It's not Lyon's fault!!

[saintsRrising]

Why is any list being mentioned other than Geelongs?

They are the reigning premier, therefore the only successful club.

I may be wildly wrong here..but I think that Geelong is not the only club to have won a flag????????????????

[saintsRrising]

It will be funny when Lyon's game plan settles in a couple of weeks and our list looks awesome again. What are you all going to blame then?

Can we take it that you now believe that RL is doing his best to improve the list????

Personally I am very much looking forward to the pies game....

[Saints43]

I think the relationship with Casey was given a higher priority in the last year/s.

I believe Mick McGuane was given the brief to repair and improve that relationship.

Not sure how much of his time was allocated to it, though. Or the duration of the appointment.

It had definitely been identified as a failing.

[meher baba]

I think the relationship with Casey was given a higher priority in the last year/s.

I believe Mick McGuane was given the brief to repair and improve that relationship.

Not sure how much of his time was allocated to it, though. Or the duration of the appointment.

It had definitely been identified as a failing.

Surely - certainly - there was blame on both sides as well.

It was pretty clear that Banfield and perhaps other people involved with the Scorps were not entirely comfortable with giving any great priority to the needs of the Saints. And, correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think that this came simply from GT being a d**khead or not caring enough: some of came from a clash in philosophies.

I would point out to those who have been attempting to deify Waldron on this thread that he perhaps could have done a lot more than he did about getting us a mutually beneficial relationship with a VFL club. Not everything that happened in the 2001-06 period was entirely GT's responsibility.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

People can judge for themselves whether from the above they want to credit the recruiters or developers for Hawthorn's success with the rookies. Personally I very much believe it's the latter... high turnover, progress focused management of these 6 rookie list positions has paid dividends to a rebuilding club.

Is that not the point....though it is not just rookies..but this process applied to the whole list?????
...

I ask you this...in this period what did GT do well in to improve our list??????

...

Now RL...has also decided to use this as one of his strategies to improve the list. Whether he has done it well we should know by the end of this season.

I love Hawthorn's development philosophy, but let's be frank, that's all it is, a philosophy. I'd be 100% in favour of the Saints adopting a similar "throw enough **** at the wall and some of it's bound to stick" philosophy with regards to recruiting and making developemnt and turnover the focus...

BUT

It doesn't address why we're where we are today. If the list has moved, it's moved only slightly, with changes around the fringe. The question in 2012 will be what philosophy we've taken going forward. The question today is what we're doing to win.

It's not all about list, or Essendon would have won in '99, Port would have more than one premiership etc. etc.

My point through this thread has been this: If Lyon fails to deliver without a massive improvement from where he's at, if we're mid table in 10 years, we'll have had time to do another rebuild, and people will ask the question: Could Thomas have delivered with what he had even if he screwed the future? What if's will drive you crazy, but without that improvement, if the answer is that they'd have had a better chance under Thomas than Lyon, the firing will look like a mistake, because at the beginning of 2007 revamping the recruiting dept may have been necessary, but to do so at the cost of ability to win was crazy.

It's hypothetical, and I very sincerely hope Lyon makes me eat my words... but he's not going to do so without a better on field showing, regardless of how many rookies he develops... and if that takes 3-5 years, then regardless of the list he builds himself, he was the wrong choice for where we were at by the end of 2006.

[saintly]

I think the relationship with Casey was given a higher priority in the last year/s.

I believe Mick McGuane was given the brief to repair and improve that relationship.

Not sure how much of his time was allocated to it, though. Or the duration of the appointment.

It had definitely been identified as a failing.

Surely - certainly - there was blame on both sides as well.

It was pretty clear that Banfield and perhaps other people involved with the Scorps were not entirely comfortable with giving any great priority to the needs of the Saints. And, correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think that this came simply from GT being a d**khead or not caring enough: some of came from a clash in philosophies.

I would point out to those who have been attempting to deify Waldron on this thread that he perhaps could have done a lot more than he did about getting us a mutually beneficial relationship with a VFL club. Not everything that happened in the 2001-06 period was entirely GT's responsibility.

no not everthing was GT 's fault., but developing players, the relationship b/n casey and the saints. not having a football manager, taking control of the football department, recruitment of recycled players, contracts
etc.

[vacuous space]

It is not to say that topping up cannot work....but for GT it did not work post-Waldron.

When did GT 'top up'? He picked up a bunch of kids from other clubs. Other than picking up Powell for nothing in the PSD, when did he pick up anybody 23 or over? Brooks was 19, Penny was 21, Gram was 20, Guerra was 21, Ackland was 22, McGough was 20, Watts was 20. Those guys were recruited to be long-term players - not for a run at a flag. Like I've said before, they stack up pretty well against what we traded for them.

