It's not Lyon's fault!!

[Dan Warna]

The fact is, when GT was our coach we played finals.

typical you really are enjoying fans at st kilda getting angry at each other aren't you?

just another bit of poison in the well?

[BAM! (shhhh)]

pointless thread TBH, the whatiff blame game.

none of the sides will agree on the issues so there is really little point in regurgitating the same dross that the last 18 months have delivered.

we have the team we have.

we have the coach we have.

GT is gone adn is unlikely to return.

we have a new managemetn at the club and whether you are RL fan or not, you are just feeding on the same tripe as we've been dished up before, myself included.

guys like nexxuss and to a lesser degree B4E feed of this shyte (at least B4E buys his membership and is seen around the grounds)

Cheers

Dan

Can't speak for the rest, part of the reason I'm still involved is just that B4E isn't. While clearly on the same side of the fence, sRr is a reasonable poster (provided he and I don't go flying off on tangents, but I can't leave all the blame on him for that) so the discussion can be had, and I think the discussion itself is reasonable given where we're at, comparing the current coach to the benchmark of his predecessor.

I am a little surprised that anyone else is still reading though

[saintsRrising]

you really are enjoying fans at st kilda getting angry at each other aren't you?

:

I don't think anyone in the main is "angry".

It is just good honest discussion.

Debate's are healthy and fun.

As for Nexxus...who cares what a Dons supporter thinks?

[Shaggy]

This thread is the internet chat equivalent of circle work with a bit of spinning.

Lyon is having to rebuild depth in the 20-23 y.o age group because of Thomas' crap choices from 2003 - 2005.

In 2003 we recruited Raph, Gram, Guerra and Chips. You may be disappointed with the 2003 selections but I doubt RL is. And I am sure RL prefers having Gram and Chips playing for him in their prime rather than as youngsters.

I don't agree that GT's mature age recruits were a problem or mistake - Gram's fantastic, .

So one player out of Knoble, Guerra, Brooks, Watts, Sugar, Rix, McGough, and Gram is fantastic????

I certainly do not expect anyone to get all their calls right....but 1 in 8 is fantastic???

Is this a random sample of mature age players taken by the Saints? What happened to Sammy, G-Train, Voss, Powell, Chips, Black & Fiora … the majority of whom we picked up after Knobel. We have had great success with our mature age players.

Guerra has gone on and done fine for Hawthorn,

.

Is this not the point???? That GT could not manage him...just as GT could not manage any player with "issues"....with the possible exception of GTrain.

G-Train, Aussie and Frankie all had issues or were rough diamonds as you call it. They all played their best footy under GT. I still remember Aussie wanting to walk from the club in GT’s early days. GT sacked both of G-Train’s best mates from the club and he still won 2 Colemans afterwards. I am sure G-Train had huge issues with GT but GT still got the best out of him nonetheless.

Its easy to knock any club/recruiter/coach by focusing discussions on the 5 club delisted players each year. But focusing on the core JB/GT/Waldron/whoever did a wonderful job to rebuild our list from crap to now being a mature strong list IMO. Is it perfect? ... No ... but it is as good as I have seen at the Saints.

[Mr Magic]

I'm pretty sure that Sammy, G-Train and Voss were recruited when Blight was the coach and Gt was the Football Director.

So I am assuming your point is that as Football Director he had iunput into selecting those players?

If that is your point then it raises the interesting aspect that Gt whilst in his role as Football Director wanted and received the ability to have input on player recruitment but as Coach he apparently refused point-blank to allow anybody other than himself to have much (if any) say about anything to do with football.

In the end I believe that is the reason he was sacked.

[saintsRrising]

Is this a random sample of mature age players taken by the Saints? .

No..we were talking about players from other clubs gained once GT had control of the trading...basically from about 2002 I think I mentioned in one of the earlier posts. Essentially the post-Waldron era.

What happened to Sammy, G-Train, Voss, Powell, Chips, Black & Fiora … the majority of whom we picked up after Knobel. We have had great success with our mature age players..

Again they are not the players that we are talking about.


Chips was not at another AFL club.
Sammy, GTrain, Voss were part of the Blight era.

Black leaving was due to his wife...not GT
Fiora was basically forced on GT by Black leaving...

Its easy to knock any club/recruiter/coach by focusing discussions on the 5 club delisted players each year. But focusing on the core JB/GT/Waldron/whoever did a wonderful job to rebuild our list from crap to now being a mature strong list IMO. Is it perfect? ... No ... but it is as good as I have seen at the Saints.

