Rob Eddy - His view ( new Audio)

[ChicagoSaint]

What I find really strange about Eddy delisting is that I have heard from a very reliable source that we are only going to use 4 picks out of the 6 in the draft. That must mean we are really in trouble from a salary cap point of view which we probably knew anyway.

yeah well what's strange about wanting to free up the room we get from eddy if there were a cap squeeze?

[plugger66]

What I find really strange about Eddy delisting is that I have heard from a very reliable source that we are only going to use 4 picks out of the 6 in the draft. That must mean we are really in trouble from a salary cap point of view which we probably knew anyway.

yeah well what's strange about wanting to free up the room we get from eddy if there were a cap squeeze?

I'd try to explain it to you but all your using has had so much effect on your brain that it would be wasting my time. Now clean up all those needles. maybe get your mate Stinger to do it. He is a cleaner.

[meher baba]

MB,
Even your response to my questioning of your post makes some sweeping generalizations about me and other posters whom you disagree with.

Why not just admit your own perspective on things?
Why all the need to 'dress' your true opinion up as someting it's not?
Why not have the courage of your convictions to just say what you truly believe?

What are you so worried about?
That posters might see that you really haven't changed your opinion on Lyon?

Every time you purport to post something complimentary there is always a 'sting in the tail' when it comes to Lyon.

To me it is obvious that for some reason (maybe that GT got sacked) you just cannot stand the thought that Lyon was a good choice (maybe even the right choice?) at that time.

Nope, you aren't right about what I think about these things. Here is my genuine view FWIW (don't blame me, you asked for it).

I certainly didn't (and still don't) believe the club should have sacked GT in 2006. It was a decision made partly on non-footballing grounds (RB and GT falling out, AF trying to undermine the positions of both men) and partly on rather dubious footballing grounds (the view that it was coaching strategies that had led to our failure to win a premiership in 2004-06).

While GT is a long way short of being the best coach in the history of the game (eg, Lyon is a far better coach), I think that he had done an excellent job in molding a successful team and that a rational decision in 2006 would have been to leave him in charge to ensure continuity and continued development. The next best option would have been to bring in a proven successful AFL coach like Matthews or Williams and the least best was to go with a first year coach. Just as we did in 1999, we took the least best option.

For a season and a half, Lyon looked as if he was going to turn out as badly as Watson, but then things turned around dramatically. I was highly critical of Lyon up to mid-2008: I was completely wrong and I have admitted I was wrong 100 times over.

Lyon is a terrific coach: far better than GT could ever have become (which, in the views of many, restrospectively validates the decision to sack GT, although I must beg to differ). His defensively-focused game is not that great to watch from an aesthetic point of view, but it is highly effective. 2009 was probably as close to a perfect coaching season as any coach in the history of AFL has achieved. If we had won the GF, I think it could have gone down as the best single year achievement of any coach in AFL history.

Where I am rather critical of the club ATM is in the area of player/list management, which I don't think has been going particularly well. I think this explains the sense of "sting in the tail" you have detected in some of my posts lately. I am not intending these "stings" to be directed particularly at Lyon, as I really have no idea as to the extent of his involvement in these decisions.

For example, I wouldn't be particularly surprised to hear that Lyon was a reluctant participant in the decision to delist Eddy. He also gave some indications in 2009 - albeit rather late in the piece - that he would have liked the club to do a bit more to try to hang onto Ball. But I would be inclined to put some blame on Lyon for the seemingly rather spasmodic efforts at developing our younger players (albeit that this was done a bit more systematically in 2010 than in the past few years).

So, in summary, I think Lyon is a fabulous strategist for our on-field performances and a reasonable tactician. There are better match day coaches going around - Malthouse for one - but of the rest, only Bomber Thompson comes close IMO in terms of preparing a team to perform consistently week in, week out. And Bomber has generally had a stronger playing list to work with than Ross.

So, far from being a severe critic of Lyon, I think it would be fair to say that I am a major fan. However, I don't think he is without flaws, and I am certainly not a major fan of the way our club management (including Lyon) has handled our playing list in recent years.

[ChicagoSaint]

What I find really strange about Eddy delisting is that I have heard from a very reliable source that we are only going to use 4 picks out of the 6 in the draft. That must mean we are really in trouble from a salary cap point of view which we probably knew anyway.

yeah well what's strange about wanting to free up the room we get from eddy if there were a cap squeeze?

I'd try to explain it to you but all your using has had so much effect on your brain that it would be wasting my time. Now clean up all those needles. maybe get your mate Stinger to do it. He is a cleaner.

what do you reckon eddy was on?
i reckon he was on more than you think.
him being a part timer at 200k means we can have two for one.
what's really strange about having two rookies for the price of a part-timer?

