Lyonometer

[meher baba]

But to suggest that he is superior to GT or two dozen other tried and proven AFL coaches is delusional, to say the least. But he could ultimately prove to be better than any of them. Time will tell.

mebabble, your simplistic, laterally challenged nonsense is nauseating at best

Another thing among the many that escapes your attention, Lyon was quite frankly appalled by, the levels of fitness with our playing group or lack of, the poor recruiting that had taken place in recent years prior to his appointment, the appalling fitness and conditioning, and a whole host of others things etc...etc...

These factors coupled with the turmoil surrounding his appointment and the battle of ego's at the club which, infiltrated the playing group had him between a rock and a hard place.

We were already going backwards through years of neglect and I have no doubt whatsoever that we would have missed the finals in 2007 even with your beloved GT coaching.

I'll forgive myself for even bothering to respond to your incessant dribble on this occasion and will promise myself to revert back to just ignoring your numbnut nonsense

cheers

Mr Babble to you, B4E!!

Once again, I have been unfairly accused of being a GT worshipper. It isn't so: I simply call things as I see them and, for me, GT was a pretty successful coach who didn't deserve to be sacked when he was.

Like rodgerfox, I am unable to share the excitement on this forum about Lyon. I certainly hope that he turns out to be the supercoach that some have seen him as being almost since day 1. He certainly seems to be improving, although we really shouldn't get too excited about winning the Who Cares Cup. However, RL's record to date is mediocre, while GT's was good by any standards.

I realise that you, and many others on this forum, are unable to grasp this basic fact. And you can go on all you like about deterioration of the list, our run of injuries being somehow all GT's fault, etc., etc. But the reality is (to coin a phrase) that RL will have nothing whatsoever to crow about in terms of his coaching achievements unless we make it to the GF either this year or, at the outside, in 2009.

And, like the rest of you, I fervently hope that he does achieve this feat.

[aussiejones]

Lyon still in his honeymoon period (like Rudd) where he can do no wrong.

The personnel around him have changed and more resources added in the fitness area. So 2008 is his chance to show he can coach .

given he will have the personnel available to select from in 2008 , the jury is out as to whether he is a good / excellent coach.

Lets give him a go

Personally I think he will (barring injuries) have no excuses but to get us to the top 2 or 3 in 2008.

[saintsRrising]

that RL will have nothing whatsoever to crow about in terms of his coaching achievements unless we make it to the GF either this year or, at the outside, in 2009.

Ah...

Unless we make it to the GF???

Which year did GT do that???


RL yes may fail...we will have to wait and see.

But GT did fail by your test.

[meher baba]

that RL will have nothing whatsoever to crow about in terms of his coaching achievements unless we make it to the GF either this year or, at the outside, in 2009.

Ah...

Unless we make it to the GF???

Which year did GT do that???


RL yes may fail...we will have to wait and see.

But GT did fail by your test.

You and others have stated that GT "failed" in 2004 and 2005 because he didn't make the GF and also "failed" in 2006 because we "finished 8th" (if you believe the ridiculous AFL way of determining these things).

You have therefore clearly set the barrier for RL to be seen as a "success" as being to take us to a GF.

Or have I somehow missed the logic? Are you all so excited about RL
because he didn't take us to the finals last year? Is your way of measuring success the extent to which we don't make the finals? Does this connect to your concern about GT stating that he wouldn't flood because teams that flood don't win finals? Perhaps what turns you on is lots and lots of flooding in a game - "modern coaching" if you like - and who gives a rat's about the result?

Perhaps I've gotten you all wrong sRr: my criteria for judging success and yours are apples and oranges. My criteria for judging success are based on on-field results. How could I have gotten it all so wrong?

[barks4eva]

You have therefore clearly set the barrier for RL to be seen as a "success" as being to take us to a GF.

Excuse me mebabble, but the ONLY FOOTBALL SUCCESS is winning an AFL Premiership Season, Grand Final, not just making one.

Is that clear enough for you?

If the best RL can do is take us to a Grand Final without actually winning one, then ultimately he will have failed to achieve the objective, capiche?

