Poor poor tactics

[BAM! (shhhh)]

Posted this into the "Lyon should read SS" thread, got a PM that it ought be it's own... probably more to do with that thread being a slanging match than my writing, but I'll take em how I can get em

--------------------------------------------

Ah, I had a feeling that having recovered from the weekend can't-face-thinking-about-the-Saints-cuz-they-lostitis I might find something on here with the doubts of Lyon surfacing again. And so they should. The system of win-by-a-little/lose-by-a-lot is a bit overdone now.

Lets not call that Grant Thomas football just to suit our Agenda's either. As Bigcarl has joyously pointed out time and again, kick it to Roo kick it to Reiwoldt has been a Saints staple for a long time. That was partly so frustrating because kicking it to them in the goalsquare when for the sake of 3 more steps a shot could be taken at times defied logic. That wasn't kick it to targets or fast ball movement, that was panic as soon as they passed the center line. The ball would continually be kicked to the CHF position the moment a Saint passed the centre, with predictable results. It's no secret the dogs like to run from half back...

At some point surely the coach has to recognise that it's not working. The criticism of GT that's always held most weight with me was an inibility to do this and adjust. Lyon served up the same. At quarter time the dogs started pushing back numbers at any cost (several times we had 4 in our defensive 50 at the opening bounce - WITH A LOOSE MAN!)... and we spent the next 3 quarters kicking it to the place where those numbers were. St. Kilda would actually have fared better if Lyon's offense worked the way it has oft been accused of - slowly. Instead it was the dope in Rodney's rope.

The players need to share a lot of blame. They got smashed at the clearances after quarter time... I'm stupified at having watched Luke Ball running in off a wing with Nick Dal Santo at half back with the flow out of the middle strongly against us though. It's good to try different things, but by the time Schneider was on ball in the fourth, you got the feeling Lyon was just gambling rather than creating.

As for the much doubted forward line. I actually like the forward line, and I'm willing to give them time to gel. What I dislike immensely is the number of times Milne and Schneider are the guys gontesting the drop of the ball in a tall forward line. I'm also staggered by the suggestion Kosi is not in his prime, I wonder when his prime is scheduled?

I'm more than happy to credit Eade and the Dogs with a great game Friday night. To come back after quarter time and win nearly every key stat showed character and skill - the Dogs have been vastly underestimated by many, including me. However, with that as a given, the Dogs earned a win from 6 goals down, but it was St. Kilda that made sure it was 40 points worth.

I'm not calling for Lyon's head yet, but I'm moving further and further to the view that he's not up to the job. I hope he proves me wrong...

[JeffDunne]

I don't understand the fixation on tactics from last Friday's game.

We lost control of the contest because our opposition were prepared to work harder.

Many things in football have changed but one fundamental remains the same - you need to work harder than your opposition.

If you're working harder and still losing then by all means finger the tactics but we weren't even in the same ballpark as the Bulldogs when it came to workrate.

Our players need to realise that when you're on top it's a reason to work harder not a reason to rest on your laurels.

[rodgerfox]

I don't understand the fixation on tactics from last Friday's game.

We lost control of the contest because our opposition were prepared to work harder.

Many things in football have changed but one fundamental remains the same - you need to work harder than your opposition.

If you're working harder and still losing then by all means finger the tactics but we weren't even in the same ballpark as the Bulldogs when it came to workrate.

Our players need to realise that when you're on top it's a reason to work harder not a reason to rest on your laurels.

JeffDunne, I agree.

I was saying the same thing when Thomas was in charge. My comments were misinterpreted as being a 'GT lover'. But clearly that has never been the case.

My argument all along is that tactics, strategies, 'Plan B's' etc. all look great when your players intensity is at 100% for 4 quarters.

When it's not, your game plan looks bad, and people start potting it. People always look for this mythical 'Plan B'. It basically doesn't exist - not with good coaches anyway.


