Poor poor tactics

[SENsei]

When I played, I hated sitting on the bench. Lost momentum. Then it takes time to get that momentum back.

As recently as 5 years ago, impact players were in the minority. Nowadays, all midfielders are impact players.

Not an improvement for me.

[saintsRrising]

The more I think about Friday night, the more I think this will be a watershed game.

Back in 1999, the Hawthorn win after we were 63 points up was a negative watershed in that it sent us into a spiral of despair that Timmy Watson (for all the phones he smashed) couldn't recover from.

Fast forward to 2008, we will learn. We will prosper. We have a coach who I believe has the nouse to adapt.

I have no evidence to back that comment up, just a 'vibe'.

Onwards and upwards. We have had a huge kick in the butt. All good from here.

Yes I agree.....I think it will have been a watershed game for us too.
But unlike you I am not sure which direction.

It will either set us in the right direction with all, including coaches lifting their game and workrate...................or will go the other way where player indifferenace will continue.

The Cat's game will show...not so much if we win or lose , but in how we play the game.

[SENsei]

Well yes it could go either way from here.

I think it will be positive.

Let's hope I am right and you are not!!

[rodgerfox]

I cannot undertatand peoples view that we need to molly coddle our so called stars.

I don't think the suggestion is to molly coddle anyone - simply play them to their strengths.

Don't ignore and hide their weaknesses, but play to their strengths.

[meher baba]

Yes I agree.....I think it will have been a watershed game for us too.
But unlike you I am not sure which direction.

It will either set us in the right direction with all, including coaches lifting their game and workrate...................or will go the other way where player indifferenace will continue.

The Cat's game will show...not so much if we win or lose , but in how we play the game.

sRr - are you ever going to be prepared to place some responsibility for how we play on the shoulders of the coach? We are talking mostly about the same players who played their hearts out for most of 2004-06. Our execution was often far from perfect, but endeavour was pretty good back then. Where has it gone?

[saintsRrising]

sRr - are you ever going to be prepared to place some responsibility for how we play on the shoulders of the coach?

TIP: Look up immediately to my last post..it is only a few up..

It will either set us in the right direction with all, including coaches lifting their game and workrate


WOW eh....how is that for service.....I did it even before you posted!!! Amazing is it not????

Fair Dinkum MB...post the Dogs game you have become the new Barks...or rather anti-Barks spamming post after post. While Barks targets GT you are targetting RL with equal venom and repetition.

Do you have any facts by the way to back up your claims of how RL got the coaching job which you have spammed repeatedly, or are you just content to make it up as you go and sully the reputation of people like Ross Smith who helped to select him?

We know how GT got the job wasa sham as both RB and GT have admitted it it since.

But what do you base your claims about Ross on?


Since the Dogs match I have actually in serveral posts made reference to aspects of the coaching that I was not happy with. But do not let facts stand in the way of your accusations.

[SteveStevens66]

[quote="saintsRrising"]

"I cannot undertatand peoples view that we need to molly coddle our so called stars."


Disingenuous comment. Absolutely no one, irrespective of which side of the the issue they are on said that we ought to "molly coddle our so called stars."

What some here were referring to was that the whole team shouldn't be required to run up and down the ground, back and forth like demented nine year olds in pursuit of the ball. Not everyone needs to be doing grunt work but it appears, and I hope I am wrong, that Lyon is deeply enamoured of grunt work.

[rodgerfox]

sRr - are you ever going to be prepared to place some responsibility for how we play on the shoulders of the coach? We are talking mostly about the same players who played their hearts out for most of 2004-06. Our execution was often far from perfect, but endeavour was pretty good back then. Where has it gone?

SrS will only ever backpeddle and twist words just enough to claim he was right all along.

It's actually pretty funny now, as whenever proven to have lied or proven to be outright wrong - he just resorts to bagging GT. It's very funny.

[Mr Magic]

[quote="rodgerfox
SrS will only ever backpeddle and twist words just enough to claim he was right all along.

quote]

mmmm. I wonder where I have seen that tactic used before?

Lets tell the truth here RodgerFox.

I fully expect that when we win the Flag this year you will come on and post that the premiership has nothing to do with the coaching of RL, nor the work done by the previous adminstration and everything to do with the coaching of GT and the new administration.

Your views are so coloured by your blind hatred of RB and all those involved in the sacking of GT that you seem to be taking delight in any hiccup, small or large, that our Club encounters.

Is it so hard for you to actually 'credit' RL for anything positive?
Does your bitterness burn so deeply that you would prefer us to fail under RL? Is that because if we do succeed you will have to admit that RL was a good coach?