??? err.....my point is that once Waldron left and GT took over in this area that the wheels fell off.

So your point of expanding the era to include the Waldron period is not discussing what I am.


If you include the Waldon era...yes I am in full agreement....our list became very good.

It was built and improved.

Then the period I am talking of...it went into decline.

It is now being improved again.

PS Purely from a football success point of view I rate Waldron leaving the club as one of the worst things that happened to the Saints.

[Shaggy]

I'm pretty sure that Sammy, G-Train and Voss were recruited when Blight was the coach and Gt was the Football Director.

So I am assuming your point is that as Football Director he had iunput into selecting those players?

If that is your point then it raises the interesting aspect that Gt whilst in his role as Football Director wanted and received the ability to have input on player recruitment but as Coach he apparently refused point-blank to allow anybody other than himself to have much (if any) say about anything to do with football.

In the end I believe that is the reason he was sacked.

My point is we had remarkable success with our mature recruits. There is no way we would have been the force we were in 2004 unless they collectively gelled in a short space of time and yes I give GT a lot of credit for achieving that.

IMO GT was sacked because he cut out the board and AF. However I believe he was a major delegator to personnel he trusted, more so than RL. But he didn't trust the Board or their appointees to make decisions who should be responsible. He thought he was better placed to make those decisions and IMO he probably was.

IMO GT was sacked because of Board politics. GT thought he could not be sacked if he produced the results. He made a fundamental error in 2006 when we went into the season with the lightest pre-season ever and it cost him his job because the Saints could not catch up and did not produce the results. The Board had the excuse to replace him with some-one who would give them respect and they did.

As it turned out RL in his own way led to the Board going. He brought to bear the lack of support the Board was giving to our operations with their tight monetary control. RL was not prepared to shoulder the dual roles GT was.

That is not a critisism of RL either. I think it was necessary to move the club along but I don't blame GT either for trying to carry the Board or lacking trust in their decision making.

[saintsRrising]

IMO GT was sacked because he cut out the board and AF..

???? so this is meant to be an acceptable way fora coach to act????

How many employees elsewhere do you know that would not be sacked for such behaviour????

. But he didn't trust the Board or their appointees to make decisions .


Strange... I thought that it was actually the St KFC and not the GTFC ???

So why did GT.....only one person......have the right to overule the Board of what is meant to be a public club???

More importnatly why did GT think he had this right????? Very revealing about GT i would think and full reason in itself why sucha power -freak became so destructive at the Saints.

Must be wonderful to consider oneself omniponent????

He thought he was better placed to make those decisions and IMO he probably was. .

???

IMO GT was sacked because of Board politics..

The Board wanted to bring in a more modern football structure. GT point blanked refused.

The guy was control freak that was holding us back.

.

As it turned out RL in his own way led to the Board going. He brought to bear the lack of support the Board was giving to our operations with their tight monetary control. RL was not prepared to shoulder the dual roles GT was. .

Only problem with your fantasy...is that the dual role was not required..and fact was not wanted. This in fact was what the restructure was largely about. To bring MORE resources to bare including a football manager position.

Westaway's group may well spend more on football resources, but the previous Board had already starting to ramp this up.

Drain for example was meant to have been employed one year prior to GT going....but GT would not have it.

That is not a critisism of RL either. I think it was necessary to move the club along but I don't blame GT either for trying to carry the Board.

To carry the Board???

Also do not forget that a review was done by external consultants to make recommendations about a what modern football club should be like.

By coincidence the Cat's came to similar conclusions.

Thompson did not agree with his Board..but accepted their decisions.

GT did not agree with his Board....and actively opposed the Board's decisons.


This is one reason why he was quite rightly sacked.

[Shaggy]

Is this a random sample of mature age players taken by the Saints? .

No..we were talking about players from other clubs gained once GT had control of the trading...basically from about 2002 I think I mentioned in one of the earlier posts. Essentially the post-Waldron era..

No my reading is that you are talking about mature recruits. If you are only talking those who played AFL football for other AFL clubs than obviously Brooks, Watts, Gram should not be included. The problem is that you are trying to justify a sample based on a bias. Why include Knobel who was Waldron's time and why not Chips who was post Waldron? If you want big picture than simply look at players who have come across to us as 20 year olds plus and actually we have done very well.

What happened to Sammy, G-Train, Voss, Powell, Chips, Black & Fiora … the majority of whom we picked up after Knobel. We have had great success with our mature age players..

Again they are not the players that we are talking about.


