Key differences between 04&05 and 08....

[JeffDunne]

P!ss off back to your mates on Bigfooty.

lol . . . Mr "they kicked me off Saintsational so I'll sook over at Bigfooty"

I'm not sure what's more sad.

- your obsession with me & Rodger
- your obsession with Bigfooty
- the fact you're an absolute f/wit
- that you're a gutless piece of s***
- that you're a compulsive liar


Face it Teffers, it’s pretty sad when you have to lie about being at the game when you weren’t.

[Saint_in_SA]

We have the most over rated list in the AFL and have done for some time now. Richmond look good on paper too, they have the same try hards that fail every week, but we keep seeing their names....


Please play the kids now - give us some hope for the future. Sick of seeing the same duds run around and look stupid with their poor skill.

[Saints43]

Is it really as simple as trotting out "we won x games when.." blah blah?

F@rk thats simple...why not throw in some ladder positions and HOW were were playing by 06 genius?

We won 7.5 out of 11 last half last year....doesnt tell you we predominantly dined out on sides out of the 8 and it was at these times usually when Gehrig kicked a bag?

Is it that simple? Yes it is.

It's how ladders work.

It's how you make finals.

Here's a question:

What makes you think Ross Lyon is capable of coaching at AFL level?

[Teflon]

P!ss off back to your mates on Bigfooty.

lol . . . Mr "they kicked me off Saintsational so I'll sook over at Bigfooty"

I'm not sure what's more sad.

- your obsession with me & Rodger
- your obsession with Bigfooty
- the fact you're an absolute f/wit
- that you're a gutless piece of s***
- that you're a compulsive liar


Face it Teffers, it’s pretty sad when you have to lie about being at the game when you weren’t.

Your the original Bigfooty clone.....now THATS sad...

As for any obsessions I find your obsession with all things Barks troublesome.

Compulsive liar? - I'll leave that to you and your girlfriend Dodg...

And gutless? from an internet keyboard hero? .....now that IS laughable.

Stick to your keyboard ya flog.

[Teflon]

Is it really as simple as trotting out "we won x games when.." blah blah?

F@rk thats simple...why not throw in some ladder positions and HOW were were playing by 06 genius?

We won 7.5 out of 11 last half last year....doesnt tell you we predominantly dined out on sides out of the 8 and it was at these times usually when Gehrig kicked a bag?

Is it that simple? Yes it is.

It's how ladders work.

It's how you make finals.

Here's a question:

What makes you think Ross Lyon is capable of coaching at AFL level?

I dont make decision on whether Lyon can/cant coach on 1.5 yrs when in yr 1 he had a worse injury run than Thoams (acknowledged by Thomas himself)

To me thats a sign of premature ejudication - Im not into it.

Beside that I already like the way Lyon HAS recognised list holes and in yr 1 made OBVIOUS attempts to address as opposed to 5 yrs of failing miserably to plug these under Thomas ...Blake? our primary ruckman?????WTF..

So now your ladder positions is ALL thats required to determine whose a good coach?

Lucky Cats didnt sack Bomber at end of 06 then.....

[JeffDunne]

Yep . . . it's lucky we filled those holes or we might have gone backwards.

Hang on.

[Saintschampions08]

Yep . . . it's lucky we filled those holes or we might have gone backwards.

Hang on.

Theirs no way we're worse then last year.....

hang on...

Pos Team Pl W L D PF PA % Pts

12 St Kilda 8 4 4 0 636 650 97.85 16

9 St Kilda 8 4 4 0 745 774 96.25 16

Oh sh!t

[rodgerfox]

Key differences are:

- In 04/05: Aussie, Powell, Thommo, Black, Peckett, Hamil, Penny, plus Harvey, G-train & Maxy 4 years younger, a fit Ball & goose, and confident Kosi

His game plan, unfortunately or us, relies totally on 100% effort.

Name me 1 coach and game plan in the AFL that would not rely on 100% effort and intensity?

What simplistic dribble NO SHYTE SHERLOCK.

Whats your nest advisory gem..."breath air...its good for you..."

F@rk me.