The flipside to having no rookies on our list for years was that we've consistently had the most drafted players on our list. We currently have more 50+ game players than anyone else in the league. If we're lacking in talent and depth, then I must have missed something. We have several players with AA level talent and plenty of players to back them up. Given the state of our list right now, we should be challenging for a flag.

The fact that RL has had such mediocre results since taking over has been disappointing. We've done a good job of filling some of the holes that our old coach couldn't fill. But we're still struggling to put a score on the board and win games. There have been some good signs the last two weeks. Let's hope we can back that up with some wins.

[meher baba]

It is not to say that topping up cannot work....but for GT it did not work post-Waldron.

When did GT 'top up'? He picked up a bunch of kids from other clubs. Other than picking up Powell for nothing in the PSD, when did he pick up anybody 23 or over? Brooks was 19, Penny was 21, Gram was 20, Guerra was 21, Ackland was 22, McGough was 20, Watts was 20. Those guys were recruited to be long-term players - not for a run at a flag. Like I've said before, they stack up pretty well against what we traded for them.

The flipside to having no rookies on our list for years was that we've consistently had the most drafted players on our list. We currently have more 50+ game players than anyone else in the league. If we're lacking in talent and depth, then I must have missed something. We have several players with AA level talent and plenty of players to back them up. Given the state of our list right now, we should be challenging for a flag.

The fact that RL has had such mediocre results since taking over has been disappointing. We've done a good job of filling some of the holes that our old coach couldn't fill. But we're still struggling to put a score on the board and win games. There have been some good signs the last two weeks. Let's hope we can back that up with some wins.

Strong post.

We have assembled a very strong list, at least on paper. I don't think there are too many other clubs apart from Geelong that wouldn't at least consider a straight swap of our list for their list.

Those who keep bagging our list in terms of what ifs and might have beens are deluded and are neglecting the fact that we can only have so much talent and stay within the salary cap.

Let's go for the ultimate of what if scenarios and imagine that we had not traded for Brooks in 2002 and instead had picked up Salopek and Brent Staker, had plumped for Beau Waters over Raph Clarke in 2003, and had somehow lucked out and picked Van Berlo or Rosa over McQualter in 2004 (I couldn't find anyone below pick 16 in 2005 who was really worth not trading for Watts for: if anyone else can, throw them in as well).

As well, let's imagine that we had snapped up the likes of Nick Maxwell, Nathan Lovett-Murray, Danyle Pearce and, say, Mathew Priddis as rookies over the same period.

Leaving aside the absurdity of the idea of our getting all these choices right on top of all the good calls we did make re Gram, Joey, Goose, Dal, Chips, etc., how would we have been able to pay for all this talent and hang on to Riewoldt, Kosi, Dal, Ball, Hayes, Goose, Chips, Joey, X, Gehrig, et al?

The clear answer is that we couldn't have. If sRr or anyone else can explain to me how we could possibly have done this (other than with the perfect 20/20 hindsight of knowing that Hamill was going to injure himself permanently and therefore letting him go to another club rather than offering him the contract we needed to offer in order to keep him: and wouldn't that have been a popular decision with all the SS armchair experts) , I'll tap the mat and admit I'm wrong.

[Dan Warna]

well if mini continues this rich vein of form, we definately should look at promoting him should the opportunity present itself.

IMO could be a late bloomer like monty or thompson.

there's a fair few here who were howling for him to be axed after slow returns early in his career.

similarly comparisons and knives have been presented for armo so far, although I would say we wont see the real armitage player he will be till he's about 22/23.

[vacuous space]

Let's go for the ultimate of what if scenarios and imagine that we had not traded for Brooks in 2002 and instead had picked up Salopek and Brent Staker, had plumped for Beau Waters over Raph Clarke in 2003, and had somehow lucked out and picked Van Berlo or Rosa over McQualter in 2004 (I couldn't find anyone below pick 16 in 2005 who was really worth not trading for Watts for: if anyone else can, throw them in as well).

As well, let's imagine that we had snapped up the likes of Nick Maxwell, Nathan Lovett-Murray, Danyle Pearce and, say, Mathew Priddis as rookies over the same period.

