The Fox Report - Round 1

[Red]

Ball had 9 tackles. A pretty good effort.

[fingers]

I would add

- we had 74 tackles.

did i see correct in the stats column on the afl site under "T" that Bally had 18 tackles!!!
or does the T stand for sumthing else??

T is for tackles or it cold be for Trivia questions - the players have a little competition at half time.

Either way Ball had 18, Ray and Geary 12 each.

[barks4eva]

Dodgy, for someone who has little interest in football these days and does not even bother going to games, you spend a whole lotta shakin on here talking about it


And FWIW I enjoyed the game on Saturday night, what I hate seeing is the opposition scoring goals, that fact that the players under ROSS LYON'S gameplan were able to restrict Sydney to 2 points for two and a half quarters was a sheer delight and very enjoyable indeed.

The fact that ROSS LYON recruited Michael Gardiner to our club, something your hero would have refused to do, was very pleasing, for the first time in a long time I saw a very dominant performance from a genuine St Kilda ruckman!

The fact that Stephen Milne is still running around the forwardline in a St Kilda jumper is something that excites and pleases me and thankfully ROSS LYON could see how valuable a player Stephen Milne is as a crumbing forward, something your hero failed to recognize!

I really enjoyed the game after quarter time, and take great pleasure in watching the players under ROSS LYON'S astute coaching and tactical brilliance shutting oppositions teams down!

Now back in your foxhole dodgy, don't worry we'll let you know when groundhog day arrives!

[rodgerfox]

As for new talent.. under RL

Gardi
King
Schneider
Ray
Dawson
Geary

Apart from Geary, none of that is new talent.

I'm not referring to being new to our club, I'm referring to the development of new talent.

Lyon's been at the club for a while now, and we're not seeing any evidence of his ability to tutor young players and develop them.

Hi Rodger.

Could I refer you back to my previous post on this thread and possibly ask for your response to my question?

I think you have made your opinion plain that you dont think Lyon has the ability to develop young players.

It might not be that he doesn't have the ability full stop, but it worries me that we've seen no evidence of it yet.

My question was if you think that any of our main draft recruits (Heyne, Lynch, Steven, McEvoy, or Amitage) from the Lyon era, should have received a game on Saturday night, and whom would have you replaced in the selected side?

On performance, and ability I'd say none. This is the point. At least one of them should be by now.

Would it not be better to revisit this critisism midway or three quarters through the season to see if any of the above have had an impact on the team?

Definately. It's been a concern for 12 months or more though. It's not based on Saturday night alone.

Am I correct in assuming that you think we may by heading down the Sydney path where we have an aging list with no new blood from drafting coming through? is this correct?

It looks a bit that way.

[meher baba]

I'm not normally inclined to go into bat for rodgerfox, but the lack of young up and comers in the side that ran out on Saturday night is really striking. I would venture to say that Geary was the only one who could be described in those terms.

Of the 22 players who played for us on Saturday night, 5 (Blake, Baker, Milne, Riewoldt and Kosi) were recruited in the Alves-Watson-Blight era, 10 (Chips, Joey, Dal, Gram, Ball, BJ, Raph, Mini, Gwilt and Gilbert) were recruited in the GT era, and 7 (King, Gardi, Jones, Schneider, Dawson, Ray and Geary) have been recruited under Lyon.

Not surprisingly, the average age of the first group was around 27 years and 8 months. The average age of the GT era group was around 24 years and 3 months. Together, the average age of the 15 pre-Lyon era playerswas 25 years and 4 months.

However, the average age of the RL-era recruits was 25 years and 2 months!! Of the group, only Geary (who is now in his third season at the club) could possibly be described as a "young up and comer". One would imagine that, if Sean Dempster (coincidentally, aged exactly 25 years and 2 months) were fit.

Of course, Armitage (20 years and 9 months) would probably have been playing too if fit, but probably in place of either Geary (who is a week younger than Armo).

The fact is that Lyon, like his former mentor Paul Roos, is as far away from the "give the kids a go" sort of thinking as you can possibly find. He likes his players to be seasoned and experienced, and is prepared to give recycled players a go if he thinks he can get something out of them that their previous clubs have failed to elicit.

Surely his comment that he thinks that it takes 4 seasons for young players to make the grade was a bit of a clue to his thinking?!!!