Dear Teflon,

You'll find that under GT in 06, we didn't perform that well. The reason? Intensity and effort. Without going into detail, we had severe injuries and has lost Jones and Penny. This may have been why. Regardless....

Guess what? We could still win, and win well. We won 14 games. Granted, the very good teams beat us when our intensity and effort wasn't there, but we still won 14 games.

The game plan was simple, and to our strengths. We didn't have to be 100% on to win. We had to 100% on to win the flag, but so does everyone. However our style was simple enough and tailored to our strengths that we were still only % off top 4 with a horrible run of injuries, and without playing well.

Does that answer your moronic question?


Yours sincerely,

Rodger A. Fox

[meher baba]

This really is the never-ending discussion, isn't it!!

The two opposing factions will never see eye to eye, will they!!

However, it is interesting to observe how the arguments of the pro-GT sacking brigade have changed over the past 18 or so months.

First of all, it was "we have a great list, it could coach itself, etc., etc." (and I have no doubt whatsoever that this is what the Board believed in September 2006. Because, otherwise, how could they have brought themselves to sack GT: no matter how much they hated him personally.)

Then it became: Lyon is fantastic, he is bringing "modern football" to the club, etc.

Then - as it started to become obvious that Lyon was struggling to make it as a senior coach - it became "GT destroyed the list by trading away mediocre draft picks for mediocre players and by failing to give the young blokes a go".

Now - as we have seen a bunch of recycled players recruited to the club most of whom have struggled and it has become obvious that Lyon has even less intention than GT to develop young talent by playing it in the AFL - the plaintive cry has changed again. It's become "we were so much better in 2004-05 because we had Hamill, Peckett, Penny, Jones" etc, etc.

I wonder if these noodleheads will ever get to the correct solution to our current woes, namely: that, when a team is going well, it is an incredibly stupid idea to replace your entire coaching staff with a bunch of novice newcomers who have no previous connection with the club.

Imagine if you were a member of the Hawthorn board at the end of last season and you put forward a proposition that went: "Clarkson has had long enough to take the team to the top, players like Franklin, Hodge, Mitchell and co are so good that the team can coach itself, what we need to do is to appoint Michael Voss with Nigel Lappin, Aussie Jones and James Hird as his assistants". You'd be laughed out of the room, wouldn't you?

[wolfpup]

[quote="kaos theory"]Key differences are:

- In 04/05: Aussie, Powell, Thommo, Black, Peckett, Hamil, Penny, plus Harvey, G-train & Maxy 4 years younger, a fit Ball & goose, and confident Kosi

I really miss Black, he stood up when needed in 04 & 05. He always did something important at important times, eg critical interception against brisbane in 04 to setup our win, also a fantastic pass and kicked critical goals.

I still think we have the players to certainly make it to the finals but we have no confidence at the moment and am baffled by this.

[Teflon]

This really is the never-ending discussion, isn't it!!

The two opposing factions will never see eye to eye, will they!!

However, it is interesting to observe how the arguments of the pro-GT sacking brigade have changed over the past 18 or so months.

First of all, it was "we have a great list, it could coach itself, etc., etc." (and I have no doubt whatsoever that this is what the Board believed in September 2006. Because, otherwise, how could they have brought themselves to sack GT: no matter how much they hated him personally.)

Then it became: Lyon is fantastic, he is bringing "modern football" to the club, etc.

Then - as it started to become obvious that Lyon was struggling to make it as a senior coach - it became "GT destroyed the list by trading away mediocre draft picks for mediocre players and by failing to give the young blokes a go".

Now - as we have seen a bunch of recycled players recruited to the club most of whom have struggled and it has become obvious that Lyon has even less intention than GT to develop young talent by playing it in the AFL - the plaintive cry has changed again. It's become "we were so much better in 2004-05 because we had Hamill, Peckett, Penny, Jones" etc, etc.

I wonder if these noodleheads will ever get to the correct solution to our current woes, namely: that, when a team is going well, it is an incredibly stupid idea to replace your entire coaching staff with a bunch of novice newcomers who have no previous connection with the club.

