Will this re-awaken the real Ross Lyon?

[meher baba]

Further to my last post.

I never heard Bassat or anyone else associated with the club adminstration suggest that Lyon was brought in to supervise a major rebuild of the list. On the contrary, they made the decision on the back of their 2022 experience of seeing a team that looked like one of the high flyers in the first half of the season crash and burn in the second half.

Lyon has gained a lot of credit within the club with the excellent start to the season. But the team's insipid performances over the past five games, combined with Lyon's Captain Smug performances in press conferences, must be causing some of them to start to wonder if they've done the right thing. The loss to Hawthorn was a major missed opportunity, which could have put us in a strong position going into the second half of the season. Although the players did not perform anywhere near their best, we still looked like winning until the last few minutes. While I appreciate that Lyon game plan does not usually feature tactics for neutralising individual players on the other team, most supporters (including the board and the management of the club) would consider that Lyon could have done more tactically to try to neutralise the impact of Sicily, who was singlehandedly keeping an inferior team in the match. But, as is his wont, he refused to do anything significant about Sicily. And, while some posters on here might be inclined to forgive him for that, these sorts of situations cannot help but have an impact on thinking within the club.

Even more significantly, our midfield was being torn to shreds throughout the game, and a significant factor in that was the early loss of Hunter Clark to injury. Which begs the question of why a lumbering forward (and part-time back) like Sharman was selected as our sub while Windhager, Bytel and Billings were languishing at Sandringham. I don't know who was responsible for this decision, but I'm pretty sure that Lyon played a major part in it. To me it's bleedingly obvious that, if one of Windhager, Bytel or Billings had been the sub rather than Sharman, we would have won the game. And surely there are quite a few people at the club who feel the same.

In the second half of the season, we have games against Richmond (x2), the Eagles, Carlton, the Roos and Hawthorn once again. I would think that the board and the club administration are expecing to win at least 5 out of 6 of those games, and also for the team to make reasonably strong performances against Sydney, Brisbane (x2), Geelong, the Gold Coast and the Demons and snatch one or two: taking us to 13 or 14 wins for the season. If we continue to play like we have in the last 5 games, we will fall significantly short of that benchmark and perhaps finish with 11 wins or fewer. Teflon would no doubt think that Lyon should then just throw his hands in the air and say that the list wasn't good enough and it's time to clear out the dross and "hit the draft hard" (whatever that means when all you have is a bunch of ageing players to trade for third round draft picks) and attract one or more FAs to the club (for which I reckon we'll need some really good photos of them in compromising positions).

Teflon has posted 200+ times over the past week with his view that we can forget about this season and wait for the wonderful rebuild. It's all nonsense. What needs to happen is for Lyon and his assistants to urgently find a way of turning the ship around and avoid crashing into the rocks. He was brought in to make the team perform better. It seemed to be working for a while, but we looked worse against the Hawks that we ever did under Ratts. The situation is possibly salvagable, but I'm struggling to envisage a scenario in which the team will perform significantly better without the injectinon of players like Windhager and Billings and the "resting" of the likes of Byrnes and Sharman.

[B.M]

Outstanding

[Teflon]

Your talking rebuilding

Ain’t gonna happen

We will just rewire, restump, and evolve the list along the way

That means more of the same 8-14 finishes
No top end talent
No real attraction for quality FAs
We might a final we won’t be too 4 genuine threat
And when we finally realise we are s*** again…in comes a Tassie compromised draft
Your plan is more of the same and it’s got us where we are now

If we descend to the cellar in search of eatly draft picks in this environment, we might end up becoming the Tassie team, or be amalgamated or even permanently put out of our misery.

Anyway, Lyon isn’t the right coach for a bottoming out rebuild. Ratten would have been a better option. Or Enright. Lyon’s the guy you bring in to make your existing team perform better than it is currently doing.

Again all based off Lyon 2009
I think we’ve seen enough to know his model has changed - our run n gun at start year was very unlike Lyon of old
Don’t agree with your labels

[Teflon]

Further to my last post.

I never heard Bassat or anyone else associated with the club adminstration suggest that Lyon was brought in to supervise a major rebuild of the list. On the contrary, they made the decision on the back of their 2022 experience of seeing a team that looked like one of the high flyers in the first half of the season crash and burn in the second half.