[meher baba]

What I find really strange about Eddy delisting is that I have heard from a very reliable source that we are only going to use 4 picks out of the 6 in the draft. That must mean we are really in trouble from a salary cap point of view which we probably knew anyway.

yeah well what's strange about wanting to free up the room we get from eddy if there were a cap squeeze?

Perhaps it wasn't a salary cap decision. Perhaps it was a matter of the club management reacting negatively to the regular appearances of Eddy at AFL level - particularly the two GFs - and deciding that the only way to stop Lyon from playing him was to delist him. Stranger things have happened.............

[ChicagoSaint]

What I find really strange about Eddy delisting is that I have heard from a very reliable source that we are only going to use 4 picks out of the 6 in the draft. That must mean we are really in trouble from a salary cap point of view which we probably knew anyway.

yeah well what's strange about wanting to free up the room we get from eddy if there were a cap squeeze?

Perhaps it wasn't a salary cap decision. Perhaps it was a matter of the club management reacting negatively to the regular appearances of Eddy at AFL level - particularly the two GFs - and deciding that the only way to stop Lyon from playing him was to delist him. Stranger things have happened.............

silly and unreasonable call.

berbakov doesnt want him and it's that simple.

if someone else (roos) wants a gapfilling medium who can run a bit with average disposal then fine but he's not going to be a component of my list or my list management policy moving forward, i'm berbs.
he's honest but he's not tough and he's not hard enough. sorry, i'm berbs, i'm the boss of the backline. Sos has done the hard yards all i want to do is juggle a few things around. i want toughness and i want hardness.
if he wants to work for less then i'd consider it but yeah he's not a big part of componenture.

[plugger66]

What I find really strange about Eddy delisting is that I have heard from a very reliable source that we are only going to use 4 picks out of the 6 in the draft. That must mean we are really in trouble from a salary cap point of view which we probably knew anyway.

yeah well what's strange about wanting to free up the room we get from eddy if there were a cap squeeze?

Perhaps it wasn't a salary cap decision. Perhaps it was a matter of the club management reacting negatively to the regular appearances of Eddy at AFL level - particularly the two GFs - and deciding that the only way to stop Lyon from playing him was to delist him. Stranger things have happened.............

silly and unreasonable call.

berbakov doesnt want him and it's that simple.

if someone else (roos) wants a gapfilling medium who can run a bit with average disposal then fine but he's not going to be a component of my list or my list management policy moving forward, i'm berbs.
he's honest but he's not tough and he's not hard enough. sorry, i'm berbs, i'm the boss of the backline. Sos has done the hard yards all i want to do is juggle a few things around. i want toughness and i want hardness.
if he wants to work for less then i'd consider it but yeah he's not a big part of componenture.

What has Berbekov got to do with any of this. The more i read of your posts the more dumber i and probably everyone else on here gets. You actually have no idea. I would say little idea but that would be way to kind and also unfair on the people who have little idea.

[SainterK]

What I find really strange about Eddy delisting is that I have heard from a very reliable source that we are only going to use 4 picks out of the 6 in the draft. That must mean we are really in trouble from a salary cap point of view which we probably knew anyway.

So you in-trouble, I say in-telligent

[Dr Spaceman]

What I find really strange about Eddy delisting is that I have heard from a very reliable source that we are only going to use 4 picks out of the 6 in the draft. That must mean we are really in trouble from a salary cap point of view which we probably knew anyway.

A lot of people on here have been bagging our recruiting.

However if we're sailing this close to the wind with the salary cap, perhaps it's a good thing we haven't picked up a heap of guns in recent times

[Mr Magic]

MB,
Even your response to my questioning of your post makes some sweeping generalizations about me and other posters whom you disagree with.

Why not just admit your own perspective on things?
Why all the need to 'dress' your true opinion up as someting it's not?
Why not have the courage of your convictions to just say what you truly believe?

What are you so worried about?
That posters might see that you really haven't changed your opinion on Lyon?

Every time you purport to post something complimentary there is always a 'sting in the tail' when it comes to Lyon.

To me it is obvious that for some reason (maybe that GT got sacked) you just cannot stand the thought that Lyon was a good choice (maybe even the right choice?) at that time.

Nope, you aren't right about what I think about these things. Here is my genuine view FWIW (don't blame me, you asked for it).

I certainly didn't (and still don't) believe the club should have sacked GT in 2006. It was a decision made partly on non-footballing grounds (RB and GT falling out, AF trying to undermine the positions of both men) and partly on rather dubious footballing grounds (the view that it was coaching strategies that had led to our failure to win a premiership in 2004-06).