Imagine if you were a member of the Hawthorn board at the end of last season and you put forward a proposition that went: "Clarkson has had long enough to take the team to the top, players like Franklin, Hodge, Mitchell and co are so good that the team can coach itself, what we need to do is to appoint Michael Voss with Nigel Lappin, Aussie Jones and James Hird as his assistants". You'd be laughed out of the room, wouldn't you?

Whats even funnier is an absolute pro GT clone who called for Lyon to be sacked WEEKS ago pretending to put forward a post that offers some form of "objective" critique of pro/anti GT arguments. Thats funny.

Credibility = ZERO.

Stick to your " we need GT back rubbish"..at least your somewhat clear...

[saintsRrising]

However, it is interesting to observe how the arguments of the pro-GT sacking brigade have changed over the past 18 or so months.

First of all, it was "we have a great list, it could coach itself, etc., etc." (and I have no doubt whatsoever that this is what the Board believed in September 2006. Because, otherwise, how could they have brought themselves to sack GT: no matter how much they hated him personally.)

?

Funny that you should mention Sept 2006...and what the Board believed...

For what I believed see on our list back then see
http://www.saintsational.com/forum/view ... hp?t=42819

I saw a list full of flaws...with large challenges in List Management that needed to be addressed.

IMO apart from list management there were many sound reasons why you would form a view that GT needed to be replaced, with bringing in a new football department structure being prime.


Now whether RL is a good replacement or not is an entirely different question, and one that at least cannot be fairly answered till at least the end of this season.

However moving to a different football department structure was a sound and well researched decision.

[Teflon]

Key differences are:

- In 04/05: Aussie, Powell, Thommo, Black, Peckett, Hamil, Penny, plus Harvey, G-train & Maxy 4 years younger, a fit Ball & goose, and confident Kosi

His game plan, unfortunately or us, relies totally on 100% effort.

Name me 1 coach and game plan in the AFL that would not rely on 100% effort and intensity?

What simplistic dribble NO SHYTE SHERLOCK.

Whats your nest advisory gem..."breath air...its good for you..."

F@rk me.

Dear Teflon,

You'll find that under GT in 06, we didn't perform that well. The reason? Intensity and effort. Without going into detail, we had severe injuries and has lost Jones and Penny. This may have been why. Regardless....

Guess what? We could still win, and win well. We won 14 games. Granted, the very good teams beat us when our intensity and effort wasn't there, but we still won 14 games.

The game plan was simple, and to our strengths. We didn't have to be 100% on to win. We had to 100% on to win the flag, but so does everyone. However our style was simple enough and tailored to our strengths that we were still only % off top 4 with a horrible run of injuries, and without playing well.

Does that answer your moronic question?


Yours sincerely,

Rodger A. Fox

Dear Dodgy,

You had me till you started banging on about your effort/intensity (all very true - cliched but true) but somewhat an argument that I could use RIGHT NOW could I not?

I do agree the game plan was simpler in 06 - no question. That simple in fact, as you so eloquently mentioned, that the top sides mauled us (even Geelong who were in their "dud" year). How to stop St Kilda? EMPLOY A FLOOD - GAME OVER. So we had a game plan as you say that didnt require us to play to 100%.....yet it failed against the top sides who wed have to beat to win a flag - WHAT A RIDICULOUS, MORONIC POST?.....possibly your best.... Doesnt that alone tell you we may have in fact had a game plan that simply wasnt up to giving us a flag?....I mean sure....we attacked......but so what? when sides worked that out we were neutered.....

I do believe Lyons not blameless for our sides current performance - he has IMO to look at aspects of our game plan including how we are bringing the ball into fwd 50 AND the fwd set up itself. However, Im also not delusional enough to still believe this side has the skill level and "youth" energy of what Thomas had at his disposal (as I mentioned earlier....Im sure Lyon in his fwd set up would kill for a Hamill......he has to put up with Birrs as his "defensive fwd" replacement.....big gap...)

Ive tried using small words...can I suggest you read in small sections and draw diagrams to help you with comprehension.

Your friend,

Teffers.

[rodgerfox]

Dear Dodgy,

You had me till you started banging on about your effort/intensity (all very true - cliched but true) but somewhat an argument that I could use RIGHT NOW could I not?