Lyon has gained a lot of credit within the club with the excellent start to the season. But the team's insipid performances over the past five games, combined with Lyon's Captain Smug performances in press conferences, must be causing some of them to start to wonder if they've done the right thing. The loss to Hawthorn was a major missed opportunity, which could have put us in a strong position going into the second half of the season. Although the players did not perform anywhere near their best, we still looked like winning until the last few minutes. While I appreciate that Lyon game plan does not usually feature tactics for neutralising individual players on the other team, most supporters (including the board and the management of the club) would consider that Lyon could have done more tactically to try to neutralise the impact of Sicily, who was singlehandedly keeping an inferior team in the match. But, as is his wont, he refused to do anything significant about Sicily. And, while some posters on here might be inclined to forgive him for that, these sorts of situations cannot help but have an impact on thinking within the club.

Even more significantly, our midfield was being torn to shreds throughout the game, and a significant factor in that was the early loss of Hunter Clark to injury. Which begs the question of why a lumbering forward (and part-time back) like Sharman was selected as our sub while Windhager, Bytel and Billings were languishing at Sandringham. I don't know who was responsible for this decision, but I'm pretty sure that Lyon played a major part in it. To me it's bleedingly obvious that, if one of Windhager, Bytel or Billings had been the sub rather than Sharman, we would have won the game. And surely there are quite a few people at the club who feel the same.

In the second half of the season, we have games against Richmond (x2), the Eagles, Carlton, the Roos and Hawthorn once again. I would think that the board and the club administration are expecing to win at least 5 out of 6 of those games, and also for the team to make reasonably strong performances against Sydney, Brisbane (x2), Geelong, the Gold Coast and the Demons and snatch one or two: taking us to 13 or 14 wins for the season. If we continue to play like we have in the last 5 games, we will fall significantly short of that benchmark and perhaps finish with 11 wins or fewer. Teflon would no doubt think that Lyon should then just throw his hands in the air and say that the list wasn't good enough and it's time to clear out the dross and "hit the draft hard" (whatever that means when all you have is a bunch of ageing players to trade for third round draft picks) and attract one or more FAs to the club (for which I reckon we'll need some really good photos of them in compromising positions).

Teflon has posted 200+ times over the past week with his view that we can forget about this season and wait for the wonderful rebuild. It's all nonsense. What needs to happen is for Lyon and his assistants to urgently find a way of turning the ship around and avoid crashing into the rocks. He was brought in to make the team perform better. It seemed to be working for a while, but we looked worse against the Hawks that we ever did under Ratts. The situation is possibly salvagable, but I'm struggling to envisage a scenario in which the team will perform significantly better without the injectinon of players like Windhager and Billings and the "resting" of the likes of Byrnes and Sharman.

Wall of words and factually incorrect
Bassatt stated upon appointment of Lyon - we may go backwards to go forward…the Board stopped buying Ratten garbage that we were “in the window” go back and watch the presser and stop making up rubbish. He was given 4 years cause the club KNOWS we ain’t top 4..,geezus I thought that was obvious it’s a long term play ffs

Lyon did play someone on Sicily - Sharman and in Q3 he did a good job. That didn’t stop our daft mids from kicking the ball constantly to him - as Dixon said on Fox….Lyon can’t execute the game plan ffs surely that’s on players. Do you think Lyon instructed them to kick the ball to Sicily ????

“If one of Billing’s Bytel (struggles to get 20 in an AFL match) or a kid in Windhager had played we would have won the match???? “ Do you even read what you type - come on ffs I defy anyone on this forum to tell me that’s a semi sensible opinion …2 kids and a bit player in 9 years who failed to hit heights of a top 3 draft pick..is our smoking gun saviour???? Cmon ..

Re our ability to hit the draft (which BM is offering up Clarke to do but that’s another story..) THE REASON we are somewhat excited about our future is Windhager, Owens, Pou, NAS - where did these players come from you numpty????? The draft! The last time (when Lyon coached) we built a side that really challenged was off the back of the draft. So don’t tell me hitting the draft is a silly strategy - stupidity is doing more of the same and toppibg up with Jones etc again …. Let’s get another Hanners hey????

