It's not Lyon's fault!!

[st.byron]

[
2006 and 7 have turned out better than 2003-5? Wow, Lyon must be a genious! For 16 teams (well, 15, I'm not going to hold it against him that he can't save Fremantle)!

Pressure for spots is well and good, but once they're in the system, that's more development that drafting. Thomas certainly shouldn't write the recruiters handbook, but his draftees were always going to be hard up to make it. ......

Why were Thomas' draftees always going to be hard up to make it? Because they were crap choices? Or because Thomas didn't develop them properly.

BAM, I'm also amazed if anyone other than sRr, you and I are still reading this thread.
1. I'm not saying that Lyon's success or failure can be sheeted home to Thomas' recruiting. Lyon makes or breaks his own name for himself.
2. I am saying that from 2003-05 our recruiting and new player development was crap. And Thomas was in charge of that. This is borne out by the fact that our GOP's like Blake and Leigh Fisher are not being pressured for spots in the 22 by recruits from 2003-05 but by recruits from 2006-07. Thomas f*cked it up. Simple.

[cowboy18]

I've come to this thread late - is it about Ross or Gary?


And what's not his fault?


Thanks in advance.

[st.byron]

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.

Nexus, you say nothing new here. How many different ways can you regurgitate your view that Butterss shouldn't have sacked Thomas and that because he did, we're doomed. We get it Nexus. Do you have anything to actually contribute to the debate?

[Dan Warna]

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.

lots of people said the same thing but managed not to get banned

the difference is most of the people want st kilda to succeed and aren't BS artists with multiple nicks who leach on other peoples misery like you.

[st.byron]

[quote="meher baba"][
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.
/quote]

Interesting thoughts MB. Perhaps you and BAM are right with regards to lack of opportunities in the first 22.

Also, interesting point that VS has raised about lack of recruiting resources and no kids drafted from WA this decade. Not sure where the fault for this lies.

[Dan Warna]

there is no fault.

RB had to do the hard thing which was tighten the belt, it was that or get the receivers in.

Plympton I believe was emotionally exhausted after being forced to waverley and then barely a few years later forced to TD.

he had haul assed st kilda out of crippling debt and we were plunging back there again with terrifying speed as the S, E, and SE suburb fans abandoned st kilda in droves with the move to TD, massive teething problems with TD, and the general obnoxious behaviour of the AFL and TD mgt, in conjunction with a crippling plummet in form.

RB took over, seduced some big names to join us, and started rebuilding the finances of the club.

GT stepped into as the temp coach after MB didn't show sufficient dedication, lets be honest, for MB this was a cash job, he saw the saints list and thought easy run, but our facilities weren't up to scratch, money was tight, and injuries decimated the side in his first year and his dreams of early success started looking like a painful rebuilding process which he couldn't be assed with.

GT then coached st kilda for a 5 years, earned some praise, earned some criticism, some long for his return, some thanked him for his contribution and wished him well, some loathed him, some obsessed about him and hated him with a passion.

RL was appointed coach, and immediately earned criticism as well all accolades.

the management changed after RB I believe saw that he let his emotions interfere with effective management of the club, RB slipped into the shadows quietly to go about his business. GT took up jobs as a radio and print journalist with mixed success, however his comments regarding st kilda and subsequent legal action lost him many of the existing supporters , with only a few pathetically clinging on to the hope that he would return brandishing excalibur on thors winged mount to lead st kilda to success.

the constraints imposed by RB were done to get the club out of trouble with creditors, the AFL without going to the AFL cap in hand.

Now retrospect would suggest we might have been able to access 2 or 3 million dollars a la north, carlton, richmond, footscray, melbourne, freo, sydney etc during this time, however we did it by our own bootstraps, and for folks like RB we can say we aren't the beggers we were 20 years ago.

now with a decent list, slow and responsible investment, st kilda is building a long term off field structure that would ensure success for years to come.

Our management off field are a mix of hard nosed, successful business folks, passionate fans and former players, I think the glitz and glamor of RB that haul assed us out of the fire richard branson lite style, has been replaced by slow progressive planned growth and success for the future.

there is no point in pointing blame, the ideas that somehow some coach is perfect is a joke, each one made mistake, couldn't hold on to players etc.

leigh matthews himself acknowledges he made plenty of mistakes and without a doubt he is one of the best coaches and players of all time.

