2010 Game Plan

[SainterK]

Cant count the times this season that teams were getting on top of us early, but after the quarter time or halftime break we gained ascendancy.

Funny about that... maybe it was just the oranges.

Do you have any examples of this? And specifically what Lyon did 'on game day' to turn these games?

And don't get confused with getting the players to adhere to the plan better. Because that, and some individual brilliance was more often the reason for our wins.

How is it, that managing to get the players to adhere to the plan better than they had been in the game previously, isn't an example of game day coaching?

However, here is an example....

Round 12 v Carlton, Zac Dawson ended up the only player in the inside 50 on his own, kicked the winning goal.

[Milton66]

Cant count the times this season that teams were getting on top of us early, but after the quarter time or halftime break we gained ascendancy.

Funny about that... maybe it was just the oranges.

Do you have any examples of this? And specifically what Lyon did 'on game day' to turn these games?

And don't get confused with getting the players to adhere to the plan better. Because that, and some individual brilliance was more often the reason for our wins.

Apart from your kick it to Roo rant, do you have any examples to prove that he isn't a good match day coach?

You made the call.. now back it up with some facts.

[markp]

Cant count the times this season that teams were getting on top of us early, but after the quarter time or halftime break we gained ascendancy.

Funny about that... maybe it was just the oranges.

Do you have any examples of this? And specifically what Lyon did 'on game day' to turn these games?

And don't get confused with getting the players to adhere to the plan better. Because that, and some individual brilliance was more often the reason for our wins.

A 20-2 home and away season is all the proof needed... and it's not like we won them all easily, or won every single quarter. I'd even be so bold as to suggest changes were made (and evidently pretty successful ones) at some stage during every one of those games

It's just your sheer relentlessness that I find so genuinely disturbing... pathologically disturbing.

[rodgerfox]

How is it, that managing to get the players to adhere to the plan better than they had been in the game previously, isn't an example of game day coaching?

That's not the definition of 'game day coaching'.

That's preparation. Game day coaching relates to moves made on the day, specific to the day. Tactical moves that influence the outcome of the game, that aren't planned prior to the match.

Based on your question, I'm going to safely assume you haven't played or coached footy.

That's Ok, but just gives me some perspective.

However, here is an example....

Round 12 v Carlton, Zac Dawson ended up the only player in the inside 50 on his own, kicked the winning goal.

That's game day coaching. And a good example. However it's really the only one I can think of too.

For a 25 game season, it's not alot really.

[SainterK]

How is it, that managing to get the players to adhere to the plan better than they had been in the game previously, isn't an example of game day coaching?

That's not the definition of 'game day coaching'.

That's preparation. Game day coaching relates to moves made on the day, specific to the day. Tactical moves that influence the outcome of the game, that aren't planned prior to the match.

Based on your question, I'm going to safely assume you haven't played or coached footy.

That's Ok, but just gives me some perspective.

Being a young mum, I would have thought that was a more than likely scenario?

However, here is an example....

Round 12 v Carlton, Zac Dawson ended up the only player in the inside 50 on his own, kicked the winning goal.

That's game day coaching. And a good example. However it's really the only one I can think of too.

For a 25 game season, it's not alot really.

I am sure we can think of others, but yes I agree, in a year when the side dominated it will be hard to find examples of where a change in tatics was required or neccessary.

[ThePunter]

I can see Rodger Fox's point. Bartel onto Hayes in the GF is another example of game day coaching.

However, I really think Ross Lyon is trying to build a team, and a "system", that will win regardless of:

1. Motivation (they are professionals, they should "come to play" every time)
2. Circumstances

I really think he's trying to build the foolproof team, where all the work is done during the week, RL points out a few things at the breaks during the game, but everything is kept just as planned previously.

I'd like to see a little more adaptability. Having said that, most went right this year.

The only examples of this I can think of during the year were:

Round 3 - RL moves Gwilt to half-back. Goddard starts forward, but plays last 3 quarters elsewhere.
Round 5 - King gets injured, Blake moved into ruck.
Round 12 - Dawson moved forward.
Round 20 - Sam Fisher started forward, then moved into backline.