While GT is a long way short of being the best coach in the history of the game (eg, Lyon is a far better coach), I think that he had done an excellent job in molding a successful team and that a rational decision in 2006 would have been to leave him in charge to ensure continuity and continued development. The next best option would have been to bring in a proven successful AFL coach like Matthews or Williams and the least best was to go with a first year coach. Just as we did in 1999, we took the least best option.

For a season and a half, Lyon looked as if he was going to turn out as badly as Watson, but then things turned around dramatically. I was highly critical of Lyon up to mid-2008: I was completely wrong and I have admitted I was wrong 100 times over.

Lyon is a terrific coach: far better than GT could ever have become (which, in the views of many, restrospectively validates the decision to sack GT, although I must beg to differ). His defensively-focused game is not that great to watch from an aesthetic point of view, but it is highly effective. 2009 was probably as close to a perfect coaching season as any coach in the history of AFL has achieved. If we had won the GF, I think it could have gone down as the best single year achievement of any coach in AFL history.

Where I am rather critical of the club ATM is in the area of player/list management, which I don't think has been going particularly well. I think this explains the sense of "sting in the tail" you have detected in some of my posts lately. I am not intending these "stings" to be directed particularly at Lyon, as I really have no idea as to the extent of his involvement in these decisions.

For example, I wouldn't be particularly surprised to hear that Lyon was a reluctant participant in the decision to delist Eddy. He also gave some indications in 2009 - albeit rather late in the piece - that he would have liked the club to do a bit more to try to hang onto Ball. But I would be inclined to put some blame on Lyon for the seemingly rather spasmodic efforts at developing our younger players (albeit that this was done a bit more systematically in 2010 than in the past few years).

So, in summary, I think Lyon is a fabulous strategist for our on-field performances and a reasonable tactician. There are better match day coaches going around - Malthouse for one - but of the rest, only Bomber Thompson comes close IMO in terms of preparing a team to perform consistently week in, week out. And Bomber has generally had a stronger playing list to work with than Ross.

So, far from being a severe critic of Lyon, I think it would be fair to say that I am a major fan. However, I don't think he is without flaws, and I am certainly not a major fan of the way our club management (including Lyon) has handled our playing list in recent years.

I'm glad I was mistaken with your pov.

I might argue over a couple of points but overall I basically agree with much of this post.

I might also point out that the vast majority (including myself) have absolutely no idea of the inner workings of the Club (football and admin) and for us to make categorical statements about what did/didn't occur at various stages beggars belief.
They can never be more than reflections of what we think happened (or what we hoped transpired) and those reflections are coloured by our own personal bias.

As I've said on numerous occasions, I have no doubt that
Blight was the right appointment at the time
Blight needed to go
GT was the right appointment at the time
Did GT need to go at that point in time? How can any of us know unless we were privy to all the information?
I will say that from my perspective watching from teh outer, he seemed to have reached his limit in regards to tactical nous.

Was Lyon the right appointment at the time?
I had no idea what his capabilities were when he was appointed. That he was appointed by the sub-committee was enough for me to 'give him a go', given that they would know a hell of a lot more than me on who is/isn't the coach we needed

Regarding the delisting of Eddy.
Again none of us on here know:-
why he was picked for the GFs
what he's been told for the last 12 months by the coaches
what he's been told since the GFs review
what our plans are for the next season

and based on that lack of any knowledge I find it amusing that many would come on here decrying the decision.
On what basis?
Their own opinions of what is going on?

There are posters on her whom I would expect 'knee-jerk' reactions from.
BUT there are many highly intelligent and analytical posters who should be able to think their way through these decisions before going off prematurely in illogical and ill-informed rants for whatever their own personal reasons are.

The column states quite clearly that Lyon rang Eddy to tell him, after warning him earlier that his position was being 'looked at'.

That tells me that whoever was involved in the ultimate decision to delist him, Lyon was a part of it.
A big enough part to be left with the task of informing the player.

I would think that Greg Hutchinson, the Football Manager, would probably be handling temporarily the List Manager's role whilst we are waiting to appoint someone to replace Drain, and would have been part of the decision making process, as would the Recruiting Manager.

Any further supposition than that would be pure speculation on my part.

[meher baba]

Regarding the delisting of Eddy.
Again none of us on here know:-
why he was picked for the GFs
what he's been told for the last 12 months by the coaches
what he's been told since the GFs review
what our plans are for the next season

and based on that lack of any knowledge I find it amusing that many would come on here decrying the decision.
On what basis?
Their own opinions of what is going on?