GT made mistakes, however, Like RB with st kilda's finances, i believe he left the list is a much better situation than when he inherited it.

the thing is we chose many years ago to barrack for a club run on the smell of an oil rag. we are the privateers running a 22 million dollar ship in a competition with 50 million dollar ships. Heck if we didn't merge the social club, we'd be running on a 10 million dollar ship.

I don't blame RB or GT for the mistakes of the past, whats the point? in all honesty each did their best, as they perceived it at the time, to progress st kilda.

I believe they all made mistakes but then who hasn't?

even RL who I have been a critic off, is fighting for his job, his credibility, his livelyhood and his vision. time may come when I criticise RL no person is above criticism.

er, I forgot what his was about now...

[saintsRrising]

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. ....

Talk of beyond belief..are you seriously trying lay a case that the Hawks recruiting of young talent has not been good in recent years??

Now that is seriously funny



Now firstly the group you selected, you state are first or second round selections.....


Matthew Ball..as first or second rounder?

Try 4th round at pick 51 !!!!!

Dawson..Try round 3 at pick 41!!!! ..

Murphy was pick 29.

Now Dowler was pick 6 in 2005..but as a 196cm key forward he has to displace Buddy, Roughead and Boyle!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! all of whom were drafted in earlier years than him. You don't want much do you


Ellis was yes pick 3 in 2006 ..is only 20 and has played all 5 games this year



Which leads us to the only actual flop in your list...Harry Miller who was taken at pick 25...hardly low. Ball at 51 cannot really have said to have beena flop relative to where he was taken.



Seriously if you think the Hawks drafting has been poor in this period then you are seriously delusional!!!!

[saintsRrising]

er, I forgot what his was about now...

It is our fill in to we get some selections or something else to discuss...

[st.byron]

there is no fault.

RB had to do the hard thing which was tighten the belt, it was that or get the receivers in.

Plympton I believe was emotionally exhausted after being forced to waverley and then barely a few years later forced to TD.

he had haul assed st kilda out of crippling debt and we were plunging back there again with terrifying speed as the S, E, and SE suburb fans abandoned st kilda in droves with the move to TD, massive teething problems with TD, and the general obnoxious behaviour of the AFL and TD mgt, in conjunction with a crippling plummet in form.

RB took over, seduced some big names to join us, and started rebuilding the finances of the club.

GT stepped into as the temp coach after MB didn't show sufficient dedication, lets be honest, for MB this was a cash job, he saw the saints list and thought easy run, but our facilities weren't up to scratch, money was tight, and injuries decimated the side in his first year and his dreams of early success started looking like a painful rebuilding process which he couldn't be assed with.

GT then coached st kilda for a 5 years, earned some praise, earned some criticism, some long for his return, some thanked him for his contribution and wished him well, some loathed him, some obsessed about him and hated him with a passion.

RL was appointed coach, and immediately earned criticism as well all accolades.

the management changed after RB I believe saw that he let his emotions interfere with effective management of the club, RB slipped into the shadows quietly to go about his business. GT took up jobs as a radio and print journalist with mixed success, however his comments regarding st kilda and subsequent legal action lost him many of the existing supporters , with only a few pathetically clinging on to the hope that he would return brandishing excalibur on thors winged mount to lead st kilda to success.

the constraints imposed by RB were done to get the club out of trouble with creditors, the AFL without going to the AFL cap in hand.

Now retrospect would suggest we might have been able to access 2 or 3 million dollars a la north, carlton, richmond, footscray, melbourne, freo, sydney etc during this time, however we did it by our own bootstraps, and for folks like RB we can say we aren't the beggers we were 20 years ago.

now with a decent list, slow and responsible investment, st kilda is building a long term off field structure that would ensure success for years to come.

Our management off field are a mix of hard nosed, successful business folks, passionate fans and former players, I think the glitz and glamor of RB that haul assed us out of the fire richard branson lite style, has been replaced by slow progressive planned growth and success for the future.

there is no point in pointing blame, the ideas that somehow some coach is perfect is a joke, each one made mistake, couldn't hold on to players etc.

leigh matthews himself acknowledges he made plenty of mistakes and without a doubt he is one of the best coaches and players of all time.

