Lyon Promises Exciting Footy

[InkerSaint]

I'd love to know the names of these players who would have made the difference to a Grand Final team, that were available at a draft pick held by the Saints in the last four years.

Or maybe the Saints should have done a cull and bottomed out?

[older saint]

Weren't we a bounceof the ball away from being Premiers?

Yes there are areas we need to improve and to stand still is to move backwards but really reading some stuff here is sound like i jumped on the Richmond forum..

[InkerSaint]

Why didn't we recruit better .. and target medium forwards over the last 10 years + we haven't had one since Winmar ?

Another Aaron Hamill perhaps?

Ross Lyon has been looking for his replacement as soon as he left. Perhaps not as easy to find as you think... and you must be joking if you suggest that this role has been the Saints' most urgent drafting priority for 10 years.

Who knows, maybe Gamble is it.

[samoht]

Why didn't we recruit better .. and target medium forwards over the last 10 years + we haven't had one since Winmar ?

Another Aaron Hamill perhaps?

Ross Lyon has been looking for his replacement as soon as he left. Perhaps not as easy to find as you think... and you must be joking if you suggest that this role has been the Saints' most urgent drafting priority for 10 years.

Who knows, maybe Gamble is it.

(Just expressing my opinion and I'm not joking)
I didn't say it's the most urgent .. but the fact is we have had a major deficiency in our forward line - no medium sized forwards for well over 10 - 13 years.
We've probably targeted 5 or 6 ruckmen (maybe more) over the same timespan.

How much have these ruckmen contributed ? .. have they really made that much of an impact ?

Our forward line is dysfunctional - and we play too many smalls who don't cope well in finals - they are not physically up to it.
Yet we persist.
.
I don't feel we've targeted the right players - Burgoyne for instance may have been a good pick up and made a good medium sized forward - we only have a very limited window.
At least go after a likely type or two for once - and forget the lumbering ruckmen.

Again.. just an opinion... and not joking (but maybe the recruiters have been).

Gamble is probably just an after thought (assuming he is earmarked for a medium forward role) - hopefully he does make it - but Burgoyne would have (as a medium forward), he also has the speed we need.

[InkerSaint]

(Just expressing my opinion and I'm not joking)
I didn't say it's the most urgent .. but the fact is we have had a major deficiency in our forward line - no medium sized forwards for well over 10 - 13 years.
We've probably targeted 5 or 6 ruckmen (maybe more) over the same timespan.

How much have these ruckmen contributed ? .. have they really made that much of an impact ?

Our forward line is dysfunctional - and we play too many smalls who don't cope well in finals - they are not physically up to it.
Yet we persist.
.
I don't feel we've targeted the right players - Burgoyne for instance may have been a good pick up and made a good medium sized forward - we only have a very limited window.
At least go after a likely type or two for once - and forget the lumbering ruckmen.

Forget the lumbering ruckmen huh... yeah, I think that was the former coach's attitude too. The coach who belonged to the same administration group responsible for recruiting all of those lumbering ruckmen.

Capuano, Brooks, Knobel, Ackland, Rix...

Whereas the current administration recruited King and Gardiner for a lollipop each - arguably our two best ruckmen in the last decade. And Ben McEvoy may turn out to be just another lumbering ruckman, but I doubt it.

Which still doesn't answer how the Saints would have been within coo-ee of a deal involving Shaun Burgoyne - considering it cost Hawthorn Mark Williams and pick 9. Personally I think Hawthorn lost out in that deal.

[SainterK]

Had a question been posed about our defenders one out 12 months ago, I'd agree that we pushed numbers back for very good reason.

However following some growth (especially towards the end of the season) in the likes of Dawson and Gwilt, and even Dempster in the finals series, I think that one out now we are not too shabby?

Certainly capable enough to concentrate on other areas, like 'reconstructing our front half' and more specifically....actually having forwards that stay forward.

[samoht]

(Just expressing my opinion and I'm not joking)
I didn't say it's the most urgent .. but the fact is we have had a major deficiency in our forward line - no medium sized forwards for well over 10 - 13 years.
We've probably targeted 5 or 6 ruckmen (maybe more) over the same timespan.

How much have these ruckmen contributed ? .. have they really made that much of an impact ?

Our forward line is dysfunctional - and we play too many smalls who don't cope well in finals - they are not physically up to it.
Yet we persist.
.
I don't feel we've targeted the right players - Burgoyne for instance may have been a good pick up and made a good medium sized forward - we only have a very limited window.
At least go after a likely type or two for once - and forget the lumbering ruckmen.