I do agree the game plan was simpler in 06 - no question. That simple in fact, as you so eloquently mentioned, that the top sides mauled us (even Geelong who were in their "dud" year). How to stop St Kilda? EMPLOY A FLOOD - GAME OVER. So we had a game plan as you say that didnt require us to play to 100%.....yet it failed against the top sides who wed have to beat to win a flag - WHAT A RIDICULOUS, MORONIC POST?.....possibly your best.... Doesnt that alone tell you we may have in fact had a game plan that simply wasnt up to giving us a flag?....I mean sure....we attacked......but so what? when sides worked that out we were neutered.....

I do believe Lyons not blameless for our sides current performance - he has IMO to look at aspects of our game plan including how we are bringing the ball into fwd 50 AND the fwd set up itself. However, Im also not delusional enough to still believe this side has the skill level and "youth" energy of what Thomas had at his disposal (as I mentioned earlier....Im sure Lyon in his fwd set up would kill for a Hamill......he has to put up with Birrs as his "defensive fwd" replacement.....big gap...)

Ive tried using small words...can I suggest you read in small sections and draw diagrams to help you with comprehension.

Your friend,

Teffers.

Dear Teflon,

We could argue about how effective our game plan was under Thomas, but that is not what you asked for previously. If you want to discuss that, perhaps you could start yet another GT thread.

You asked me to list one game plan that doesn't completely rely on 100% effort and intensity to win games.

I did provide an example.


Yours Sincerely,

Rodger A. Fox

[Teflon]

Dear Dodgy,

You had me till you started banging on about your effort/intensity (all very true - cliched but true) but somewhat an argument that I could use RIGHT NOW could I not?

I do agree the game plan was simpler in 06 - no question. That simple in fact, as you so eloquently mentioned, that the top sides mauled us (even Geelong who were in their "dud" year). How to stop St Kilda? EMPLOY A FLOOD - GAME OVER. So we had a game plan as you say that didnt require us to play to 100%.....yet it failed against the top sides who wed have to beat to win a flag - WHAT A RIDICULOUS, MORONIC POST?.....possibly your best.... Doesnt that alone tell you we may have in fact had a game plan that simply wasnt up to giving us a flag?....I mean sure....we attacked......but so what? when sides worked that out we were neutered.....

I do believe Lyons not blameless for our sides current performance - he has IMO to look at aspects of our game plan including how we are bringing the ball into fwd 50 AND the fwd set up itself. However, Im also not delusional enough to still believe this side has the skill level and "youth" energy of what Thomas had at his disposal (as I mentioned earlier....Im sure Lyon in his fwd set up would kill for a Hamill......he has to put up with Birrs as his "defensive fwd" replacement.....big gap...)

Ive tried using small words...can I suggest you read in small sections and draw diagrams to help you with comprehension.

Your friend,

Teffers.

Dear Teflon,

We could argue about how effective our game plan was under Thomas, but that is not what you asked for previously. If you want to discuss that, perhaps you could start yet another GT thread.

You asked me to list one game plan that doesn't completely rely on 100% effort and intensity to win games.

I did provide an example.


Yours Sincerely,

Rodger A. Fox

Dear Dodg,

Your struggling.

But lets play "your" logic game.

Fremantle currently uses a game plan that doesnt rely on 100% intensity....its not at all effective but your not interested in that.....just an example of a game plan not relying on 100% intensity. Geezus thats handy....

Surely your not that dumb?

Your Faithfully,

Teffers

[rodgerfox]

Dear Dodgy,

You had me till you started banging on about your effort/intensity (all very true - cliched but true) but somewhat an argument that I could use RIGHT NOW could I not?

I do agree the game plan was simpler in 06 - no question. That simple in fact, as you so eloquently mentioned, that the top sides mauled us (even Geelong who were in their "dud" year). How to stop St Kilda? EMPLOY A FLOOD - GAME OVER. So we had a game plan as you say that didnt require us to play to 100%.....yet it failed against the top sides who wed have to beat to win a flag - WHAT A RIDICULOUS, MORONIC POST?.....possibly your best.... Doesnt that alone tell you we may have in fact had a game plan that simply wasnt up to giving us a flag?....I mean sure....we attacked......but so what? when sides worked that out we were neutered.....