The season is “salvageable” ….ffs we are 5th and have been beaten as CQ posted in 2 games and in particular quarters in those games and you’re throwing in the towel???
The Only reason we were in those ganes was in part to Lyons game plan - had Ratten coached against Hawks or Crows it’s be 100poibt losses - just like the 112 point drubbing we took under Brett by Dogs or the farce in Sydney where we kicked 2 goals in a half !!!! How quickly we forget hey??? Selective memory??

You’re another of the Chicken Little brigade …come running out from under your bed after a loss …boo friggen hoo
I’ll let you in on a secret …….the Board have backed Lyon in…that means that long before he goes anywhere some of these so-called experienced leaders winning BnFs in second rate sides will be going first …..and it’s about time.
Post 201 …thank your mother for the rabbits

[B.M]

Rebuild takes 4 years - after this season

End of Lyons Contract

He’ll be in his 60’s

Let’s see how he feels a couple of years into a rebuild - winning percentage of less than 30%

And let’s see how the faithful feel - turning up to watch 2013-14 style 100 point beltings!

it won’t be like a 11 win season - we have now - it’ll be 4 wins a season over two years and finish bottom 3 to get access access two years worth of high end picks

Like WC, North, Hawthorn right now - WC need to start their rebuild the other two are a year in

And all of that - give NO guarantees of success
Carlton 05, 06, 07 threes no1 pick in a row plus Judd - no success
Melbourne 08, 09 three top picks 2 No1 picks and a PP - no success

It can work if you hit the right drafts with the right picks

But high end picks don’t guarantee anything
Cripps, Neale, Merrett, Sinclair, Stewart, Greene etc
They weren’t top 10 picks

Getting culture right
Winning games
Building a list

That’s how you succeed - not hunting for DPs

Chris Pelchen proved that

[meher baba]

Lyon did play someone on Sicily - Sharman and in Q3 he did a good job. That didn’t stop our daft mids from kicking the ball constantly to him - as Dixon said on Fox….Lyon can’t execute the game plan ffs surely that’s on players. Do you think Lyon instructed them to kick the ball to Sicily ????

“If one of Billing’s Bytel (struggles to get 20 in an AFL match) or a kid in Windhager had played we would have won the match???? “ Do you even read what you type - come on ffs I defy anyone on this forum to tell me that’s a semi sensible opinion …2 kids and a bit player in 9 years who failed to hit heights of a top 3 draft pick..is our smoking gun saviour???? Cmon ..

Playing Sharman on Sicily was a tactic born of necessity: the coaching staff had no particular use for a lumbering third tall, but had to do something with him. From my perspective, Sicily dominated the match from go to woe. I'll take your word that Sharman achieved something against him in the third quarter, but it certainly wasn't enough in the long run. Not Sharman's fault: he should never have been selected as sub. I've watched a lot of games this year, but I haven't noticed too many teams selecting marking forwards as sub: possibly none apart from us.

Meanwhile, Bytel, Billings and Windhager were all selected for the Zebras. Each has their limitations, but all would have been a damn sight more useful than Sharman after Clarke got injured. As we have done in most games this year, we were light on in the midfield against the Hawks: a team whose best feature apart than Sicily is their cadre of promising, speedy young mids. I would argue that we were one tackling, ball-winning mid short of the correct number. Replacing the injured Owens with Windhager or, failing that, one of Billings or Bytel, seemed the obvious selection gambit. Instead, we got the outside player Paton, with Sharman moving into the sub role. And then, when Clark was injured, we became two men down in the middle. What happened? The Hawks midfield made mincemeat of us.

Any of Bytel, Windhager and Billings would have strengthened our midfield after Clarke went down. Bytel is arguably just a GOP, but he is certainly a strong tackler, as is Windhager. Billings, while not at all an in-and-under player, is also quite a good tackler and would certainly not have kept kicking the ball to Sicily.

