I love a good Grant Thomas Bake...

[Johnny Member]

http://wwos.ninemsn.com.au/blog.aspx?bl ... ments=true


Classic stuff!

Not ideal coming from a coach - but wonderful coming from a media commentator!

[westy]

Here, here, well put

[degruch]

Ouch! Well done GT...forget about the sub rule though, anyone who instigates a Post-It note interchange system deserves all the stick they get.

[St Lenny]

Mmmmmmmmmmm, I dont know. Grant has always been controversial and not afraid to speak out but whether we like it or not, it reflects on us and we can do without that.

[spert]

GT to replace Eade?

[GrumpyOne]

I think it's well known in AFL land that there is a clear distinction between GTs views and the club. I therefore have no problem with anything he says, from that point of view.

Interesting that out of 200 applicants the succesful person was a prior friend of the Grand Poo-Bah.

But one can see why GT never had a future as a coach. The ability to tolerate fools is high on the duty statement for that position.

[saintspremiers]

Well said GT.

Anderscum is a nobody.

Clearly he pissed into Dimwit's pants long and hard enough to get the job.

The sub rule isn't working.

Admit you are wrong Monkey Boy!!!

[plugger66]

Well said GT.

Anderscum is a nobody.

Clearly he pissed into Dimwit's pants long and hard enough to get the job.

The sub rule isn't working.

Admit you are wrong Monkey Boy!!!

Can I ask why isnt it working. I didnt care one way or another about it but to be honest i think it adds to the game and what it is doing because players are getting more tired means the game opens up a bit more after half time and there isnt as many packs. Be interested as to why you dont think it is working.

[GrumpyOne]

Really, I think that the rights or wrongs of the interchange rule are secondary to the point that GT is cunningly making.

Any fool can introduce an idea developed by others.

GT's article is a deliberate swipe at Dimwit, and suggests the question that how come a friend of Dimwit's was the best of 200 applicants for the position.

[markinUSA]

I agree with what he was saying about the sub rule... but I think it's a bit rich Grant complaining about someone's mates getting them a job... that's how he got his job as coach here.

[Saints43]

I agree with what he was saying about the sub rule... but I think it's a bit rich Grant complaining about someone's mates getting them a job... that's how he got his job as coach here.

He got the job as a mate who had worked out a plan to resurrect a dying football club with the club president.

After the sacking of Blight which career coach would have taken the job with the brief that kids would be played before mature players (alongside the top players) and they would have a win/loss record of 3/40 (or whatever stat Patrick used to write every week). Effectively - for the first time in VFL/AFL history a coach would select a team for a long term future result rather than short term wins.

While 'bottoming out', playing the kids, clearing the midrange, keeping the stars sounds obvious now it had never been seen before. The resulting losses were the main reason that GT was so widely ridiculed as a coach in his first years. And continued for years with clowns like Patrick Smith who had hung their hats on the view. And while we didn't get it exactly right (topping up too early) Alastair Clarkson paid tribute to the St Kilda model immediately after the final siren of the 2008 grand final. It was revolutionary.

Butterss couldn't have saved this club without employing a mate. The AFL could have employed any one of 200 applicants but sought out a mate instead. Such different situations.

[Eastern]

I guess that's another Christmas Card List where Grant has been crossed off !!

[GrumpyOne]

I guess that's another Christmas Card List where Grant has been crossed off !!

I think his name has already be napalmed off that list.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

Well said GT.

Anderscum is a nobody.

Clearly he pissed into Dimwit's pants long and hard enough to get the job.

The sub rule isn't working.

Admit you are wrong Monkey Boy!!!

Can I ask why isnt it working. I didnt care one way or another about it but to be honest i think it adds to the game and what it is doing because players are getting more tired means the game opens up a bit more after half time and there isnt as many packs. Be interested as to why you dont think it is working.