GT made mistakes, however, Like RB with st kilda's finances, i believe he left the list is a much better situation than when he inherited it.

the thing is we chose many years ago to barrack for a club run on the smell of an oil rag. we are the privateers running a 22 million dollar ship in a competition with 50 million dollar ships. Heck if we didn't merge the social club, we'd be running on a 10 million dollar ship.

I don't blame RB or GT for the mistakes of the past, whats the point? in all honesty each did their best, as they perceived it at the time, to progress st kilda.

I believe they all made mistakes but then who hasn't?

even RL who I have been a critic off, is fighting for his job, his credibility, his livelyhood and his vision. time may come when I criticise RL no person is above criticism.

er, I forgot what his was about now...

sterling effort Dan. Generous spirited, gives everyone a pat on the back, suitably long-winded and self-deprecating at the end. Warm and fuzzy all round.

[krabb]

even RL who I have been a critic off, is fighting for his job,

Lol...does he know that? (maybe you should phone him and warn him)

[markp]

I've come to this thread late - is it about Ross or Gary?


And what's not his fault?


Thanks in advance.

Legend has it this thread began in september of 1806, when there was much speculation about the cause of a series of minor earthquakes which had just occurred in Lyon, France.

Speculation abounded. Local scientist claimed that a long dormant fault-line ran directly under Lyon, and vied for a 167,000 franc Grant offered by an anonymous benefactor to explore this and other theories.

However, some vocal religious fanatics believed that it was not due to the fault-line (hence the threads title) , but divine retribution was at play in direct response to declining moral standards (a mostly humourless bunch, they failed to see the paradox in the fact that they were actually still claiming it was Lyon's fault...), which they contended was chiefly brought about by the introduction of a distasteful 'feminine hygiene' product being openly advertised in the local gazette .

Sadly, the offer of the Grant was mysteriously and abruptly withdrawn. Some believed the benefactor had lost vast amounts of money as the season's crops had failed that year, others believed that he had never intended to honour the Grant from the start. Some even believed he was a servant of Satan.

But, after much finger pointing and theorizing, thankfully the good folk of Lyon eventually forgot all about the events of september 1806 and simply went back about their humble business.

C'est la vie.

[saintsRrising]

I think you were looking for the Farting at Thunder Thread???

[st.byron]

Legend has it this thread began in september of 1806, when there was much speculation about the cause of a series of minor earthquakes which had just occurred in Lyon, France.

Speculation abounded. Local scientist claimed that a long dormant fault-line ran directly under Lyon, and vied for a 167,000 franc Grant offered by an anonymous benefactor to explore this and other theories.

However, some vocal religious fanatics believed that it was not due to the fault-line (hence the threads title) , but divine retribution was at play in direct response to declining moral standards (a mostly humourless bunch, they failed to see the paradox in the fact that they were actually still claiming it was Lyon's fault...), which they contended was chiefly brought about by the introduction of a distasteful 'feminine hygiene' product being openly advertised in the local gazette .

Sadly, the offer of the Grant was mysteriously and abruptly withdrawn. Some believed the benefactor had lost vast amounts of money as the season's crops had failed that year, others believed that he had never intended to honour the Grant from the start. Some even believed he was a servant of Satan.

But, after much finger pointing and theorizing, thankfully the good folk of Lyon eventually forgot all about the events of september 1806 and simply went back about their humble business.

C'est la vie.

excellent summary of the history of this thread Mark. You however neglected to mention the 1801 crop, upon which a great Blight was begotten, after the bloom of an early promise. This blight was in fact the precursor to the offer of a Grant to those who could make the crop bear fruit once again. Despite early god-given Spring rain in 2002, the crops showed much promise but never yielded the expected bounty. There are those who still believe that Lyon's fault exists and may in future open as a chasm to swallow the entire town. These folk are secretive and obscure, guided by forces of bleak darkness. It is these folk, believed by some to be distant relatives of townsfolk who believed they had a Goddard-given right to the Grant, who perpetuate the legend of Lyons fault today.