I'm sure that Lyon would respond that his approach to coaching is all about teaching the players lessons, and that he simply won't have those who don't/won't learn in his team until they change their ways. Windhager needs to learn to run in the right patterns and Billings needs to learn how to get fitter. I'm not quite sure what lesson Bytel needs to learn, but there must surely be one. And I think that's a great - arguably inspirational - approach to coaching. But IMHO, Lyon has always been inclined to push it a bit too far. Attitude, fitness and the ability to follow instructions will get players so far, but skills also matter. I would suggest that there was a bit too much of a skills deficit in the team that turned out against the Hawks. It would have been easily fixed by, say, having Windhager in the team ahead of one of Byrnes or Paton, and then one of Bytel or Billings as the sub. Lyon and his assistants thought that they didn't need to do this because we were only playing the Hawks, but they got found out.

Teams playing against us have worked out that they can take a lot of risks running out of defence, because, even if they turn it over some times, we are unlikely to score buckets of goals against them across the entire match. The Hawks consistently broke our tackles and also handballed into space knowing that their players were likely to be quicker and stronger at the contest. Sydney are far better at doing these things than the Hawks. If we can't find a way of strengthening our midfield, it's going to get ugly very quickly. And moving Sinclair is not the answer: he is a champion half back and a so-so midfielder.

[saynta]

Further to my last post.

I never heard Bassat or anyone else associated with the club adminstration suggest that Lyon was brought in to supervise a major rebuild of the list. On the contrary, they made the decision on the back of their 2022 experience of seeing a team that looked like one of the high flyers in the first half of the season crash and burn in the second half.

Lyon has gained a lot of credit within the club with the excellent start to the season. But the team's insipid performances over the past five games, combined with Lyon's Captain Smug performances in press conferences, must be causing some of them to start to wonder if they've done the right thing. The loss to Hawthorn was a major missed opportunity, which could have put us in a strong position going into the second half of the season. Although the players did not perform anywhere near their best, we still looked like winning until the last few minutes. While I appreciate that Lyon game plan does not usually feature tactics for neutralising individual players on the other team, most supporters (including the board and the management of the club) would consider that Lyon could have done more tactically to try to neutralise the impact of Sicily, who was singlehandedly keeping an inferior team in the match. But, as is his wont, he refused to do anything significant about Sicily. And, while some posters on here might be inclined to forgive him for that, these sorts of situations cannot help but have an impact on thinking within the club.

Even more significantly, our midfield was being torn to shreds throughout the game, and a significant factor in that was the early loss of Hunter Clark to injury. Which begs the question of why a lumbering forward (and part-time back) like Sharman was selected as our sub while Windhager, Bytel and Billings were languishing at Sandringham. I don't know who was responsible for this decision, but I'm pretty sure that Lyon played a major part in it. To me it's bleedingly obvious that, if one of Windhager, Bytel or Billings had been the sub rather than Sharman, we would have won the game. And surely there are quite a few people at the club who feel the same.

In the second half of the season, we have games against Richmond (x2), the Eagles, Carlton, the Roos and Hawthorn once again. I would think that the board and the club administration are expecing to win at least 5 out of 6 of those games, and also for the team to make reasonably strong performances against Sydney, Brisbane (x2), Geelong, the Gold Coast and the Demons and snatch one or two: taking us to 13 or 14 wins for the season. If we continue to play like we have in the last 5 games, we will fall significantly short of that benchmark and perhaps finish with 11 wins or fewer. Teflon would no doubt think that Lyon should then just throw his hands in the air and say that the list wasn't good enough and it's time to clear out the dross and "hit the draft hard" (whatever that means when all you have is a bunch of ageing players to trade for third round draft picks) and attract one or more FAs to the club (for which I reckon we'll need some really good photos of them in compromising positions).

Teflon has posted 200+ times over the past week with his view that we can forget about this season and wait for the wonderful rebuild. It's all nonsense. What needs to happen is for Lyon and his assistants to urgently find a way of turning the ship around and avoid crashing into the rocks. He was brought in to make the team perform better. It seemed to be working for a while, but we looked worse against the Hawks that we ever did under Ratts. The situation is possibly salvagable, but I'm struggling to envisage a scenario in which the team will perform significantly better without the injectinon of players like Windhager and Billings and the "resting" of the likes of Byrnes and Sharman.

Excellent post and all of it oh so true.

[cwrcyn]

The common denominator in three of our four losses was our impotent midfield.

It doesn't matter who is coaching. Until we get a decent midfield with some star hard running, quick, quality mids we will be a middling team.

