Good run with injury in '09 no accident

[saintsRrising]

People would respect you more if you stopped calling them ignorant and patronising them with comments like the one above

Gaining 'people's' respect has never really been a concern of mine.

Oh dear

Hi SainterK,

RF's acknowledgment of this is no surprise as any long time reader of this forum most knows that RF in his various nom-de-plumes seeks more to troll than to discuss.

Over on Bigfooty he has even stated that he is not a St Kilda barracker.

I'm Unlisted because I don't 'barrack' for a particular club. I follow footy. I watch plenty of it on TV, and attend at least one game each week. I even try to get down to watch various clubs train from time to time.

As a neutral footy fan, I tend to find that the NFI factor really strongly comes into it when you strongly follow one club. Not vice versa.

He tried using his VS non-de-plume on SS, but got laughed off the forum as we all knew it was RF getting his jollies as we had read his trolling rubbish over on Bigfooty.

99% of the posters on here, despite some differing views, come on here to discuss the Saints....and all have in common lust for success with pride and passion in being a St Kilda fan.

A tiny fraction come on to troll. Some from opposition clubs and one who at least some of time states that he is not even a St Kilda man.

[SainterK]

Funnily enough, I think it was Joffaboy that was copping the RF backhander. I am sure he will head over here and deal with it as he see's fit

Interestingly enough it was a discussion I was willing to participate in, RF just can't help but resort to snide remarks and play the nasty pastie.

[matrix]

coz he loves it.
and thinks hes clever and funny.

thanks f*** i dont even bother with big footy.
what he been dribbling about over there this time??

the day he and GT made love under the stars?

[Moods]

GT let us al down with his cavilier attitude to player management (wrecked Balls career)

I thought Ball looked quite good in the GF last year.....at least whilst he was on the ground.

When hasn't he looked good when it comes to clearances and putting his body on the line?

Pretty handy attributes I would have thought.

Doesn't really sound like his career is ruined to me.

Someone's football ignorance is showing once again.

So why has his footy gone down hill at a rate of knots in the last 4 years? BTW - take away the GF that everyone hangs their hat on with Ball, how did he look in the previous 2 finals games that got us to the GF? How did he look in the second half of the year. Anyone with a skerrick of footy knowledge would recognise that LB in 09 was not in the same league as LB in 05. A player who could kick accurately over 50m to a player who struggles to make the distance over 40m. THis ability lost in 4 years?

Career is not ruined I agree - but severely compromised. And he would want to perform in the next 2 years or it will be ruined and he will end up being remembered like Shane Woewoedin.

[Con Gorozidis]

Has anyone considered that the Saints have not won a flag in the last 5 years purely because we werent fit enough?

I know Rodger Fox is convinced injuries cost GT a flag. But injuries are a direct reflection of core fitness.. Low core fitness = Higher incidence of injuries.

Also against Geelong - most people are citing the missed shots on goals. But we were spent in the last quarter. They were running on stronger. Heck if the game went on another 10 minutes they would have been all over us.

And given core fitness takes 3-5 pre seasons to build up... maybe we just havent got the base we need? Maybe GT's legacy (he did heaps of positives around culture and off field and mental strength) but maybe he did not do enough on core fitness......

Maybe, just maybe 2010 will be the first year this generation of players will be truly fit - in afl standards.... And if this hypothesis is correct - look out!

[SydneySainter]

I never seaid he couldn't coach, and I agree with him and Roos when they say a coach is overrated.

I would preface that however with that a good coach is overrated (I know that doesn't make sense) but a bad coach can cripple a team.

A coach is more a manager and in that case Lyon is a very good coach. Matchday is overrated for a coach.

I tend to agree.

Although after GF day, we saw what bad match coaching can do!

Don't know what you mean, the players apparently coach themselves so Lyon has nothing to answer for.

[SydneySainter]

GT let us al down with his cavilier attitude to player management (wrecked Balls career)

I thought Ball looked quite good in the GF last year.....at least whilst he was on the ground.

When hasn't he looked good when it comes to clearances and putting his body on the line?

Pretty handy attributes I would have thought.

Doesn't really sound like his career is ruined to me.

Someone's football ignorance is showing once again.

So why has his footy gone down hill at a rate of knots in the last 4 years? BTW - take away the GF that everyone hangs their hat on with Ball, how did he look in the previous 2 finals games that got us to the GF? How did he look in the second half of the year. Anyone with a skerrick of footy knowledge would recognise that LB in 09 was not in the same league as LB in 05. A player who could kick accurately over 50m to a player who struggles to make the distance over 40m. THis ability lost in 4 years?