[Milton66]

How is it, that managing to get the players to adhere to the plan better than they had been in the game previously, isn't an example of game day coaching?

That's not the definition of 'game day coaching'.

That's preparation. Game day coaching relates to moves made on the day, specific to the day. Tactical moves that influence the outcome of the game, that aren't planned prior to the match.

Based on your question, I'm going to safely assume you haven't played or coached footy.

That's Ok, but just gives me some perspective.

Being a young mum, I would have thought that was a more than likely scenario?

However, here is an example....

Round 12 v Carlton, Zac Dawson ended up the only player in the inside 50 on his own, kicked the winning goal.

That's game day coaching. And a good example. However it's really the only one I can think of too.

For a 25 game season, it's not alot really.

I am sure we can think of others, but yes I agree, in a year when the side dominated it will be hard to find examples of where a change in tatics was required or neccessary.

SNAP.

I think Velvet's got your measure Rodger.

Not bad for someone who hasn't played or coached before.

Given all of Rodger's "apparent" experience...

Gee, the coach prepares the players, so well in fact, that they go out and win all those games.

Then, because the players execute the coach's instructions, he does not need to make any moves on the day... and therefore it makes the coach a bad game-day coach.

Now that's too funny.

But then again, why should I bother.

Over to you Velvet... you seem to cut him down far more eloquently than I could ever dream of doing.

BTW, don't hold your breath waiting on more evidence of poor game day coaching examples.

[rodgerfox]

SNAP.

I think Velvet's got your measure Rodger.

Not bad for someone who hasn't played or coached before.

Given all of Rodger's "apparent" experience...

Gee, the coach prepares the players, so well in fact, that they go out and win all those games.

Then, because the players execute the coach's instructions, he does not need to make any moves on the day... and therefore it makes the coach a bad game-day coach.

Now that's too funny.

But then again, why should I bother.

Over to you Velvet... you seem to cut him down far more eloquently than I could ever dream of doing.

BTW, don't hold your breath waiting on more evidence of poor game day coaching examples.

Sigh.

Have you seen the Grand Final?

I'm actually a believer in coaching being done prior, and limited changes on game day.
Building a game plan, and simply drilling it into the team until they are expert at it, to me is what coaching is all about.
I've been saying this for years, and said it about Thomas - which was always misconstrued as 'loving GT'. Those wanting brilliant tactical swings during games, and shifting to a Plan B at the drop of a hat, didn't understand my view that that deviates from practising and drilling in a game plan that needs to stand up under pressure. It's a quick fix.

Funnily, the same people now seem to think it's Ok to be stagnant on game day and instead, focus on building a team that is well drilled under pressure and can work their way through tough situations by sticking with the plan. Funny that.


If you spent more time reading what people write, instead of ordinary attempts at humour and sarcasm, you'd know exactly where I'm coming from and what my point is.

There does come a time however (the last quarter in a GF for example), when on game day, you need to be able to make things happen. The question is, when do you sacrifice your game plan and revert to a Plan B or a quick fix? Ideally the answer is never. Ideally you stick to your guns and have confidence in your plan.

This is what bothers me. We stuck with a solid plan for 3 and a bit quarters in the GF - then changed it at the death!
In the finals, Lyon relied on the Roo card too much. It got us over the line against Collingwood, and again against the Dogs.
It was foolish to attempt it against Geelong. Which is why I was pleased we didn't use it in the GF. But then I was so flabbergasted at a change in plan in the last quarter.

I'm amazed that Saints fans are happy to win H&A games now, and seem to be cool with the fact that we blew it in the GF.
Seems to matter little, cause we won 20 H&A matches.

We have a game plan that is based on effort and intensity - and worringly also on star players dominating the game.
What history tells us, is that both of these things can disappear very, very quickly.

If they do disappear, like we saw in the latter part of the year, we are very vunerable - even against ordinary sides.

[rodgerfox]

I can see Rodger Fox's point. Bartel onto Hayes in the GF is another example of game day coaching.