I hear a lot of people saying it's "opening up", I'm not sure (meaning not convinced either way until I see more, not that you're necessarily wrong). What I do see are a lot of tired players making errors and unable to chase as effectively late in games. A lot more poor kicks getting turned over to guys standing in zones....

I can't say that it's really impacted my enjoyment of games one way or other, but if the articles right and injuries are up, and interchanges continue to be high, it's probably not a great rule.

[Moccha]

At least he has the balls to voice his opinion. Basically he's saying he hates both Anderson and Demetiou's guts

[plugger66]

Well said GT.

Anderscum is a nobody.

Clearly he pissed into Dimwit's pants long and hard enough to get the job.

The sub rule isn't working.

Admit you are wrong Monkey Boy!!!

Can I ask why isnt it working. I didnt care one way or another about it but to be honest i think it adds to the game and what it is doing because players are getting more tired means the game opens up a bit more after half time and there isnt as many packs. Be interested as to why you dont think it is working.

I hear a lot of people saying it's "opening up", I'm not sure (meaning not convinced either way until I see more, not that you're necessarily wrong). What I do see are a lot of tired players making errors and unable to chase as effectively late in games. A lot more poor kicks getting turned over to guys standing in zones....

I can't say that it's really impacted my enjoyment of games one way or other, but if the articles right and injuries are up, and interchanges continue to be high, it's probably not a great rule.

They are tired but I havent noticed the skills dropping off, just the running. Of course if it is proven injuries are up because of it they should scrap it but it is to early for that you would think. Also I dont think the AFL cared so much about the number of interchanges, they just didnt want 4 guys rotating, now we have 3 so they now are forced to keep the good players on the ground longer which cant be a bad thing. The other thing that seems to have happened is ruckman are back to having a bigger influence on the game because are on the ground for longer periods. Doesnt help us because we havent got any great ruckmen but good for the sides that do. Also gets rid of that crappy second ruckman, now they have a mobile second ruckman.

[joffaboy]

I agree with P66.

I think the substitute rule has worked very well. It has actually kept us in the game in most of the games we had a chance of winning.

We must be a very fit team because in the second half we seem to be able to run over the top of most teams. We are pedestrian in pace but seem to be going the same pace at the end of the game as at the beginning, a bit live Steven Powell used to.

Could be seen in the way our mids and forwards seems to go up a notch in the second half. Players like Steven who aren't overly quick had a dominant last quarter.

The two rules that really dont work is the stupid interchange rule and the dumb play on rule as it is now intrepreted.

[Johnny Member]

When people say it's 'worked', what exactly does that mean?

Does anyone know why the AFL even introduced it in the first place? And if so, is it 'working' in that regard?


Or by 'it's working', do people mean 'the game goes on and it hasn't really made a difference to anything either way so I suppose it's worked'?


I'd love the AFL to just come out and tell the public what their 5-10 year plan is, so people can understand why all these changes are being made at all.

[plugger66]

When people say it's 'worked', what exactly does that mean?

Does anyone know why the AFL even introduced it in the first place? And if so, is it 'working' in that regard?


Or by 'it's working', do people mean 'the game goes on and it hasn't really made a difference to anything either way so I suppose it's worked'?


I'd love the AFL to just come out and tell the public what their 5-10 year plan is, so people can understand why all these changes are being made at all.

Well they make changes to hopefully improve the game. Even though people dont like changes, most work and I would say the game is as good as it has ever been. Certainly the footy this year seems to be better on a whole than the last couple of years and it was good then. There is no point saying the plans would be in 5-10 years with rules because I doubt they would know past the next 2 years. people say dont make changes and I am probably one of them but if the game is improved by the changes then really it shouldnt matter.

[asiu]

gt understands that passion creates momentum,
momentum creates opportunities
and that the pencil pushing crew come last.


oh for a bit of passion nowadays my hearties.

onya grant.

[markp]

I like the rule so far... seems to me the number of rotations was getting farcical (although not sure of the new current average), and the prospect of games opening up more late, along with the interesting new tactic involving the timing of the sub, and helping if a player is injured (as in both teams still have 3 on the bench)... all good.