There are posters on her whom I would expect 'knee-jerk' reactions from.
BUT there are many highly intelligent and analytical posters who should be able to think their way through these decisions before going off prematurely in illogical and ill-informed rants for whatever their own personal reasons are.

The column states quite clearly that Lyon rang Eddy to tell him, after warning him earlier that his position was being 'looked at'.

That tells me that whoever was involved in the ultimate decision to delist him, Lyon was a part of it.
A big enough part to be left with the task of informing the player.

I would think that Greg Hutchinson, the Football Manager, would probably be handling temporarily the List Manager's role whilst we are waiting to appoint someone to replace Drain, and would have been part of the decision making process, as would the Recruiting Manager.

Any further supposition than that would be pure speculation on my part.

Mostly fair comment, but you must admit it was an extremely surprising decision: how often do players get delisted immediately after being selected to play a GF (let alone two)? Not too often, I would have thought.

And this was a player whose praises had been sung to high heaven by the coach over the past couple of years and who had relatively recently come back from injury, so giving every appearance of being one of our top 22-25 players (and, SainterK, I am not at all sure that Geary, Armo and Steven were automatic choices ahead of Eddy if fit: past practice at the club gave every appearance that Eddy was certainly ahead of Armo and Steven in the pecking order).

The club hasn't really properly explained to the fans why he needed to be delisted. If the salary cap was the main problem, would it really have hurt the club to come out and say so?

For fans to be puzzled and a tiny bit critical about this decision doesn't seem to me to be the least bit "knee jerk". It's merely the latest of a growing series of decisions about recruitment/retention/delisting that have puzzled/disappointed me and other fans.

Failing (for whatever reason) to retain Luke Ball
Allowing Maguire to go in the Draft
Trading pick 16 for Lovett (on its own a reasonable gamble, but - in the context of our generally mediocre recruiting since 2008 - it was arguably one trade too many)
Trading the injury-plagued X to Brisbane for pick 60 and then using that pick to recruit the even more injury-plagued Jesse Smith (who never really looked likely to come back to AFL)
Recruiting Adam Pattison
Delisting Adam Pattison when he had as good a season as anyone could reasonably have hoped for
Delisting Robert Eddy
Promoting and then delisting Luke Miles, without him seemingly having had much of a crack at the big time (other than 2 games in which he seemed to play extremely well)

You can make a reasonable case for each of these decisions on its own, but - when looked at collectively - it's a pretty odd story.

Surely it is reasonable for us to be somewhat critical of all of this.

[ChicagoSaint]

Failing (for whatever reason) to retain Luke Ball
Allowing Maguire to go in the Draft
Trading pick 16 for Lovett (on its own a reasonable gamble, but - in the context of our generally mediocre recruiting since 2008 - it was arguably one trade too many)
Trading the injury-plagued X to Brisbane for pick 60 and then using that pick to recruit the even more injury-plagued Jesse Smith (who never really looked likely to come back to AFL)
Recruiting Adam Pattison
Delisting Adam Pattison when he had as good a season as anyone could reasonably have hoped for
Delisting Robert Eddy

Surely it is reasonable for us to be somewhat critical of all of this.

EDIT: the only one who has done anything is ball.

[Mr Magic]

Nobody is saying you can't be critical of any decision.
It is every poster's right to express his/her opinion on anything they like.

I just tire of the opinions that are posted in a way as to resemble being 'based on fact' when clearly they couldn't possibly be.

Speaking for myself I will never post anything as fact, without stating that I know it as fact.
My opinions are just that - opinions.

FACT - I was told that Luke Ball's senior teammates (at least 2 of them) were ropeable with his decison to demand being traded to Collingwood in the manner he did.

FACT - Greg Denham wrote a series of articles linking Ball to Collingwood for $500k pa

FACT - Luke Ball nominated a salary of $500k pa (over 2 years) in teh Draft and was selected by, you guess, Collingwood.

OPINION - based on what I was told and what I read, I drew the conclusion that Ball left becasuse Collingwood offered him a much better deal than StKilda did, adn he decided to accept that better deal.

Can I prove it as fact? - NO, it's just my opinion.

In relation to Goose and X.
My understanding is that they offered both a 1 year deal but X was offered a 2 year deal by Brisbane. The CLub weren't prepared to match that adn did a deal to get him there. Based on what has transpired subsequently, I don't think that either party did the wrong thing there.

Goose decided to 'chance his arm' in the draft and managed to get picked up by Brisbane on a 2 year deal?.
My opinion is that the Club was happy for him to stay for another year.
In hindsight, would he have gotten a game with us this last season? Probably not, so the Club has lost nothing and he at least got to play in Brisbane.