Career is not ruined I agree - but severely compromised. And he would want to perform in the next 2 years or it will be ruined and he will end up being remembered like Shane Woewoedin.

Spot on.

The grand final aside, when has he come close to replicating his 05 All-Australian season?

Anyone who argues his form of the last four years warrants a $500,000 a year deal has rocks in their head and to those who suggested that we should matched the Pies offer, because at least he is a good bloke, that does nothing more but endorse a boy's-club culture.

[Milton66]

Has anyone considered that the Saints have not won a flag in the last 5 years purely because we werent fit enough?

I know Rodger Fox is convinced injuries cost GT a flag. But injuries are a direct reflection of core fitness.. Low core fitness = Higher incidence of injuries.

Also against Geelong - most people are citing the missed shots on goals. But we were spent in the last quarter. They were running on stronger. Heck if the game went on another 10 minutes they would have been all over us.

And given core fitness takes 3-5 pre seasons to build up... maybe we just havent got the base we need? Maybe GT's legacy (he did heaps of positives around culture and off field and mental strength) but maybe he did not do enough on core fitness......

Maybe, just maybe 2010 will be the first year this generation of players will be truly fit - in afl standards.... And if this hypothesis is correct - look out!

That's a very valid pov, CG. It does take w while... Even Aussie Jones commented accordingly when he had hammy's. He stated that even if you fix everything today, it takeas a few years for the results to show through.

I think the Doggies game took a fair bit out of us TBH, and had we kicked straight, then we may have held on.... maybe.

.. and GT himself stated on FC that training services are over rated.

[meher baba]

Concepts like "core fitness" and "laying a base" in the pre-season are more woolly concepts. What do they really mean?

The two fittest players I have seen seen at our club in the past two decades would be Riewoldt and Harvey. If these guys haven't had amazing "core fitness" for most of their footy careers, then the term must mean something I haven't considered and would appreciate someone explaining it to me properly.

However, both of them would also be in the "above average" category in terms of proneness to injury. A Nick Dal Santo or an Adam Yze would piss all over them in this regard.

So does this mean that Dal Santo or Yze had superior "core fitness". Or that they were lucky?

I've known a few AFL footballers reasonably well in my time. All of them spent half of their waking hours training, or at the gym, or swimming laps, or whatever. And, when they got some time off, they would go surfing or trekking or whatever. They were all amazingly fit specimens of humanity.

AFL as it is played today is one of the most demanding sports on the planet. An AFL team that makes the final four in 4 out of the last 6 seasons would have to comprise players who are supremely fit.

So the idea that the team's overall fitness was lousy when GT was coach is total bollocks. If you think about it for a few minutes, it can't possibly be true. After all, that was the era in which we quite frequently lost 1 or 2 or more of our key players to injury during the course of the game. Yet, we won a significant majority of our games over this period. The fitness of the 18-20 players who ran out these games musn't have been too bad, must it?

We are definitely investing much more money in training and conditioning now that we did a few seasons back. And we have Misson, who has a big reputation based on his record at the Swans.

These are good things and we should be happy about them.

But please keep it real.

[iwantmeseats]

So the idea that the team's overall fitness was lousy when GT was coach is total bollocks. If you think about it for a few minutes, it can't possibly be true. After all, that was the era in which we quite frequently lost 1 or 2 or more of our key players to injury during the course of the game. Yet, we won a significant majority of our games over this period. The fitness of the 18-20 players who ran out these games musn't have been too bad, must it?

huh? We won more than half our games, dont know about the significant majority...and we did NOT win a flag. Injuries had a hell of alot to do with it! A hell of alot. And yes, I do think Gt can take some blame for that, how many coaches in the AFL do you know that insist on taking care of the injury/player management side of things?

I think the new fitness dept along with Dave Misson blows your theory out of the water.

[Con Gorozidis]

Concepts like "core fitness" and "laying a base" in the pre-season are more woolly concepts. What do they really mean?

The two fittest players I have seen seen at our club in the past two decades would be Riewoldt and Harvey. If these guys haven't had amazing "core fitness" for most of their footy careers, then the term must mean something I haven't considered and would appreciate someone explaining it to me properly.

However, both of them would also be in the "above average" category in terms of proneness to injury. A Nick Dal Santo or an Adam Yze would piss all over them in this regard.

So does this mean that Dal Santo or Yze had superior "core fitness". Or that they were lucky?

I've known a few AFL footballers reasonably well in my time. All of them spent half of their waking hours training, or at the gym, or swimming laps, or whatever. And, when they got some time off, they would go surfing or trekking or whatever. They were all amazingly fit specimens of humanity.