Forget the lumbering ruckmen huh... yeah, I think that was the former coach's attitude too. The coach who belonged to the same administration group responsible for recruiting all of those lumbering ruckmen.

Capuano, Brooks, Knobel, Ackland, Rix...

Whereas the current administration recruited King and Gardiner for a lollipop each - arguably our two best ruckmen in the last decade. And Ben McEvoy may turn out to be just another lumbering ruckman, but I doubt it.

Which still doesn't answer how the Saints would have been within coo-ee of a deal involving Shaun Burgoyne - considering it cost Hawthorn Mark Williams and pick 9. Personally I think Hawthorn lost out in that deal.

Seriously, I realise not everything is possible - but just as long as there was a real intention to recruit to our needs - over the last few years - not just last year with Burgoyne, then the club has done no wrong.
I still have a feeling they didn't prioritise a medium forward - but either way we still have a dysfunctional forward line and you and I aren't to blame for that - so who do we blame ?
If I was in charge of recruiting we'd probably have not one but 2 succesful medium sized forwards by now.

[InkerSaint]

Every year we dissect the team's performance and obsess about the most glaring hole. Until this year, I'm not sure I can ever recall the medium forward being that deficiency.

Last year it was midfield pace and goal-scoring options, and Lovett was supposed to be the answer to that.

The year before, it was all about "class" after being smashed by the two Grand Finalists - and Ben Cousins was supposedly the big missed opportunity.

As for "blame", blame St Kilda for not being one of the old mafia clubs, with 10 million dollars in the bank and a recruiting staff of 12.

[samoht]

Every year we dissect the team's performance and obsess about the most glaring hole. Until this year, I'm not sure I can ever recall the medium forward being that deficiency.

Last year it was midfield pace and goal-scoring options, and Lovett was supposed to be the answer to that.

The year before, it was all about "class" after being smashed by the two Grand Finalists - and Ben Cousins was supposedly the big missed opportunity.

As for "blame", blame St Kilda for not being one of the old mafia clubs, with 10 million dollars in the bank and a recruiting staff of 12.

Nothing is mutually exclusive - you could and should all along - every year recruit talented footballers that also happen to be quick and add pace to the side - especially if it's required.and it has been in our case for quite a few years.

What's wrong with having an overall plan - that includes pace or height or whatever the team needs for balance?

If you happen to have too many small forwards - that can't handle the physicality of finals - what's wrong with targeting bigger stronger bodied medium sized forwards who can ?

We needed a longer term overriding plan with balance in mind.

We have a very good backline, a reasonable midfield and a dysfunctional forward line - so which area do we need to rectify ?

To me it's the forward line.

Do we have an inbalance - too many small forwards - and are we playing too many smalls in Montagna, Milne, Schneider and McQualter ?
Yes - I think we are - especially in finals.

Do we lack overall pace - yes we do - we should have had a better recruiting plan to make sure we don't have a pace inbalance - we do need pace too.

I'm not just blaming one thing - nothing is that simple - but if you are going to blame one thing - maybe we can blame the recruiters (that's where the problem starts) - for not having an overall plan for team balance... be it pace or recruiting too many smalls and not enough medium sized goalkickers.
The buck stops there - especially for lacking an overall plan to have the right team balance in place,

[saintsRrising]

The buck stops there - especially for lacking an overall plan to have the right team balance in place,

You have to be kidding.

Recruiting in recent years has revolved around improving team balance, and at the expense of say taking best available young talent in the draft (and IMO quite wisely so too given that we had many good players, but equally many holes). One can argue the toss about whether the players chosen or not were the right ones...but there clearly is a plan in place re team balance and recruiting.

Ruck: Gardiner, King for immediate with younguns in Ben and Rhys..

Medium forwards: We have struggled since Hamill retired prematurely..... and things have so far not turn out..though some options may.

Firstly note that a variety of player types can play asa third forward.

Allen was clearly being groomed for the role..a freak injury ended his carrer.

Charlie Gardiner...almost good enough..but not quite.

Lovett targetted as a running pacey HFF ho could also run through the middle..

Lynch, Heyne and Walsh are all possibilities...as is Cahill.

Gwilt was perservered with.....could not quite make it before establishing himself as a back.

And now this year Gamble has been reruited asa medium forward.

FB: Zac

Additional small fwd/mid = Schneider
Additional running player = Ray

.................................... with pace = Peake


Midfield pace and footskills = dominated this years early draft picks.

[saintsRrising]

I still have a feeling they didn't prioritise a medium forward - :

Lynch
Heyne
Cahill


plus Lovett who was running medium HFF.

Even Walsh.....who may become a key forward...or third forward.

