Lyon Promises Exciting Footy

[DK27]

After a quick skim of these 8 pages I need to make a comment on our recent recruiting.

In '06 we picked up Armitage at 9 as the 3rd best mid in the draft. We wanted a midfielder in Boak or Selwood who went before our pick. After our pick it looks like a pretty weak draft really with only some good talls in N. Brown, J. Frawley and J. Riewoldt taken just after pick 9. Armitage looks to be the classic early developer in that as a junior he could dominate with more muscle but has not really improved much since. Not a good pick in my view as he had obvious flaws (only a left foot and slow) that at best would make him an average AFL player.

In '07 we picked McEvoy at 9 as the second best ruck in the draft in theory. He did not play first ruck for Murray Bushrangers (Dawson Simpson) so played as a forward in a Kossie style mainly which means he is slowish but good sticky hands. Because he is not quick on the lead he has to take contested marks and once the ball hits the ground is not much good. In summary, not quite a ruckman and not quite a forward. This was a bad pick as after pick 9 Dangerfield, Rioli, Ebert, Grimes and Ward were taken. I wanted Ward at the time. He has had injury problems but will be a gun at some point.

In '08 we picked Lynch at 13 as a Hamill style forward. He wasn't on my radar pre draft so I am not sure where this pick came from. Looks a bit slow again, a bit soft and not tall enough for key position but could still improve to play regular footy. After pick 13 went Shuey, Trengove, Suban, Wright, McKernan, Hannabery, Roughead, Jones and Liam Anthony. I thought we would go McKernan or Roughead at the time. We will see who will turn out better. (My money is on McKernan or Roughead)

Overall, if we had picked up one or two of the other players listed we would probably have a premiership cup.

Those saying ruckmen are not important are on crack. Jolly killed us in the second grand final and relying on Gardiner for '11 is dangerous with his injury history with only an average McEvoy, Kossie and emerging Stanley as options.

Apparently we have a ruckman in mind for the rookie draft. I hope they are ready for next year.

On a positive note, I think with the picks we had, we chose well this year. Cripps in particular is what we need and I thought he would be gone by our pick. We should see him play seniors next year at some point.

[samoht]

DK 27

A nice summary... and I agree 100% with you.

It's about recruiting selectively and players must meet certain criteria - speed, skill etc, and you should only recruit with team balance in mind.

We haven't done that - quite clearly.

re: ruckmen -
Everyone would agree a good tap ruckmen is important - but they are a very rare find.
The best you can hope for is for an athletic mobile big man, who can be useful around the ground - and get his 20 odd possessions ,, whilst negating the opposition ruckman at centre bounces.
Hopefullly that ruckman we have in mind ticks all the right boxes - we don't just recruit for the sake of recruiting "a ruckman" even if he is ready to go next year.
No more plodders.

This year we belatedly went for pace ..we should always choose pace and skill.
If we did players like Dangerfield would not have been overlooked.

[plugger66]

DK 27

A nice summary... and I agree 100% with you.

It's about recruiting selectively and players must meet certain criteria - speed, skill etc, and you should only recruit with team balance in mind.

We haven't done that - quite clearly.

re: ruckmen -
Everyone would agree a good tap ruckmen is important - but they are a very rare find.
The best you can hope for is for an athletic mobile big man, who can be useful around the ground - and get his 20 odd possessions ,, whilst negating the opposition ruckman at centre bounces.
Hopefullly that ruckman we have in mind ticks all the right boxes - we don't just recruit for the sake of recruiting "a ruckman" even if he is ready to go next year.
No more plodders.

This year we belatedly went for pace ..we should always choose pace.
If we did players like Dangerfield would not have been overlooked.

The problem is that you are mentioning players in hindsight. Of course Dangerfield would be good because we now know how good he is but what about the many others who have failed. Reiwoldt would be good as well but again that is hindsight.

When we went for McEvoy no one knew Kosi was going to struggle this year and lets face it if he was as good as last year we may very well have won the flag and I certainly wouldnt be having this discussion and I doubt you would either.

[samoht]

DK 27

A nice summary... and I agree 100% with you.

It's about recruiting selectively and players must meet certain criteria - speed, skill etc, and you should only recruit with team balance in mind.