I do believe Lyons not blameless for our sides current performance - he has IMO to look at aspects of our game plan including how we are bringing the ball into fwd 50 AND the fwd set up itself. However, Im also not delusional enough to still believe this side has the skill level and "youth" energy of what Thomas had at his disposal (as I mentioned earlier....Im sure Lyon in his fwd set up would kill for a Hamill......he has to put up with Birrs as his "defensive fwd" replacement.....big gap...)

Ive tried using small words...can I suggest you read in small sections and draw diagrams to help you with comprehension.

Your friend,

Teffers.

Dear Teflon,

We could argue about how effective our game plan was under Thomas, but that is not what you asked for previously. If you want to discuss that, perhaps you could start yet another GT thread.

You asked me to list one game plan that doesn't completely rely on 100% effort and intensity to win games.

I did provide an example.


Yours Sincerely,

Rodger A. Fox

Dear Dodg,

Your struggling.

But lets play "your" logic game.

Fremantle currently uses a game plan that doesnt rely on 100% intensity....its not at all effective but your not interested in that.....just an example of a game plan not relying on 100% intensity. Geezus thats handy....

Surely your not that dumb?

Your Faithfully,

Teffers

Fremantle haven't won a game.

We won 14 and were % off top 4.


Geelong haven't played this year with 100% intensity, and haven't lost a game.

[Shaggy]

We would be better off comparing 2007-2008 with our lists of 1999-2000 in terms of non performance with the talent we have

[Teflon]

Dear Dodgy,

You had me till you started banging on about your effort/intensity (all very true - cliched but true) but somewhat an argument that I could use RIGHT NOW could I not?

I do agree the game plan was simpler in 06 - no question. That simple in fact, as you so eloquently mentioned, that the top sides mauled us (even Geelong who were in their "dud" year). How to stop St Kilda? EMPLOY A FLOOD - GAME OVER. So we had a game plan as you say that didnt require us to play to 100%.....yet it failed against the top sides who wed have to beat to win a flag - WHAT A RIDICULOUS, MORONIC POST?.....possibly your best.... Doesnt that alone tell you we may have in fact had a game plan that simply wasnt up to giving us a flag?....I mean sure....we attacked......but so what? when sides worked that out we were neutered.....

I do believe Lyons not blameless for our sides current performance - he has IMO to look at aspects of our game plan including how we are bringing the ball into fwd 50 AND the fwd set up itself. However, Im also not delusional enough to still believe this side has the skill level and "youth" energy of what Thomas had at his disposal (as I mentioned earlier....Im sure Lyon in his fwd set up would kill for a Hamill......he has to put up with Birrs as his "defensive fwd" replacement.....big gap...)

Ive tried using small words...can I suggest you read in small sections and draw diagrams to help you with comprehension.

Your friend,

Teffers.

Dear Teflon,

We could argue about how effective our game plan was under Thomas, but that is not what you asked for previously. If you want to discuss that, perhaps you could start yet another GT thread.

You asked me to list one game plan that doesn't completely rely on 100% effort and intensity to win games.

I did provide an example.


Yours Sincerely,

Rodger A. Fox

Dear Dodg,

Your struggling.

But lets play "your" logic game.

Fremantle currently uses a game plan that doesnt rely on 100% intensity....its not at all effective but your not interested in that.....just an example of a game plan not relying on 100% intensity. Geezus thats handy....

Surely your not that dumb?

Your Faithfully,

Teffers

Fremantle haven't won a game.

We won 14 and were % off top 4.


Geelong haven't played this year with 100% intensity, and haven't lost a game.

Fremantle cant beat a top side.
You acknowledge our game plan in 06 couldnt beat a top side
Geelong HAVE a game plan that when employed IS good enough to win flags.

The rest is a waste of time.

[Hard at it]

Guess what? We could still win, and win well. We won 14 games. Granted, the very good teams beat us when our intensity and effort wasn't there, but we still won 14 games.