Anyways that's all irrelevant, Lyon will be our next premiership coach, because a list as good as ours, with a fair dinkum Real McCoy coach, with the exact proper processes in place, not just lip sevice to them, but actual substance, will deliver us a premiership, of this I have no doubt.

Lyon is one of the best football thinker's going around and he is also importantly a great believer in the basic fundamentals.

That he has managed to right the ship so quickly after all the years of neglect is a credit to him and everyone else at the club who has been involved in this process.

The results will now flow and I don't need to sit around like a nervous nellie wondering how thing's are going to go, wondering if he's the right man for the job, while still reminiscing about 2004, perusing The Streak vid as if it's part of the wrist filth and tug fodder collection and maintaining a semi over some Thomas in wonderland fantasy about having made the finals three years in a row, even if you only had to blink to have missed our 2006 campaign, for the reality is we threw out the bathwater not the baby.

The fact is that Thomas inherited a list like no other person in the history of VFL/AFL has ever before had at their disposal and within five years was pissing it all up against the wall, with poor list management, woeful recruiting, wasted draft selections on dud rejects, 8 in 5 years to be precise, with 3 first rounders, pitiful fitness and conditioning, zero relationship with Casey and poor development of the younger players on the periphery and next to no rookies.

The draft cycle dictates that if you have a bumper draft, then the fruits of this will ripen three to four years later with 2004 being that year after our great 2000 and 2001 drafts.

Fact is Thomas was big on player empowerment which is a good thing, BUT that's pretty much where it all stopped and basically by and large the team coached itself.

In March (2006), someone closely affiliated with the club, and who I know, was lunching with (st.kilda player), who told him that GT had lost the support of the leadership group and others.

The reason given was that it was because he was clueless when it came to coaching. No tactics, just marketing-speak and then the players were sent out to the wolves.

This source is 100% legit and the words came from a St.Kilda player.

Thomas had blown his wad, shot his load, much like yourself mebabble when you get that familiar stirring in the jacksie over making the finals but not actually winning anything and if you actually bothered to go beyond your paralysis analysis, Thomas was starting to take us backwards as evidenced by having gone from a premiership favourite which ended up 4th in 05 to 8th in 2006 while being ranked around 5th to 6th cab off the rank, with other sides having overtaking us.

Or have I somehow missed the logic? my criteria for judging success and yours are apples and oranges. My criteria for judging success are based on on-field results. How could I have gotten it all so wrong?

Basically because and I mean no disrespect here, you're a fair dinkum laterally challeged simpleton.

Cheers

[plugger66]

You have therefore clearly set the barrier for RL to be seen as a "success" as being to take us to a GF.

Excuse me mebabble, but the ONLY FOOTBALL SUCCESS is winning an AFL Premiership Season, Grand Final, not just making one.

Is that clear enough for you?

If the best RL can do is take us to a Grand Final without actually winning one, then ultimately he will have failed to achieve the objective, capiche?

Anyways that's all irrelevant, Lyon will be our next premiership coach, because a list as good as ours, with a fair dinkum Real McCoy coach, with the exact proper processes in place, not just lip sevice to them, but actual substance, will deliver us a premiership, of this I have no doubt.

Lyon is one of the best football thinker's going around and he is also importantly a great believer in the basic fundamentals.

That he has managed to right the ship so quickly after all the years of neglect is a credit to him and everyone else at the club who has been involved in this process.

The results will now flow and I don't need to sit around like a nervous nellie wondering how thing's are going to go, wondering if he's the right man for the job, while still reminiscing about 2004, perusing The Streak vid as if it's part of the wrist filth and tug fodder collection and maintaining a semi over some Thomas in wonderland fantasy about having made the finals three years in a row, even if you only had to blink to have missed our 2006 campaign, for the reality is we threw out the bathwater not the baby.

The fact is that Thomas inherited a list like no other person in the history of VFL/AFL has ever before had at their disposal and within five years was pissing it all up against the wall, with poor list management, woeful recruiting, wasted draft selections on dud rejects, 8 in 5 years to be precise, with 3 first rounders, pitiful fitness and conditioning, zero relationship with Casey and poor development of the younger players on the periphery and next to no rookies.

The draft cycle dictates that if you have a bumper draft, then the fruits of this will ripen three to four years later with 2004 being that year after our great 2000 and 2001 drafts.