How many of even those players would actually get a regular game here? Staker is equally mediocre at both ends of the ground - No chance he plays as a tall in our forward or back lines. Waters would be in our starting 18, but he's no star. He's overrated on account of his chest beating. Priddis or Salopek would be handy as a depth mid, but they'd be our 4th or 5th mid at best. Pearce, Rosa and NLM would be even lower. They're better than nothing, but they're not much more than depth, and certainly aren't match-winners. If I were a recruiter, missing those guys wouldn't keep me up at night. X over Bartel might, but not those ones.

[meher baba]

X over Bartel might, but not those ones.

Hey, that one had never occurred to me. At last, the smoking gun!!

Grant Thomas, all of our problems go back to the decision made in 2001 to go with X over Jimmy Bartel.

Shame, shame, shame!!

[Teflon]

Those who keep bagging our list in terms of what ifs and might have beens are deluded and are neglecting the fact that we can only have so much talent and stay within the salary cap.

Let's go for the ultimate of what if scenarios and imagine that we had not traded for Brooks in 2002 and instead had picked up Salopek and Brent Staker, had plumped for Beau Waters over Raph Clarke in 2003, and had somehow lucked out and picked Van Berlo or Rosa over McQualter in 2004 (I couldn't find anyone below pick 16 in 2005 who was really worth not trading for Watts for: if anyone else can, throw them in as well).

As well, let's imagine that we had snapped up the likes of Nick Maxwell, Nathan Lovett-Murray, Danyle Pearce and, say, Mathew Priddis as rookies over the same period.

Leaving aside the absurdity of the idea of our getting all these choices right on top of all the good calls we did make re Gram, Joey, Goose, Dal, Chips, etc., how would we have been able to pay for all this talent and hang on to Riewoldt, Kosi, Dal, Ball, Hayes, Goose, Chips, Joey, X, Gehrig, et al?

The clear answer is that we couldn't have. If sRr or anyone else can explain to me how we could possibly have done this (other than with the perfect 20/20 hindsight of knowing that Hamill was going to injure himself permanently and therefore letting him go to another club rather than offering him the contract we needed to offer in order to keep him: and wouldn't that have been a popular decision with all the SS armchair experts) , I'll tap the mat and admit I'm wrong.

Ahhh.....the old "no point looking back we couldnt have afforded it.."

You make 1 glaring omission - Geelong. Heard their Captain on news today and he said theyve all taken pay cuts to sign on why????

PREMIERSHIP PLAYERS.

Had we recruited those above Id suggest wed have a flag by now......what impact does that have on keeping a playing list together????????....the rest is what if...but by no means a stretch to suggest we couldnt have "afforded" them.

[Shaggy]

This is my key area of dissention.

GT was not in charge of the purse strings. Yes he prioritised areas and had dual roles..

I think someone mention "spin" earlier...

..and here we have a classic case...where GT's supposed dual roles were used to justify his over the top salary for a coach of his experience.

Dual roles???

Any head coach at AFL team basically has a 24/7 job.

They live and breathe it...

It is not a 9/5 job.

This is part of the reason they are paid many times the average man's salary. However even without the cash....a properly motivated coach would do it anyway as they "hunger" to be a head AFL coach....and if they do not have the hunger to do it....they would not.

Indeed that is why Blight was sacked...as he was not prepared to spend enough time coaching. ...as his hunger had swapped to playing golf rather than coaching.

If you have heard any of the various coaches wives interviewd over the years you would gain an appreciation of how dedicated and foccused their husbands were to coaching and the hours put in.

Dual roles somehow is meant to imply that he worked extra hours and so therefore was justified in the extra cash.

In reality it was not extra hours....but less hours spent on what he really needed to be doing...coaching.

Neither Mr. Magic nor I were discussing GT's salary. I think you have gone off on a tangent.

However to repeat what I wrote in an earlier post "$500,000 salary to take a team to the finals within 3 years from winning 6 games in 2 years whilst also satisfying the Boards focus of making a $1 million profit per year (i.e. the lowest expenditure budget in the league) seems to be fair."

Dual roles, long working hours and CV credentials are only secondary considerations IMO when it comes to salary. Actual performance and results are far more important with a premium for turnaround.

[Duggie]

About time this thread was consigned to the archives, or better still the bin.

[saintsRrising]

It is not to say that topping up cannot work....but for GT it did not work post-Waldron.

When did GT 'top up'? He picked up a bunch of kids from other clubs. Other than picking up Powell for nothing in the PSD, when did he pick up anybody 23 or over? Brooks was 19, Penny was 21, Gram was 20, Guerra was 21, Ackland was 22, McGough was 20, Watts was 20. .

I guess it depends on your definition of topping up.