And I'm not surprised you see it. It's perfectly valid.

Those who don't see it, are those who don't want to and would rather have petty arguments instead.

[SainterK]

I can see Rodger Fox's point. Bartel onto Hayes in the GF is another example of game day coaching.

And I'm not surprised you see it. It's perfectly valid.

Those who don't see it, are those who don't want to and would rather have petty arguments instead.

Incorrect, I disagree with your opinion and was happy to discuss it with you. Because I don't share your view, I am now suddenly guilty of being argumentative?

I responded to your questions honestly. I have no coaching experience, neither have I played the game. I wasn't aware however, that this alienated me from having an opinion?

I have been as consistent in my views regarding RL and his coaching, as you have been in choosing not to acknowlege them.

[SainterK]

[/quote]

SNAP.

I think Velvet's got your measure Rodger.

Not bad for someone who hasn't played or coached before.

Given all of Rodger's "apparent" experience...

Gee, the coach prepares the players, so well in fact, that they go out and win all those games.

Then, because the players execute the coach's instructions, he does not need to make any moves on the day... and therefore it makes the coach a bad game-day coach.

Now that's too funny.

But then again, why should I bother.

Over to you Velvet... you seem to cut him down far more eloquently than I could ever dream of doing.

BTW, don't hold your breath waiting on more evidence of poor game day coaching examples.[/quote]

It's not like that Milton, I haven't responded to RF much in the past. This isn't about being argumentative for the sake of it, my view on this matter just happens to differ greatly from his. I think we lacked composure of GF day, Roger prefers to question Ross and his coaching ability.

[rodgerfox]

I can see Rodger Fox's point. Bartel onto Hayes in the GF is another example of game day coaching.

And I'm not surprised you see it. It's perfectly valid.

Those who don't see it, are those who don't want to and would rather have petty arguments instead.

Incorrect, I disagree with your opinion and was happy to discuss it with you. Because I don't share your view, I am now suddenly guilty of being argumentative?

I responded to your questions honestly. I have no coaching experience, neither have I played the game. I wasn't aware however, that this alienated me from having an opinion?

I have been as consistent in my views regarding RL and his coaching, as you have been in choosing not to acknowlege them.

You have form, let's be honest.

[Milton66]

SNAP.

I think Velvet's got your measure Rodger.

Not bad for someone who hasn't played or coached before.

Given all of Rodger's "apparent" experience...

Gee, the coach prepares the players, so well in fact, that they go out and win all those games.

Then, because the players execute the coach's instructions, he does not need to make any moves on the day... and therefore it makes the coach a bad game-day coach.

Now that's too funny.

But then again, why should I bother.

Over to you Velvet... you seem to cut him down far more eloquently than I could ever dream of doing.

BTW, don't hold your breath waiting on more evidence of poor game day coaching examples.

Sigh.

Have you seen the Grand Final?

I'm actually a believer in coaching being done prior, and limited changes on game day.
Building a game plan, and simply drilling it into the team until they are expert at it, to me is what coaching is all about.
I've been saying this for years, and said it about Thomas - which was always misconstrued as 'loving GT'. Those wanting brilliant tactical swings during games, and shifting to a Plan B at the drop of a hat, didn't understand my view that that deviates from practising and drilling in a game plan that needs to stand up under pressure. It's a quick fix.

Funnily, the same people now seem to think it's Ok to be stagnant on game day and instead, focus on building a team that is well drilled under pressure and can work their way through tough situations by sticking with the plan. Funny that.


If you spent more time reading what people write, instead of ordinary attempts at humour and sarcasm, you'd know exactly where I'm coming from and what my point is.

There does come a time however (the last quarter in a GF for example), when on game day, you need to be able to make things happen. The question is, when do you sacrifice your game plan and revert to a Plan B or a quick fix? Ideally the answer is never. Ideally you stick to your guns and have confidence in your plan.