Fact is Thomas was big on player empowerment which is a good thing, BUT that's pretty much where it all stopped and basically by and large the team coached itself.

In March (2006), someone closely affiliated with the club, and who I know, was lunching with (st.kilda player), who told him that GT had lost the support of the leadership group and others.

The reason given was that it was because he was clueless when it came to coaching. No tactics, just marketing-speak and then the players were sent out to the wolves.

This source is 100% legit and the words came from a St.Kilda player.

Thomas had blown his wad, shot his load, much like yourself mebabble when you get that familiar stirring in the jacksie over making the finals but not actually winning anything and if you actually bothered to go beyond your paralysis analysis, Thomas was starting to take us backwards as evidenced by having gone from a premiership favourite which ended up 4th in 05 to 8th in 2006 while being ranked around 5th to 6th cab off the rank, with other sides having overtaking us.

Or have I somehow missed the logic? my criteria for judging success and yours are apples and oranges. My criteria for judging success are based on on-field results. How could I have gotten it all so wrong?

Basically because and I mean no disrespect here, you're a fair dinkum laterally challeged simpleton.

Cheers

Can I say the bit about losing the player group is maybe the biggest lot of crap you have written and that is saying something. That is a completely untrue statement.

He lost the group that much that most of the leadership group went around to his house the night he was sacked to console him. please dont type lies which otherwise please do not type anymore.

[barks4eva]

Can I say the bit about losing the player group is maybe the biggest lot of crap you have written and that is saying something. That is a completely untrue statement.

He lost the group that much that most of the leadership group went around to his house the night he was sacked to console him. please dont type lies which otherwise please do not type anymore.

What I wrote was directly relayed from a player > FACT

You have your head so far in the sand you wouldn't know the drum even if you had a brass band up ya

The FACT of the matter is Thomas played favourites and had his darling's that he looked after like he was a second father, and IMO a ploy merely to ingratiate himself with the player's he thought were untouchable so that by a logical extension it protect's his own power base, which fortunately counted for diddly squat in the end, but this love affair did NOT extend to the WHOLE LIST.

In actual fact there were only about 3 or 4 players who were really "IN".

These players had only ever had one coach and previously knew of nothing else, they've since cottoned on to what it actually means to have a fair dinkum coach with tactics, a gameplan and the basic fundamentals.

I happen to know that there were many players who were rapt to see him gone, surprised but delighted all the same.

Anyway he's gone, can we please move on

oh that's right there's that little matter of the legal action

[meher baba]

Gee you do go on and on B4E.

And I agree with Plugger66: it is obvious that GT had not lost the support of the playing group. He'd certainly lost the respect of some - almost certainly Harves, for example as well as whoever you were talking to (if you're telling the truth, which I have no way of knowing) - but not the majority. We have seen on many occasions what a sporting club looks like when the coach has lost the support of the players, and St Kilda in 2005-06 was clearly not one of those places.

I could also add that your train of thought is becoming increasingly hard to follow: for example, you now seem to be arguing simultaneously that GT had the best list in the history of the known universe and at the same time a list so bad that the club was going under.

And I strongly suggest that you could lay off the personal abuse. I don't abuse you, and I think it is unnecessary for you to abuse me.

[To the top]

From what is reported in the media, Thomas was handed a performance agenda by the previous Board and a structure to attend that agenda.

Basically, they wanted Thomas to coach the footy team - and wanted a support structure consistent with that adopted by other clubs.

Thomas wanted to control all aspects - and there was a falling out with the Board.

Thomas was sacked - and Lyon appointed - after an exhaustive seach.

Whether the players were shocked or dissapointed, well probably some were judging by comments in the media.

On the playing field, by mid 2004 (and particularly the Carlton match where we kicked over 30 goals) the list was showing signs of stress - and sitting adjacent to the Interchange area you could see it.

A core of the players were struggling - big time.

From that time, injuries impacted - and that continued to be the problem including into season 2007.

Our list lacked depth. We did not embrace the Rookie List.

The best 22 was the best 22 by a long, long way - and the loss of players in that elite 22 hurt us - big time.

We did not make the best of the list - and look at the changes now as a comparative - particularly in regards to embracing the Rookie List.