Aagain you can argue whether they were the right picks or not...but all can play in that capacity.

[Dr Spaceman]

Medium forwards: We have struggled since Hamill retired prematurely..... and things have so far not turn out..though some options may.

Firstly note that a variety of player types can play asa third forward.

Allen was clearly being groomed for the role..a freak injury ended his carrer.

Charlie Gardiner...almost good enough..but not quite.

Lovett targetted as a running pacey HFF ho could also run through the middle..

Lynch, Heyne and Walsh are all possibilities...as is Cahill.

Gwilt was perservered with.....could not quite make it before establishing himself as a back.

And now this year Gamble has been reruited asa medium forward

You beat me too it sR.

I'm not sure what some people want. There's always reference to a "Hamill" or a "Ryan O'Keefe" type. The fact that these two names are always thrown up suggests there's not many of these types of players running around. So I'm not sure where we're supposed to pick one up from, especially with the picks we've had.

Nonetheless I reckon we've had a fair crack at it in recent years and it will only take one of Gamble, Lynch, Heyne, Siposs, Walsh, Cahill or Archer to seize the moment and we'll all be able to focus on something else.

In the meantime, if anyone knows the address of the Hamill Mart, or the O'Keefe Superstore, perhaps they could advise the good folk at Moorabbin

[Con Gorozidis]

Every year we dissect the team's performance and obsess about the most glaring hole. Until this year, I'm not sure I can ever recall the medium forward being that deficiency.

Last year it was midfield pace and goal-scoring options, and Lovett was supposed to be the answer to that.

The year before, it was all about "class" after being smashed by the two Grand Finalists - and Ben Cousins was supposedly the big missed opportunity.

As for "blame", blame St Kilda for not being one of the old mafia clubs, with 10 million dollars in the bank and a recruiting staff of 12.

Nothing is mutually exclusive - you could and should all along - every year recruit talented footballers that also happen to be quick and add pace to the side - especially if it's required.and it has been in our case for quite a few years.

What's wrong with having an overall plan - that includes pace or height or whatever the team needs for balance?

If you happen to have too many small forwards - that can't handle the physicality of finals - what's wrong with targeting bigger stronger bodied medium sized forwards who can ?

We needed a longer term overriding plan with balance in mind.

We have a very good backline, a reasonable midfield and a dysfunctional forward line - so which area do we need to rectify ?

To me it's the forward line.

Do we have an inbalance - too many small forwards - and are we playing too many smalls in Montagna, Milne, Schneider and McQualter ?
Yes - I think we are - especially in finals.

Do we lack overall pace - yes we do - we should have had a better recruiting plan to make sure we don't have a pace inbalance - we do need pace too.

I'm not just blaming one thing - nothing is that simple - but if you are going to blame one thing - maybe we can blame the recruiters (that's where the problem starts) - for not having an overall plan for team balance... be it pace or recruiting too many smalls and not enough medium sized goalkickers.
The buck stops there - especially for lacking an overall plan to have the right team balance in place,

great post samoht. spot on the money. nailed it!

player development/recruitment is core business and should take place no matter where u are on the ladder or ur perceived stage in the so called cycle. Not a single player 21 or under throughout our 3 week final campaign should ring alarm bells and be a disappointment for fans.

i also think lyon was so focussed on swans 2005 tempo footy (shut em down, squeeze em then surge in the 3rd quarter then lock down the last) he took his eye of what other clubs were doing to counter what was a very successful approach. and jeez it nearly worked again.

[Mr Magic]

So if the ball had bounced through the goals instead of through the points would there even be any discussion on here about any of this?

For something so glaringly obviously wrong about us we were a singel bounce away from a flag.

We must be unbelievable in the few areas we are good at top compensate for all our 'glaringl;y obvious faults?

And btw, does anybody seriously believe that any recruiter/list management person employed at any AFL Club (including us) does not know what they are looking for when they look at draft prospects?

You may not like their choices but to question their 'planning' seems nonsensical to me.

AFL CLubs don't just hire the first idiot that comes along as a recruiter.
Everybody involved in the process has knowledge in the area - far more knowledge than those of us expressing opinions on their knowledge or lack of it.

At St Kilda I am sure that the recruiting staff are given a brief by the match committee as to what they perceive our weaknesses are in the short/mid/long term and are briefed to find players to fit into those categories.

Unlike some on here profess to have, I don't have any inside knowledge about this, but to think/pretend that these guys who are employed in this area just sit around twiddling their thumbs all year before eventually plucking names out of a hat on draft day sounds ridiculous to me.

