Differences between Watters and Richardson???

[saintkev]

I see lots of similarities. Both have a boringly predictable game plan of playing around the flanks and kicking the pill to Riewoldt, at all costs. Neither is prepared to switch player postions when things go belly up. Great coaches are adaptable and have that expectation of players. Allan Jeans would switch Howell effectively from defence to attack, or vice versa. Cowboy, Laurence and Breen could play effectively at either end.
Both coaches have this zoning off style as distinct from attacking the ball-carrier. Both of them under-emphasize the self-sacrificial things such as shepherding to create avenues to goal. For years, too many Saints players have stood back of the play waiting for the easy out handball.
Both talk a lot of nonsensical AFL-speak

[skeptic]

Mmmm, i thought the Saints did the 1%s better earlier in the season but with Gilbert, Fisher, Hickey out to name a few i think they are simply tiring

[Con Gorozidis]

Im struggling to see enormous differences in the way we play either.

Remember in 2012 we won 12 games in Watters first season. We wont win half that many this year.

Ive never been big on coach hype or the coach as a messiah. The good ones are never as good as they say and the bad ones are never as bad. I am a big believer in players and lists though. Its all about talent and timing. Most coaches probably fairly similar - sure there are differences - but these are small compared with differences in playing lists. You parachute Justin Leppitsch into Port Adelaide and they will finish top 4 still. You parachute Alistair Clarkson into Brisbane or Melbourne (or the Saints) and they still finish bottom 4.

This wont be a popular thread though.

[skeptic]

Im struggling to see enormous differences in the way we play either.

Remember in 2012 we won 12 games in Watters first season. We wont win half that many this year.

Ive never been big on coach hype or the coach as a messiah. The good ones are never as good as they say and the bad ones are never as bad. I am a big believer in players and lists though. Its all about talent and timing. Most coaches probably fairly similar - sure there are differences - but these are small compared with differences in playing lists. You parachute Justin Leppitsch into Port Adelaide and they will finish top 4 still. You parachute Alistair Clarkson into Brisbane or Melbourne (or the Saints) and they still finish bottom 4.

This wont be a popular thread though.

See i'm inclined to agree with this to a point.

The thing about Clarkson is that Hawthorn have not only managed to claw their way up from the bottom, but they've managed stay contenders whilst rebuilding. It's what gives him the potential title for current best coach in the AFL.

Whereas you look at someone like Chris Scott who got gifted a premiership hardened team and you wonder if he really is that good or how he would do coaching say Richmond.

Then you get to a guy like RL, got gifted 2 teams that were close to being ready to push for a flag...
He's widely regarded as one of the best tactical coaches in the league... Yet he ran us into the ground and Freo (at least for now) seem to be falling away too. Is he really that good or is he just competent but got given good lists

[saintspremiers]

Why wasn't this posted at the end of round 2?

[Cairnsman]

Why wasn't this posted at the end of round 2?

Or after we defeated the Bombers.

[magnifisaint]

I think St Kilda need to stick with Richardson through thick and thin. Even if they get belted for the next couple of years then they need to see his contract out. After the coach the next most important person at the club is the list manager. Without the players a coach is nothing. Let's see how good Fremantle will be without Pavlich, McPharlin, Mundy when he heads back to Victoria and Sandilands are gone. If the Saints sack another coach then no one except the desperate would want to coach the Saints. Patience is the key, they need 5 years before they become a really good side.

[Cairnsman]

Im struggling to see enormous differences in the way we play either.

Remember in 2012 we won 12 games in Watters first season. We wont win half that many this year.

Ive never been big on coach hype or the coach as a messiah. The good ones are never as good as they say and the bad ones are never as bad. I am a big believer in players and lists though. Its all about talent and timing. Most coaches probably fairly similar - sure there are differences - but these are small compared with differences in playing lists. You parachute Justin Leppitsch into Port Adelaide and they will finish top 4 still. You parachute Alistair Clarkson into Brisbane or Melbourne (or the Saints) and they still finish bottom 4.

This wont be a popular thread though.

See i'm inclined to agree with this to a point.

The thing about Clarkson is that Hawthorn have not only managed to claw their way up from the bottom, but they've managed stay contenders whilst rebuilding. It's what gives him the potential title for current best coach in the AFL.

Whereas you look at someone like Chris Scott who got gifted a premiership hardened team and you wonder if he really is that good or how he would do coaching say Richmond.

Then you get to a guy like RL, got gifted 2 teams that were close to being ready to push for a flag...
He's widely regarded as one of the best tactical coaches in the league... Yet he ran us into the ground and Freo (at least for now) seem to be falling away too. Is he really that good or is he just competent but got given good lists

Clarko was gifted some of the best draft picks arguably in the history of the draft so he had a decent leg up there but yes Clarko and Malthouse are the only coaches able to lay claim to building a premiership team from the bottom of the ladder.