As for GT, and his seemingly agenda driven and bitter swipe... gee I wonder why we got d*cked with whispers in the sky, etc..... to me he comes across as if he's just firing off in all directions hoping to hit some relevance or score points against one of the many people he has a grudge with, I'm afraid.

[saintspremiers]

plugs, I don't like the new sub rule as it has meant we only have 3 interchange now not 4, causing clearly more tired players that are IMO, suspectable to injury late in the game....sure, this can be managed due to the level of sports science in the game now, but I think it detracts from the spectacle.

I DO like the fact that with the sub if you cop an injury early, it's still 21 vs 21, that is good.

What I would prefer to see, is going back to a 4 man bench plus a sub.

I think the speed and development of the game warrants an increase from 22 to effectively 23 players (or should we say 22.5 players, given, on average, a sub is only available for about half the game).

I just hope the AFL weigh up all the pro's and con's on a full year of data and consider the following three options without bias for next season:

(1) Go back to 4 interchange with 22 players total

(2) Current 3 interchange, 1 sub, 22 players

or: (3) 4 interchange wiht 23 players total.

Perhaps they could get an informal "vote" from the clubs???

[plugger66]

plugs, I don't like the new sub rule as it has meant we only have 3 interchange now not 4, causing clearly more tired players that are IMO, suspectable to injury late in the game....sure, this can be managed due to the level of sports science in the game now, but I think it detracts from the spectacle.

I DO like the fact that with the sub if you cop an injury early, it's still 21 vs 21, that is good.

What I would prefer to see, is going back to a 4 man bench plus a sub.

I think the speed and development of the game warrants an increase from 22 to effectively 23 players (or should we say 22.5 players, given, on average, a sub is only available for about half the game).

I just hope the AFL weigh up all the pro's and con's on a full year of data and consider the following three options with bias for next season:

(1) Go back to 4 interchange with 22 players total

(2) Current 3 interchange, 1 sub, 22 players

or: (3) 4 interchange wiht 23 players total.

Unless there is proof the one less man causes injury they will never go back. They want the players to run less so there are less packs so giving an extra player will create even more packs as the players will run even more. The saints certainly havent been effected by injury with the new rule. I can hardly remember an injury this year apart from Lenny and that had nothing to do with the new rule.

[saintspremiers]

plugs, I don't like the new sub rule as it has meant we only have 3 interchange now not 4, causing clearly more tired players that are IMO, suspectable to injury late in the game....sure, this can be managed due to the level of sports science in the game now, but I think it detracts from the spectacle.

I DO like the fact that with the sub if you cop an injury early, it's still 21 vs 21, that is good.

What I would prefer to see, is going back to a 4 man bench plus a sub.

I think the speed and development of the game warrants an increase from 22 to effectively 23 players (or should we say 22.5 players, given, on average, a sub is only available for about half the game).

I just hope the AFL weigh up all the pro's and con's on a full year of data and consider the following three options with bias for next season:

(1) Go back to 4 interchange with 22 players total

(2) Current 3 interchange, 1 sub, 22 players

or: (3) 4 interchange wiht 23 players total.

Unless there is proof the one less man causes injury they will never go back. They want the players to run less so there are less packs so giving an extra player will create even more packs as the players will run even more. The saints certainly havent been effected by injury with the new rule. I can hardly remember an injury this year apart from Lenny and that had nothing to do with the new rule.

spot on with regards to us and injury, which makes the whole performance of the group even more disturbing.

But looking at other teams, that doesn't seem to be the case.

So it's a more "open" game vs injury debate - what is the treshold???

[Johnny Member]

There is no point saying the plans would be in 5-10 years with rules because I doubt they would know past the next 2 years.

I don't agree with that.

And without coming across as offensive, I think it's naive to think the AFL don't have a long term plan.

And unless they're a amateur bunch of lunatics, every rule change and decision they make would be made with the intention of following the plan.