Mine is securing players from other clubs who have been through the development process at another club. They have hada couple of years already invested in them and if good enough are ready to play....hence topping up your list with senior players rather than adding more kids that will need 1 to 3 years into the before you can expect regular senior football.

One approach...topping up...is seeking to short cut the proces with instant players.
The other is a long term appraoch (kids) where you are prepared to wait.

The players you mentioned are to me topping up.

[vacuous space]

I guess it depends on your definition of topping up.

I think most people would take 'topping up' to mean 'topping up your list for a run at the flag'. Short-term gain at the expense of the long-term. You don't do that with players barely out of their teens. Those guys were recruited to be long term players and contribute to sustained success over a long period. Define it however you like - the point is this: GT never took a short-term approach to recruiting.

[saintsRrising]

Dual roles, long working hours and CV credentials are only secondary considerations IMO when it comes to salary. Actual performance and results are far more important with a premium for turnaround.

Maybe Bundy should have got the big $$$$ then on that rationale....for game, plan match day strategies was reportedly mainly one by Bundy.

So with GT's much expoused contract performance ;
*Long term contracts to both Hamill and Penny that bit us on the bum....
(maybe GT might like to refund the club the extra money hamill got paid out for not playing???)
*Bungling player payments so that in some years we had to play short of the maximum number of players......which hurts when you have a high injury rate and /or limits your future development of players.


GT...also got the big $$$$ from day 1....when there was no supposed "high performance record"

Fact is GT got the job and the big $$$$ because of who he was mates with.....and not due to performance. Both GT and RB have fessed up post GT's dismissal that the process to appoint him was a sham.

[saintsRrising]

Evaluating GT's performance really gets back to one thing...

Some believe that he did a great job.... they see him as single handedly having imoroved the Saints fortunes. This is the view of some, but I certainly do not share it.


I believe that he essentially used his relationships to be gifted the coaching postion which he did not have the runs on the board to have earnt and thereby gain a great list (which he was one part in building along with RB, MK, BW.....plus the luck of finishing low, the lure of Blight for players to join etc) that virtually any coach at the time would have given their eye teeth for.

GT I personally rate as an ok-ish match day coach....and fora time he and Bundy did very well by copying the Lions game plan. However when good opostion clubs countered how we played the club foundered and only in the last half season did GT and Budy satisfactorially reinevent the saints gameplan.

With this list given its quality he did ok-ish on match days....but then committed the cardinal sin for any coach of not only failing to improve the list, but by a series of bungles actually decreased the value of the list. This trend was over years and saw no sign of abating.

The initial quality of the list had masked GT's poor performance in this regard, but as time went on it was becoming more and more evident of the damage he was doing. The Saints in terms of list quality were slowly sinking...whereas other clubs were more succesfully improving theirs.

GT also had the good fortune to arrive at the club after the truly inept Watson......and vastly disinterested Blight.


GT was like a man given a brand new Ferrari.....after running it it in he had it flying. But through lack of appropriate and required maintenance he was all too soon driving it badly out of tune with bits falling off .....with dodgy replacement parts used that failed all too quickly.

[rodgerfox]

It will be funny when Lyon's game plan settles in a couple of weeks and our list looks awesome again. What are you all going to blame then?

Can we take it that you now believe that RL is doing his best to improve the list????

WTF on two levels.


1. When have I suggested I don't think Lyon is doing his best to get the list he wants??

and 2. I don't our list has a problem. Sure, it could get better like every single list in the comp - but our list is very good. Has had depth for a few years, has talls, has skill, has quality forwards, AA mids and we break lines by speed and by use of the ball.


I don't buy this shiit spun by the GT haters that we have a poor list with holes everywhere. This is purely a backpeddle on the previous criticisms that we had the best list in the comp but just needed a good coach to win the flag. These same people now look stupid, but need to find a way to deflect - this 'poor slow list' nonsense is the latest.

When we gel with a new game plan, which I suspect started last week and will be seen again tonight, our list will look good again.

[saintsRrising]

No..I think RL has now plugged enough of the holes for the Saints to be very competitive.

It is now up to him to get more out of the players assembled. I posted at the start of last season that assuming that injuries were got under control (and they are now reasonable)...that workrate would be RL's biggest problem.

The ball is now firmly in RL's court.



GT's firing....and RL's performance are two different issues.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

GT's firing....and RL's performance are two different issues.

They will be if Lyon can generate success, and that means wins both Home and away and finals. Otherwise we can all look forward to more threads aimed at rating Lyon's performance turning into arguments on Thomas' list management I guess...

Never a bad political spin move to blame the predecessor in other areas when one is unable to match them in the crucial ones.