I don't have any problems with Lyon's enthusiasm for recycled players. However, unlike some of the anti-GT/pro-Lyon brigade, I never had any problem with the recruitment of Knobel, Powell, Penny, Brooks, Guerra, Gram, Watts, Ackland, McGough, etc. Some of them never worked out (Brooks, Watts, McGough), some of them worked for a while and then eventually reached their use by dates (Knobel, Powell, Guerra, Ackland), and some of them turned out ok (Penny until injured, Gram). That's the way these things go.

But I wish posters on here would stop repeating the bulldust that the main problem with GT was that he didn't try to recruit and develop young talent and that Lyon has turned that around.

And don't try to tell me that Clinton Jones = young talent. He was older than half of the other players running around for us on Saturday night!!

[matrix]

I would add

- we had 74 tackles.

did i see correct in the stats column on the afl site under "T" that Bally had 18 tackles!!!
or does the T stand for sumthing else??

T is for tackles or it cold be for Trivia questions - the players have a little competition at half time.

Either way Ball had 18, Ray and Geary 12 each.

what kind of questions?
afl?
or general knowledge?

[joffaboy]

Fair Replies.

I suppose Allen and Armo would be getting a game if not injured. Geary and Eddy are getting a game.

McEvoy is taking some time to develop and is only 19, Steven was under age when drafted and should start to come on this year.

Heyne, Lynch and Smith really only just come into the system. I would like to see them getting a game on form later in the year.

You first part of the reply is interesting. Are our young players not developing, or are they the wrong young players?

Time will tell.

[rodgerfox]

But I wish posters on here would stop repeating the bulldust that the main problem with GT was that he didn't try to recruit and develop young talent and that Lyon has turned that around.

Don't hold your breath.

[joffaboy]

And don't try to tell me that Clinton Jones = young talent. He was older than half of the other players running around for us on Saturday night!!

Wouldn't that mean that half the team is under 25?

Aren't you stats skewed by the fact that Lyon had to recruit ready made ruckmen because the previous philosophy was that rucks were not a priority? Gardiner and Clarke, and King all skew the average up.

Who apart from rucks has Lyon recycled that is over 24? cj was 23 i think, Schneider was 24, Ray, 22, Dawson 23, Begley 22 or 23, Dempster 24.

Are they too old? No good? How old was Andrew Thompson when recruited by the Saints?

Are you seriously suggesting that Allen, Armitage, Geary, Eddy, Heyne, Lynch, Steven, Smith, and McEvoy are not young prospects?

There is Nine kids 20 or under who should make seniors and play plenty of games for St.Kilda.

I think you are being a little bit disingenious to infer we dont have any young talent.

After Saturday night, who doesn't deserve their place in the seniors?

[meher baba]

Fair Replies.

I suppose Allen and Armo would be getting a game if not injured. Geary and Eddy are getting a game.

McEvoy is taking some time to develop and is only 19, Steven was under age when drafted and should start to come on this year.

Heyne, Lynch and Smith really only just come into the system. I would like to see them getting a game on form later in the year.

You first part of the reply is interesting. Are our young players not developing, or are they the wrong young players?

Time will tell.

I agree with this, but I also think that we have been a bit unlucky/unwise with our draft picks over the past few years.

We have had two top 10 draft picks and come up with Armo and McEvoy. Armo is perhaps going to be ok in the long run, but the is that - after 2 seasons - he is still competing for a spot in our top 22 with Jones, Geary, Eddy and the much-maligned McQualter. A number of other top 20 midfield draft picks from the last two seasons at other clubs are now light years ahead of the likes of Jones and Eddy.

I'm prepared to accept that McEvoy is a long-term prospect, as are the likes of Steven, Connor and Allen who were all gained with relatively late picks.

We now know (and many on here said it at the time) that Brad Howard was a waste of an early second round pick: it's hard to understand what Bevo was thinking when he picked him (nor what the club was thinking when it re-signed him last year).

We have also traded picks in the 20-30 range for the Schneider/Dempster combo and for Farren Ray.

All of this might still come good. Armo and McEvoy might develop as we hope, Steven, Connor and Allen might come on, Howard might even "do a McQualter" and demand relisting (although I doubt this last one).