This is what bothers me. We stuck with a solid plan for 3 and a bit quarters in the GF - then changed it at the death!
In the finals, Lyon relied on the Roo card too much. It got us over the line against Collingwood, and again against the Dogs.
It was foolish to attempt it against Geelong. Which is why I was pleased we didn't use it in the GF. But then I was so flabbergasted at a change in plan in the last quarter.

I'm amazed that Saints fans are happy to win H&A games now, and seem to be cool with the fact that we blew it in the GF.
Seems to matter little, cause we won 20 H&A matches.

We have a game plan that is based on effort and intensity - and worringly also on star players dominating the game.
What history tells us, is that both of these things can disappear very, very quickly.

If they do disappear, like we saw in the latter part of the year, we are very vunerable - even against ordinary sides.

I'm confused, now.

We spent the entire season drilling players to play to a plan.

We used Roo as a key fwd all year.

The players pretty much stuck to it all year, up to and including the last 5 mins of the GF.

So why would you throw it all out the window at 3/4 time?

Are you stating as fact that we did not rely on the same plan in the GF? In other words, bypass Roo?

Even on your logic, please tell me what's wrong with trying to go via your best player to win the game??

Pagan did it fairly well with Carey, as did Hawthorn with Buddy.

Forgive me for being cynical, but you only post when it comes to having a dig at Ross Lyon.

Where did I state that I'm happy to win H&A games only?

As far as humour or sarcasm goes... YOU made the judgement calls, but you are yet to back them up with facts.

And if some one disgarees, you go off on your "mediocrity, cretins, moron" deflections.

So until you back it up with facts, I'll treat you like a flog. Take it whichever way you want.

If you want serious, mature debate... try actually backing up your opinions with facts. Failure to do so only puts in the same category as the imbeciles and cretins that you are so fond of putting down.

[SainterK]

I can see Rodger Fox's point. Bartel onto Hayes in the GF is another example of game day coaching.

And I'm not surprised you see it. It's perfectly valid.

Those who don't see it, are those who don't want to and would rather have petty arguments instead.

Incorrect, I disagree with your opinion and was happy to discuss it with you. Because I don't share your view, I am now suddenly guilty of being argumentative?

I responded to your questions honestly. I have no coaching experience, neither have I played the game. I wasn't aware however, that this alienated me from having an opinion?

I have been as consistent in my views regarding RL and his coaching, as you have been in choosing not to acknowlege them.

You have form, let's be honest.

?

[rodgerfox]

I'm confused, now.

We spent the entire season drilling players to play to a plan.

We used Roo as a key fwd all year.

The players pretty much stuck to it all year, up to and including the last 5 mins of the GF.

So why would you throw it all out the window at 3/4 time?

Are you stating as fact that we did not rely on the same plan in the GF? In other words, bypass Roo?

Even on your logic, please tell me what's wrong with trying to go via your best player to win the game??

Pagan did it fairly well with Carey, as did Hawthorn with Buddy.

Forgive me for being cynical, but you only post when it comes to having a dig at Ross Lyon.

Where did I state that I'm happy to win H&A games only?

As far as humour or sarcasm goes... YOU made the judgement calls, but you are yet to back them up with facts.

And if some one disgarees, you go off on your "mediocrity, cretins, moron" deflections.

So until you back it up with facts, I'll treat you like a flog. Take it whichever way you want.

If you want serious, mature debate... try actually backing up your opinions with facts. Failure to do so only puts in the same category as the imbeciles and cretins that you are so fond of putting down.

Wow.

I think I'll just let that one go through to the keeper.

Wouldn't even know where to start with it. Although it does make things pretty clear in regards to your posting.

[rodgerfox]

You have form, let's be honest.

?

Someone else using your account??

- A big concern? That's quite emotive for you Roger, given that you are just a casual observer of the game?

- Don't expect to much SRS, he has already skulked out of here.

- I am beginning to understand how much you love the little role you play on here, and can see that you feel quite clever about it. However, what is evident to me, is when you sift through the big words and lovely grammar, you don't really say anything after all.


This is without even trying.


If this is sensible, mature discussion, then it makes it very clear why I clash with some people on here.

Seriously.

[SainterK]

You have form, let's be honest.