Then you can go to the more subjective matters, open for debate, such as the view of the importance of ruckmen - and the lack of oportunity afforded to them to develop - eg Brooks.

We rucked Blake at 191 cm!

The loss of Penny impacted on structure - and was never addressed.

We drafted the likes of Guerra and the guy from Collingwood.

The Board acted, and Thomas was replaced.

Thomas was the coach you needed for the survival of the footy club, when the absolute need was to address the Liabilities hanging off the Balance Sheet (otherwise there may have been no St Kilda FC, at least not playing out of Melbourne), and a multi-skilled individual could handle a raft of functions, reducing core costs and allowing for maximum revenue to go to debt re-payment.

We are in different circumstances now, although the need to achieve a revenue steam consistent with achieving solid net (cash reserves) profit remains central.

As with all of us, the cloth must be cut to what you earn.

And some reserves squirreled away for future contingent needs.

That is my slant, so argue if you wish.

But, really, as we sit here today, we have moved on from Thomas and he and his time are totally irrelevant.

I just think we should have moved on a bit sooner, but, then again, we probably could not afford to.

[barks4eva]

We have seen on many occasions what a sporting club looks like when the coach has lost the support of the players, and St Kilda in 2005-06 was clearly not one of those places.

I could also add that your train of thought is becoming increasingly hard to follow: for example, you now seem to be arguing simultaneously that GT had the best list in the history of the known universe and at the same time a list so bad that the club was going under.

I wasn't talking about 2005!

There were many, many players who were glad to see the back of Grant Thomas and I know this to be true, but I am not going to labour this, because you obviously like plugger66 live in some Thomas in wonderland fairytale and it would be an exercise in futility trying to convince you otherwise.

There were a handful of players who Thomas treated like he was a second father, a handful, but beyond that...........................

The quote that referenced a St.Kilda player's opinion in my previous post is FACT and you'd be quite surprised to hear who it came from.

Anyway you have your uninformed feelings about this and we'll agree to disagree

BUT if you bother to take note

In 2006 we actually went a bee's dinger away from missing the finals, if Daniel Motlop and Jason Johnson had not of missed sitters from 15 and 20 metres out directly in front.

We were ranked in 2006 behind West Coast, Sydney, Adelaide, Fremantle and quite possibly one or two others in premiership favouritism such was the level that we dropped off from 2005 when we were actually premiership favourites.

There was a stat posted on here awhile ago about how many actual quarters we won in 2005 compared to 2006 and the drop off was massive.

We struggled for most of the year, unlike 2005 and due to poor recruiting, list management, development and next to no rookies the list that blossomed in 2004, 2005 three to four years after the boom draft had stagnated due to years of wasted topping up and neglect.

This kicked in, in 2006 and the effects of this were also evident in 2007.


The one time great list had been taken backwards and with a serious lack of pace through poor recruiting etc...no ruckmen of note, the structure was not sound and things started collapsoing like a deck of cards, hence we finished 8th in 2006 and 9th in 2007.

The list needed rebolstering and someone who knew which types of players were neccessary for the team as a whole.

Ross Lyon identified our weakness's, deficiencies immediately upon entering the fold, but there was no quick fix to help him to prepare for the 2007 season, he had to work with the mess that was left behind.

The rebuild that has happened in the last 12 or so months is nothing short of amazing, and this relates to recruiting, fitness and conditioning and a playing group having time to develop a relationship with the coach and to grasp the game plan.

You hold the very simplistic notion that Lyon is reinventing his philosophy and gameplan because what he delivered last year was a failure.

Lyon's gameplan requires certain types of players, levels of fitness and an ability of a playing group to execute them and on all three counts he was behind the eight ball with what he inherited.

12 to 18 months on, the list has had a mini rebuild that has massively improved the depth, the players are now fitter than they've ever been at any time this decade, ask them and that's what they will tell you and after having been dumbed down for so long and basically by and large having coached themselves to a large degree, they are grasping the message of a coach with tactics and a game plan.

[rodgerfox]

In 2006 we actually went a bee's dinger away from missing the finals, if Daniel Motlop and Jason Johnson had not of missed sitters from 15 and 20 metres out directly in front.

