're wrong at the current time. Hence the keen eye watch.
Certainly if you look at the trade/draft period over 2008-9, you can clearly see we made a number of moves that really failed e.g.
Lovett
Smith
Begley
Gaertner

in hindsight were all doomed before they even started

There are then a number of players that I personally thought had the potential to develop into decent players but didn't get a much of a go and have been cut and not picked up. Much as i'd like to, I can't prove that they were/are better then they were. They include
Miles
Johnson
Cahill


My question to you guys (or anyone else interested)

HYPOTHETICALLY
Lynch cements a spot on a HBF for Adelaide
Walsh kicks 30 goals for Syd and cements a spot as forward
Heyne and Pattison get promoted off the rookie list and play a few games for their respective clubs
Winmar and Stanley improve a little this season

Would that change ur opinion?

[skeptic]

On a fruther note, have a look at the 08-09 drafts... maybe our sweet revenge against Freo would be to steal their top recruiter... from the top:

08
3. Stephen Hill
21. Hayden Ballantyne
24. Nic Suban
37. Zac Clarke

Didn't do as well in the rookie draft


09
4. Anthony Morabito
20. Nathan Fyfe
(No major winners for the rest of the draft but no huge misses either though they could have snagged a few of the better rookies)

rookie draft
8. Michael Barlow
24. Alex Silvagni

Few other decen players went else where

They do very well with their top picks

[bergholt]

Certainly if you look at the trade/draft period over 2008-9, you can clearly see we made a number of moves that really failed e.g.
Lovett
Smith
Begley
Gaertner

in hindsight were all doomed before they even started

no? yes? but hindsight wasn't available at the time. i reckon most of those were calculated risks which failed to come off, but that doesn't make them mistakes.

lovett might have had "poor character" but that very rarely is so bad that it really affects the club. lovett, fevola and cousins the only three recent examples - i'm sure there are plenty of other douchebags who have played and played well despite being dicks.

remember that if he hadn't (maybe) done something completely unpredictable then we would have been a better team and very likely won the 2010 flag. that's a fair bet and one i'd back the club every time to take.

smith is a bit more debatable but once again the potential upside was significant. remember that halfway through that year everything looked positive and he'd played three vfl games with decent results. and also that no-one taken after that pick (60) in the 2009 nd has shown much.

gaertner cost us a very late pick in the rookie draft. the whole point of those is that they're speculative. i can't see how that was an error either.

hindsight reasoning is bulls***.

[plugger66]

Interesting feedback...
Question for SR and Plugger.

Your opinions are contrary to my own but i don't think thay any of us can really definitively say we're right and you're wrong at the current time. Hence the keen eye watch.
Certainly if you look at the trade/draft period over 2008-9, you can clearly see we made a number of moves that really failed e.g.
Lovett
Smith
Begley
Gaertner

in hindsight were all doomed before they even started

There are then a number of players that I personally thought had the potential to develop into decent players but didn't get a much of a go and have been cut and not picked up. Much as i'd like to, I can't prove that they were/are better then they were. They include
Miles
Johnson
Cahill


My question to you guys (or anyone else interested)

HYPOTHETICALLY
Lynch cements a spot on a HBF for Adelaide
Walsh kicks 30 goals for Syd and cements a spot as forward
Heyne and Pattison get promoted off the rookie list and play a few games for their respective clubs
Winmar and Stanley improve a little this season

Would that change ur opinion?

Maybe we picked some of those guys because Peake said they were a better risk than the guys he could have drafted. Who would know. As for those 3 names you mentioned well Cahill could never have played because he was either injured or just not good enough. Miles kicking was ordinary at best and Johnson got one game and got injured. Came back and form was really good enough. None were picked up so it suggests they are playing in their right grade.

Then your hypothetical question, well that confuses me because those guys werent delisted by RL. He had left. 2 decided to leave, Walsh for it seems a lot more money and Lynch for opportunity. Heyne was delisted by Pelchan. And Stanley and Winmar got exactly the right amount of games they deserved. What about Hypothetically they dont play well. Would that change your opinion?

[skeptic]

you haven't really answered my question... they may not have been delisted by RL but they couldn't get a game in his regime... they developed poorly.

to answer yours... yes it would

[skeptic]

Certainly if you look at the trade/draft period over 2008-9, you can clearly see we made a number of moves that really failed e.g.
Lovett
Smith
Begley
Gaertner

in hindsight were all doomed before they even started

no? yes? but hindsight wasn't available at the time. i reckon most of those were calculated risks which failed to come off, but that doesn't make them mistakes.

lovett might have had "poor character" but that very rarely is so bad that it really affects the club. lovett, fevola and cousins the only three recent examples - i'm sure there are plenty of other douchebags who have played and played well despite being dicks.

remember that if he hadn't (maybe) done something completely unpredictable then we would have been a better team and very likely won the 2010 flag. that's a fair bet and one i'd back the club every time to take.

smith is a bit more debatable but once again the potential upside was significant. remember that halfway through that year everything looked positive and he'd played three vfl games with decent results. and also that no-one taken after that pick (60) in the 2009 nd has shown much.

gaertner cost us a very late pick in the rookie draft. the whole point of those is that they're speculative. i can't see how that was an error either.

hindsight reasoning is bulls***.

Ummh yeah
I wasn't criticising the moves per'se

In response to SR's and pluggers assessment that our recruiting during 08-09 was really poor, I was just trying provide a reflection of that period of time.
The hindsight players were ones that for the respective circumstances would never have worked out and it's not the coaching staff's fault that they cdnt develop them

[plugger66]

you haven't really answered my question... they may not have been delisted by RL but they couldn't get a game in his regime... they developed poorly.

to answer yours... yes it would

No they didnt get a game or not to many anyway and I have explained why I think they didnt. Apart from not getting a game I am unsure we from the outside can say they were developed poorly. I know they had development coaches and they have all kept their job so it suggests the current people in charge thought they did a good job.

As for your question well it would depend. They may play well but the team could be poor or they may actually be playing well in the seconds but the team is just to good to break in to. Lets just see what happens. I actually expect Lynch to play a lot more this year but I also think he was a very poor pick for us.

[Old Mate]

I honestly don't rate Lynch (from what I've seen). Too slow on the lead and too soft in a marking contest.

I haven't seen a lot of Walsh but I reckon he will prosper. Gut feeling.

Heyne and Pattison. No big losses. Will be lucky to play seniors.