?

Someone else using your account??

- A big concern? That's quite emotive for you Roger, given that you are just a casual observer of the game?

- Don't expect to much SRS, he has already skulked out of here.

- I am beginning to understand how much you love the little role you play on here, and can see that you feel quite clever about it. However, what is evident to me, is when you sift through the big words and lovely grammar, you don't really say anything after all.


This is without even trying.


If this is sensible, mature discussion, then it makes it very clear why I clash with some people on here.

Seriously.

No, not discussion.

I'd be the first to admit I get exasperated, I must agree with your opinion because....

"Those who don't see it, are those who don't want to"

[Milton66]

Just checking in...

Any facts presented as yet?

Hello... Rodger? Any facts?

No.

I didn't thinks so.

Oh yeah, you have form.

If this is sensible, mature discussion, then it makes it very clear why I clash with some people on here.

Back it up, boy and we can discuss.

SinterK's got your number. Hard to swallow, but take it like a man.

[meher baba]

rodgerfox, you are surely aware that I am hardly the #1 card holder of the Ross Lyon Fan Club (although I'm much more of a supporter than many on here give me credit for).

However, I think you are seriously pushing the proverbial substance uphill in trying to argue that RL's match day coaching was a major problem in the GF.

Some may call me a GT worshipper/Lyon-hater for saying this, but I reckon RL's match day tactics were pretty woeful in 2007 and most of 2008: inexplicable matchups, choosing to shut up shop just when we had a chance to put our opponents away, etc.

However, Lyon hsd barely put a foot wrong on match day throughout the 2009 season.

Although I have vowed never again to use the word "outcoached", I still reckon that Eade just got the better of Lyon tactically in the PF and (as was the case with us in the GF) if the Dogs had taken their chances in front of goal, we'd have lost. But that's finals footy: the games feature the best teams with the most astute coaches giving their all and doing their darndest to win.

Unless they have made some glaring tactical error (as was possibly the case with Alves in 1997, although there is plenty of room for dispute) - there is no dishonour in being the coach of a losing side in a closely-fought finals game. The endless half-witted ravings on this forum about how GT was a "failure" because we didn't win a premiership in 2004-06 have obscured the fact that bad match day coaches don't get teams to PFs or GFs.

I might still harbour a few concerns about Lyon's overall game plan and how it sometimes leads him to discount skilled players relative to hard workers, but I can't fault him as a match day coach during 2009.

[Milan Faletic]

The move of Goddard as the third tall in Round 3 was pretty good.

He booted 4 goals in that match

Booted them all in the 1st Q, then went into the midfield, then went to Half Back and dominated both of those parts of the ground too. He was everywhere that day !!

I think BJ's injuries on GF day have also slipped somewhat under the radar. He was clearly struggling after the shoulder knock. I think we will hear more about how courageous he was in years to come.

[plugger66]

The move of Goddard as the third tall in Round 3 was pretty good.

He booted 4 goals in that match

Booted them all in the 1st Q, then went into the midfield, then went to Half Back and dominated both of those parts of the ground too. He was everywhere that day !!

I think BJ's injuries on GF day have also slipped somewhat under the radar. He was clearly struggling after the shoulder knock. I think we will hear more about how courageous he was in years to come.

What more can we learn? he broke his collarbone. We know that.

[rodgerfox]

However, I think you are seriously pushing the proverbial substance uphill in trying to argue that RL's match day coaching was a major problem in the GF.

His coaching in the final quarter was appalling - and a, if not the reason Geelong got on top.

Not giving Luke Ball more game time, and directing the team to bomb it long to the tall forwards was a monumental mistake.

Up until that point, he'd done fine. Nothing special in terms of tactics - but he prepared very well and had the players peaking.

Why the hell he changed tact like he did late in the game, I will never know. And I bet he still loses sleep over it too.


I don't think he's a bad game day coach, but decisions like this when the heat is on, and the consistent over reliance on Roo make me believe that he struggles when the pressure is on, and doesn't have the nouse to make the right calls. Sometimes, the right call is to trust what you've already put in place.
This was exactly what he should have done in the GF.