[Dr Spaceman]

So if the ball had bounced through the goals instead of through the points would there even be any discussion on here about any of this?

There'd be 100 threads but they'd all be about how great we are






And about how great our recruiting and development has been

[samoht]

So if the ball had bounced through the goals instead of through the points would there even be any discussion on here about any of this?

For something so glaringly obviously wrong about us we were a singel bounce away from a flag.

We must be unbelievable in the few areas we are good at top compensate for all our 'glaringl;y obvious faults?

And btw, does anybody seriously believe that any recruiter/list management person employed at any AFL Club (including us) does not know what they are looking for when they look at draft prospects?

You may not like their choices but to question their 'planning' seems nonsensical to me.

AFL CLubs don't just hire the first idiot that comes along as a recruiter.
Everybody involved in the process has knowledge in the area - far more knowledge than those of us expressing opinions on their knowledge or lack of it.

At St Kilda I am sure that the recruiting staff are given a brief by the match committee as to what they perceive our weaknesses are in the short/mid/long term and are briefed to find players to fit into those categories.

Unlike some on here profess to have, I don't have any inside knowledge about this, but to think/pretend that these guys who are employed in this area just sit around twiddling their thumbs all year before eventually plucking names out of a hat on draft day sounds ridiculous to me.

Whichever way we cut and slice it - we have a dysfunctional forward line the team lacks pace (lowly Essendon keeps proving that)and we have players with poor kicking skills... plus we have to pluck good players from our backline to bolster a lousy forward line .

Our backline plus midfield can still keep us in the top 2 or 3 despite our forward line - but while we're in limbo and trying to take that next step Collingwood has managed to take 3 steps and move past us.

[vacuous space]

In the meantime, if anyone knows the address of the Hamill Mart, or the O'Keefe Superstore, perhaps they could advise the good folk at Moorabbin

The odd thing being that the two teams that picked O'Keefe and Hamill did so late. They had no idea the gold mines they'd just unearthed. Years later multiple first round draftees are labelled as ROK types. Very few of them play the way ROK did in Sydney's glory years once they hit the AFL. ROK himself doesn't play as an ROK forward anymore either. I don't think there's any regular forward in the AFL who combines the ability to play tall or small the way those two did.

IMO, Gilbert has the ability to be that kind of player. His ground level ability is underrated. Last time I mentioned that, somebody took issue, presumably because they saw him fumble the ball below his knees at some point (as all players do). It's tough to find a defender who has won as much ground level ball as Gilbert has the last two years - and he's 194 cm. I don't think anybody would disagree that he's capable of playing tall or providing the pressure element of playing forward. Defenders will really think twice about taking off with him there. His tackles hurt. It's also worth pointing out that Gilbert's suspect kicking isn't really that different from ROK himself.

I can believe that Tudor would have wanted Gilbert forward. Shifting Gilbert forward was one of the first things we did after Tudor came aboard. Then he moved back at the end of that preseason and we never looked back. I'm guessing SOS probably wanted him back, and I wouldn't be shocked if Elshaug/Royal pushed for him to play more minutes in the middle. Line coaches generally want good players and I'm guessing there was a lot of fighting over Gilbert and Goddard. Ultimately, we settled Gilbert back, but the emergence of Gwilt in particular has given us options to move people around that we might not have before.

I think everyone is looking for those medium forward factories. As far as I can tell, there have been no players moved in recent years who could have made a difference in that position. None of the ROK kids are playing well enough that they could have been that guy either. The only real options were ones that would have hurt us elsewhere. You can see why RL ultimately decided against those moves.

[samoht]

I'll be happy with the Gilbert move forward - or even playing in the middle to provide some much needed run - as long as we haven't weakened our backline in so doing.

Even with Gilbert playing well up forward - we ended up losing the GF2 by 56 points.
It's not only about how well Gilbert is playing - it's about the team winning.

Our back line floundered - you can't take good players away and expect the backline to hold up.

And whilst Gilbert may have played a solo hand forward - Shaw, Thomas and O'Brien played like a unit and as if they had no opponents and got about 90 match winning possessions between them.

We need more than solo performances forward - our forwards must work as a unit and each do their bit and contribute - even if they can't kick goals can't they at least chase down and tackle Shaw, Thomas and O'Brien ? .. is that too much to ask ?.

We definitely need ready made hard working medium sized forwards and should be saving our dollars and planning to pounce on the next Burgoyne, or look for the next Dangerfield or two etc.. that comes along.

[InkerSaint]

great post samoht. spot on the money. nailed it!

player development/recruitment is core business and should take place no matter where u are on the ladder or ur perceived stage in the so called cycle. Not a single player 21 or under throughout our 3 week final campaign should ring alarm bells and be a disappointment for fans.

