Man on a mission: Ross Lyon on our pre-season

[Mr X from the West]

Getting back to the game plan (again). I read somewhere that Bomber Thompson said, after they'd lost a vital game early last season, that he told his boys to "...play on at all costs, kick to contests and back each other to win the ball".

THAT SOUNDS LIKE A GAME PLAN TO ME.

Question is : - SHOULDN'T WE ADOPT THE SAME GAME PLAN?

[st_Trav_ofWA]

Getting back to the game plan (again). I read somewhere that Bomber Thompson said, after they'd lost a vital game early last season, that he told his boys to "...play on at all costs, kick to contests and back each other to win the ball".

THAT SOUNDS LIKE A GAME PLAN TO ME.

Question is : - SHOULDN'T WE ADOPT THE SAME GAME PLAN?

i would rather we adapted our own game plan not copy the last premiers one weve been doing that since GT started turning us into the mini brions then the minin swans now the mini cats ?? how bout we just play like saints ?

[rodgerfox]

...not copy the last premiers one weve been doing that since GT started turning us into the mini brions

Did you know that we didn't copy the Lions at all?

What we infact did, was look at stats from the premiers and great teams of the past decade or so.

We looked at the things the excelled in. The areas they dominated in. The areas that stood them ahead of the rest.

The results were common. And guess what? They were contested footy, tackling etc.

We didn't mimic the Lions. They were one of a few teams we based our 'KIPs' on.

[bigcarl]

Getting back to the game plan (again). I read somewhere that Bomber Thompson said, after they'd lost a vital game early last season, that he told his boys to "...play on at all costs, kick to contests and back each other to win the ball".

THAT SOUNDS LIKE A GAME PLAN TO ME.

Question is : - SHOULDN'T WE ADOPT THE SAME GAME PLAN?

i would rather we adapted our own game plan not copy the last premiers one weve been doing that since GT started turning us into the mini brions then the minin swans now the mini cats ?? how bout we just play like saints ?

actually geelong learned that game plan from us during the smashings we gave them in 2004-2005. so it is one we can call our own.

plus it was reasonably effective and better than what was served up last year

[Mr X from the West]

Getting back to the game plan (again). I read somewhere that Bomber Thompson said, after they'd lost a vital game early last season, that he told his boys to "...play on at all costs, kick to contests and back each other to win the ball".

THAT SOUNDS LIKE A GAME PLAN TO ME.

Question is : - SHOULDN'T WE ADOPT THE SAME GAME PLAN?

i would rather we adapted our own game plan not copy the last premiers one weve been doing that since GT started turning us into the mini brions then the minin swans now the mini cats ?? how bout we just play like saints ?

We tried that last year and finished in the bottom half of the table....

[Oh When the Saints]

Rounds 1-7 = 4 wins, 3 losses
Rounds 12-22 = 7.5 wins, 3 losses
-----------------------
= 11.5 wins, 6 losses = 65% winning record.


Nothing wrong with our gameplan there.


Rounds 8-11 = 0 wins, 4 losses with 24 players to choose from.

With a normal injury list, we would have won 2 of those games (based on winning record for the rest of the season). That would have given us 13.5 wins, basically the same as 2006.


There's nothing wrong with our gameplan. It's fitness. With a fit list, that gameplan seems to allow us to win 65%+ of matches, or 14+ wins for a season.

[Armoooo]

Rounds 1-7 = 4 wins, 3 losses
Rounds 12-22 = 7.5 wins, 3 losses
-----------------------
= 11.5 wins, 6 losses = 65% winning record.


Nothing wrong with our gameplan there.


Rounds 8-11 = 0 wins, 4 losses with 24 players to choose from.

With a normal injury list, we would have won 2 of those games (based on winning record for the rest of the season). That would have given us 13.5 wins, basically the same as 2006.


There's nothing wrong with our gameplan. It's fitness. With a fit list, that gameplan seems to allow us to win 65%+ of matches, or 14+ wins for a season.

Absolutely spot on, some people say that injuries are not an excuse but when you have 24 players to choose from it is definitely an excuse...
With a bit of fitness and the inclusions of King, Gardiner, Goddard and schneider we should make the top 4 without any real improvement, with a bit of improvement and a bit of luck who knows what can happen...