[saint66au]

See Rodg, your credibilty takes a massive hit because you swing between some sort of mastercoach wannabe with your pontifications on how RL lost us the game....and then when the mood takes you all of a sudden you are only vaguely interested in football cos it bores you

I actually reckon youre more interested in the reactions than the argument or the topic...we are all just mice in your lil science experiment

Sad really

[Milton66]

However, I think you are seriously pushing the proverbial substance uphill in trying to argue that RL's match day coaching was a major problem in the GF.

His coaching in the final quarter was appalling - and a, if not the reason Geelong got on top.

Not giving Luke Ball more game time, and directing the team to bomb it long to the tall forwards was a monumental mistake.

Up until that point, he'd done fine. Nothing special in terms of tactics - but he prepared very well and had the players peaking.

Why the hell he changed tact like he did late in the game, I will never know. And I bet he still loses sleep over it too.


I don't think he's a bad game day coach, but decisions like this when the heat is on, and the consistent over reliance on Roo make me believe that he struggles when the pressure is on, and doesn't have the nouse to make the right calls. Sometimes, the right call is to trust what you've already put in place.
This was exactly what he should have done in the GF.

If you look back at the season, getting the ball in quickly to the 2 key fwds was what won us so many games. So as far as I can see, he made the right call in trusting what he had already put in place.

[meher baba]

However, I think you are seriously pushing the proverbial substance uphill in trying to argue that RL's match day coaching was a major problem in the GF.

His coaching in the final quarter was appalling - and a, if not the reason Geelong got on top.

Not giving Luke Ball more game time, and directing the team to bomb it long to the tall forwards was a monumental mistake.

Up until that point, he'd done fine. Nothing special in terms of tactics - but he prepared very well and had the players peaking.

Why the hell he changed tact like he did late in the game, I will never know. And I bet he still loses sleep over it too.


I don't think he's a bad game day coach, but decisions like this when the heat is on, and the consistent over reliance on Roo make me believe that he struggles when the pressure is on, and doesn't have the nouse to make the right calls. Sometimes, the right call is to trust what you've already put in place.
This was exactly what he should have done in the GF.

If Lyon had stuck with what he had been doing for the first three quarters, we would have lost the game by a lot more. He did the right thing by changing his tactics: it was a "roll of the dice" as the cliche goes.

We were all but finished by 3/4 time. The players had thrown everything they had at the Cats, and - if we had taken even half of our gettable goals-scoring opportunities (and if the parents of a certain goal umpire had known more about contraception a few decades ago) - we would have been 3-4 goals ahead and better than even money to win.

As it turned out, we were all but finished. 7 points was never going to be enough of a lead given that the Cats were rampaging home and we were battered and bruised and exhausted.

So what did Lyon do? He took the emphasis off winning the midfield battle, where we were starting to get slaughtered and as likely as not to turn the ball over and concede quick goals. He decided to try to get a quick goal or two from moving the ball forward quickly. Hence the use of an injured BJ ahead of Ball.

And it almost came off: we were only a bounce of the ball or a favourable umpiring decision away from at least a draw and a replay.

I thought he had a good GF day. I thought he won the tactical battle against a much more experienced AFL coach. He put our team in a winning position and they (in particular, Schneider, Milne, Dempster, etc. who missed the gettable shots on goal) fluffed it.

Remember, in the eyes of the AFL world, we went into the game as underdogs (quite rightly so IMO: although I realise that this is a minority view on this forum). Geelong had the GF experience, they were spurred by the embarassment of losing in 2008, they had more big game players than us (once again, probably a controversial view on this forum, but a fact nevertheless). Not surprisingly, they held their nerve better than we did over the four quarters.

Lyon has absolutely nothing to be ashamed of about the 2009 season. He couldn't have done his job any better. And that assessment is coming from me: the guy who once tagged him "Barney the Dinosaur" and called for his sacking.

I sometimes find the level of idolisation of Lyon on this forum a bit stifling, but you need to get real: he is a terrific football coach.