[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. ....

Talk of beyond belief..are you seriously trying lay a case that the Hawks recruiting of young talent has not been good in recent years??

Now that is seriously funny



Now firstly the group you selected, you state are first or second round selections.....


Matthew Ball..as first or second rounder?

Try 4th round at pick 51 !!!!!

Dawson..Try round 3 at pick 41!!!! ..

Murphy was pick 29.

Now Dowler was pick 6 in 2005..but as a 196cm key forward he has to displace Buddy, Roughead and Boyle!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! all of whom were drafted in earlier years than him. You don't want much do you


Ellis was yes pick 3 in 2006 ..is only 20 and has played all 5 games this year



Which leads us to the only actual flop in your list...Harry Miller who was taken at pick 25...hardly low. Ball at 51 cannot really have said to have beena flop relative to where he was taken.



Seriously if you think the Hawks drafting has been poor in this period then you are seriously delusional!!!!

OK, fair enough, they weren't all first and second round picks. But, then, neither were quite a few of the favourite scapegoats on this forum.

I ask you a question, would your post read the same if we took out Dowler and put in Watts (ie, "as a key forward has to displace Gehrig, Riewoldt and Kosi, all of whom were drafted before him") and McQualter for Miller and Gwilt for Murphy, etc., etc.

Do you start to notice something? Drafting is an inexact science.

[saintsRrising]

Seriously if you think the Hawks drafting has been poor in this period then you are seriously delusional!!!!

OK, fair enough, they weren't all first and second round picks. But, then, neither were quite a few of the favourite scapegoats on this forum.

I ask you a question, would your post read the same if we took out Dowler and put in Watts (ie, "as a key forward has to displace Gehrig, Riewoldt and Kosi, all of whom were drafted before him") and McQualter for Miller and Gwilt for Murphy, etc., etc.

Do you start to notice something? Drafting is an inexact science.

Do you start to notice something? Yes I do...I can see why you rate GT for that period!!!

I ask you a question, would your post read the same if we took out Dowler and put in Watts (ie, "as a key forward has to displace Gehrig, Riewoldt and Kosi, all of whom were drafted before him") .

How can you equate taking a player at Watt's age who after a couple of years at the Crows should have been ready to rock and roll...with Dowler who is a kid needing several years to develop first?

Add to this that when Watts was taken that Roo and GTrain were established..with Kosi in the wings.

vs at the Hawks when Dowler was taken... Buddy, Roughhead and Boyle were still very unkown quantities.

Now I have not seen Dowler play...is he as slow and unsuited for modern football as Watts was when he was taken by the Saints? Can he play CHB too...or is he a one trick pony like Watts clearly was.



As for your etc etc...the Hawks took the tack of trading players for more picks so they could churn through them to assemble a good team.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

Seriously if you think the Hawks drafting has been poor in this period then you are seriously delusional!!!!

Without wanting to put words into someone else mouth, I would assume he brought up the Hawks to juxtapose because they're touted as such good recruiters, yet are clearly not without fault.

To take the bit between my teeth again, I will go one further and say that I feel the Hawks recruiting is massively overrated, but their development should be a model to everyone. Hence their regular misses being covered so well by rookies. Their relationship with Box Hill is on another level, as they have an informal commitment to take a Box Hill Hawk as a rookie each year, so the VFL entity really does flow on like a reserves club.

But, we should let everyone judge for themselves. As it appears there are still readers, and many doubtless haven't spent as much time poring over draft lists as some of us obsessives:

HAWKS DRAFTING 2003-2005 (period selected to reflect the timeline previously under discussion)
2003:
1 - no first rounder.
2 - Harry Miller.
3 - Zac Dawson
4 - Matthew Ball
2004:
1 - Jarryd Roughead (2nd overall)
1 - Lance Franklin (5th overall)
1 - Jordan Lews (7th Overall)
2 - Thomas Murphy
2 - Matt Little
3 - No 3rd Rounder
4 - Simon A Taylor
2005:
1- Xavier Ellis (3rd Overall)
1 - Beau Dowler (6th Overall)
1 - Grant Birchall (14th Overall)
1 - Max Bailey (18th Overall)
2 - Beau Muston
3 - Travis Tuck

15 picks, 6 of them in the first round, 2 of them priority picks. The reason I'm not to flash on their drafting is how they fare after the 1st round when they were putting together their list full of gaping holes (that, and I remain perplexed by how many Hawks fans give it to Richmond for taking Tambling over Franlkin when they took Roughead over Franklin). To be fair, I think their appraoch was good, none of those 3 drafts ave been shown to be spectacular, as is shown with the talent they got outside of Franlkin at the top end (compared to 2001 where we took the same approach they did in 2004 and 5). They're not alone in later misses by any means.