Chips was not at another AFL club.
Sammy, GTrain, Voss were part of the Blight era.

Black leaving was due to his wife...not GT
Fiora was basically forced on GT by Black leaving...

And that is why I think you are always spinning.
All players joining the Saints as mature players want a change due to circumstances or a chance as mature players. Who actually cares what is the circumstance? GT was fundamental to all them joining.

Its easy to knock any club/recruiter/coach by focusing discussions on the 5 club delisted players each year. But focusing on the core JB/GT/Waldron/whoever did a wonderful job to rebuild our list from crap to now being a mature strong list IMO. Is it perfect? ... No ... but it is as good as I have seen at the Saints.

??? err.....my point is that once Waldron left and GT took over in this area that the wheels fell off.

So your point of expanding the era to include the Waldron period is not discussing what I am.


If you include the Waldon era...yes I am in full agreement....our list became very good.

It was built and improved.

Then the period I am talking of...it went into decline.

It is now being improved again.

PS Purely from a football success point of view I rate Waldron leaving the club as one of the worst things that happened to the Saints.

Waldron I assume was excellent. I have no idea who was more responsible for selection of the players whether it be Waldron/JB/GT/or who-ever. But as far as talking to the mature recruits to convince them to come across I know it was GT.

Whilst you don’t see it I believe it was a miracle we were a powerhouse in 2004 given our list in 2001 and without GT it would not have happened.

IMO RL is blessed with a team predominantly at its peak age. IMO GT primarily gets the credit. RL can be the finisher.

I 100% accept that GT may not have the best starter (i.e. Waldron) or the best finisher (i.e. RL). But without GT in between you are kidding.

[saintsRrising]

But without GT in between you are kidding.

I have always said and acknowledged that GT in his early days was good for the Saints.

[Shaggy]

IMO GT was sacked because he cut out the board and AF..

???? so this is meant to be an acceptable way fora coach to act????

How many employees elsewhere do you know that would not be sacked for such behaviour????

. But he didn't trust the Board or their appointees to make decisions .


Strange... I thought that it was actually the St KFC and not the GTFC ???

So why did GT.....only one person......have the right to overule the Board of what is meant to be a public club???

More importnatly why did GT think he had this right????? Very revealing about GT i would think and full reason in itself why sucha power -freak became so destructive at the Saints.

Must be wonderful to consider oneself omniponent????

He thought he was better placed to make those decisions and IMO he probably was. .

???

IMO GT was sacked because of Board politics..

The Board wanted to bring in a more modern football structure. GT point blanked refused.

The guy was control freak that was holding us back.

.

As it turned out RL in his own way led to the Board going. He brought to bear the lack of support the Board was giving to our operations with their tight monetary control. RL was not prepared to shoulder the dual roles GT was. .

Only problem with your fantasy...is that the dual role was not required..and fact was not wanted. This in fact was what the restructure was largely about. To bring MORE resources to bare including a football manager position.

Westaway's group may well spend more on football resources, but the previous Board had already starting to ramp this up.

Drain for example was meant to have been employed one year prior to GT going....but GT would not have it.

That is not a critisism of RL either. I think it was necessary to move the club along but I don't blame GT either for trying to carry the Board.

To carry the Board???

Also do not forget that a review was done by external consultants to make recommendations about a what modern football club should be like.

By coincidence the Cat's came to similar conclusions.

Thompson did not agree with his Board..but accepted their decisions.

GT did not agree with his Board....and actively opposed the Board's decisons.


This is one reason why he was quite rightly sacked.

The consultants were brought on to justify a decision which they did. If the Saints Board really wanted change they would have forced it upon GT. Instead the only change our Board wanted was GT. Geelong was the opposite. They didn't play the blame game. They instituted changes they thought were required at operational level.

SR we obviously fundamentally disagree with business principles. IMO relationships and performance always comes first before control and process. I have very little time for corporate politics and BS and spinning to justify the BS which invariably comes from the control and process side.

IMO RL ultimately was the reason the Board went. He would not make up for their shortfalls whilst GT did. But it was right that the Board went.

[saintsRrising]

SR we obviously fundamentally disagree with business principles..

??? Considering that my current business is achieved through relationships....and my remuneration is almost totally tied to my personal performance and is variable due to it....you might be surprised

IMO relationships and performance always comes first before control and process. .

.....the Saints became strong through the relationships of RB, MK, RB and GT and others.

This had clearly broken down. The 'marriage" had broken down and was dysfunctional.

The vision once shared had become poles apart....with all parties fighting over the "matrimonial" home.