In 2004 we went a bee's dinger away from a GF appearance. If Guerra had an extra yard of pace or scored a lucky bounce.

12 to 18 months on, the list has had a mini rebuild that has massively improved the depth

Really? How do you know that? Where's the evidence of that?

To my knowledge, we went from a team that won 14 games for 2 years in a row, to a team that missed the finals with a very mediocre 11 wins.

[barks4eva]

12 to 18 months on, the list has had a mini rebuild that has massively improved the depth

Really? How do you know that? Where's the evidence of that?

Well if you need it explained to you, I'm obviously wasting my time if I attempt to do that.

[rodgerfox]

12 to 18 months on, the list has had a mini rebuild that has massively improved the depth

Really? How do you know that? Where's the evidence of that?

Well if you need it explained to you, I'm obviously wasting my time if I attempt to do that.

Yeah, I do.

Last year when we had injuries, we failed dismally. Depth??

We haven't played a game this year, so I fail to see how our depth has improved - let alone 'massively'.

Did you rate Carlton's depth, talent, fitness etc. when they won 2 praccy match Cups?

I think to suggest our depth has 'massively' improved before we've played a game - let alone a game with injuries even remotely similar to 05, 06 or 07 is, well, simply ridiculous.

[meher baba]

B4E and TTP

I totally agree that things fell away badly at the Club during 2006 from the 2004 and 2005 situation. You and many others seem to believe that

1. this falling away was the inevitable consequence of serious mismanagement of the playing list, recruitment and player fitness

2. this mismanagement was almost entirely the fault of GT

3. the problem was compounded by poor coaching tactics and game day strategy; and

4. all of these problems have now been addressed by RL

(Please correct me if I have any put your views wrongly.)

All of this is highly dubious IMO.

The club's biggest problem over the entire 2004-07 period has been a crippling rate of injury affecting all areas of our playing list. In 2004 we ran into a major problem with injuries during the second half of the season, which went a long way towards explaining why we fell away. Most injured players "recovered" in time for the finals, but how recovered were they? More or less the same thing happened during 2005, with the added bonus of Riewoldt and Kosi missing for much of the season and Hamill beginning the rapid slide to a permanent state of injury which finished his career.

In 2006 we had major injury problems to key players such as Hamill, Hayes, Goose and Kosi (who I believe was at that stage being groomed to take over as our #1 ruckman) and niggling hamstring injuries to a whole heap of players.

2007 was, if anything, even worse. Will 2008 be better with the much-vaunted Misson? It's surely too early to say.

In terms of list management, the story goes as follows. During 2001-04 we built up our list massively through a combination of early draft picks (Riewoldt, Kosi, Ball, X), brilliant use of later draft picks (Dal, Goose, Joey, Chips) and astute trading (Gehrig, Hamill, Gram and Penny, Guerra, Powell and Ackland for a while).

This building up process more or less came to an end at the end of 2004. Why? No more early draft picks due to our success,;less success with the lower picks that we had (but our exceptionally good run had to even out sooner or later: and even then, we did do extremely well with Gilbert and, to some extent, Gwilt); a lack of trading options (there really wasn't much on the market in 2004-06, and such good choices as there were would have needed us to part with players we didn't want to lose); and a lack of room in the cap given that we needed to spend most of our spare money on hanging on to our future in Dal, Kosi, Riewoldt, etc.

In terms of the rucks: were there any options available in 2004-06 who were as good as King? We tried and failed to recruit Troy Simmons. We managed to snare Ackland, who was reasonably servicable. Sure Brooks didn't turn out well, but if an identical clone of Brooks c.2002 with a different name was on the market now I reckon all the GT knockers on here would be clamouring for us to move heaven and earth to recruit him.

In terms of coaching strategy, we will clearly just have to agree to disagree. In 2004 we saw that, with a fully-fit side to coach, GT managed to steamroller much-vaunted opposiing teams into the ground by 100 point or more margins. We put enormous pressure on teams when they had the ball inside our forward 50, and even our midfielders used to be able to score plenty of goals. As the injury plague set in, our ability to do this to opponents dropped right away and certainly hasn't returned yet under Lyon.