As far as the Hawks remaining contenders, well I will be very interested to see what happens when their largish band of over 30s group hit the wall which isn't too far away. It wont surprise me if they even fell right away this year and struggled in this years finals. I actually think their (best 22) list is in a similar position to where ours was in 2010.

I heard Dermie speak about this recently on SEN where he said they're over 30s band are at serious risk of sustaining soft tissue injuries because that's what happens to players in their 30s. He was suggesting their 2014 campaign could be made very difficult if the over 30s brigade weren't fit and firing...he said that before Mitchell, Hodge, Lake and Gibson got injured.

They don't look so scary if you take them out of the equation, then throw one of Burgoyne or Sewell onto the injury list and the Coach starts to look a little vulnerable. And that's not even including Rioli on the injury list which is often.

House of cards IMO.

[SainterK]

Richo has the players

[Mr Magic]

Richo has the players

And apparently
the coaching staff
the ancillary staff
the office staff
and everyone else involved with the Club.

Watters apparently managed to lose most of them.

[saintspremiers]

Richo has the players

And apparently
the coaching staff
the ancillary staff
the office staff
and everyone else involved with the Club.

Watters apparently managed to lose most of them.

And that is all that's important. As long as.it stays that way until at least 2016 we can set ourselves up for finals and . a future.

[dragit]

The thing about Clarkson is that Hawthorn have not only managed to claw their way up from the bottom, but they've managed stay contenders whilst rebuilding. It's what gives him the potential title for current best coach in the AFL.

He's obviously a very good coach, but I'm not sure if they have been re-building while contending… They've given away a lot of early picks & have been "topping up" for years, recruiting for the now, which of course is fine if you are winning flags like they have… not so good if you lose a couple like us. Similar to us, their best 5-6 players are well over 28.

[SainterK]

Richo has the players

And apparently
the coaching staff
the ancillary staff
the office staff
and everyone else involved with the Club.

Watters apparently managed to lose most of them.

So I hear...

I'm not arguing he was broken, paranoid and unhinged by the end.

Lets hope Alan makes it, cause he's not likely to have success afterwards if it doesn't work with the saints, that's just how it happens.

[spert]

I can't see anything yet to say AR is any better than SW, who I still believe was shafted the club, but that's another story and is history now.

We need to wait until the season is over to assess AR as a coach. If we see ongoing improvements in players, see competitive efforts in losses, and see wins along the way then we can assume he is on the right track. At the moment I see encouraging signs from a couple of youngsters, good efforts from Roo, Lenny and Montagna, but the wheels have fallen off in the last three games, and no doubt losing players to injury(appears medical mis management in the case of Gilbert and Hickey)plus Steven not being in match condition has unsettled the team.

[philtee]

Riewoldt has not been the only tall forward option - he's the only one that actually does something with it.
Stanley and Maister get the delivery but drop the pill, then are ineffective at ground level.
If they held half their marks and kicked three goals a game, we'd be marveling at the Saints' 3-pronged
forward set-up. Hopeful for a harder working Sippos or Tommy Lee to take their place.
Granted the delivery into the forward line can be dreadful - high floaters, ground balls, passes into the
pocket.

[Bluthy]

Watters definitely cooked himself with his "mediocrity" comment and poor interactions with staff but he was also the sacrificial lamb the club had to have after players being under Lyon's cult like system. I got sick of hearing about "Saints Footy" like it was Scientology.

Richo has been great for the young players with clear pathways, expectations and feedback. Players are given very delineated roles to focus on - Curran - tagger, Dunstan - clearances, Billings - forward, Webster - rebound - rather than Watters pretty muddled positions. Nothing jumps out at me about some startling original game plan Richo is devising but it is very early days. Maybe he doesn't want to get too complicated yet. The one thing that does worry me about Richo is he talks too well. The genius coaches are like brooding weird artists constantly delving into their subconscious to try and devise an original take on the game. They're like autistic savants who don't have much brain room left for proper speaking. I thought Mark Williams was a good fit for us but they obviously targeted Richo with his reputation for developing young talent. Whether he is a good and original tactician will take a couple of years to get a feel for.

[saintspremiers]

Clarko is a brilliant coach. In his 1st season at the Hawks in 2005 they finished near the bottom with only 5 wins and won the flag 3 years later. He was prepared to rebuild and offloaded heaps of players.
He caused the deliberate rushed behind rule change. What a genius of a coach to singlehandedly cause such a significant change.

To say he's just lucky and the like is ill-informed.

[Munga]

Richo is a third of the way through his first season, with next to zero stability with the playing squad. I doubt many, if any, are actually playing to his instructions 100%.
Waaay too early.

[dragit]

Clarko is a brilliant coach. In his 1st season at the Hawks in 2005 they finished near the bottom with only 5 wins and won the flag 3 years later. He was prepared to rebuild and offloaded heaps of players.
He caused the deliberate rushed behind rule change. What a genius of a coach to singlehandedly cause such a significant change.