So the relationships had foundered.

Performance wise...why you obviously rate GT highly in many if not all areas.

I rate him poorly in some critical ones.,...but certainly not in all.

I have very little time for corporate politics and BS and spinning to justify the BS which invariably comes from the control and process side..

Well 4 years ago I made a personal decision to leave such an environment...so while I understand your point...I do not see it as relevant to GT....and certainly not to my views on business.

IMO GT took over roles and responsibilities that he was not competent to do (and your opinion is clearly different on this)....and some such as contracts that a coach had no need to still do.

I also see that his ego and arogance prevented him from maintaining relationships that needed to be maintained.

His ego saw his vision of it be him personally that would control all things.....rather than the load being spread to those that had the ability.

IMO RL ultimately was the reason the Board went. He would not make up for their shortfalls whilst GT did. .

Well that is your opinion. I disagree. However I have posted a number of times that RL was very direct with the club in what was required for success and that the "game" needed to be lifted.

But it was right that the Board went.

Why but? The Board was not a discussion point.

I supported FF coming in....and yes it was a right that the Board went when it did.

This does not in anyway mean that it not right for GT to go as well.

[saintsRrising]

. If the Saints Board really wanted change they would have forced it upon GT.

In the end they did....but in a way that GT did not expect.

Instead the only change our Board wanted was GT.

??? Interesting view.

How do you explain the other changes then?

[vacuous space]

Our recruiting blunders have been indicative of the way our recruiting department has been run for some time. While our board was pumping up debt retirement and $1M profits, our recruiting budget slipped to dead last, behind even the Doggies and Roos. Have a look at those two teams draft and trade records. You get what you pay for in recruiting.

Very few of the picks we've traded away ever amounted to anything either. It's pure fantasy to assume that, had we kept the picks, we'd have got a better player. Most of the teams that used the picks had a better idea what was out there than we did.

GT had rarely, if ever, seen any of the players we traded for before we got them. I would be surprised if he was the driving force behind the trades. I doubt very much that he was fired for his recruiting record either. Given what was at our disposal, our recruiters have done an admirable job. If we really want to compete with other clubs, we have to improve the way we scout prospective players.

Essendon and Collingwood now have full time recruiters in WA. We haven't even drafted a kid out of WA this decade. We've only had a couple of kids come over from SA. We've spent about as many picks on suburban football as we have SA and WA combined. That's not good enough, IMO, and all this blind speculation on GT ignores that the two post-GT drafts don't look that great either.

[saintspremiers]

can someone please summarise the last 10 pages and post a "summary" thread of this thread so I don't have to spend 6 hours reading it?

Ta

[Mr Magic]

can someone please summarise the last 10 pages and post a "summary" thread of this thread so I don't have to spend 6 hours reading it?

Ta

Easy,
NeXuus managed to post a 'bait thread' that so far has manged to elicit 3500 views and 100+ responses.

[saintsRrising]

Well another theory could be that maybe we started to over trade...because we did not have the resources to properly identify new talent?????



The other huge area of lack was proper development of the young talent that we did gain...

[Dan Warna]

Easy,
NeXuus managed to post a 'bait thread' that so far has manged to elicit 3500 views and 100+ responses.

and we have a winner.

like most I've been happy to debate the pro's and con's of GT, but frankly its recycling the same shyte over and over and over again.

I'd rather discuss current issues, like the pro's and con's of RL rather than what GT woulda, shoulda, coulda done.

I'm firmly of the basis we have a brilliant 15, an solid 10 and struggle in the back half.

some of those in the back half have potential but are yet to elicit it, gwilt, CJ, mini, birss are among those I believe untapped.

we have the team for a flag, whether we see one with this generation of team is another matter.

discussion over what GT would have done is valueless IMO

[saintly]

Our recruiting blunders have been indicative of the way our recruiting department has been run for some time. While our board was pumping up debt retirement and $1M profits, our recruiting budget slipped to dead last, behind even the Doggies and Roos. Have a look at those two teams draft and trade records. You get what you pay for in recruiting.



Essendon and Collingwood now have full time recruiters in WA. We haven't even drafted a kid out of WA this decade. We've only had a couple of kids come over from SA. We've spent about as many picks on suburban football as we have SA and WA combined. That's not good enough, IMO, and all this blind speculation on GT ignores that the two post-GT drafts don't look that great either.

the saints now have full time recruiters in every state. This was told at the neil roberts luncheon last week. So recruitment strategy has changed, and this should begin to be reflected in draftees this year onwards.