Is Lyon the Messiah? Has he fixed all of our problems? Time will tell. Personally, I still do not feel terribly comfortable with a coaching style that involves the entire team running endlessly up and down the ground and trying to corrall opponents and capitalise on turnovers rather than to attack the ball the way we did under GT. I'm not saying that we shouldn't get more numbers behind the ball than we did in 2004, but Geelong showed last year that you can do that and also attack the ball and pressure the opposition in all parts of the field.

Perhaps we will be able to start playing like that this year as well. Some of you are talking as if we are already doing that, but I have seen no evidence yet. Sure, we did well to win the Who Cares Cup, but I defy anyone to say that our style of play was as dominant or exciting as it already looked in the 2004 pre-season.

Anyway, enough already. It's no use arguing anymore: the gulf between our views is too large.

[barks4eva]

King, Gardiner, Schnieder, Dempster

Armitage one year older

The emergence of younger player's

All this with a massive improvement in fitness and conditioning, a point which seems to go right over your head dodgy

Get it, our players are in the best physical condition they've ever been in.

[meher baba]

Get it, our players are in the best physical condition they've ever been in.

Which ones? Not Riewoldt, not Max, not Harves IMO (but he has an excuse), not Raph, not Bally (but possibly a little bit better than last year), not Fraser, not Goose. Certainly not Dempster. Baker hasn't looked all that crash hot so far this year.

Possibly Kosi and Lenny are better than they were. Most of the rest seem much the same to me.

Of course they all say that the team has never been fitter, never had a better pre-season, is jumping out of their skins, etc, etc. But all players at all clubs say that at the start of every season.

And "Armitage one year older"? Take a bow Ross Lyon, supercoach!!How did you manage to get him to be a year older in only 12 months!!

[rodgerfox]

King, Gardiner, Schnieder, Dempster

So 4 discards have 'massively' improved our depth?? 2 of whom, are highly suspect when it comes to keeping fit.

Last time we added discards to our list in order to improve depth, it was a disaster and ran our club into the ground.

This time, it's massively improving our depth??

So basically, we've sacked 'depth' players and replaced them with discards such as Birss, Dempster, Schneider, King, Gardiner, M Clarke and we've massively improved our depth??

Strange thinking that.

Get it, our players are in the best physical condition they've ever been in.

They certainly appear to be. And my fingers are crossed it remains that way.

The amount of soft tissue injuries this pre-season though still concerns me.


Just on the depth thing, how did we manage to win 14 games for two years in a row with the worst injury list in the com if we had no depth?

Doesn't seem to add up to me.

[barks4eva]

Get it, our players are in the best physical condition they've ever been in.

Which ones? Not Riewoldt, not Max, not Harves IMO (but he has an excuse), not Raph, not Bally (but possibly a little bit better than last year), not Fraser, not Goose. Certainly not Dempster. Baker hasn't looked all that crash hot so far this year.

Possibly Kosi and Lenny are better than they were. Most of the rest seem much the same to me.

Of course they all say that the team has never been fitter, never had a better pre-season, is jumping out of their skins, etc, etc. But all players at all clubs say that at the start of every season.

And "Armitage one year older"? Take a bow Ross Lyon, supercoach!!How did you manage to get him to be a year older in only 12 months!!

The players went through the toughest pre season they've ever done and as a group are the fittest they've ever been.

The player's themselves are on record as having said this!

Riewoldt for example, aside from his knee tendonitis is the fittest he's ever been, straight from a player's mouth.

If you were paying attention, you'd be aware that Lyon as a pre-requisite wants the whole list to be a whole lot fitter than what they were upon his arrival, hence the more professional fitness and conditioning team that has been assembled.

St.kilda will play exciting football under Ross Lyon, now that the areas of neglect that he inherited have been addresssed to a large degree.

Suppose it's best to just leave it at that, with a follow up post later in the year "see I told you so"

[rodgerfox]

The players went through the toughest pre season they've ever done and as a group are the fittest they've ever been.

The player's themselves are on record as having said this!

Riewoldt for example, aside from his knee tendonitis is the fittest he's ever been, straight from a player's mouth.

HAHHAahhaah!!

Can you please tell me one club, and one pre-season where any player interviewed hasn't said this?

You're funny.