What did that get us?
Oh that's right, the 8th place finish that you always get excited about.

We won 14 and were % off top 4

Great, that makes us all feel so much better. Percentage from finishing top 4, yet out in the first week in the finals.
Thanks Rodger, something for all us Saints fans to boast about.

[Teflon]

Guess what? We could still win, and win well. We won 14 games. Granted, the very good teams beat us when our intensity and effort wasn't there, but we still won 14 games.

What did that get us?
Oh that's right, the 8th place finish that you always get excited about.

We won 14 and were % off top 4

Great, that makes us all feel so much better. Percentage from finishing top 4, yet out in the first week in the finals.
Thanks Rodger, something for all us Saints fans to boast about.

Yeah but we DID have a game plan that didnt require 100% intensity...it just took us nowhere but according to Dodg...thats irrelevant....

[Iceman234]

Are we wasting bandwidth with so many replies repeated?

[Shaggy]

Guess what? We could still win, and win well. We won 14 games. Granted, the very good teams beat us when our intensity and effort wasn't there, but we still won 14 games.

What did that get us?
Oh that's right, the 8th place finish that you always get excited about.

We won 14 and were % off top 4

Great, that makes us all feel so much better. Percentage from finishing top 4, yet out in the first week in the finals.
Thanks Rodger, something for all us Saints fans to boast about.

Yeah but we DID have a game plan that didnt require 100% intensity...it just took us nowhere but according to Dodg...thats irrelevant....

Footy is about 95% intensity, skill & confidence. And Geelong are about that level.

I don't doubt our intensity or skill. I think our confidence is shot.

Teflon can rebuke but I think he thinks our intensity and skill is down.

I have seen what our former kids achieved in the past and they were amazing. We played finals with very immature sides but with great mature players who played their best under GT.

I don't care if we don't win the premiership so long as I can see the same from sides under RL.

[mischa]

All I know is we're playing like ABSOLUTE CRAP Fix it! Our good/great players like Roo, Dal, Hayes, Monty, Gram are starting to look like second rate deadbeats. Fix it.

[Saints43]

Lucky Cats didnt sack Bomber at end of 06 then.....

The difference here would be that the Cats board reviewed Thompson as a coach, decided he was capable and set about putting a structure around him that meant he could devote 100% of his time to the role.

Ross Lyon has had this support structure virtually from day one.

We are not sure how this board - who did not appoint him - rates him as a coach. We do know that he has been called in by the board to examine why players were not able to execute or understand the gameplan.

And I suspect that they have had to pull him up regarding the way he dealt with the media early on.

What do you think their opinion would be at the moment?

[rodgerfox]

Fremantle cant beat a top side.
You acknowledge our game plan in 06 couldnt beat a top side
Geelong HAVE a game plan that when employed IS good enough to win flags.

The rest is a waste of time.

I didn't acknowledge that at all. I've explained 1000 times my thoughts on 2006, and couldn't really be bothered doing it yet again.

I'm really not interested in going down the 'GT was no good' path yet again Teflon.

I made a statement, which I stand by, that Lyon's game plan appears to rely on 100% effort and intensity all the time. Even when we play well, we only just win.

To elaborate (which is probably a waste of time, as you clearly don't read my posts anyway), our current game plan appears to subdue the instinct in our players. Good, natural footballers aren't playing natural football. They are playing a style which appears to be reactive to what the opposition is doing.

This, as opposed to a game plan that allows freedom, or a game plan which is a balance of both, requires absolute concentration and intensity for 4 quarters.

As a coach, if you employ a game plan of this nature, and can't get the intensity from your players, you're stuffed.

You asked for an example of a game plan that doesn't 100% rely on intensity.

I gave you one.

Obviously, when you are trying to replace your best running back and your full back, plus didn't get a pre-season into more than half your list, plus the worst injury list in the comp, you're going to struggle against the best teams no matter what your game plan is. To 'struggle' and only be % off top 4 suggests we didn't completely rely on 100% intensity completely.


If you want argue whether the game plan was any good or not, there are plenty of threads on it already and perhaps still a few (Hard at it, Boppa and SrR) who would love to talk about it still.

But I don't.