[saintsRrising]

sRr - are you ever going to be prepared to place some responsibility for how we play on the shoulders of the coach? We are talking mostly about the same players who played their hearts out for most of 2004-06. Our execution was often far from perfect, but endeavour was pretty good back then. Where has it gone?

SrS will only ever backpeddle and twist words just enough to claim he was right all along.

It's actually pretty funny now, as whenever proven to have lied or proven to be outright wrong - he just resorts to bagging GT. It's very funny.

Once again Rodger on the stir....did Barks stop biting in the other string????

Read my reply to MB......where my last post to his actually referred to coaching....quite funny really that he and then you both lambast me for something when my very last post before MB's actually said that the coach needed to improve as well as the players (ie the coaching taking some responsbility for how we play.

[saintsRrising]

, as whenever proven to have lied .

Dear Rodger I know you will not, because you never have, but please post examples of where I have lied.

I understand you just accuse me of lieing to bait me........but you could at least put up the pretence of an argument rather than your constant baseless claims.

Anyway unless you can actually raise a discussion point rather than baseless accusations I will ignore your likely next baits and accusations.

[rodgerfox]

, as whenever proven to have lied .

Dear Rodger I know you will not, because you never have, but please post examples of where I have lied.

I understand you just accuse me of lieing to bait me........but you could at least put up the pretence of an argument rather than your constant baseless claims.

Anyway unless you can actually raise a discussion point rather than baseless accusations I will ignore your likely next baits and accusations.

For one, you stated that Thomas admitted publicly purposely losing a match.

Outright lie.

[saintsRrising]

Well yes it could go either way from here.

I think it will be positive.

Let's hope I am right and you are not!!

I think you mistook my reply...I meant that I did not know if it would be positive or negative.........and not that it would be negative.



The Dogs kicked sand in our players and coaches faces. Saturday will show how they respond.

I think that they will respond in the positive.

So yes I hope you are right...

[Shaggy]

sRr - are you ever going to be prepared to place some responsibility for how we play on the shoulders of the coach?

TIP: Look up immediately to my last post..it is only a few up..

It will either set us in the right direction with all, including coaches lifting their game and workrate


WOW eh....how is that for service.....I did it even before you posted!!! Amazing is it not????

Fair Dinkum MB...post the Dogs game you have become the new Barks...or rather anti-Barks spamming post after post. While Barks targets GT you are targetting RL with equal venom and repetition.

Do you have any facts by the way to back up your claims of how RL got the coaching job which you have spammed repeatedly, or are you just content to make it up as you go and sully the reputation of people like Ross Smith who helped to select him?

We know how GT got the job wasa sham as both RB and GT have admitted it it since.

But what do you base your claims about Ross on?


Since the Dogs match I have actually in serveral posts made reference to aspects of the coaching that I was not happy with. But do not let facts stand in the way of your accusations.

SR in other posts you allege our players work rate is down.Your blame is more on the players not the coaches.

Yet our players are running significantly further than they ever did under GT. I think you are being grossly unfair to the players which I believe is part of MB's point. The game plan suits some but not others.

IMO our key players are mainly explosive players rather than endurance. RL’s formula requires superior endurance which you either have or don’t. IMO most of ours don’t hence the fade outs. It doesn’t mean they are not trying 100%.

IMO Geelong under our game plan would not have won the flag last year because they are also a more explosive side rather than endurance. Its lucky Geelong kept Thompson and enforced the administration changes upon him whether he liked it or not.

[meher baba]

sRr - are you ever going to be prepared to place some responsibility for how we play on the shoulders of the coach?

TIP: Look up immediately to my last post..it is only a few up..

It will either set us in the right direction with all, including coaches lifting their game and workrate


WOW eh....how is that for service.....I did it even before you posted!!! Amazing is it not????

Fair Dinkum MB...post the Dogs game you have become the new Barks...or rather anti-Barks spamming post after post. While Barks targets GT you are targetting RL with equal venom and repetition.

Do you have any facts by the way to back up your claims of how RL got the coaching job which you have spammed repeatedly, or are you just content to make it up as you go and sully the reputation of people like Ross Smith who helped to select him?

We know how GT got the job wasa sham as both RB and GT have admitted it it since.

But what do you base your claims about Ross on?


Since the Dogs match I have actually in serveral posts made reference to aspects of the coaching that I was not happy with. But do not let facts stand in the way of your accusations.

Fair cop, sRr, I do tend to get a bit fired up for a few days when we lose badly.