AFL as it is played today is one of the most demanding sports on the planet. An AFL team that makes the final four in 4 out of the last 6 seasons would have to comprise players who are supremely fit.

So the idea that the team's overall fitness was lousy when GT was coach is total bollocks. If you think about it for a few minutes, it can't possibly be true. After all, that was the era in which we quite frequently lost 1 or 2 or more of our key players to injury during the course of the game. Yet, we won a significant majority of our games over this period. The fitness of the 18-20 players who ran out these games musn't have been too bad, must it?

We are definitely investing much more money in training and conditioning now that we did a few seasons back. And we have Misson, who has a big reputation based on his record at the Swans.

These are good things and we should be happy about them.

But please keep it real.

? are you real???
the concepts arent wooly at all. and yes obviously they are all fit specimens. and clearly fitter than average barometers of fitness.

but ther are certainly varying degrees of fitness at the elite level (and im talking 2-3% differences between the best and the rest) thats the kind of of margins at the top.

but look at any top sportsmen in the world and they will tell u what core fitness is. it aint wooly at all. u reckon rowers just wake up one morning go out and win a world title? it takes the guys years to get to that level.

so obviously im not saying the footy players arent "fit" according to your garden variety of the term.

but im saying maybe we were 2-3% down compared to west coast and the swans in 04/05.

im keeping it real. its scientifically testable. and im talking very small margins of difference at the top.

look at the tour de france - every rider in it is a freak of nature. a super fit specimen. most of them have either national or world titles to their name before even getting a ride in the tour. so clearly everyone gettign a ride is a freak BUT there are still huge differences between the guys that end up on the podium and those mid field. thats what im talking about. your argument is that the entire tour is really fit - so fitness doesnt count?

so yeah im keeping it real. and i talking about elite fitness. and im suggesting maybe in 04/05 we were a % or 2 below the absolute best (swans and eagles those years). I mean RL even said himself he was appalled at our general fitness when he arived - of course you can pick out exceptions - im talking overall - across the board - if u are 2% down compared with say the eagles or swans in those years - thats the difference in a tight game. FFS.

[meher baba]

huh? We won more than half our games, dont know about the significant majority...and we did NOT win a flag. Injuries had a hell of alot to do with it! A hell of alot. And yes, I do think Gt can take some blame for that, how many coaches in the AFL do you know that insist on taking care of the injury/player management side of things?

I'm not sure I know any. I'm not even sure that this was the case with GT. All I really know is that GT agreed at some point in 2001-02 to run the entire football side of things on a shoestring while the club pursued financial stability and early draft picks. By 2004 we were one of the top clubs and, although we had some injuries during the season, went into the PF with our best 22 players and missed making the GF by a kick.

I also know that, after an injury-plagued 2005, GT asked to have a free hand in appointing our fitness coach and went for the eminently-qualified Starchevich. Did he then run fitness management? I don't know. He certainly continued to run player management, but did that have anything to do with how many injuries we experienced: I can't see how.

In 2006 we lost Lenny and Goose (who posters on here seem to think was a dud in those days, but he was actually one of our top dozen or so players) to season-ending injuries and then had our team drop like flies in the 2006 QF. Some of that 22, like Raph, Hamill and Kosi, were selected when it was known that they weren't fully fit: but, if you look at the list of available players, we didn't have much in the way of fit, talented players to replace them. Others, like X, Harves and Gehrig, went into the game fit enough and were unlucky.

There are obviously parts of this story in which, if you or I had been in charge of things at the club at the time, we might have made different decisions. And that might even be clearer with the benefit of hindsight.

But arguments like "GT's insistence on controlling training and football management himself cost us a flag in 2004-06" are just bollocks IMO and I'm sick to death of reading them on here.

You might as well say that "Ross Lyon's insistence on recruiting ex-Swans to the club cost us a flag in 2009". After all, if Scheider and Dempster had kicked the gimme chances they had in the GF last year we would have won the game. But it's a nonsense argument.

I'm afraid that premierships are not as easy to win as some of you posters who like endlessly to cry over the (possibly) spilt milk of the GT era would like to suggest. Geelong have been easily the best AFL club - in terms of collective talent, coaching and off-field management - over the past 3 years. In that time, they have had all of their key players fit and available for the games that count. But they lost the 2008 GF and all but lost the 2009 one.