Jesse Smith was touted as a punt that ultimately didn't pay off. It was obviously a punt becasue he was given only a 1 year contract.

Pattison. I only know what I read, that he was selected as a 'backup' ruckman and got games as such. When played as a Kp up forward he didn't produce much.
Maybe, just maybe, the cahnge to teh interchange rule has made the need for such a position on the list (backup ruckman) redundant?
Until we actually know the thinking it is all pure speculation.
I'm not sure why his delisting would be seen in a negative light, given that it appears Gardiner is going to play on.

Lovett, how does one know that they've 'reached the limit' of their trading? Surely he was looked at as fulfilling a role we needed. Nobody in their right mind would ever have thought he would do what he's been alleged to have done.

Peake, amanaged to fit into our team for much of the year, including all the Finals. He was good against Geelong, not bad against Wb adn woeful in the 2 GF's.

How would you rate him performance/potential to the team gainst Eddy?

[ChicagoSaint]

Interesting on Lovett, I agree FWIW.
When they picked him, I must admit, I was a bit like oh okay thats maybe one too many. He's a bit of a crab but I love it!
He's still running as it turns out.

On Ball, you're half right in fact MM. Team mates were upset with him. Team mates were surprised. Team mates were like I know Moorabbin is a shithole but you're leaving? It wasn't demand from Ball. It was more polite request. He understood the system. Melbourne could have taken him and didn't. He was nothing if not transparent. Again, Melbourne could have taken him. They'll say well we couldn't talk to him. It doesn't matter what they say. When Melbourne fail to fulfil their potential in ten years it will be because as a club and in administration they've been the worst at it, not us.

Ppl could be excused for thinking we lost elite players in Ball and Lovett. However, when Ball doesn't want it at Moorabbin and he wants more elsewhere what can you do? He was nothing if not transparent. Lovett is just a f***wit as it turned out.

[vacuous space]

For fans to be puzzled and a tiny bit critical about this decision doesn't seem to me to be the least bit "knee jerk". It's merely the latest of a growing series of decisions about recruitment/retention/delisting that have puzzled/disappointed me and other fans.

I do wonder whether Drain has ever heard of the salary cap. I'm not sure how involved he was with Essendon's cap hell, but it would appear that he helped to create one here. Did Drain know he was leaving? Did he sell out the future because he knew he wouldn't be here for it? I'm wondering whether we're now going to be one of those teams that can't afford to play our draft picks or rookies because of the match payments.

I would add the entire 2009 draft and trade period to the list of blunders. The way the club went in and exited defied belief, even if you exclude the Lovett and Ball fiascos. The fact that Ross came out of the draft and said that we felt the draft was about 50 players deep when we'd done everything we could to get rid of our picks in the top fifty at least had me scratching my head. It's not like this team had been a couple of players away from a flag - it had been a couple of bounces away from a flag. Lovett only questionably made us better fit for finals when you consider his finals record.

And then we got back to the GF (one bounce from winning) with only Peake of the 2009 recruits actually doing anything at all. I'd question anybody who said we couldn't have got there without him either. I still feel it would have made much more sense for this club to have taken picks 16, 25, 32 and 48 into last year's draft. That may be the minority view. At the very least, it makes no sense to trade away pick sixteen, snub pick 25 and trade away pick 48 for a surplus mid if you only think there are fifty decent players in a draft.

[plugger66]

For fans to be puzzled and a tiny bit critical about this decision doesn't seem to me to be the least bit "knee jerk". It's merely the latest of a growing series of decisions about recruitment/retention/delisting that have puzzled/disappointed me and other fans.

I do wonder whether Drain has ever heard of the salary cap. I'm not sure how involved he was with Essendon's cap hell, but it would appear that he helped to create one here. Did Drain know he was leaving? Did he sell out the future because he knew he wouldn't be here for it? I'm wondering whether we're now going to be one of those teams that can't afford to play our draft picks or rookies because of the match payments.

I would add the entire 2009 draft and trade period to the list of blunders. The way the club went in and exited defied belief, even if you exclude the Lovett and Ball fiascos. The fact that Ross came out of the draft and said that we felt the draft was about 50 players deep when we'd done everything we could to get rid of our picks in the top fifty at least had me scratching my head. It's not like this team had been a couple of players away from a flag - it had been a couple of bounces away from a flag. Lovett only questionably made us better fit for finals when you consider his finals record.