To say he's just lucky and the like is ill-informed.

ken spare me…
He was gifted a list with Hodge, Franklin, Roughhead, Mitchell, Lewis, Crawford… Joel Smith & Everitt were handy players. This sob story of rags to riches is such a beat up, take out a few of their top 3 picks and he'd probably have no flags like most coaches.

He's a good coach, but the genius angle is overplayed when you look at the talent he was handed.

[lloyd21]

[quote="skeptic"][quote="Con Gorozidis"]Im struggling to see enormous differences in the way we play either.

Remember in 2012 we won 12 games in Watters first season. We wont win half that many this year.

Ive never been big on coach hype or the coach as a messiah. The good ones are never as good as they say and the bad ones are never as bad. I am a big believer in players and lists though. Its all about talent and timing. Most coaches probably fairly similar - sure there are differences - but these are small compared with differences in playing lists. You parachute Justin Leppitsch into Port Adelaide and they will finish top 4 still. You parachute Alistair Clarkson into Brisbane or Melbourne (or the Saints) and they still finish bottom 4.


The thing about Clarkson is that Hawthorn have not only managed to claw their way up from the bottom, but they've managed stay contenders whilst rebuilding. It's what gives him the potential title for current best coach in the AFL.

Whereas you look at someone like Chris Scott who got gifted a premiership hardened team and you wonder if he really is that good or how he would do coaching say Richmond.

Then you get to a guy like RL, got gifted 2 teams that were close to being ready to push for a flag...
He's widely regarded as one of the best tactical coaches in the league.

Personally Chris Scott is a very very good coach and strong on development they have lost Chapman ,Corey ,Scarlett , Mooney, Ablett ,Ottens who were pretty reasonable players
and are still contenders.
Ross is fantastic match day coach but he would admit that development was not the strong suit

End of the day Hafey Malthouse Clarkson Barassi have all had their teams at the bottom of the ladder it is all about "the cattle "

[Saint wagga]

I really liked Richo's message about how he needed to go back to a very basic formulae after having such a high turnover of players in the last 2-3 season's. He;s practiaclly spelled out that there wont be bells and whistles...no 'tactical' funky stuff...its about getting all players on the list to start to have something to come back to, a playing style compass that is just in its infancy starting this year...what a simple message to the whole playing group. So as much as sometimes it seems to be screaming out for a backman to pinch hit up forward etc...it just wont happen because Richo is in it for the long haul. When youve got a seaosned team with good quality players sprinkled with some classy y9oung guns, then the tactical nous might start to play a role when we are in the mix...but patience is the key right now!

[FQF]

Richo has had absolutely nothing to do with the current state of our list. He came to the club after all our radical trading was done, and obviously the list prior to that was the work of other people. It's a bit rough to judge a coach based on the way he can manage a team (with a heap of first choice injuries) that he had involvement in creating.

Half the skill of a coach is the way he constructs the team, and brings in players to fit his game plan and style of play.

Watters got given plenty of flexibility in bringing in players that he wanted, and moulding the list to suit him. Let's at least give Richo the same privilege.

Aside from all that, in every interview with every player that I have read this year, they have sung the praises of the coach. Primarily about how he is open and honest, crystal clear in his instruction, simply delineating the areas of improvement.

[Legendary]

It is really difficult to assess Richardson's impact at this early stage, apart from the fact that our defensive efforts (particularly in the first 5 weeks, barring Adelaide) were definitely improved compared with last year.

The players repeat Richardson's message frequently in the media, and the focus is clearly on the basics of effort, pressure and playing a role. Even the young players have repeated this mantra publicly. They are clearly listening to him, and whilst some factors - inexperience, fitness, injuries - may impact on them actually carrying out his instructions, you can see that they are trying.

I think we can draw some similarities between Richardson and GT in the way that both are prepared to bring in young players and let them play football without too much complication. Great examples are Billings, Dunstan and Curren.

Without disclosing confidential information - SW was a disaster in terms of players trying to understand what he wanted, how he wanted them to do it and whether they were performing against his expectations.

This was something that made GT a great teacher and developer of a young side - his ability to galvanise around simple messages. Tactically this approach may not always work as well in a stronger team, but at this stage of our development, I think it creates the right environment for a young group.

I think it's also been appreciated by the more experienced players, who can understand the message and impart it to the younger guys. This is a relief for them, as it's something they tried to do under SW but his "style" made it nearly impossible.

So Richardson's impact in these areas has been strong.

My understanding is that he is markedly more professional around the club than SW.

As with any coach, time will tell.

[Old Mate]

He's got the players onside which is a start. We are doing well in the contested and clearance work. The problem is we lack talent. It'll take time to build a competitive team and truly assess AR as a coach.

[mr six o'clock]

Apart from the adelaide and hawks games , the team has matched opposition teams for scoring shots .
If players had kick goals instead of points , then we could have 3 more victories and everyone would be saying what a great coach richo is !
It will take until the end of next season to know if he's a good coach !