We haven't done that - quite clearly.

re: ruckmen -
Everyone would agree a good tap ruckmen is important - but they are a very rare find.
The best you can hope for is for an athletic mobile big man, who can be useful around the ground - and get his 20 odd possessions ,, whilst negating the opposition ruckman at centre bounces.
Hopefullly that ruckman we have in mind ticks all the right boxes - we don't just recruit for the sake of recruiting "a ruckman" even if he is ready to go next year.
No more plodders.

This year we belatedly went for pace ..we should always choose pace.
If we did players like Dangerfield would not have been overlooked.

The problem is that you are mentioning players in hindsight. Of course Dangerfield would be good because we now know how good he is but what about the many others who have failed. Reiwoldt would be good as well but again that is hindsight.

When we went for McEvoy no one knew Kosi was going to struggle this year and lets face it if he was as good as last year we may very well have won the flag and I certainly wouldnt be having this discussion and I doubt you would either.

Not about my hindsight - plus it doesn't take much foresight to realise -

A slow player is always going to be slow... they won't develop speed.
But for a quick skillful player like Dangerfield - the world is his oyster.

[plugger66]

DK 27

A nice summary... and I agree 100% with you.

It's about recruiting selectively and players must meet certain criteria - speed, skill etc, and you should only recruit with team balance in mind.

We haven't done that - quite clearly.

re: ruckmen -
Everyone would agree a good tap ruckmen is important - but they are a very rare find.
The best you can hope for is for an athletic mobile big man, who can be useful around the ground - and get his 20 odd possessions ,, whilst negating the opposition ruckman at centre bounces.
Hopefullly that ruckman we have in mind ticks all the right boxes - we don't just recruit for the sake of recruiting "a ruckman" even if he is ready to go next year.
No more plodders.

This year we belatedly went for pace ..we should always choose pace.
If we did players like Dangerfield would not have been overlooked.

The problem is that you are mentioning players in hindsight. Of course Dangerfield would be good because we now know how good he is but what about the many others who have failed. Reiwoldt would be good as well but again that is hindsight.

When we went for McEvoy no one knew Kosi was going to struggle this year and lets face it if he was as good as last year we may very well have won the flag and I certainly wouldnt be having this discussion and I doubt you would either.

A slow player is always going to be slow... they won't develop speed.
But for a quick skillful player like Dangerfield - the world is his oyster.

What about all the quick players who have failed. It is all in hindsight.

[samoht]

DK 27

A nice summary... and I agree 100% with you.

It's about recruiting selectively and players must meet certain criteria - speed, skill etc, and you should only recruit with team balance in mind.

We haven't done that - quite clearly.

re: ruckmen -
Everyone would agree a good tap ruckmen is important - but they are a very rare find.
The best you can hope for is for an athletic mobile big man, who can be useful around the ground - and get his 20 odd possessions ,, whilst negating the opposition ruckman at centre bounces.
Hopefullly that ruckman we have in mind ticks all the right boxes - we don't just recruit for the sake of recruiting "a ruckman" even if he is ready to go next year.
No more plodders.

This year we belatedly went for pace ..we should always choose pace.
If we did players like Dangerfield would not have been overlooked.

The problem is that you are mentioning players in hindsight. Of course Dangerfield would be good because we now know how good he is but what about the many others who have failed. Reiwoldt would be good as well but again that is hindsight.

When we went for McEvoy no one knew Kosi was going to struggle this year and lets face it if he was as good as last year we may very well have won the flag and I certainly wouldnt be having this discussion and I doubt you would either.

A slow player is always going to be slow... they won't develop speed.
But for a quick skillful player like Dangerfield - the world is his oyster.

What about all the quick players who have failed. It is all in hindsight.

Like who ? .. I mean bad luck does happen,
Which skillful, pacy players have failed ?
remember Dangerfield is skilllful and fast.

[plugger66]

DK 27

A nice summary... and I agree 100% with you.

It's about recruiting selectively and players must meet certain criteria - speed, skill etc, and you should only recruit with team balance in mind.

We haven't done that - quite clearly.

re: ruckmen -
Everyone would agree a good tap ruckmen is important - but they are a very rare find.
The best you can hope for is for an athletic mobile big man, who can be useful around the ground - and get his 20 odd possessions ,, whilst negating the opposition ruckman at centre bounces.
Hopefullly that ruckman we have in mind ticks all the right boxes - we don't just recruit for the sake of recruiting "a ruckman" even if he is ready to go next year.
No more plodders.