And then we got back to the GF (one bounce from winning) with only Peake of the 2009 recruits actually doing anything at all. I'd question anybody who said we couldn't have got there without him either. I still feel it would have made much more sense for this club to have taken picks 16, 25, 32 and 48 into last year's draft. That may be the minority view. At the very least, it makes no sense to trade away pick sixteen, snub pick 25 and trade away pick 48 for a surplus mid if you only think there are fifty decent players in a draft.

I think you are harsh on the list management. Even if took all young guys last year it was a 99% chance that none of them would have helped us this year and probably still a 90% chance that they wouldnt next year. We took a punt because of the window we are at. it didnt pay off but it was mighty close. As for the salary cap we chose to keep every star when 2 new teams were starting. That was always going to get us to 100% of the salary cap. The other option was to lose a star and then can you imagine the whinging then. When you are up the top of the ladder for a period and with an ageing side then you will always struggle to keep the stars as per Geelong. We managed to which is a great effort.

[saintsRrising]

I can't believe that you put Milne in the same catagory of players as those others. Not only was he great during the H&A series, I thought he was pretty solid in the finals as well. Can't think of anyone who would come close to replacing him.

I only mentioned Milne as father time may emerge.

If Milne repeats his 2010, then he is not going anywhere.

[saintsRrising]

I do wonder whether Drain has ever heard of the salary cap. .

Bit harsh there I would think.

The salary cap is meant to put pressure on teams at the top..and that is what it is doing.

Despite that we have kept everyone that we hae wanted to keep.

The Cats last year lost Mumford due to $$$.

So management of the salary cap would seem to me to be tick rather than a cross.

I would add the entire 2009 draft and trade period to the list of blunders. .

Well I am not going to atempt defend what has clearly turned out to be a disaster....though I do understand why we went for Lovett.

However too many calls went sour.

[Thinline]

What I find really strange about Eddy delisting is that I have heard from a very reliable source that we are only going to use 4 picks out of the 6 in the draft. That must mean we are really in trouble from a salary cap point of view which we probably knew anyway.

It's a fair bet that before this season started you could probably have picked four or five blokes whose heads would be on the chopping block unless they did something above average. Eddy's but one of 'em.

[SaintPav]

P66: why do you bother to try to spar intellectually with these people? They are too blinkered in their thinking to get what you are on about. [/quote]

Because it's a forum for open debate and discussion. That is such an arrogant comment. We should just go along with P66 and yourself because you two are always right.

It's very easy to take a pot shot at someones comment if you don't agree with it or find fault in it, but it is much harder to come up with something insightful and original yourself. Like it or not, you're dealing with people on this site who are very passionate about the Saints and their hearts are in the right spot.

[savatage]

What I find really strange about Eddy delisting is that I have heard from a very reliable source that we are only going to use 4 picks out of the 6 in the draft. That must mean we are really in trouble from a salary cap point of view which we probably knew anyway.

It's a fair bet that before this season started you could probably have picked four or five blokes whose heads would be on the chopping block unless they did something above average. Eddy's but one of 'em.

Geez I hate logic on this forum. It has no place.

[maverick]

MB,
Even your response to my questioning of your post makes some sweeping generalizations about me and other posters whom you disagree with.

Why not just admit your own perspective on things?
Why all the need to 'dress' your true opinion up as someting it's not?
Why not have the courage of your convictions to just say what you truly believe?

What are you so worried about?
That posters might see that you really haven't changed your opinion on Lyon?

Every time you purport to post something complimentary there is always a 'sting in the tail' when it comes to Lyon.

To me it is obvious that for some reason (maybe that GT got sacked) you just cannot stand the thought that Lyon was a good choice (maybe even the right choice?) at that time.

Nope, you aren't right about what I think about these things. Here is my genuine view FWIW (don't blame me, you asked for it).

I certainly didn't (and still don't) believe the club should have sacked GT in 2006. It was a decision made partly on non-footballing grounds (RB and GT falling out, AF trying to undermine the positions of both men) and partly on rather dubious footballing grounds (the view that it was coaching strategies that had led to our failure to win a premiership in 2004-06).

While GT is a long way short of being the best coach in the history of the game (eg, Lyon is a far better coach), I think that he had done an excellent job in molding a successful team and that a rational decision in 2006 would have been to leave him in charge to ensure continuity and continued development. The next best option would have been to bring in a proven successful AFL coach like Matthews or Williams and the least best was to go with a first year coach. Just as we did in 1999, we took the least best option.

For a season and a half, Lyon looked as if he was going to turn out as badly as Watson, but then things turned around dramatically. I was highly critical of Lyon up to mid-2008: I was completely wrong and I have admitted I was wrong 100 times over.