The improvement I would like to see first is the overall fitness of the payers, if they could run out games at a high intensity we would be far better for it...

[JeffDunne]

Selective stats OWTS.

Christ, two of those wins we fell over the line against Richmond and Carlton.

With the talent on the field in both those games, even a moron like Teflon could have come up with a gameplan to counter those two teams.

I really would like someone to list the wins that could be described as impressive in 2007. I can think of a couple. That's it.

[Armoooo]

Selective stats OWTS.

Christ, two of those wins we fell over the line against Richmond and Carlton.

With the talent on the field in both those games, even a moron like Teflon could have come up with a gameplan to counter those two teams.

I really would like someone to list the wins that could be described as impressive in 2007. I can think of a couple. That's it.

You still only get 4 points for an impressive win...

The only ones that come to mind for me are
West Coast (1st)
Hawthorn (2nd)
Adelaide (1st)
Sydney (1st)
Bulldogs (1st)
Melbourne (1st)

IMO they were pretty good wins and we looked contenders from those games...

It is pretty unfair to include rounds 8-11 when looking at our performance, St.Kilda did not play those weeks, Casey did...

[JeffDunne]

You might only get 4 points for an impressive win, but when we're talking positions in the 8, % can be everything (as we've found out over the past two years).

Was beating Melbourne really that impressive? It was a good first up win but Melbourne really struggled early in the year. Bulldogs? Pfft, who didn't? At least our % was ok in that game.

The only wins that impressed me were the few games where we played close to 4qtrs. West Coast & Sydney probably the standouts.

The most disappointing aspect of the year was the number of games where we fell away in the last. Not sure if fitness can be blamed in the 2nd half of the year - especially against teams like Richmond & Carlton.

[Armoooo]

We didn't only have issues with fitness because of injuries and stuff like that but as a whole the team lacked fitness in general, I hope that they have been working hard over the off-season to improve their aerobic capacities... I would have liked to have seen us testing out hyperbaric chambers like other teams have in recent years, I would imagine that they have been on the bikes quite a bit this preseason, builds fitness, muscle and is very low impact....

[Oh When the Saints]

"Just fell over the line" ....

For 12 matches in a row, we were within a goal of the opposition in the last quarter of every game.

Okay, so that sort of "gameplan" makes for close finishes ... but it also gives you chance EVERY week, against every team.

If you have no injuries and the same side playing together every week for 10 weeks, you can be a bit more attacking and aggressive IMO - like the Cats this year and the Saints during the streak.

But when the side is changing with 3-4 players each week, like we were this year, it reduces the team's confidence and can lead to a more defensive mindset.

It also makes it difficult in gaining fitness levels for individual players.



IMO fitness was the reason we didn't play finals in 2007. Nothing wrong with the gameplan ... 'cause it worked 65% of the time when we had more than half the list to choose from.

[karnak]

I totally agree with the fundamentals, every finals team as done these great.

The game plan stems from the list. Sydney nailied the fundamentals but with their list needed to be quite stop start in order for them to win games, they controlled tempo.

Brisbane nailed the fundamentals but had such a talented midfiled 2 great key forwards and some great backs. They played a very quick brand of football.

WestCoast also nailed the fundamentals but had no forward line to speak of (sorry lynchbeast, hehehe)

And Geelong, well they also nailed the fundamentals and played some of the most attacking good looking football I've seen.

And now for us, in 2004 we nailed the fundamentals, however; we have a super talented forward line (and possibly a midfield if injury at bay and get rucks on the park (Ball, Gardiner).

What I'm getting at is if you nail the fundamentals then you'll tend to play to your teams strengths and do well. It is the coaches job to enforce the fundamentals and ensure that the team plays to its strengths and improves on its weaknesses.

I think we've lost games because of off-field drama over the last few years that have effected us nailing the A,B,C.

Injuries (football departments fault)
fitness (football departments fault)
List Management (Coach)

I truly believe great things for the Saints will happen this year, I also believe Ross Lyon will be St Kilda's longest ever serving coach at 25 years!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

hehehehe.