If Lyon can turn it around in the next few games, then I will be right behind him again. It's just that the portents do not look very promising to me ATM.

As for how Lyon was recruited: the use of personality, psychology, aptitude tests & etc. were widely reported in 2006 and there was an article that described how Lyon clinched the job through his performance in a simulated press conference. So I'm not making it up.

[JeffDunne]

We lost control of the game in the 2nd quarter.

How can you blame endurance for that?

Up until the Carlton game we had finished all games strongly so far this year.

We were lazy against Carlton, had it extrememly easy in the first qtr against the Dogs and the team collectively started taking the soft option.

Hopefully last week was the wake up call we needed.

Good news is Geelong have been cruising for the past two weeks. They've probably forgotten what it's like to play in a physical encounter and I'm sure Ross & the boys will be planning to remind them.

[saintsRrising]

SR in other posts you allege our players work rate is down.Your blame is more on the players not the coaches.

1/ I think that firstly we need to seperate this into discussion about the Dogs Game and games in general.

In the Dogs game our workrate IMO dipped noticeably at Quarter time. I personally would be of a view that players could not be so impaired by fatigue after only one Quarter that the opposition should be able to run over them.

2/ So specifically this week yes I would view it more as a player aberation.

3/ On workrate in general. I posted at the start of last season that IMO that Lyon's greatest challenge (once player conditioning was sorted out) would be achieving a satisfactory work rate from the players. I based this on my post streak observations that we had too many players who too often did not work hard enough over 4 quarters. GT's 100% effort for 100% of the time ( or at least striving for it.).

If workrate sounds too harsh...perhaps think of it this way...that we had too many players who could not concentrate well enough for long enough.

Over a period of time it sheets home to the coach to have team that delivers well enough in this regard. Both in developing the player...or in changing who is selected (and or drafted/traded).



Now as you say there is more running and the players have now been trained more for running and less for power. Players have slimmed down etc.

This year in the NAB Cup the team seemed more capbale of running out games and finished by and large strongly in the last quarter.

Yet our players are running significantly further than they ever did under GT.

True, but then all teams run more than they did 4 year ago as well. But yes we would seem to be at the upper end of running demaonds in some games.

I think you are being grossly unfair to the players which I believe is part of MB's point. The game plan suits some but not others.

IMO our key players are mainly explosive players rather than endurance.

Can you please advise why X and Dal are "explosive" players? In the Dogs match these were two players who had poor work rates in the last 3 quarters.

RL’s formula requires superior endurance which you either have or don’t. IMO most of ours don’t hence the fade outs. It doesn’t mean they are not trying 100%.

Well I will not completely disagree here as you have a point. But again in the Dogs game I do not believe that it was a significant factor and does not explain fading out after only one quarter.

IMO Geelong under our game plan would not have won the flag last year because they are also a more explosive side rather than endurance. Its lucky Geelong kept Thompson and enforced the administration changes upon him whether he liked it or not.

Lucky?? Why lucky. In the end Thompson went along with the changes. Balme was appointed without any discussion with him.

With GT the Saints wanted to appoint Drain and GT point blank refused.
After GT's termination he still stated that his way was best.

From all the public discussion of people that have worked with GT he is a control freak who could not and would not work in the current system of expanded shared responisbilities.

Now sometimes control freaks can be good...and when GT first arrived it was probably what we needed, but it then later held us back.

Should Butters have been stronger and forced the issue then? Hindsight would say yes.

Would GT have aquiesced??? Hindsight would say no.

[saintsRrising]

, as whenever proven to have lied .

Dear Rodger I know you will not, because you never have, but please post examples of where I have lied.

I understand you just accuse me of lieing to bait me........but you could at least put up the pretence of an argument rather than your constant baseless claims.

Anyway unless you can actually raise a discussion point rather than baseless accusations I will ignore your likely next baits and accusations.

For one, you stated that Thomas admitted publicly purposely losing a match.

Outright lie.

Come on Rodge... you can do better...surely????


As stated by me at the time in that string GT said post game that he could have won the match (against the Roos with Grant and others running riot in the last quarter) by flooding but chose not to.

That to me means that GT chose to lose the match.

Others in the string stated that I they thought that I was stretching it a bit in my interpretation (and fair enough too that that is their assesment)....but to me if you see a runaway truck careering towards you and you choose to stand there hoping it will deviate when you know you can take cover....then you have decided to be run over.

[saintsRrising]

and there was an article that described how Lyon clinched the job through his performance in a simulated press conference. So I'm not making it up.

And you really really believe that????