[Teflon]

Lyon did play someone on Sicily - Sharman and in Q3 he did a good job. That didn’t stop our daft mids from kicking the ball constantly to him - as Dixon said on Fox….Lyon can’t execute the game plan ffs surely that’s on players. Do you think Lyon instructed them to kick the ball to Sicily ????

“If one of Billing’s Bytel (struggles to get 20 in an AFL match) or a kid in Windhager had played we would have won the match???? “ Do you even read what you type - come on ffs I defy anyone on this forum to tell me that’s a semi sensible opinion …2 kids and a bit player in 9 years who failed to hit heights of a top 3 draft pick..is our smoking gun saviour???? Cmon ..

Playing Sharman on Sicily was a tactic born of necessity: the coaching staff had no particular use for a lumbering third tall, but had to do something with him. From my perspective, Sicily dominated the match from go to woe. I'll take your word that Sharman achieved something against him in the third quarter, but it certainly wasn't enough in the long run. Not Sharman's fault: he should never have been selected as sub. I've watched a lot of games this year, but I haven't noticed too many teams selecting marking forwards as sub: possibly none apart from us.

Meanwhile, Bytel, Billings and Windhager were all selected for the Zebras. Each has their limitations, but all would have been a damn sight more useful than Sharman after Clarke got injured. As we have done in most games this year, we were light on in the midfield against the Hawks: a team whose best feature apart than Sicily is their cadre of promising, speedy young mids. I would argue that we were one tackling, ball-winning mid short of the correct number. Replacing the injured Owens with Windhager or, failing that, one of Billings or Bytel, seemed the obvious selection gambit. Instead, we got the outside player Paton, with Sharman moving into the sub role. And then, when Clark was injured, we became two men down in the middle. What happened? The Hawks midfield made mincemeat of us.

Any of Bytel, Windhager and Billings would have strengthened our midfield after Clarke went down. Bytel is arguably just a GOP, but he is certainly a strong tackler, as is Windhager. Billings, while not at all an in-and-under player, is also quite a good tackler and would certainly not have kept kicking the ball to Sicily.

I'm sure that Lyon would respond that his approach to coaching is all about teaching the players lessons, and that he simply won't have those who don't/won't learn in his team until they change their ways. Windhager needs to learn to run in the right patterns and Billings needs to learn how to get fitter. I'm not quite sure what lesson Bytel needs to learn, but there must surely be one. And I think that's a great - arguably inspirational - approach to coaching. But IMHO, Lyon has always been inclined to push it a bit too far. Attitude, fitness and the ability to follow instructions will get players so far, but skills also matter. I would suggest that there was a bit too much of a skills deficit in the team that turned out against the Hawks. It would have been easily fixed by, say, having Windhager in the team ahead of one of Byrnes or Paton, and then one of Bytel or Billings as the sub. Lyon and his assistants thought that they didn't need to do this because we were only playing the Hawks, but they got found out.

Teams playing against us have worked out that they can take a lot of risks running out of defence, because, even if they turn it over some times, we are unlikely to score buckets of goals against them across the entire match. The Hawks consistently broke our tackles and also handballed into space knowing that their players were likely to be quicker and stronger at the contest. Sydney are far better at doing these things than the Hawks. If we can't find a way of strengthening our midfield, it's going to get ugly very quickly. And moving Sinclair is not the answer: he is a champion half back and a so-so midfielder.

Look …I’ll be diplomatic
That’s your view - I do not agree at all
Did we lose the game because we didn’t play a kid in Windhager or a GOP Bytel? Or a 9 year tease in Billibgs (who’s a HFF and broken down again)?? Absolutely not.
We lost the game because as Wilkie admitted in most recent article I posted - players efforts have dropped off AND they (players) went away from our structures. That’s THE PLAYERS telling you that. Zip to do with Lyon. He can’t kick it git them.
So I think you’re way over playing the Sub issue and Sicily was fed all day by our dumb players
And I didn’t say Sharman did a good job on Sicily in the 3rd - Lyon did in his presser ..worth a listen
Actually what I’m seeing from Lyons pressers is less anger and I think it’s because he knows this list is not top 4, has overachieved early this year so he’ll sit back and make some calls end season
He’s done similar twice now at Freo and Saints

[Teflon]

Lyon did play someone on Sicily - Sharman and in Q3 he did a good job. That didn’t stop our daft mids from kicking the ball constantly to him - as Dixon said on Fox….Lyon can’t execute the game plan ffs surely that’s on players. Do you think Lyon instructed them to kick the ball to Sicily ????