[TimeToShineFellas]

So basically, we've sacked 'depth' players and replaced them with discards such as Birss, Dempster, Schneider, King, Gardiner, M Clarke and we've massively improved our depth??

The players we "sacked" last year included Fergus Watts, Barry Brooks and Justin Sweeney

I hardly think any of them added to the "depth" of our list. The only depth they added was to the Casey Scorpions.

Not sure if you are up to date with news, but Mathew Clarke retired last year and is not on our list.

[rodgerfox]

The players we "sacked" last year included Fergus Watts, Barry Brooks and Justin Sweeney

I hardly think any of them added to the "depth" of our list. The only depth they added was to the Casey Scorpions.

But they were recruited for depth. The same as questionable selections such as King, Clrake and Gardiner have been.

Not sure if you are up to date with news, but Mathew Clarke retired last year and is not on our list.

Yes, obviously a brilliant move that was, wasn't it.

[meher baba]

I actually agree with B4E and disagree with rodgerfox about our depth having improved.

The clearing out at the end of last season does appear to have gotten rid of a lot of dead wood. The two Cats and one of the Swans we recruited in the off-season do look to have quite a bit going for them. And the likes of M Gardiner, Armitage, Geary, R Clarke and possibly even Jones look set to contribute a fair bit more this season than last.

But we are still pretty dependent on our top dozen or so players and we do look pretty vulnerable at the back if Max, Chips and Goose aren't available for most of our games and/or unless Allen starts to show some ability as a backman.

[barks4eva]

King, Gardiner, Schnieder, Dempster

So 4 discards have 'massively' improved our depth?? 2 of whom, are highly suspect when it comes to keeping fit.

Last time we added discards to our list in order to improve depth, it was a disaster and ran our club into the ground.

This time, it's massively improving our depth??

Thomas gave up second round draft selections for Ackland and Guerra and a third round draft choice for McGough for example

In Lyon's first real go at it, we managed to get Schnieder and Dempster for one second round selection and King and C.Gardiner for a pick in the 90's we were not going to otherwise use, so in effect FOUR PLAYERS for virtually ONE DRAFT SELECTION, now that is effective trading.

King and Schnieder for example are obvious improvements to our list as a whole and along with Dempster and C.Gardiner are improving our depth.

For comparison sake, which is what you're trying to do, what was the added value of Ackland, Guerra and McGough?

It depends on who the player's actually are and what you have to give up to get them as to the relative merits of the situation, dodger, or is this too hard for you to understand?

[rodgerfox]

Thomas gave up second round draft selections for Ackland and Guerra and a third round draft choice for McGough for example

What does Thomas has to do with this?

In Lyon's first real go at it, we managed to get Schnieder and Dempster for one second round selection and King and C.Gardiner for a pick in the 90's we were not going to otherwise use, so in effect FOUR PLAYERS for virtually ONE DRAFT SELECTION, now that is effective trading.

I thought the coach didn't do the trades? I thought that's what the Football Manager does?

For comparison sake, which is what you're trying to do, what was the added value of Ackland, Guerra and McGough?

Ackland was a ruckman which we needed. He was the best one available. I'm surprsied people begrudge us for getting one at that time.

Guerra had a brilliant 2004 until his injuries cost him.

McGough was there for depth.

All 3 were discards, and were recruited for either specific holes to fill, or for depth.

Exactly the same as King, Gardiner, Clarke and Birss last year etc.


Our depth hasn't massively improved. And we won't know if it's improved at all until we get injuries and play a real game.

[rodgerfox]

The clearing out at the end of last season does appear to have gotten rid of a lot of dead wood. The two Cats and one of the Swans we recruited in the off-season do look to have quite a bit going for them.

Don't forget, that their previous clubs didn't want them.

My personal opinion, King and Scheider were great gets. I didn't rate Schneider when we got him - but he showed enough in the pre-season to suggest he'll be of value.

And the likes of M Gardiner, Armitage, Geary, R Clarke and possibly even Jones look set to contribute a fair bit more this season than last.

I'd expect Armitage to play every game this year. As for R Clarke and M Gardiner, that will depend on their fitness - the same as it has for the past 4 years.

Nothing to do with 'list management'.