My concern with GT towards the end was that we simply weren't getting that 100% intensity anymore. It wasn't his game plan or tactics that were failing us, it was the players putting in. But I believe, the coach is very much responsible and accountable for this. This is pretty much the coaches main role.

My concern with Lyon is basically the same. We seem to breath fire for 10 mins at a time, then go to sleep. Coincidentally, when we're breathing fire we put the score on the board. Albeit not as convincing as previous years, but we do look pretty good. It's not magic, it's hard work.

No matter what the structure is, no matter what the game plan is, no matter who's getting hitouts to advantage - when the effort and intensity is there, your game plan could be to run the ball from one end of the ground to the other with it between your arse cheeks, and you'd be successful.

We're supposedly fit now. We have a new coach. We've had a great pre-season supposedly. We're settled off-field. We have fresh blood in the group.

So where's the intensity?

Where is the effort?

We have no excuse. Lyon has no excuse for not having the players ripping their own teeth out and running through brick walls. This is his job.

Granted it's early, but in the scheme of things, it's been like this for 18 months.

[BakesFan]

I don't understand the fixation on tactics from last Friday's game.

We lost control of the contest because our opposition were prepared to work harder.

That's it in a nutshell, JD.
People can argue tactics as mush as they like, but the simple fact is The Saints endeavour was eclipsed by that of The Bulldogs in the last 3 quarters. They wanted the footy more, got the footy more, and scored more. With the exception of Lenny and Bally, no-one seemed to want the hard ball.

I dare say contesting, tackling, shepherding drills will probably be the order of the day at training this week; and it couldn't come at a better time. I expect to see a 'hard' Saints outfit take on The Cats this week.
Come 5.00pm Saturday we'll know exactly where we are...............

and GEEZ we miss Bakes!!

[saintsRrising]

I don't understand the fixation on tactics from last Friday's game.

We lost control of the contest because our opposition were prepared to work harder.Many things in football have changed but one fundamental remains the same - you need to work harder than your opposition.

.

Fully agree....lack of workrate is what I have been posting since Friday night was the prime cause.

100% effort for 25 % of the time does not win football games.

[saintsRrising]

.

Granted it's early, but in the scheme of things, it's been like this for 18 months.

IMO it has been like this post-streak.


We are like the girl with the curl...........

[rodgerfox]

.

Granted it's early, but in the scheme of things, it's been like this for 18 months.

IMO it has been like this post-streak.


We are like the girl with the curl...........

2005 was our best year IMO.

[saintsRrising]

Potential.....too many of our players are flagged as having potential.

Fair enough in for first year or two......but if you are still carrying that tag later in your career that is likely to be a sign of lack of workrate (at training to develop and in the game for application).


Success as the saying goes is 99% perspiration and 1% inspiration.

In footy talent is not enough......you have to hunger for success and to be prepared to work really hard for it.


While there area few freaks such as Gary Ablett Snr who were just naturally very good....most very good players have exceptional workrates including focus.



Bakes makes the most of his talent.....by working hard.

Even Blake makes the most of his talent by working hard.....

Roo makes the most of his talent by working hard...as does Max and Banger..

But the Saints list has many "naturals" who are just cruising along...brillainat one quarter but non-existant the next.



In the Dogs game in the last three quaters did anyone see Banger just content to trot lazilly after a player.....or fail to present an optoin again and again???

Can Dal or X say the same?? No they cannot.


Win, lose or draw...what satisfies me every week is if I can walk away from a game knowing that my team has had a fair dinkum crack.


I could say that after watching the Swans game.....but not after the Dogs game.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

I don't understand the fixation on tactics from last Friday's game.

We lost control of the contest because our opposition were prepared to work harder.

Many things in football have changed but one fundamental remains the same - you need to work harder than your opposition.

If you're working harder and still losing then by all means finger the tactics but we weren't even in the same ballpark as the Bulldogs when it came to workrate.

Our players need to realise that when you're on top it's a reason to work harder not a reason to rest on your laurels.