Lyon is a terrific coach: far better than GT could ever have become (which, in the views of many, restrospectively validates the decision to sack GT, although I must beg to differ). His defensively-focused game is not that great to watch from an aesthetic point of view, but it is highly effective. 2009 was probably as close to a perfect coaching season as any coach in the history of AFL has achieved. If we had won the GF, I think it could have gone down as the best single year achievement of any coach in AFL history.

Where I am rather critical of the club ATM is in the area of player/list management, which I don't think has been going particularly well. I think this explains the sense of "sting in the tail" you have detected in some of my posts lately. I am not intending these "stings" to be directed particularly at Lyon, as I really have no idea as to the extent of his involvement in these decisions.

For example, I wouldn't be particularly surprised to hear that Lyon was a reluctant participant in the decision to delist Eddy. He also gave some indications in 2009 - albeit rather late in the piece - that he would have liked the club to do a bit more to try to hang onto Ball. But I would be inclined to put some blame on Lyon for the seemingly rather spasmodic efforts at developing our younger players (albeit that this was done a bit more systematically in 2010 than in the past few years).

So, in summary, I think Lyon is a fabulous strategist for our on-field performances and a reasonable tactician. There are better match day coaches going around - Malthouse for one - but of the rest, only Bomber Thompson comes close IMO in terms of preparing a team to perform consistently week in, week out. And Bomber has generally had a stronger playing list to work with than Ross.

So, far from being a severe critic of Lyon, I think it would be fair to say that I am a major fan. However, I don't think he is without flaws, and I am certainly not a major fan of the way our club management (including Lyon) has handled our playing list in recent years.

Interesting, some good points I reckon, but I disagree on list management.

It is Lyon's job to win a premiership, IMO there are different stages in a club's life and we are in the "go zone" as such, which means we need players for now not 3-4 years. Yes a great youngster gets in but other than that there are only vacancies for experienced players or role playing youngsters. Yes, don't neglect the draft, but swapping picks for Schneider, Ray, Gardiner, Lovett etc is absolutely worth the punt.

I reckon list management under GT was just as bad if not worse than RL, we forget the long contracts to Hamill and Penny and the $600K to Ball.

I was livid when GT was sacked, we fell into RL IMO, but he has been the best coach STKFC has had in my time, by the length of the street.

[ChicagoSaint]

I do wonder whether Drain has ever heard of the salary cap. I'm not sure how involved he was with Essendon's cap hell, but it would appear that he helped to create one here. Did Drain know he was leaving? Did he sell out the future because he knew he wouldn't be here for it? I'm wondering whether we're now going to be one of those teams that can't afford to play our draft picks or rookies because of the match payments.

I would add the entire 2009 draft and trade period to the list of blunders. The way the club went in and exited defied belief, even if you exclude the Lovett and Ball fiascos. The fact that Ross came out of the draft and said that we felt the draft was about 50 players deep when we'd done everything we could to get rid of our picks in the top fifty at least had me scratching my head. It's not like this team had been a couple of players away from a flag - it had been a couple of bounces away from a flag. Lovett only questionably made us better fit for finals when you consider his finals record.

And then we got back to the GF (one bounce from winning) with only Peake of the 2009 recruits actually doing anything at all. I'd question anybody who said we couldn't have got there without him either. I still feel it would have made much more sense for this club to have taken picks 16, 25, 32 and 48 into last year's draft. That may be the minority view. At the very least, it makes no sense to trade away pick sixteen, snub pick 25 and trade away pick 48 for a surplus mid if you only think there are fifty decent players in a draft.

I think you are harsh on the list management. Even if took all young guys last year it was a 99% chance that none of them would have helped us this year and probably still a 90% chance that they wouldnt next year. We took a punt because of the window we are at. it didnt pay off but it was mighty close. As for the salary cap we chose to keep every star when 2 new teams were starting. That was always going to get us to 100% of the salary cap. The other option was to lose a star and then can you imagine the whinging then. When you are up the top of the ladder for a period and with an ageing side then you will always struggle to keep the stars as per Geelong. We managed to which is a great effort.

correct plugger.

so much gets made of the draft in the media and by the AFL but really so little should be made of it because you can still only play 22 on any given day and in reality only a certain number in any season. the AFL is the only comp in the land with a draft and if it weren't for the misplaced hysteria from ppl like emma quayle we'd be entitled to believe that the draft is of relatively low significance when it comes to other more important aspects of operating an extremely successful organisation.

as long as your list is ticking over it doesn't have to be from 18yo's upward. in fact most of the kids gets injured through a lack of support and this is the number one reason why they dont come on. look at North they've invested in youth and now they are royaled. there is a case to say that the saints and collingwood are the exceptions to the rule surrounding early picks rather than an example of the rule itself. then you factor in them topping up with ball and voila.