“If one of Billing’s Bytel (struggles to get 20 in an AFL match) or a kid in Windhager had played we would have won the match???? “ Do you even read what you type - come on ffs I defy anyone on this forum to tell me that’s a semi sensible opinion …2 kids and a bit player in 9 years who failed to hit heights of a top 3 draft pick..is our smoking gun saviour???? Cmon ..

Playing Sharman on Sicily was a tactic born of necessity: the coaching staff had no particular use for a lumbering third tall, but had to do something with him. From my perspective, Sicily dominated the match from go to woe. I'll take your word that Sharman achieved something against him in the third quarter, but it certainly wasn't enough in the long run. Not Sharman's fault: he should never have been selected as sub. I've watched a lot of games this year, but I haven't noticed too many teams selecting marking forwards as sub: possibly none apart from us.

Meanwhile, Bytel, Billings and Windhager were all selected for the Zebras. Each has their limitations, but all would have been a damn sight more useful than Sharman after Clarke got injured. As we have done in most games this year, we were light on in the midfield against the Hawks: a team whose best feature apart than Sicily is their cadre of promising, speedy young mids. I would argue that we were one tackling, ball-winning mid short of the correct number. Replacing the injured Owens with Windhager or, failing that, one of Billings or Bytel, seemed the obvious selection gambit. Instead, we got the outside player Paton, with Sharman moving into the sub role. And then, when Clark was injured, we became two men down in the middle. What happened? The Hawks midfield made mincemeat of us.

Any of Bytel, Windhager and Billings would have strengthened our midfield after Clarke went down. Bytel is arguably just a GOP, but he is certainly a strong tackler, as is Windhager. Billings, while not at all an in-and-under player, is also quite a good tackler and would certainly not have kept kicking the ball to Sicily.

I'm sure that Lyon would respond that his approach to coaching is all about teaching the players lessons, and that he simply won't have those who don't/won't learn in his team until they change their ways. Windhager needs to learn to run in the right patterns and Billings needs to learn how to get fitter. I'm not quite sure what lesson Bytel needs to learn, but there must surely be one. And I think that's a great - arguably inspirational - approach to coaching. But IMHO, Lyon has always been inclined to push it a bit too far. Attitude, fitness and the ability to follow instructions will get players so far, but skills also matter. I would suggest that there was a bit too much of a skills deficit in the team that turned out against the Hawks. It would have been easily fixed by, say, having Windhager in the team ahead of one of Byrnes or Paton, and then one of Bytel or Billings as the sub. Lyon and his assistants thought that they didn't need to do this because we were only playing the Hawks, but they got found out.

Teams playing against us have worked out that they can take a lot of risks running out of defence, because, even if they turn it over some times, we are unlikely to score buckets of goals against them across the entire match. The Hawks consistently broke our tackles and also handballed into space knowing that their players were likely to be quicker and stronger at the contest. Sydney are far better at doing these things than the Hawks. If we can't find a way of strengthening our midfield, it's going to get ugly very quickly. And moving Sinclair is not the answer: he is a champion half back and a so-so midfielder.

How bout that sub Sharman …goes all right??
Good coach knows that

[meher baba]

How bout that sub Sharman …goes all right??
Good coach knows that

He went extremely well as a like for like substitution of Caminiti. But I still think the sub should normally be a more mobile utility player. It probably doesn't matter so much at a small ground like the SCG.

Anyway, I was very impressed with Sharman last night. He is perhaps worthy of a starting position next week at the expense of an unlucky Caminiti. King, Owens and Sharman as the three tallish forwards could possibly work ok.

[whiskers3614]

Was Caminiti poor last night?
I didn’t see the game just kept checking scores on my phone.

[Teflon]

How bout that sub Sharman …goes all right??
Good coach knows that

He went extremely well as a like for like substitution of Caminiti. But I still think the sub should normally be a more mobile utility player. It probably doesn't matter so much at a small ground like the SCG.