I will be interested to see how many youngsters get into their lineup over teh next 3 years now they appear to have finished their rebuild.

[saintsRrising]

Seriously if you think the Hawks drafting has been poor in this period then you are seriously delusional!!!!

Without wanting to put words into someone else mouth, I would assume he brought up the Hawks to juxtapose because they're touted as such good recruiters, yet are clearly not without fault.

To take the bit between my teeth again, I will go one further and say that I feel the Hawks recruiting is massively overrated, but their development should be a model to everyone. Hence their regular misses being covered so well by rookies. Their relationship with Box Hill is on another level, as they have an informal commitment to take a Box Hill Hawk as a rookie each year, so the VFL entity really does flow on like a reserves club.

But, we should let everyone judge for themselves. As it appears there are still readers, and many doubtless haven't spent as much time poring over draft lists as some of us obsessives:

HAWKS DRAFTING 2003-2005 (period selected to reflect the timeline previously under discussion)
2003:
1 - no first rounder.
2 - Harry Miller.
3 - Zac Dawson
4 - Matthew Ball
2004:
1 - Jarryd Roughead (2nd overall)
1 - Lance Franklin (5th overall)
1 - Jordan Lews (7th Overall)
2 - Thomas Murphy
2 - Matt Little
3 - No 3rd Rounder
4 - Simon A Taylor
2005:
1- Xavier Ellis (3rd Overall)
1 - Beau Dowler (6th Overall)
1 - Grant Birchall (14th Overall)
1 - Max Bailey (18th Overall)
2 - Beau Muston
3 - Travis Tuck

15 picks, 6 of them in the first round, 2 of them priority picks. The reason I'm not to flash on their drafting is how they fare after the 1st round when they were putting together their list full of gaping holes (that, and I remain perplexed by how many Hawks fans give it to Richmond for taking Tambling over Franlkin when they took Roughead over Franklin). To be fair, I think their appraoch was good, none of those 3 drafts ave been shown to be spectacular, as is shown with the talent they got outside of Franlkin at the top end (compared to 2001 where we took the same approach they did in 2004 and 5). They're not alone in later misses by any means.

I will be interested to see how many youngsters get into their lineup over teh next 3 years now they appear to have finished their rebuild.

And add those rookies back in too.. (it is not an either /or as they both end up playing for your team if you do your job right...it is just that with rokies the odds are lower and the development required is often more)

(Saints is just Murray)

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.


For as you quite rightly point out (and this was a major crticism that I had about the GT years) is that the Hawks development is excellent.


You cannot talk about draft picks...without including BOTH your main draft and your rookies....for they all end up fighting for the same spots on the senior list.


When you add them all together you get large pool of good young talent.

No drafting process is 100% right....but the Hawks increased the odds in their favour by;

*trading for more picks
*proper rookie identification and development


Consequently picks like Ellis have had to really fight for and justify their spots.

If the Saints had put the total picture together the way the Hawks did (and remember they followed our lead and then upped it) then the Saints list would be better than it currently is.

I am not saying that the Hawks drafting was exceptional....but rather that they did what they had to do with good sensible selections....and importantly by not frittering picks with silly trades.

The Hawks were sensisible and applied themselves to the task witha long teram approach that has paid dividends.


The Saints in the Waldron/GT/RG/Mk era assembleda magnificent list.....but then stumbled by being impatient and making poor value selections...amde even worse by too many of then having very short careers at the Saints.

Topping up is all well and good...but if you are going to top up you have to get the picks right. For whatever reason history now clearly shows that a lot of these post Waldron trades and selection of ex-players from other clubs with draft picks to have been tragic choices.