[Con Gorozidis]

So the idea that the team's overall fitness was lousy when GT was coach is total bollocks. If you think about it for a few minutes, it can't possibly be true. After all, that was the era in which we quite frequently lost 1 or 2 or more of our key players to injury during the course of the game. Yet, we won a significant majority of our games over this period. The fitness of the 18-20 players who ran out these games musn't have been too bad, must it?

huh? We won more than half our games, dont know about the significant majority...and we did NOT win a flag. Injuries had a hell of alot to do with it! A hell of alot. And yes, I do think Gt can take some blame for that, how many coaches in the AFL do you know that insist on taking care of the injury/player management side of things?

I think the new fitness dept along with Dave Misson blows your theory out of the water.

agree. clearly the sanits have good players and we have been winning games. and im not saying we were grossly unfit. maybe we were middling in the league?

but as guus hiddink used to say - you need to be "fit fit".

[meher baba]

look at the tour de france - every rider in it is a freak of nature. a super fit specimen. most of them have either national or world titles to their name before getting a ride in the tour. so clearly everyone gettign a ride is a freak BUT there are still huge differences between the guys that end up on the podium and those mid field. thats what im talking about. your argument is that the entire tour is really fit - so fitness doesnt count?

Perhaps not quite as much as access to EPO, HGH, etc.

Seriously, I agree with your point that to be slightly fitter gives you a bit of an edge on your opponents. I doubt that it would be as much as 2-3 per cent in a truly team sport (yes, I know Le Tour is a team sport in a way, but the defining moments - the mountain climbs - really do boil down to man against man).

Even if it's only 0.5 per cent it's definitely worth going for. And perhaps we have that extra 0.5 per cent now that we didn't have in 2004-06.

But I reckon that's what we are talking about: an improvement at the margins. The team wasn't "hopelessly unfit" under GT as I have often read on here.

Nor am I at all convinced that improved fitness and "conditioning" (I'm still not sure what that really is) means less injuries.

But have it your way, what does it really matter? GT is long gone and I'm certainly not one of the people on here who keep bringing him up: although, when the mood takes me, I will come on here sometimes and defend his record from the more nonsensical and unjust forms of criticism he gets from those who for some reason just can't let go.

Really, some of you (and I don't mean you Con) need to have get over ongoing obsessions with the cult of Lyon as God and GT as Satan. No wonder it is so easy for rodgerfox to get up your noses: you seem to see him as the blasphemer who dares to suggest that god does not exist. His criticisms of Lyon are so nonsensical and lacking in fact and logic that I can't understand why anybody would bother to argue with him about them, let alone become indignant: as many of you appear to do.

[bigred]

GT was a visionary.

[Milton66]

But I reckon that's what we are talking about: an improvement at the margins. The team wasn't "hopelessly unfit" under GT as I have often read on here.

Nor am I at all convinced that improved fitness and "conditioning" (I'm still not sure what that really is) means less injuries.

But have it your way, what does it really matter? GT is long gone and I'm certainly not one of the people on here who keep bringing him up: although, when the mood takes me, I will come on here sometimes and defend his record from the more nonsensical and unjust forms of criticism he gets from those who for some reason just can't let go.

1: Please explain your credentials in sports medicine

2: Please explain your obsession in defending GT's legacy and andomonishing anyone who speaks ill of him? Talk about a GT lover pot calling a RL lover black.

3: Try and explain the higher indcidence of non-colision injuries under your demi-god coach.

Fair dinkum MB, I enjoy your owrk, but mate, you really gotta get over it.

[Con Gorozidis]

I barely even mentioned GT. But fit/good teams seem to get less injuries. And unfit/boozey teams tend to get more injuries... And our boys looked a bit buggered in the last quarter of the GF. Thats all im saying.
So we will soon find out. But if there is something in my thesis that the saints are still improving in this area - then we will be pretty hard to beat in 2010.... The proof will be in the pudding.

With some better list management this time around - we might be dangerous.

And clearly im only talking about the margins. We were 22-3 last year so we are clearly doing a lot right.

[iwantmeseats]

look at the tour de france - every rider in it is a freak of nature. a super fit specimen. most of them have either national or world titles to their name before getting a ride in the tour. so clearly everyone gettign a ride is a freak BUT there are still huge differences between the guys that end up on the podium and those mid field. thats what im talking about. your argument is that the entire tour is really fit - so fitness doesnt count?

Perhaps not quite as much as access to EPO, HGH, etc.

Seriously, I agree with your point that to be slightly fitter gives you a bit of an edge on your opponents. I doubt that it would be as much as 2-3 per cent in a truly team sport (yes, I know Le Tour is a team sport in a way, but the defining moments - the mountain climbs - really do boil down to man against man).