bulldogs, keep topping up their list and finishing top four. sure, they're in debt but they dont go down and get kids thinking that it'll be a magic potion. melbourne, no guarantees sorry, no guarantees. no guarantees at all. no guarantees that just because you have scully and trengove you'll win anything especially considering the club since 1954. i look at melbourne and think they're stuffed, kids are going to be so beaten down over the next five years. they get to where we were but the system has changed on them. carlton, stuffed! brisbane went the other way with a bit of the same way and they're faves for the spoon i mean you can only look after the here and now. if your in GFs and your topping up and you are in replays you're given yourself every chance.

bugger the draft i say.
bugger emma quayle and her emotional hysteria.
bugger it.

GO SAINTS!

[vacuous space]

I think you are harsh on the list management. Even if took all young guys last year it was a 99% chance that none of them would have helped us this year and probably still a 90% chance that they wouldnt next year. We took a punt because of the window we are at. it didnt pay off but it was mighty close. As for the salary cap we chose to keep every star when 2 new teams were starting. That was always going to get us to 100% of the salary cap. The other option was to lose a star and then can you imagine the whinging then. When you are up the top of the ladder for a period and with an ageing side then you will always struggle to keep the stars as per Geelong. We managed to which is a great effort.

If I'm harsh on management it's because I'm not particularly impressed with the moves that we've made. The Lovett and Peake moves turned us from a flag contender to a flag contender at the cost of picks. I don't think that's particularly inspired list management.

I have a hard time believing that we kept our guns because of superior list management either. Our guys either weren't targetted or signed for less than they would have got from GC because they wanted to stay. We haven't made tough decisions. We've kept every one of our older players who aren't retiring, no matter how underwheling their performance has been. The list has managed itself.

I don't count delisting Eddy or Miles as tough decisions. Cutting two of the (presumably) cheaper players from your list isn't inspired management. Cutting overpaid underacheivers and replacing them with cheaper, younger alternatives is. [Insert obligatory reference to Collingwood turnover here.] If we're that close to the cap, then cutting some surplus coin would have given us flexibility. As is, we have none.

Everyone here knows the names. We have guys who have done relative nothing for the longest time. They'll be here next year in the blind hope that they finally achieve what we once thought they could have. Chances are, they won't. We'll win despite them as we have forever. And we'll still only have Winmar, Peake and Lovett shaped hole to show for the 2009 draft.

[ChicagoSaint]

I think you are harsh on the list management. Even if took all young guys last year it was a 99% chance that none of them would have helped us this year and probably still a 90% chance that they wouldnt next year. We took a punt because of the window we are at. it didnt pay off but it was mighty close. As for the salary cap we chose to keep every star when 2 new teams were starting. That was always going to get us to 100% of the salary cap. The other option was to lose a star and then can you imagine the whinging then. When you are up the top of the ladder for a period and with an ageing side then you will always struggle to keep the stars as per Geelong. We managed to which is a great effort.

If I'm harsh on management it's because I'm not particularly impressed with the moves that we've made. The Lovett and Peake moves turned us from a flag contender to a flag contender at the cost of picks. I don't think that's particularly inspired list management.

I have a hard time believing that we kept our guns because of superior list management either. Our guys either weren't targetted or signed for less than they would have got from GC because they wanted to stay. We haven't made tough decisions. We've kept every one of our older players who aren't retiring, no matter how underwheling their performance has been. The list has managed itself.

I don't count delisting Eddy or Miles as tough decisions. Cutting two of the (presumably) cheaper players from your list isn't inspired management. Cutting overpaid underacheivers and replacing them with cheaper, younger alternatives is. [Insert obligatory reference to Collingwood turnover here.] If we're that close to the cap, then cutting some surplus coin would have given us flexibility. As is, we have none.

Everyone here knows the names. We have guys who have done relative nothing for the longest time. They'll be here next year in the blind hope that they finally achieve what we once thought they could have. Chances are, they won't. We'll win despite them as we have forever. And we'll still only have Winmar, Peake and Lovett shaped hole to show for the 2009 draft.

no, i think you're being a bit harsh too and i don't think that their performance has been underwhelming in any way shape or form. their performance is only guaged by improvement, incrimentally, year-on-year season after season.

the window is permanently ajar if there is plenty in reserve. if you lose one max. two through retirement in a season you only need to replace two, if there are three or four in line guess what, you're in surplus.

how many blokes are retiring and how many are coming on?
who is the acid test when it comes to the priority pick?
how important is the draft if you pay no attention to the drunken media analysis of it?

the answers are written upside down on page 46.