Anyway, I was very impressed with Sharman last night. He is perhaps worthy of a starting position next week at the expense of an unlucky Caminiti. King, Owens and Sharman as the three tallish forwards could possibly work ok.

I just like the coach hey?
Think he knows but more than armchair experts
Oh and can you now see how we just might’ve missed Owens for Sicily recently??? Hate you to miss that is all….

[meher baba]

Was Caminiti poor last night?
I didn’t see the game just kept checking scores on my phone.

He was ok, I thought. There’s nothing in it really.

[Teflon]

Lyon did play someone on Sicily - Sharman and in Q3 he did a good job. That didn’t stop our daft mids from kicking the ball constantly to him - as Dixon said on Fox….Lyon can’t execute the game plan ffs surely that’s on players. Do you think Lyon instructed them to kick the ball to Sicily ????

“If one of Billing’s Bytel (struggles to get 20 in an AFL match) or a kid in Windhager had played we would have won the match???? “ Do you even read what you type - come on ffs I defy anyone on this forum to tell me that’s a semi sensible opinion …2 kids and a bit player in 9 years who failed to hit heights of a top 3 draft pick..is our smoking gun saviour???? Cmon ..

Playing Sharman on Sicily was a tactic born of necessity: the coaching staff had no particular use for a lumbering third tall, but had to do something with him. From my perspective, Sicily dominated the match from go to woe. I'll take your word that Sharman achieved something against him in the third quarter, but it certainly wasn't enough in the long run. Not Sharman's fault: he should never have been selected as sub. I've watched a lot of games this year, but I haven't noticed too many teams selecting marking forwards as sub: possibly none apart from us.

Meanwhile, Bytel, Billings and Windhager were all selected for the Zebras. Each has their limitations, but all would have been a damn sight more useful than Sharman after Clarke got injured. As we have done in most games this year, we were light on in the midfield against the Hawks: a team whose best feature apart than Sicily is their cadre of promising, speedy young mids. I would argue that we were one tackling, ball-winning mid short of the correct number. Replacing the injured Owens with Windhager or, failing that, one of Billings or Bytel, seemed the obvious selection gambit. Instead, we got the outside player Paton, with Sharman moving into the sub role. And then, when Clark was injured, we became two men down in the middle. What happened? The Hawks midfield made mincemeat of us.

Any of Bytel, Windhager and Billings would have strengthened our midfield after Clarke went down. Bytel is arguably just a GOP, but he is certainly a strong tackler, as is Windhager. Billings, while not at all an in-and-under player, is also quite a good tackler and would certainly not have kept kicking the ball to Sicily.

I'm sure that Lyon would respond that his approach to coaching is all about teaching the players lessons, and that he simply won't have those who don't/won't learn in his team until they change their ways. Windhager needs to learn to run in the right patterns and Billings needs to learn how to get fitter. I'm not quite sure what lesson Bytel needs to learn, but there must surely be one. And I think that's a great - arguably inspirational - approach to coaching. But IMHO, Lyon has always been inclined to push it a bit too far. Attitude, fitness and the ability to follow instructions will get players so far, but skills also matter. I would suggest that there was a bit too much of a skills deficit in the team that turned out against the Hawks. It would have been easily fixed by, say, having Windhager in the team ahead of one of Byrnes or Paton, and then one of Bytel or Billings as the sub. Lyon and his assistants thought that they didn't need to do this because we were only playing the Hawks, but they got found out.

Teams playing against us have worked out that they can take a lot of risks running out of defence, because, even if they turn it over some times, we are unlikely to score buckets of goals against them across the entire match. The Hawks consistently broke our tackles and also handballed into space knowing that their players were likely to be quicker and stronger at the contest. Sydney are far better at doing these things than the Hawks. If we can't find a way of strengthening our midfield, it's going to get ugly very quickly. And moving Sinclair is not the answer: he is a champion half back and a so-so midfielder.

Just wort revisiting this thinking cause as last night showed it’s flawed
The WHOLE team were poor against Hawks, that’s ok that happens but suggesting Windhager or Bytel or injury prone Billing’s was gonna save us is like saying Luke Ball would’ve been the GF differs in 09
Utter nonsense
It’s the collective that has to work, lucky for us RTB gets that and we don’t have a Voss etc at the helm…