As I said, I don't mean to take anything away from the bulldogs who for 3 quarters were better at teh clearances, and harder at the contest.

Tactics and matchups both failed terribly though, and this has become a pattern. I don't mean to let the players off the hook... but IMO they had no help from the man in the box, and that's not an opinion formed solely on the basis of Friday night's game, though that game provides an excellent example... and the frustration that requires venting.

[aussiejones]

Did the Team think they are better than they are ?
Did they think it was won a qtr time ?

Well should have been a big wake up call....... so lets see....

[spert]

Yes aussiejones -that's exactly right.

[rodgerfox]

So, in Kosi's 100th game, against a team that will probably play finals, at our home ground, with our fitness at the best it's been for years - we give up? The players just throw in the towel?

This is just simply unacceptable by the players, and a huge suggestion that Lyon isn't getting his point across.

[SENsei]

Good thread.

Will be interesting to see how the players respond against the competition benchmarks this week.

Anything less than 100% intensity for 100% of the time will result in certain defeat.

[avid]

Why are we arguing tactics versus effort as if only one is the real reason? To be a top contender you have to have both working together.
The causes of a loss can be found maybe just in the tactics, or just in the effort, or in both combined. But the recipe for success requires both at the same time.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

Why are we arguing tactics versus effort as if only one is the real reason? To be a top contender you have to have both working together.
The causes of a loss can be found maybe just in the tactics, or just in the effort, or in both combined. But the recipe for success requires both at the same time.

Well said.

In a small loss, say a couple of goals, it might be an either/or... when it's 40 points in a massive turnaround like that, everyone involved needs to step up.

[meher baba]

The problem with the Barney the Dinosaur approach to coaching is that it relies on the entire team giving 150% effort every week.

He seems to want the team to work hard, but not to work smart.

Our players with the greatest individual skills or spark - the likes of Riewoldt, Kosi, G-train, Grammy, Bally, Dal, X - seem to be required to do as much grunt work as the Blakes and etc.

It works at the Swans, where they have a whole bunch of grey, interchangable players who can run up and down the ground all day (especially the SCG, where this is only marginally more tiring than running up and down on the spot).

When you apply it to a Dal or a Riewoldt, it is like using a Ferrari to pull a trailer to the tip.

[Life Long Saint]

Our structure relies on us winning the clearances and moving the ball quickly before the opposition can get extra numbers inside 50 to crowd the talls.

Given that, why would Blake and L Fisher be given key roles in the centre bounce for a lot of the game? Two thirds of your centre stoppage players are taggers and not the guys you want kicking the ball inside 50.

For mine, only Dal, Hayes, Ball, Harvey, Montagna, X Clarke, Gram and Goddard should be rotated through the middle for centre stoppages.

If we insist on playing Blake then he should be restricted to a run-with role with little focus on him actually getting the ball. The alternative is to throw down the challenge for a better user of the ball to be more accountable for the bloke he plays on.

On Friday, I would rather have seen Dal or Joey gone head to head with Cooney and Blake go and play on Josh Hill as Cooney playes where the action is and Hill was running out wide.

[bigcarl]

The problem with the Barney the Dinosaur approach to coaching is that it relies on the entire team giving 150% effort every week.

He seems to want the team to work hard, but not to work smart.

Our players with the greatest individual skills or spark - the likes of Riewoldt, Kosi, G-train, Grammy, Bally, Dal, X - seem to be required to do as much grunt work as the Blakes and etc.

It works at the Swans, where they have a whole bunch of grey, interchangable players who can run up and down the ground all day (especially the SCG, where this is only marginally more tiring than running up and down on the spot).

When you apply it to a Dal or a Riewoldt, it is like using a Ferrari to pull a trailer to the tip.

good point. players have different strengths. they are what they are and it is often pointless trying to turn them into something they are not.

make them work on their weaknesses, sure, but allow them to play to their strengths.

[SteveStevens66]

The problem with the Barney the Dinosaur approach to coaching is that it relies on the entire team giving 150% effort every week.

