aussierules0k wrote:JeffDunne wrote:
Remember, when the team coached itself?
...yep, when the kids had fun and played naturally.
Tho it did come after a couple of shocker years, proving the window shut theory can be smashed easily with a hot blast of confidence.
I just see the differences between when GT took over, as to when Lyon took over as so fundamenatlly different, that it angers me that our own supporters look to compare the two situations.
GT took 2.5 years to get something going. True.
He had a team of children playing KPs, at a club which had just spent 5 years at the bottom of the ladder as a rabble. On and off the field.
We were a joke. The press gave GT nothing. Ther was an article every day in various newspapers, dedicated entirely to potting Thomas. Every single day.
Then there was the M&M 'thing' aswell.
Lyon took over a team, with it's core of players, peaking physically and mentally in terms of experience and age. A team which had just completed it's 3rd straight year in the finals. A team which had just won 16 games, 14 games, and 14 games in the previous 3 years.
We were a very, very good football side.
Why does Lyon deserve any time? Really, he took on the role. No gun was held to his head. He took the role, and accepts his paycheck for it. IF the club hired him, based on him saying 'this team will be a basket case for the next 5 years whilst I stamp my own mark on it as they are so bad we have to start from scratch', then Ok - give him time.
But if we did hire a coach who said that at an interview, we should take out civil action against the previous Board for gross negligence.
Lyon, like Butterss and all the 'experts' - including the footballing gurus on here, knew then that our list was very good. All we needed was a decent coach - or any coach other than GT, to win the flag.
Why does Lyon 'deserve' more time? Why do compare the situations when Gt took over, to what Lyon has inherited?