This year we belatedly went for pace ..we should always choose pace.
If we did players like Dangerfield would not have been overlooked.

The problem is that you are mentioning players in hindsight. Of course Dangerfield would be good because we now know how good he is but what about the many others who have failed. Reiwoldt would be good as well but again that is hindsight.

When we went for McEvoy no one knew Kosi was going to struggle this year and lets face it if he was as good as last year we may very well have won the flag and I certainly wouldnt be having this discussion and I doubt you would either.

A slow player is always going to be slow... they won't develop speed.
But for a quick skillful player like Dangerfield - the world is his oyster.

What about all the quick players who have failed. It is all in hindsight.

Like who ? .. I mean bad luck does happen,
Which skillful, pacy players have failed ?
remember Dangerfield is skilllful and fast.

From just that draft I would say David Myers, pick 6 hasnt been very good and Patrick Vespremi, pick 12 so there is 2 straight away.

[DK27]

Myers and Vespremi have had injuries. Myers was recruited as a running half back with a great kick but was never super quick and is a bit soft. May still make it. Vespremi was again an early developer so at u18 level was a man playing against boys. He has found it hard playing against men. I think there is something else going on with him for Sydney to move him on. Attitude?

Our recruiters don't take dichheads which I agree with. This probably ruled out Rioli and Vespremi among others. In addition we should only recruit players who can run and kick which is what Collingwood has been doing for years. This year we have finally done this with our first 3 picks. All fast and can kick. Lets see over the next few years if they tackle and put their head over the ball too.

In todays game you may be brave and a great tackler but if you aren't fast you won't even make the contest. The ball will be gone by the time you get there. A great example was Lynch playing on Fletcher this year. In the first quarter Lynch trailed Fletcher to the contest often, sometimes by only a metre or two, but the ball was gone before he got there. Looked really bad. It really limits the match ups. I remember McQualter on Adelaide's Edwards years ago and the same thing happened. Shane Birss' last game was on Wojinski and he looked terrible. Could not put a tackle on even when he was between Wojo and the goals. He got dragged and never played again. In todays game each team can carry one or two slowish inside mids but that is it. Everyone else must be able to run fast.

And Plugger. My comments on Armitage, McEvoy and Lynch all being slow is valid and not just in hindsight. Anyone who saw them play in u18's could see that. Our recruiters included. With those early picks you need to get it consistantly right or the team over time will struggle.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

In '07 we picked McEvoy at 9 as the second best ruck in the draft in theory. He did not play first ruck for Murray Bushrangers (Dawson Simpson) so played as a forward in a Kossie style mainly which means he is slowish but good sticky hands. Because he is not quick on the lead he has to take contested marks and once the ball hits the ground is not much good. In summary, not quite a ruckman and not quite a forward. This was a bad pick as after pick 9 Dangerfield, Rioli, Ebert, Grimes and Ward were taken. I wanted Ward at the time. He has had injury problems but will be a gun at some point.

Just wondering, is the implication that McEvoy (who won the Bushrangers B&F and captained Vic Country in '07) was 2nd fiddle to Dawson Simpson deliberate? McEvoy played wherever he could have the most impact, delivering contested marking and good usage all over the ground. Dawson simpson played most of 2007 with a broken wrist, but nobody noticed because his 8 touches a game were incidental to his ability to be 205cm tall.

At McEvoy's age, Darren Jolly was a nobody, 2nd ruck at Melbourne. 2 years later he was the starting ruckman for the premiers. 5 years after that he was unlucky not to win the Norm Smith.

The best player from Jolly's draft class 1 year after it happened? Justin Koschitzke.

McEvoy is tracking just fine.

[DK27]

You are right BAM.

Dawson Simpson played first ruck because he could get his hand to the ball first in the middle but was pretty useless around the ground. McEvoy doesn't jump that well in the middle so gets beaten in the ruck but has great aerobic capacity so can run all day (all be it pretty slowly) and get posessions around the ground. Sticky hands and a good kick led him to be used as a forward for large portions of games. At times as a junior he was beaten in the ruck and as a forward so he was benched. Not a good sign at u18 level. He will be a solid AFL player, of great character who will always give 100%.

If you want a match winner, I would have picked one of the 3 or 4 midfielders picked after him and as I stated previously, Ward was my pick before the draft. Time will tell who will be the better player.