Now RL too has gone for some topping up....and history will judge this too...
But so far the price he has paid has been low.

M Clarke for a PSD

Pick 43 for Birrs and M Gardiner

Pick 36 for Schneider, Dempster, King and Charlie

We will know by the end of this a lot more about the succes of his trades....but so far you would have to say that overall it is looking pretty good for the price paid.

Rookie wise...the 2007 crop was good.

Jury is out on 2008, but it is early days yet.

[Dan Warna]

wasnt' milne a promoted rookie?

highest goal scoring average of any current small forward? or maybe farmer on 500k p/a might just pip him, not sure.

[saintsRrising]

wasnt' milne a promoted rookie?

highest goal scoring average of any current small forward? or maybe farmer on 500k p/a might just pip him, not sure.

Yes he was a rookie.

He was taken as a rookie in 1999.

Other notable rookies from 1999 include:

Cox
Brogan
Tadhg Kennelly
Shane tuck
Michael Doughty (Crows 124 games)
Kasey Green (WC 93 games)

and a few other who played 50 plus games

Plus Moyle for the Saints played 46 games ... (so in one rookie draft the Saints have extracted 200 odd games!!!!!!!!)


So not bad evidence you would think that there was talent to be had in the rookie pool......you would think good results that would have you going back for more....


Yet after that....The Saints basically failed to mine it till 2007 when Attard, Geary and Jones all emerged.

What happened in between????
Who was reponsible?
Why the lack of development?


Some will say the club lacked dollars (and there is some truth to that).....but how do they then explain 1999?

How also do they explain that the cash strapped Kangas managed to produce a steady stream of rookies???

[milney044]

i thought we got milne as a rookie in 2000, he spent '99 at essendons reserves.. either way we really haven't picked up enough decent rookies, dunno if you can put it down to bad luck or poor recruiting. Eddy and Jones could be shining lights, hopefully our draft picks continue to progress eg. Geary and Armitage and we can develop some long term rookies like van Rheenen.
At least our club is aware of our lack of young recruits and seems to have worked towards doing something about it.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

And add those rookies back in too.. (it is not an either /or as they both end up playing for your team if you do your job right...it is just that with rokies the odds are lower and the development required is often more)

The response was to your comment on drafting. So I posted the National draft results.

I don't know where to find the rookie draft results, but by all means, add them in if you think the Nat. Draft results are unfair to the Hawthorn recruiters.

[saintsRrising]

Not just the Hawks recruiters, but all clubs which mined the rookie sustem...which was most.

[saintsRrising]

I don't know where to find the rookie draft results, .

One source is www.footywire.com

Look for AFL Drafts..

or http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_drafts

[saintsRrising]

BAM!! the criticism of GT for that period is not just about the draft picks he used on players who had been at other clubs.

It was also as you have raised....the lack of quality development in comparison to to a club like the Hawks (who were cash strapped too)....

This was not helped by our relationship with Casey....or perhaps the fact that that relationship was allowed to sour was a sign that not enough weight or attention was being given to the development of young and fringe players.

Add to this our poor rookie record and you get a cumulative result of why I and others were critical of GT's management of this in this period.


The early years of which he was a key part had assembled us a marvelous list full of promise, but as GT assumed total control this huge head start was then squandered by:
*lack of player development
*lack of utilization of the rookie system (and forget the rich WC, even poor clubs were doing it)
*poor relations with Casey
*horrid trading
*flawed list management which allowed gaps in the structure of the team to open up (ie rucks, lack of mids, footskills and pace)


No one is perfect....but the above list is to me simply too much done badly for a coach to survive in the job.

[Mr Magic]

I think that watching other Clubs put resources (both financial and human) into these key areas of List Structuring, Recruitment and Player Development shows how 'flawed' GT's thinking was that he could 'do it all'.

It has becaome painfully clear that there were not physically enough hours in the day for him to be effective in all the areas he seems to have demanded control over, and therefore he prioritized these tasks into his own areas of importance.

Hindsight now tells us that we have had serious deficiencies in areas that GT may not have considered so important but most other Clubs have identified as 'critical'.