Even if it's only 0.5 per cent it's definitely worth going for. And perhaps we have that extra 0.5 per cent now that we didn't have in 2004-06.

But I reckon that's what we are talking about: an improvement at the margins. The team wasn't "hopelessly unfit" under GT as I have often read on here.

Nor am I at all convinced that improved fitness and "conditioning" (I'm still not sure what that really is) means less injuries.

But have it your way, what does it really matter? GT is long gone and I'm certainly not one of the people on here who keep bringing him up: although, when the mood takes me, I will come on here sometimes and defend his record from the more nonsensical and unjust forms of criticism he gets from those who for some reason just can't let go.

Really, some of you (and I don't mean you Con) need to have get over ongoing obsessions with the cult of Lyon as God and GT as Satan. No wonder it is so easy for rodgerfox to get up your noses: you seem to see him as the blasphemer who dares to suggest that god does not exist. His criticisms of Lyon are so nonsensical and lacking in fact and logic that I can't understand why anybody would bother to argue with him about them, let alone become indignant: as many of you appear to do.

Dodgyfox I think is just a s*** stirrer. I dont think he really believes some of the tripe he peddles, I hope not anyway!

[White Winmar]

I think the 2005 preliminary final best illustrates the point I'm trying to make. A very talented group that was already depleted by injury and carried some players who were underdone (Saints), was over run in the final quarter by a more modestly talented, but supremely fit and match hardened combination in the swans.

CG has got it right. There are very small margins at work when dealing with elite athletes. Just being on an AFL list for a couple of years results in strong levels of fitness. Squeezing the last 1-2 % out of the individual is the challenge at the elite level. I think Misson's track record over the past 6-7 years is ample evidence that his systems and processes are sound. There is always an element of luck with collision injuries, but in the main it's a case of the old cliche, "The harder I work, the luckier I get". Throw in superior knowledge and science and you have a team that goes 22-3 in a season. I'm confident that we'll continue to improve in this area and go one better in 2010.

[borderbarry]

I thought the Saints were at their best before the mid season break last season. We never seemed to lift or play to the same heights after the break. And the same thing happened against the Hawks when we rested so many players. On their return we lost the first 2 games and never seemed as enthusiastic again.

[borderbarry]

I hope that this year we have a more sensible approach to resting players. and that we are not so frightened to give yound players a go. We should start resting our players from about round 8.

[Milan Faletic]

Maybe if we kicked 14.9 instead of 9.14, we would be raving about the great year. From memory, I don't think RL had those shots at goal.

[SydneySainter]

I hope that this year we have a more sensible approach to resting players. and that we are not so frightened to give yound players a go. We should start resting our players from about round 8.

Assuming we are 7-0 by round 8? Do we still rest players if we are 4-3, or 3-4? Resting players that early would be one of the most arrogant ploys ever implemented by a club and would bring a whole new meaning to the term 'getting ahead of yourselves'.

I don't think there is ever a club that will risk resting players until they have enough wins in the bank to at least guarantee a top 4 finish. I know the Cats started resting their squad by round 15, but they were 13-1 and needed two more wins from the remaining eight matches to make top four a certainty.

[Moods]

I thought the Saints were at their best before the mid season break last season. We never seemed to lift or play to the same heights after the break. And the same thing happened against the Hawks when we rested so many players. On their return we lost the first 2 games and never seemed as enthusiastic again.

You missed the cats game borderberry? What about the crows game in Melbourne? What about the bulldogs game in the second half of the year?

I actually reckon that resting players is rubbish. The best players win you the games. You may occasionally play out of your socks (hawks game) but the reality is the team that has the least injuries gives themselves the best chance of winning everything. The players that were carrying obvious injuries last year (Riewoldt, Hayes) were our best two players in the finals, and in my opinion throughout the year.

Make young blokes earn their stripes.

[rodgerfox]

I do think Gt can take some blame for that, how many coaches in the AFL do you know that insist on taking care of the injury/player management side of things?

I must admit I love the way this myth has evolved over the years.


Just for those who are interested in fact....

GT believed that the head coach should sit at the top of the footy dept. Meaning that 'training services' and pretty much everything fell under 'his control'.

This doesn't mean he took players' recovery sessions or mapped out their fitness programs or injury recovery.

He hired and fired the people responsible for this, and they were accountable to him (he set them KPIs in regards to available players and their fitness levels) but he didn't get involved in their space.
He didn't decide if a player was fit to play, he didn't decide if a player on the bench was ready physically to come back on, he didn't get involved in that at all.

He asked the quacks and 'fitness dudes' and 100% took their word.

Now sorry mythologists - but that's fact.