[JeffDunne]

But when the side is changing with 3-4 players each week, like we were this year, it reduces the team's confidence and can lead to a more defensive mindset.

And 2005/6 were any different?

I agree that changing 20-25% of the team most weeks leads to instability, but I'm not sure if I agree it leads to a defensive mindset.

We managed to play attacking football in previous years despite the constant turnover.

[Oh When the Saints]

I didn't phrase that well ... I'll try and explain it ...


Lyon was trying to alter our style of play when we didn't have the ball, and this was designed to make us more accountable to our opponents, and prevent the opposition from scoring as easily.

This was a shift in our gameplan.

When you are implementing something like that, it is made much more difficult with a team in which 3-4 players are changing each week.

In 05/06, there wasn't much new being implemented, so the effect of injuries wasn't as great ... although still had a big impact. But all the playres had been committed to the same plan for 3-4 years, and practiced it accordingly.

In 2007, the players lost some confidence and became less aggressive, as injuries AND adapting to the gameplan took it's toll.

Once some stability returned to the side (and with it our better personnel), the playing group got a better handle on what Lyon wanted, and it started to work far more effectively.


I think (and hope) that given another pre-season, the subtle changes Lyon is implementing will become more "second nature", and the ability of the players to carry out the gameplan, and hence win games, will be less affected by injury and changes to the side.

[Teflon]

I like the way dodg compares the 2004 list to the 2007 and implies same personal but inferior performance.................must be the coach.


Goddard, Gehrig, Fiora, Kosi, Lenny, Harves, Gram, Fisher, X, Max, Dal, Ball, Blakey, Bakes, Milne, BJ, Joey, Goose, Roo, Voss, Thompson and Leigh Fisher is a starting 22 that was available in 2005, and also in 2007.

Lets get this right.....in 2007 Goose was available (I mustve been elsewhere..),Goddard good to go?, Lenny up and about for the whole year....Ball overcame OP?, Thompson at his peak?, Max untroubled in 2007 by injury? and Brett Voss (now so good hes gawn) was available fit and firing in 07?

Are you this stupid in real life?

There of course there is the fringe of Raph, Ferguson, Brooks etc. who were also on the 2007 list.

Oh ...well thank god for that cream of the crop coming through......... what were we thinking..we should smashed the Cats in 07 with that fire power back up..

The core was still there. The core will still be there in 08.

Yes.....the core was there...starting to fester a little though....but it looks great...on paper....where you do your best work Didg...

For those who argue that the output of several of those guys diminished due to age, therefore the list was not at as strong - you must surely take into account the fact that Goose, Kosi, Roo, BJ, Dal, Ball, Joey etc. all had another 2 pre-seasons under their belts, plus an extra 50 games experience. Including finals experience.

BJ, Ball, Goose knackered in 07...so 2 good pre seasons were handy... .....but lets not let facts get in the way.......and now to our declining stars not available in 07 - No Powell, Peckett, Thompson struggling for a game/injury, Brett Voss fading into the sunset, Gehrig unsure if he was in love or wanting to play, A Hamill retired,

Worth noting too that Gram and Fisher are now considered elite running backs in the comp. They weren't in 04 and 05.

Alot of the guys mentioned above didn't have huge input in 07. But don't forget that 05 and 06 were the worst years for injuries in the comp aswell.

07 was THE worst year for St Kilda injuries but ...it must be just the inferior performance of the coach cause the 04 and 07 lists were identical...

You idiot.

[Teflon]

Not sure if fitness can be blamed in the 2nd half of the year

Ofcourse fitness can be blamed in the sceond half of the year you daft pr!ck - where do you think a long season - a marathon - fitness wise is gonna take its toll....Rd 1?

You cant be the full quid...

[SENsei]

...not copy the last premiers one weve been doing that since GT started turning us into the mini brions

Did you know that we didn't copy the Lions at all?

What we infact did, was look at stats from the premiers and great teams of the past decade or so.

We looked at the things the excelled in. The areas they dominated in. The areas that stood them ahead of the rest.

The results were common. And guess what? They were contested footy, tackling etc.

We didn't mimic the Lions. They were one of a few teams we based our 'KIPs' on.