Don't be shy, Con. My invitation is open to all.

Name the names of these players who would have made the difference to a Grand Final team, that were available at a draft pick held by the Saints in the last four years.

[samoht]

Name the names of these players who would have made the difference to a Grand Final team, that were available at a draft pick held by the Saints in the last four years.

Here's one straight off in the 2007 Draft -

Patrick Dangerfield - the gun medium forward we crave and need
was pick 10 .. to Adelaide.

but we preferred to go for Ben McEvoy instead - with our pick 9.

some other noteable forwards - we let pass through to the happy keeper.
in 2006 - Tippett was pick 32 .. but our recruiters preferred Brad Howard instead at pick 27 .

and we went for Armitage over Jack Riewoldt .

Our forward line was not prioritised for years and the recruiters neglected it - hence it's now dysfunctional.

[InkerSaint]

Tippett and Jumping Jack, as good as they are, aren't medium forwards.

The one player that fits your criteria - Dangerfield - you would have taken instead of our first decent home-grown ruckman in a decade.

Not that easy to find, are they? And I suppose that you're going to tell me, out of all of the 186cm midfielder-types available, that his particular talent was obvious at age 18.

Who could have said, with foresight, that Dangerfield would evolve into a medium forward and Armo wouldn't?

You complain about draft priorities, but if left up to you we would be dependent on a ruck combo of Rix and Patto for the next 5 years!

[BAM! (shhhh)]

1) Not convinced our forward line is dysfunctional at all.
2) Not convinced we've got any desperate need for a medium forward (Dangerfield over McEvoy woulf have helped in GF2 would it? hmmm, what might have helped more is curtainling a rampant Jolly with Michael Gardiner... but I'm sure a starving Dangerfield would have been nice to have)
3) I suspect when people bemoan lack of medium forward, they really mean gun forward. Hammill, Johnson, O'Keefe. Guess what, a gun ANYTHING will make us a lot better.
4) Saying our recruiters have ignored medium forwards over the last decade is just not true.

Make no mistake, the single biggest factor in an improved Saints offense is getting a full season out of Reiwoldt. This by itself could easily kick our offense back up the tree from (a "dysfunctional") 8th to 4th. Other things like a more dangerous rebound game and improved stoppage play will have more impact than any single player.

If a medium forward (Gilbert or one of the kids) falls into our laps, great. Otherwise, the lack of a niche role player is far from being a major concern.

[stinger]

I'd love to know the names of these players who would have made the difference to a Grand Final team, that were available at a draft pick held by the Saints in the last four years.

Or maybe the Saints should have done a cull and bottomed out?

jack riewoldt.....2006

cyril rioli...........2007




you asked...

[SainterK]

I'd love to know the names of these players who would have made the difference to a Grand Final team, that were available at a draft pick held by the Saints in the last four years.

Or maybe the Saints should have done a cull and bottomed out?

jack riewoldt.....2006

cyril rioli...........2007




you asked...

I for one look forward to seeing Ben and Armo receiving their 2011 premiership medallions, disproving this theory.

[samoht]

Tippett and Jumping Jack, as good as they are, aren't medium forwards.

The one player that fits your criteria - Dangerfield - you would have taken instead of our first decent home-grown ruckman in a decade.

Not that easy to find, are they? And I suppose that you're going to tell me, out of all of the 186cm midfielder-types available, that his particular talent was obvious at age 18.

Who could have said, with foresight, that Dangerfield would evolve into a medium forward and Armo wouldn't?

You complain about draft priorities, but if left up to you we would be dependent on a ruck combo of Rix and Patto for the next 5 years!

Rucks are neither here nor there - they just negate each other apart from Sandilands who at least can tap to advantage and get his 20 possesions around the ground - and a couple of others like Cox who is also handy around the ground.
The rest are all plodders.

As I've been saying all along - our forward line is dysfunctional !! .. and has been neglected.

I'm obviously not saying that Tippett and Riewoldt are medium forwards - but they would have been handy full forwards.

Wouldn't they (one of them at least ) have helped our dysfunctional forward line ?

and .. we should have kept the powder dry and gone after the medium forwards - the Motlops, the Burgoynes, the Dangerfields in the draft (that was inexcusable).
Target uncontracted players - anything !

i.e. Do something - Don't neglect the forward line and the team balance when recruiting..

re: Dangerfield and Armitage - Dangerfield is quick - we need pace too.
So Dangerfield is ahead on all counts.

So another instance where the team balance and pace ingredient was neglected by the recruiters.