But, really, it's not much of an outcome from the lucky dip. So far, it doesn't even match up to our highly criticised performances in drafting and developing young players under GT in the 2003-05 period (ie, once we got past the priority pick phase), which has brought us Raph, Chips, McQualter, Gwilt and Gilbert.

[meher baba]

Wouldn't that mean that half the team is under 25?

Aren't you stats skewed by the fact that Lyon had to recruit ready made ruckmen because the previous philosophy was that rucks were not a priority? Gardiner and Clarke, and King all skew the average up.

Who apart from rucks has Lyon recycled that is over 24? cj was 23 i think, Schneider was 24, Ray, 22, Dawson 23, Begley 22 or 23, Dempster 24.

Are they too old? No good? How old was Andrew Thompson when recruited by the Saints?

Are you seriously suggesting that Allen, Armitage, Geary, Eddy, Heyne, Lynch, Steven, Smith, and McEvoy are not young prospects?

There is Nine kids 20 or under who should make seniors and play plenty of games for St.Kilda.

I think you are being a little bit disingenious to infer we dont have any young talent.

After Saturday night, who doesn't deserve their place in the seniors?

As you will see from my next post, I agree that we do have some young prospects, but none of them have delivered much yet.

Yes, it's true that half the team on Saturday night were 25 or under, but this group includes Dal, Gram, Ball, BJ, Raph, McQualter, Gilbert and Gwilt who were all at the club well before Lyon showed up.

As I keep saying, I don't have any problem with this. But if Lyon keeps selecting so many long-established players in his team (15 of the 22 selected on Saturday night played under GT and a further 5 were playing for other clubs when GT was still coaching), this surely suggests that - if there was anything much wrong with the way we went under GT (and views on this subject will of course differ) then it can't have been that we weren't recruiting and developing talent.

[rodgerfox]

As you will see from my next post, I agree that we do have some young prospects, but none of them have delivered much yet.

I think you're being a bit generous there.

They haven't delivered anything at all.

[WayneJudson42]

But I wish posters on here would stop repeating the bulldust that the main problem with GT was that he didn't try to recruit and develop young talent and that Lyon has turned that around.

Don't hold your breath.

So you can bag Lyon for something that is yet to, but may very well happen... yet we can't use hindsight to talk about your demi-god?

I didn't realize you had such an open sense of humour.


Let's wait and see what 2009 and 2010 brings, shall we??

[rodgerfox]

So you can bag Lyon for something that is yet to, but may very well happen... yet we can't use hindsight to talk about your demi-god?

I'm not following?

It looks as though you're keen for a childish argument and are trying pretty hard to get one.

If that's the case, don't waste your time.

If it's not, you'll need to articulate your point much better because I'm unsure what you're getting at.

[WayneJudson42]

Wouldn't that mean that half the team is under 25?

Aren't you stats skewed by the fact that Lyon had to recruit ready made ruckmen because the previous philosophy was that rucks were not a priority? Gardiner and Clarke, and King all skew the average up.

Who apart from rucks has Lyon recycled that is over 24? cj was 23 i think, Schneider was 24, Ray, 22, Dawson 23, Begley 22 or 23, Dempster 24.

Are they too old? No good? How old was Andrew Thompson when recruited by the Saints?

Are you seriously suggesting that Allen, Armitage, Geary, Eddy, Heyne, Lynch, Steven, Smith, and McEvoy are not young prospects?

There is Nine kids 20 or under who should make seniors and play plenty of games for St.Kilda.

I think you are being a little bit disingenious to infer we dont have any young talent.

After Saturday night, who doesn't deserve their place in the seniors?

As you will see from my next post, I agree that we do have some young prospects, but none of them have delivered much yet.

Yes, it's true that half the team on Saturday night were 25 or under, but this group includes Dal, Gram, Ball, BJ, Raph, McQualter, Gilbert and Gwilt who were all at the club well before Lyon showed up.

As I keep saying, I don't have any problem with this. But if Lyon keeps selecting so many long-established players in his team (15 of the 22 selected on Saturday night played under GT and a further 5 were playing for other clubs when GT was still coaching), this surely suggests that - if there was anything much wrong with the way we went under GT (and views on this subject will of course differ) then it can't have been that we weren't recruiting and developing talent.

Why the need to turn this into a RL v GT thread?

How about we deal with the "here and now". GT has gone. People will be polarized in their opinions until they're 6 foot under.