[DK27]

By way. Jolly always had talent but was second in line to Jeff White which limited his opportunities. I bet Melbourne wish they kept him and passed on Jeff White instead.

I recall a game at the G when White was injured and Jolly killed StKilda at the time. Neitz kicked plenty that day on Hudgton I recall. A long time ago now. Neitz was the only one who regularly troubled Maxy from memory.

[samoht]

Good posts DK27 - you should post more often.

For those that consider pace is not important only need to look at the International Rules .
The Gaelic footballers were spanking us at one stage (until we added pace ourselves) - despite having to cope with the unfamiliar physical pressure AFL players applied... they were quicker and ran the pants off us.

once we chose quicker players - I think Sheedy realised what the problem was - we started to win games.

But there's also a psychological aspect to this - how does Tom Lynch feel and how has he been affected after 35 or 36 year old Fletcher tears past him and denies him time and again of getting to the ball.
what does something like that do to his development ?

[Dr Spaceman]

But there's also a psychological aspect to this - how does Tom Lynch feel and how has he been affected after 35 or 36 year old Fletcher tears past him and denies him time and again of getting to the ball.
what does something like that do to his development ?

Well if he wants to be an AFL player he simply sucks it up, puts it down to needing to adjust to the pace of the senior game and works his butt off.

Fletcher beat him not neccessarily because he's faster but because he has more confidence and knows the flow of the game.

If Lynch had cost us a GF he may find himself lying on a couch on a regular basis, however the Fletcher/Lynch dual cost us nothing (not even a H & A win).

Let's face it, if that match destroyed TL then he simply doesn't have what it takes to make it in the AFL.

However I'm confident that next time he gets a crack at it he will acquit himself much better.

[DK27]

Interesting comments about Tom Lynch. He reminds me a bit of young S. Fisher or J. Gwilt. Maybe doesn't have the raw ability or tricks to be a forward but may find a spot as a half back where it is easier to read the ball coming in and use his footy smarts to cut the ball off. Unfortunately there are a lot of players at StKilda like him so will have trouble finding a spot. Blake, Fisher, Gwilt, Dempster, Gilbert, Clarke all are a similar height, play back, and don't really have the ability to play forward at this time. Gilbert may be the exception and we will see how he goes next year.

[SainterK]

Tom Lynch will be a lead up forward, won't he?

[rodgerfox]

The Saints have the best 'lead up forward' in the comp, probably ever.

[WinnersOnly]

That is a perfect summary of our poor recruitiing since Mr Peake and RL have been at the club. They have recuited for need when obviously there were much better players selected after ours in each draft.

I am not convinced that McEvoy will develop into anything more than he already is - a slow cumbersome ruckman with no leap ! Dawson Simpson will do better than McEvoy when Ottens retires.

Stanley has far more upside that McEvoy but he is not ready.

The club will be mindful of the new sub rule but if Gardiner goes down again we dont have anyone ready to fill the void - McEvoy/Stanley are not. IMO theny do need another ruck option particularly given Gaertner has quit.

[Gershwin]

DK27 you are writing off Armitage, McElroy and Lynch on the basis that later picks have done better.

In 2000 we took Kossie but could have taken Didak !
In 2001 we took Ball but could have taken Judd !
We nailed it in 2002 with Goddard.
In 2003 we took R. Clarke but could have taken Stanton, Mundy, Adcock, Rischitelli, etc
In 2004 we took McQualter but could have taken Le Cras, Sherman, Knights
In 2005 we traded for Fergus Watts ?? and took Gilbert and could have got Swallow.

What is the point in looking back and saying we didn't get it right !
You do your best and move on.

Armitage, McElroy and Lynch will be good players for us. They were good picks at the time IMO.

[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...

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

the two flag where they would have made a difference have already gone

[noob]

Gershwin don't forget we could have taken bartel(#8) instead we picked clarke at #5

[kalsaint]

okay.....i will be more specific.....2 grand final.....8 quarters......we played like headless unthinking chooks in 5 out of the 8 quarters.....and you lot should stop making excuses for the dribble the boys dished up in the first half of the 1st grand final and for 3 out of 4 quarters in the second one.....the filth simply outplayed us the second time...yeah...we were shot....why weren't they????

Well that's easy, look at the individuals for Collingwood that basically had a week off GF1 and their potential upside....even the media painted it that way after week one.