[meher baba]

How can you possibly ignore rookies???

From 2002 on in the GT period:

Saints
Murray (15 games)

Hawks
Sewell (69 games) Thurgood (13 games) C Young (49 games) Gilham (33 games)
Osborne (78 games) McGlynn(25 games)
Yes leave out rookies and the comparison would certainly look better. Trouble is that the Hawks rookies are still deilvering benefits on the field.

Interesting, but over the same period (leaving aside the priority and very early picks which got them the likes of Franklin and Roughead) the Hawks used first and second round draft picks to recruit the likes of

Beau Dowler
Thomas Murphy
Xavier Ellis
Harry Miller
Matthew Ball
Zac Dawson

none of whom are household names.

Some of what some people constantly post on this topic is just inane beyond belief. So we didn't do as well at recruiting in 2003-06 as we did in 2000-02!! Could the fact that we had no priority draft picks and far less salary cap room to go chasing after players like Hamill and Gehrig have anything to do with it?

No, clearly not, must be all to do with Waldron going and GT being allowed to make all the decisions!! Get real, FFS.

I think BAM! (shhhh) has raised an interesting point in this post along the lines of you can only bring so many up-and-comers into a club before they are going to start getting frustrated by lack of opportunity. I reckon that the likes of Raph, McQualter, Gwilt, Ferguson, even Brooks and Sweeney would have gotten more opportunities at a poorer club than we were during the 2004-06 period. As it was, all but Sweeney got the opportunity to play in some pretty big AFL games, and acquitted themselves well on occasion. But they couldn't put it together week on week to displace the likes of Peckett, Thommo, Voss, Powell, Blake, etc.

And they couldn't battle their way past the other newish players who worked their way permanenltly into the first team over that period: Gram, Chips, Fish, Joey, BJ and etc.

It has often struck me that, if Brooks, Raph, Mini, Fergus etc. had fulfilled all of their potential, we probably couldh't have hung on to them and all our 2000-02 draftees and stayed within the salary cap.

But what do I know....

[vacuous space]

the saints now have full time recruiters in every state. This was told at the neil roberts luncheon last week. So recruitment strategy has changed, and this should begin to be reflected in draftees this year onwards.

That's very good news. If we're going to be able to compete in the long term, we have to be able to identify talent outside the first round, which is a lot easier to do if you're looking all over the country, not just in Victoria and at the national championships.

[NeXuss]

When Thomas was sacked by Butthead, I said at the time that was the biggest mistake we had ever made. I said that our chance of winning the premiership with this group of players was gone. By sacking Thomas Butthead had destroyed the fabric of our team.

He may not have been the best coach going around but he was the best coach for our players. They performed to their maximum ability while under GT. I don't know why but they did. Through all those injury woes we still kept making the finals.

As a result of me posting the above I was banned from this forum. I stick to what I said way back then. It has all come home to roost yet those Rose-Coloured-Glasses are still on.

[markp]

Yes, yes, the sky is falling.

Thank you Chicken Little.

[st.byron]

Lyon is having to rebuild depth in the 20-23 y.o age group because of Thomas' crap choices from 2003 - 2005.

In 2003 we recruited Raph, Gram, Guerra and Chips. You may be disappointed with the 2003 selections but I doubt RL is. And I am sure RL prefers having Gram and Chips playing for him in their prime rather than as youngsters.

Shaggy, As I've previously mentioned on this thread, from the 2003-2005 drafts / trading periods, these two guys are the only ones out of 15 players who are either in the seniors or putting pressure for a spot. Apart from Gwilt, Gilbert, Mini, Chips and Gram, the other 10 aren't even on the list.
That's a very poor return for three years recruiting under Thomas.

[st.byron]

[
What I'm saying is that recruiting's impact on the current list is being overplayed. T
What I'm saying is that Grant Thomas' recruiting has zero to do with the legacy of Ross Lyon

Of course it does. Lyon is having to rebuild depth in the 20-23 y.o age group because of Thomas' crap choices from 2003 - 2005.

If with the quality he has on the list in the 24-26 bracket, Lyon's legacy is decided by the 21-23 year olds, then he doesn't deserve much of a legacy.

Agree with you here. He does have an excellent bunch of players in their prime. My point is that there is a bloody great yawning gap between these guys and the next gen. of players pushing for senior selection such as Armitage, Allen and Geary. Bugger all in the 20-23y.o bracket except for B.J and Gilbert. Three years of crap selections which Thomas was responsible for.