I can understand that RF hates Lyon and has to find a negative to can him every week, but I'd expect better from you MB.

Do we really need this?

[rodgerfox]

I can understand that RF hates Lyon and has to find a negative to can him every week, but I'd expect better from you MB.

Do we really need this?

I've had a beer with Lyon and he's quite a good bloke. I don't hate him at all.

To say I do is an outright lie.

You're a liar Wayne.

[Mr Magic]

Congratulations roger, you've once again managed to achieve what you set out to do.
By posting another of your 'Wolf (should that be Fox?) in Sheep's clothing' threads you've succeeded in getting others to allow you to post your anti-RL comments.

And all after a very good win by us!
Something that deserved to have been applauded by all and sundry.
I eagerly await the 'joyful' thread you will post after we play poorly for a whole game.

But I do have to applaud your ability to draw others into your web even though they know exactly what you're doing.

I don't understand why you don't just post your anti-RL vitriol without the surreptitious bs camouflage?

Maybe you're just trying to 'con' the newbies on here that you really don't have an agenda of anti-RL?

[rodgerfox]

Congratulations roger, you've once again managed to achieve what you set out to do.
By posting another of your 'Wolf (should that be Fox?) in Sheep's clothing' threads you've succeeded in getting others to allow you to post your anti-RL comments.

And all after a very good win by us!
Something that deserved to have been applauded by all and sundry.
I eagerly await the 'joyful' thread you will post after we play poorly for a whole game.

But I do have to applaud your ability to draw others into your web even though they know exactly what you're doing.

I don't understand why you don't just post your anti-RL vitriol without the surreptitious bs camouflage?

Maybe you're just trying to 'con' the newbies on here that you really don't have an agenda of anti-RL?

A couple of things on this odd post....

1) Why do continually misspell my name? It's quite rude.
2) Vitriol? Can you provide evidence of this vitriol? I am cricitial of Lyon as a coach, sure. But vitriol? Perhaps you need to dust off your thesaurus.
3) I don't think it was a very good win. Parts of it were very good, parts of it were very bad.
A good win, yes. A very good win, no.
4) I've never cared what anyone on here thinks about me or my views. I share them, and discuss them. As for 'conning' anyone, why would I bother? I couldn't give a stuff what people think of me - let alone internet personas.

[joffaboy]

Congratulations roger, you've once again managed to achieve what you set out to do.
By posting another of your 'Wolf (should that be Fox?) in Sheep's clothing' threads you've succeeded in getting others to allow you to post your anti-RL comments.

And all after a very good win by us!
Something that deserved to have been applauded by all and sundry.
I eagerly await the 'joyful' thread you will post after we play poorly for a whole game.

But I do have to applaud your ability to draw others into your web even though they know exactly what you're doing.

I don't understand why you don't just post your anti-RL vitriol without the surreptitious bs camouflage?

Maybe you're just trying to 'con' the newbies on here that you really don't have an agenda of anti-RL?

MM - I think this is pretty harsh.

I am sure RF can defend himself and would by no means want someone like me whom has had numerous run in with him on here to defend him, however he had one critisism in his OP, and he has been pretty consistant on that.

the rest of the post was pretty fair and pretty positive.

I didn't see any "vitriol". RF believes that Lyon is not developing young players and at the expense of drafting recycled players.

I asked some pointed questions on this one "critisism" and i think he answered fairly - to the point where at one stage he clearly stated that he didn't know if RL was incapable of developing players, but that just ATM he isn't.

My response to both he and mb can be seen above, some in agreement, some in disagreement, hardly a flame war.

I dont see why RL cant be critisised, especially on something as important as player development of young players.

There may be a perception that RF is anti Lyon on this forum, but in this case he didn't start an anti Lyon thread, it was me who picked out the one real critisism in the OP and ran with it, not RF.

Anyway i think it is a fair critisism, even if I dont fully agree.

[Mr Magic]

[4) I've never cared what anyone on here thinks about me or my views. I share them, and discuss them. As for 'conning' anyone, why would I bother? I couldn't give a stuff what people think of me - let alone internet personas.

In the famous words of a saintsational legend in his own personna:-

You're a LIAR!

[markp]

As for 'conning' anyone, why would I bother?

Who freakin knows, maybe your shrink has some idea... but you get your jollies from seeing how often you can suck people in with the same little 3 card trick over and over.... it's pathetic.