You honestly believe that any club, let alone the Saints, in appointing a head coach would be most influenced by how the candidate performed in a simulated press conference?????

[saintsRrising]

Fair cop, sRr, I do tend to get a bit fired up for a few days when we lose badly.
.

As do we all, or at least many of us including me.......and I think one good function of this forum is that it allows us to air our frustrations.

[vacuous space]

Can you please advise why X and Dal are "explosive" players? In the Dogs match these were two players who had poor work rates in the last 3 quarters.

Explain how. Point me to specific situations where X's and Dal's work rate was down. They weren't winning contests, but that doesn't mean they weren't going into contests at full force. That's the thing about contests - sometimes you lose them. After the first quarter we weren't winning contests anywhere. Their effort level was fine, it was their success rate that was down. The same was true of just about everyone else.

[saintsRrising]

Can you please advise why X and Dal are "explosive" players? In the Dogs match these were two players who had poor work rates in the last 3 quarters.

Explain how. Point me to specific situations where X's and Dal's work rate was down. They weren't winning contests, but that doesn't mean they weren't going into contests at full force. That's the thing about contests - sometimes you lose them. After the first quarter we weren't winning contests anywhere. Their effort level was fine, it was their success rate that was down. The same was true of just about everyone else.

Both players trotting at half pace .....and definately not going into contests at full force.

I remember for example with X that the ball was kicked into space on our Hb ( to wing) ....with a Dogs player in the lead.

The Dogs player sprinted for it...X trotted.

Now if both had sprinted the Dogs player would have still got their first however if both had sprinted then the Dogs player on winning the ball would have been under some pressure to dispose of it.

With X trotting Dogs player was able to pick up the ball and then under no pressure dispose of it to a team mate.

With Dal...Dogs player running into the forward line...Dal was the nearest Saints player and even though there was no other Dogs player for him to zone off on (or guard) he just trotted along allowing the ball carrier run further and to then kick under no pressure to set up a good pass for a resultant goal.

In both examples if the player had gone into the contests at full force the resultants may well have been quite different.


X has been been very good this year and I had hoped (and still hope) that he has turned the corner. However in the Dogs game he went missing.

In the first quarter Saints players were running harder and gave the Dogs little time to dispose of the ball. They were always harried. After quarter time IMO the workrate of many declined.

Now I'm not saying that poor coaching moves etc were not a factor and in other strings this week like many I have commented on some of them, as they were. But IMO our drop in workrate by many was the most crucial factor.

Sometimes in football players drop their bundle....if it happens too often then you are in trouble.

[saintsRrising]

That's the thing about contests - sometimes you lose them. After the first quarter we weren't winning contests anywhere. .

Well I certainly agree here...and certainly in the midfield the Dogs got on top and dominated...and teams and players do this all the time.

Most games you will see ebbs and flows.


However IMO around the ground our intensity to create contests in the first place dropped off....and workrate was a factor. Why a player or players mentally go missing...well that is for the coach to sort out.


It is the coaches task now to get the players to refocus for next week and the reaminder of the season.

[rodgerfox]

As stated by me at the time in that string GT said post game that he could have won the match (against the Roos with Grant and others running riot in the last quarter) by flooding but chose not to.

You're lying again.

In that string, you outright said GT publicly stated he purposely lost a game.

Then, when called a liar by another poster you backpeddled as usual then made the above claim.

You asked for an example of your lies, and you got one.

Any more requests, do it via PM and save the forum another 10 page thread of your backpeddling.

[vacuous space]

I think I know the incedent you're talking about with Dal. In the second quarter Dal drops off Hill and is jogging back into defence while Hill is running down the wing unopposed. Dal eventually realises what's going on and sprints to catch Hill, but can't get there and the Doggies get a shot on goal as a result. If that's the one, then it was definitely not a good moment for Dal. His defensive game is still his biggest weakness, which makes me wonder why he spent so much time behind centre on Friday night. I don't think his game overall was as bad as some are making out.

I can't really comment on the X one. That's not to say it didn't happen - I just didn't catch it. I didn't notice much of X at all. When I did notice him he was going hard at it in the centre, but failing to win the ball (like many others). He also spent a good deal of time up forward while the rest of our team struggled to get it in there.

The worry for me is our ball use. Losing clearances, losing contests shouldn't necessarily mean you lose the game. But too many guys on our team just bombed away when moving forward on Friday night. Several of our first quarter goals came from indiscriminant bombs forward that happened to work out. After the doggies made some changes in the back half, we were far less able to exploit our talls and we never got any ground game going in there. Gram and Goddard were the worst culprits, but they were by no means alone.