Oh, and we no longer had the advantage of knowing what what not winning felt like, and their kids no longer were inexperienced.

Not sure of your point here.

Call me a whinger as per the earliest points in this thread but as Stinger says; the Filth totally outplayed us in both finals and we were lucky to not be 40 points behind at half time in the first GF. We woudnt have come back from there as seen by GF2.

The memory of losing a GF was not lost after the first GF result, the game plan and lack of application of the second string players simply werent up to it the second time round.

I would love to see a more attacking game in 2011 but I dont believe we have the speed or kicking skills needed to effect quick ball transfer against good, reasonable fast defensive sides. We were also found out in this regard all over 2010 as we did not protect our ball carriers well enough.

[matrix]

pffft
they did not totally out play us in both finals imo
they did in game two
but really only out played us in just under a half of game one

[Mr Magic]

GF1 reminded me a lot of the Ali-Foreman fight in Zaire.

They jumped out to an early lead in the first quarter and we pegged them back.

They threw everything at us in the second quarter and at times it looked like we were trying to hold back the inevitable tide.
But many of the behinds they scored were as a result of us 'rushing' the ball through.

We absorbed everything they hit us with and went in at half time 24 points down.

Yes they missed some glaringly bad shots at goal in the latter stages of the third quarter, but they'd done that all year - missed relatively easy shots when under mental pressure.

I think far too many are dismissing our efforts in the first GF by remembering only the hammering we took (after wasting many opportunities in the second quarter) in GF2.

IMHO we were 1 bounce/1 minute away from our second premiership in GF1.

And that was with our terrible gameplan, recycled hack players, shocking coach, terrible recruiting, shytehouse ability etc, etc.

Forget 'rose coloured glasses'.
What is more staggering to me is this seemingly compulsive need to denigrate everything about us.
Why do some posters feel the need to knock almost everything about our Club?
A need to feel 'inferior' maybe?
Are they scared to admit the pride in watching us become a hated/feared team to the opposition?
The opposition hates the way we play?
Big deal.
They hate the fact that we now beat them regularly more.
Would they like us better if we beat them playing 'pretty football'?
Utter nonsense IMO.

We've just experienced possibly the greatest 2 seasons in the history of our Club and none of it was any good?
We were simply lucky that everybody else was more terrible than us?

Some sense of reality in this debate would be nice.
But that's just my opinion, obviously looking through 'rose coloured glasses' becasue I don't see everything as 'doom and gloom'.

[matrix]

i can remember bumping into a poster from here at half time in gf one

we're gone matrix

steady on, yeah it doesnt look good, but if we kick the first couple mate we are well back in this but ya right, we dont look 100% look like we REALLY want it

then lenny busted a a gut

the bj took the hanger and i was on my knees with the ticket lady laughing at me from her spot at the aisles entrance
filth around me were getting worried
i had tears coming from under my glasses before bj hit the deck

we were gonna do it

the best half of football i have ever seen live

[SaintPav]

DK 27

A nice summary... and I agree 100% with you.

It's about recruiting selectively and players must meet certain criteria - speed, skill etc, and you should only recruit with team balance in mind.

We haven't done that - quite clearly.

re: ruckmen -
Everyone would agree a good tap ruckmen is important - but they are a very rare find.
The best you can hope for is for an athletic mobile big man, who can be useful around the ground - and get his 20 odd possessions ,, whilst negating the opposition ruckman at centre bounces.
Hopefullly that ruckman we have in mind ticks all the right boxes - we don't just recruit for the sake of recruiting "a ruckman" even if he is ready to go next year.
No more plodders.

This year we belatedly went for pace ..we should always choose pace.
If we did players like Dangerfield would not have been overlooked.

The problem is that you are mentioning players in hindsight. Of course Dangerfield would be good because we now know how good he is but what about the many others who have failed. Reiwoldt would be good as well but again that is hindsight.

When we went for McEvoy no one knew Kosi was going to struggle this year and lets face it if he was as good as last year we may very well have won the flag and I certainly wouldnt be having this discussion and I doubt you would either.

A slow player is always going to be slow... they won't develop speed.
But for a quick skillful player like Dangerfield - the world is his oyster.

What about all the quick players who have failed. It is all in hindsight.

I agree with Plugger on this. Speed does not guarantees squat. I would have loved to have seen Dangerfield with us. He reminds me of a quick version of BJ.