[ctqs]

I'm not normally inclined to go into bat for rodgerfox, but the lack of young up and comers in the side that ran out on Saturday night is really striking. I would venture to say that Geary was the only one who could be described in those terms.

Of the 22 players who played for us on Saturday night, 5 (Blake, Baker, Milne, Riewoldt and Kosi) were recruited in the Alves-Watson-Blight era, 10 (Chips, Joey, Dal, Gram, Ball, BJ, Raph, Mini, Gwilt and Gilbert) were recruited in the GT era, and 7 (King, Gardi, Jones, Schneider, Dawson, Ray and Geary) have been recruited under Lyon.

Not surprisingly, the average age of the first group was around 27 years and 8 months. The average age of the GT era group was around 24 years and 3 months. Together, the average age of the 15 pre-Lyon era playerswas 25 years and 4 months.

However, the average age of the RL-era recruits was 25 years and 2 months!! Of the group, only Geary (who is now in his third season at the club) could possibly be described as a "young up and comer". One would imagine that, if Sean Dempster (coincidentally, aged exactly 25 years and 2 months) were fit.

Of course, Armitage (20 years and 9 months) would probably have been playing too if fit, but probably in place of either Geary (who is a week younger than Armo).

The fact is that Lyon, like his former mentor Paul Roos, is as far away from the "give the kids a go" sort of thinking as you can possibly find. He likes his players to be seasoned and experienced, and is prepared to give recycled players a go if he thinks he can get something out of them that their previous clubs have failed to elicit.

Surely his comment that he thinks that it takes 4 seasons for young players to make the grade was a bit of a clue to his thinking?!!!

I don't have any problems with Lyon's enthusiasm for recycled players. However, unlike some of the anti-GT/pro-Lyon brigade, I never had any problem with the recruitment of Knobel, Powell, Penny, Brooks, Guerra, Gram, Watts, Ackland, McGough, etc. Some of them never worked out (Brooks, Watts, McGough), some of them worked for a while and then eventually reached their use by dates (Knobel, Powell, Guerra, Ackland), and some of them turned out ok (Penny until injured, Gram). That's the way these things go.

But I wish posters on here would stop repeating the bulldust that the main problem with GT was that he didn't try to recruit and develop young talent and that Lyon has turned that around.

And don't try to tell me that Clinton Jones = young talent. He was older than half of the other players running around for us on Saturday night!!

We won. Why is there a need to play kids? We're not rebuilding, are we? Or do you think the window is closed? How many premiership contenders have a batch of kids in their best 22?

[Mr Magic]

Congratulations roger, you've once again managed to achieve what you set out to do.
By posting another of your 'Wolf (should that be Fox?) in Sheep's clothing' threads you've succeeded in getting others to allow you to post your anti-RL comments.

And all after a very good win by us!
Something that deserved to have been applauded by all and sundry.
I eagerly await the 'joyful' thread you will post after we play poorly for a whole game.

But I do have to applaud your ability to draw others into your web even though they know exactly what you're doing.

I don't understand why you don't just post your anti-RL vitriol without the surreptitious bs camouflage?

Maybe you're just trying to 'con' the newbies on here that you really don't have an agenda of anti-RL?

MM - I think this is pretty harsh.

I am sure RF can defend himself and would by no means want someone like me whom has had numerous run in with him on here to defend him, however he had one critisism in his OP, and he has been pretty consistant on that.

the rest of the post was pretty fair and pretty positive.

I didn't see any "vitriol". RF believes that Lyon is not developing young players and at the expense of drafting recycled players.

I asked some pointed questions on this one "critisism" and i think he answered fairly - to the point where at one stage he clearly stated that he didn't know if RL was incapable of developing players, but that just ATM he isn't.

My response to both he and mb can be seen above, some in agreement, some in disagreement, hardly a flame war.

I dont see why RL cant be critisised, especially on something as important as player development of young players.

There may be a perception that RF is anti Lyon on this forum, but in this case he didn't start an anti Lyon thread, it was me who picked out the one real critisism in the OP and ran with it, not RF.

Anyway i think it is a fair critisism, even if I dont fully agree.

Joffa, I don't believe that rodgerfox posts anything without thinking deeply about it first.