KPIs. Key Performance Indicators.

It's not rocket science though as I think all clubs would have the same sort of measurements.

Inside 50s
Contested Footy
Clearances
One Percenters
Efficiency
Effectiveness

Would be same wherever you look.

[Teflon]

...not copy the last premiers one weve been doing that since GT started turning us into the mini brions

Did you know that we didn't copy the Lions at all?

Bullshyte alert - the coach was on record saying we were modelling ourselves on the succefull game style that brought the Luons 3 flags...except we didnt have a ruck and they had 4......work that out...

Why lie Dodgy?.......did/does that get the attention at school?

[Oh When the Saints]

That last comment is totally inappropriate Teflon.

Cut the sarcasm or you will return to being the topic of threads about your absence.

[JeffDunne]

Not sure if fitness can be blamed in the 2nd half of the year

Ofcourse fitness can be blamed in the sceond half of the year you daft pr!ck - where do you think a long season - a marathon - fitness wise is gonna take its toll....Rd 1?

You cant be the full quid...

Why this site puts up with you is one of life's great mysteries.

What would you know about marathons? Ever run one?

Here's a term you might of heard . . . "match fitness"

If you can run out a game in round 1, you really shouldn't have too much trouble running out a game against the bottom clubs in the last half of the season.

We had 18 players that played at least 18 games.

I'd have thought even a complete and utter moron like yourself would have realised that most of those players would have had better match fitness in round 22 than in round 1.

Guess I under-estimate the stupidy and ignorance of some.

[Armoooo]

Why must all discussions turn personal

[JeffDunne]

Why must all discussions turn personal

Probably because this site allows it.

Actually, there's no 'probably' about it. Happens on all sites where it's tolerated.

Also, some people support individuals - the rest of us support the club.

God help the second group if they say anything remotely critical of the individuals supported by the first.

[saintly]

To be fair to RodgerFox, he has consistanty pooh poohed the best list in the comp myth for many years.

I cant think I remember him saying it once.

I would like to hear from RodgerFox on his other pet theory regarding last season which is injuries. I seem to recall that we had a plethora of injuries for the whole of the first half of the season. This must have something to do with performance and the three "fundamentals" of

A) Win the contested ball
B) Tackle strongly
C) Use the ball well

being inferior to the three previous years.

However I do feel that it is just not a simplistic blame the current, previous coach.

Our season was a combo of injuries, new coach and gameplan (and no settling into the gameplan due to the turnover of personnel in the team), poor fitness (terrible and dissapointing fadeouts in the second half of the year), a distablised environment (the previous coach sticking his bib in until the President was eventually forced out) and the board problems, were all causes for a poor year.

However, like Thomas, like Butterss, 2007 is gone. And I think the optimism toward 2008 is more than the usual pre season optimism.

Things on the injury front haven't looked as good in a long time. Recruits in King, Schneider (the bigger names) Dempster (could be a good pickup according to Swans fans) and Charlie Gardiner (good reports from the training track) could add much to the coaches gameplan. M.Gardiner fit means we have a very good ruck combo (potentially), and the new fitness guy from Sydney getting us fitter tha last season, is all positive.

The new board that I was critical of has kicked goals and have so far done what they said they would do - found extra revenue streams to fund the extra football dept spending - all power to them and thumbs up. Best of all the "old boys" club that Thomas/Butterss turned it into has gone.

Membership is on the up and it seems there is a whole new enthusiam about the place, something that has been missing since about 2004.

The place under Lyon and the recruiters have done better than anytime since 2001 (IMHO), and along with the fresh new board, has rejuvenated the place.

But as RodgerFox has pointed out time and again, only the team with the least injuries invariably wins a flag. We have the cattle, can we keep them fit enough to win the flag?

wheres the extre revenue stream? If you're talking about Jeld wen that is just a sponsor not a new revenue stream?

[rodgerfox]

Bullshyte alert - the coach was on record saying we were modelling ourselves on the succefull game style that brought the Luons 3 flags...

Completely false. He is not 'on record' saying that at all.

The only thing close to the truth here is that the Lions won 3 flags.

We modelled ourselves on noone. We 'copied' areas that the great teams of the past decade had excelled in.