He seems to want the team to work hard, but not to work smart.

Our players with the greatest individual skills or spark - the likes of Riewoldt, Kosi, G-train, Grammy, Bally, Dal, X - seem to be required to do as much grunt work as the Blakes and etc.

It works at the Swans, where they have a whole bunch of grey, interchangable players who can run up and down the ground all day (especially the SCG, where this is only marginally more tiring than running up and down on the spot).

When you apply it to a Dal or a Riewoldt, it is like using a Ferrari to pull a trailer to the tip.

Absolutely spot on.

In the run up to the game, Lyon said in reference to the Dogs, "we'll have to bring our work boots." When I saw that I was deeply disappointed because it indicated that what Lyon wanted was a workmanlike, journeyman's performance. And don't say "it was just an expression." He is a coach; they are paid to talk to players (and the media). Their words are important.

Our best players are not draught horses; they are thoroughbreds and should be treated and coached as such.

[cwrcyn]

Meher, the analogy of the Ferrari taking a trailer to the tip is absolutely spot on.

Why waste talented and creative footballers on defensive grunt work? For God's sake, you can bring in Armitage to do that, and then allow Hayes to be creative, rather than a smash and crash man.

By the way, I think we're missing Baker. He could free up one of our more creative midfielders, as well.

[saintsRrising]

The problem with the
Our best players are not draught horses; they are thoroughbreds and should be treated and coached as such.

I thought we wanted footballers....not ballet stars????
We have too many prima donas that don't want to play for the team.

The problem with the
they are thoroughbreds and should be treated and coached as such.

....nad having been treated that way in the past is why so many of our so called star are not stars at all.

When they can perform 4 quarters week in week out like Banger has...then they may truly reach their potential.

[saintsRrising]

Meher, the analogy of the Ferrari taking a trailer to the tip is absolutely spot on.

Why waste talented and creative footballers on defensive grunt work? For God's sake, you can bring in Armitage to do that, and then allow Hayes to be creative, rather than a smash and crash man.

.

Have you watched Hayes play???

He is at his best in heavy traffic bursting through them..


Dal needs to learn to play on the ball..

You need your best players where the action is.

Did Bradman come in at No 11????



I cannot undertatand peoples view that we need to molly coddle our so called stars.

If Dal is not good enough to take the heat of the midfield...then he clearly is no star.
He needs to play mainly where the action is...and if he cannot then we need to find others that can.

By the way, I think we're missing Baker. He could free up one of our more creative midfielders, as well.

I hope that is nota suggestion to play all of Blake, Baker and L Fisher on the ball...



But yes we are missing Baker...who is nota prima dona.

[Mr X from the West]

I think we're a very good team when we've got the ball but an awful team when we don't.

The Bulldogs beat us because they know how the beat us - starve us of the ball. We simply don't have the footspeed to get to contests and create turnovers.....opposition teams move the ball up the field too easily against us, using "lead up" options and short kicks. We don't get near the ball.

And our zoning doesn't help....successful zoning relies heavily on opposing teams stuffing up. When they don't, we get scored against heavily.

[SENsei]

The more I think about Friday night, the more I think this will be a watershed game.

Back in 1999, the Hawthorn win after we were 63 points up was a negative watershed in that it sent us into a spiral of despair that Timmy Watson (for all the phones he smashed) couldn't recover from.

Fast forward to 2008, we will learn. We will prosper. We have a coach who I believe has the nouse to adapt.

I have no evidence to back that comment up, just a 'vibe'.

Onwards and upwards. We have had a huge kick in the butt. All good from here.

[cwrcyn]

You just need to release guys like Hayes occasionally. With all this bench/midfield rotation, you have quality players sitting on the pine when they could be on the wing or forward flank.

Unfortunately, we don't have any young, quick, enthusiastic midfielders who can spark the team, so that's why the likes of Hayes need to occasionally play an 'outside' role.