I also don't believe, having witnessed it many times before, that he doesn't have an ulterior motive when he posts his Fox Report (self worship?) and other threads.

He has maintained an anti-Lyon stance for at least 2 years - since the 3 month period he so graciously gave our Coach to prove himself and so many of his posts have been predicated on this disbelief that RL can coach.

I'm actually amazed that you, normally pretty quick to pick up on posters 'who are gilding the lily' haven't seen this particular thread in that light?

Maybe you need to go back and read some of the anti-RL bs he was posting after the game and compare it with this OP.

IMHO he has an ulterior motive for his Fox Report and that is to draw others in so that he gets more opportunity to sink the boots into RL the Coach.

But hey, everybody is entitled to their opinion.
Everybody that is that agrees with rodgerfox's view of things.
If you should dare to disagree with his view you are either not worthy of debate or a Liar, the term he so frequently resorts to calling other posters.

[joffaboy]

Joffa, I don't believe that rodgerfox posts anything without thinking deeply about it first.

I also don't believe, having witnessed it many times before, that he doesn't have an ulterior motive when he posts his Fox Report (self worship?) and other threads.

He has maintained an anti-Lyon stance for at least 2 years - since the 3 month period he so graciously gave our Coach to prove himself and so many of his posts have been predicated on this disbelief that RL can coach.

I'm actually amazed that you, normally pretty quick to pick up on posters 'who are gilding the lily' haven't seen this particular thread in that light?

Maybe you need to go back and read some of the anti-RL bs he was posting after the game and compare it with this OP.

IMHO he has an ulterior motive for his Fox Report and that is to draw others in so that he gets more opportunity to sink the boots into RL the Coach.

But hey, everybody is entitled to their opinion.
Everybody that is that agrees with rodgerfox's view of things.
If you should dare to disagree with his view you are either not worthy of debate or a Liar, the term he so frequently resorts to calling other posters.

Well I thought the thread was fair and reasonable.

My point stands - why is Rl sacrosant from critisism regarding development of the young players?

AFAIAC the development of young players can only be viewed in hindsight, so the current critisism I believe is premature.

RF believed we should have rebuilt after we changed coaches, so he has a philosophical difference of opinion with Lyon's method of recycling older players.

As at R1 2009 RF can claim that his critisism is warranted. his point is valid to an extent, where are the young draftees demanding a place in the team? However as I said I believe the critisism to be premature. If we have not seen Armo and Steven, and even Heyne or Lynch for a few games this year, his critisism may be justified and warranted.

As for me not "recognising" RF's deceptive ways, I think you will find that I have had one or two heated disagreements with RF over the course of time.

I saw some of his posts re the win. So what? His opinion was it wasn't impressive, thats his opinion.

This thread OP was pretty positive. I dont see why, just because there is a perception that one poster is anti Lyon that the Op on this thread cant be seen in isolation to other posts and threads.

[WayneJudson42]

I can understand that RF hates Lyon and has to find a negative to can him every week, but I'd expect better from you MB.

Do we really need this?

I've had a beer with Lyon and he's quite a good bloke. I don't hate him at all.

To say I do is an outright lie.

You're a liar Wayne.

sticks and stones... sticks and stones...

Did you tell him what you thought about his coaching and how he's taken us backwards.

Fact is that you do not rate him as a coach... therefore dislike him. My comments were purely aboout your lack of esteem for him being coach.

Now, why would I form such a view???

Quite simply because almost every one of your posts has to include a dig at Lyon.

You should just change this topic to: The Bag Lyon Report.

"This week we won, but (insert Lyon putdown of the week here)."

And leave it at that.

And before we get the old"if you don't like, it don't read it"... until you be truly objective about the coach, then perhaps don't comment.

BTW, if wanted a childish argument, then you're the man.

JB: A total rebuild was never warranted IMO. We still have a solid core.

I'd suggest the "recycled" players are there to fill the gaps whilst our next gen develops.

Personally, I'd rather see it happen this way, than have our kids thrown to the wolves. But that's just my view.

As stated above, if you have written off a person already, you cannot seriously argue objectively when it comes to giving a balanced view.

Having Doger discuss RL's performance is akin to having Andrew Bolt evaluate Rudd as PM.

Lucky he's no longer interested in AFL and won't be back for 10 years... Now that's a LIAR!

Cheers.