typical you really are enjoying fans at st kilda getting angry at each other aren't you?NeXuss wrote:The fact is, when GT was our coach we played finals.
just another bit of poison in the well?
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
Can't speak for the rest, part of the reason I'm still involved is just that B4E isn't. While clearly on the same side of the fence, sRr is a reasonable poster (provided he and I don't go flying off on tangents, but I can't leave all the blame on him for that) so the discussion can be had, and I think the discussion itself is reasonable given where we're at, comparing the current coach to the benchmark of his predecessor.Dan Warna wrote:pointless thread TBH, the whatiff blame game.
none of the sides will agree on the issues so there is really little point in regurgitating the same dross that the last 18 months have delivered.
we have the team we have.
we have the coach we have.
GT is gone adn is unlikely to return.
we have a new managemetn at the club and whether you are RL fan or not, you are just feeding on the same tripe as we've been dished up before, myself included.
guys like nexxuss and to a lesser degree B4E feed of this shyte (at least B4E buys his membership and is seen around the grounds)
Cheers
Dan
I don't think anyone in the main is "angry".Dan Warna wrote:
you really are enjoying fans at st kilda getting angry at each other aren't you?
:
In 2003 we recruited Raph, Gram, Guerra and Chips. You may be disappointed with the 2003 selections but I doubt RL is. And I am sure RL prefers having Gram and Chips playing for him in their prime rather than as youngsters.st.byron wrote:Lyon is having to rebuild depth in the 20-23 y.o age group because of Thomas' crap choices from 2003 - 2005.
Is this a random sample of mature age players taken by the Saints? What happened to Sammy, G-Train, Voss, Powell, Chips, Black & Fiora … the majority of whom we picked up after Knobel. We have had great success with our mature age players.saintsRrising wrote:So one player out of Knoble, Guerra, Brooks, Watts, Sugar, Rix, McGough, and Gram is fantastic????BAM! (shhhh) wrote:
I don't agree that GT's mature age recruits were a problem or mistake - Gram's fantastic, .
I certainly do not expect anyone to get all their calls right....but 1 in 8 is fantastic???
G-Train, Aussie and Frankie all had issues or were rough diamonds as you call it. They all played their best footy under GT. I still remember Aussie wanting to walk from the club in GT’s early days. GT sacked both of G-Train’s best mates from the club and he still won 2 Colemans afterwards. I am sure G-Train had huge issues with GT but GT still got the best out of him nonetheless.saintsRrising wrote:Is this not the point???? That GT could not manage him...just as GT could not manage any player with "issues"....with the possible exception of GTrain.BAM! (shhhh) wrote:
Guerra has gone on and done fine for Hawthorn,
.
Shaggy wrote:
Is this a random sample of mature age players taken by the Saints? .
Again they are not the players that we are talking about.Shaggy wrote:
What happened to Sammy, G-Train, Voss, Powell, Chips, Black & Fiora … the majority of whom we picked up after Knobel. We have had great success with our mature age players..
??? err.....my point is that once Waldron left and GT took over in this area that the wheels fell off.Shaggy wrote:
Its easy to knock any club/recruiter/coach by focusing discussions on the 5 club delisted players each year. But focusing on the core JB/GT/Waldron/whoever did a wonderful job to rebuild our list from crap to now being a mature strong list IMO. Is it perfect? ... No ... but it is as good as I have seen at the Saints.
My point is we had remarkable success with our mature recruits. There is no way we would have been the force we were in 2004 unless they collectively gelled in a short space of time and yes I give GT a lot of credit for achieving that.Mr Magic wrote:I'm pretty sure that Sammy, G-Train and Voss were recruited when Blight was the coach and Gt was the Football Director.
So I am assuming your point is that as Football Director he had iunput into selecting those players?
If that is your point then it raises the interesting aspect that Gt whilst in his role as Football Director wanted and received the ability to have input on player recruitment but as Coach he apparently refused point-blank to allow anybody other than himself to have much (if any) say about anything to do with football.
In the end I believe that is the reason he was sacked.
???? so this is meant to be an acceptable way fora coach to act????Shaggy wrote:
IMO GT was sacked because he cut out the board and AF..
Shaggy wrote:
. But he didn't trust the Board or their appointees to make decisions .
Strange... I thought that it was actually the St KFC and not the GTFC ???
So why did GT.....only one person......have the right to overule the Board of what is meant to be a public club???
More importnatly why did GT think he had this right????? Very revealing about GT i would think and full reason in itself why sucha power -freak became so destructive at the Saints.
???Shaggy wrote:
He thought he was better placed to make those decisions and IMO he probably was. .
Shaggy wrote:
IMO GT was sacked because of Board politics..
Only problem with your fantasy...is that the dual role was not required..and fact was not wanted. This in fact was what the restructure was largely about. To bring MORE resources to bare including a football manager position.Shaggy wrote:
As it turned out RL in his own way led to the Board going. He brought to bear the lack of support the Board was giving to our operations with their tight monetary control. RL was not prepared to shoulder the dual roles GT was. .
To carry the Board???Shaggy wrote:
That is not a critisism of RL either. I think it was necessary to move the club along but I don't blame GT either for trying to carry the Board.
No my reading is that you are talking about mature recruits. If you are only talking those who played AFL football for other AFL clubs than obviously Brooks, Watts, Gram should not be included. The problem is that you are trying to justify a sample based on a bias. Why include Knobel who was Waldron's time and why not Chips who was post Waldron? If you want big picture than simply look at players who have come across to us as 20 year olds plus and actually we have done very well.saintsRrising wrote:Shaggy wrote:
Is this a random sample of mature age players taken by the Saints? .
No..we were talking about players from other clubs gained once GT had control of the trading...basically from about 2002 I think I mentioned in one of the earlier posts. Essentially the post-Waldron era..
And that is why I think you are always spinning.saintsRrising wrote:Again they are not the players that we are talking about.Shaggy wrote:
What happened to Sammy, G-Train, Voss, Powell, Chips, Black & Fiora … the majority of whom we picked up after Knobel. We have had great success with our mature age players..
Chips was not at another AFL club.
Sammy, GTrain, Voss were part of the Blight era.
Black leaving was due to his wife...not GT
Fiora was basically forced on GT by Black leaving...
Waldron I assume was excellent. I have no idea who was more responsible for selection of the players whether it be Waldron/JB/GT/or who-ever. But as far as talking to the mature recruits to convince them to come across I know it was GT.saintsRrising wrote:??? err.....my point is that once Waldron left and GT took over in this area that the wheels fell off.Shaggy wrote:
Its easy to knock any club/recruiter/coach by focusing discussions on the 5 club delisted players each year. But focusing on the core JB/GT/Waldron/whoever did a wonderful job to rebuild our list from crap to now being a mature strong list IMO. Is it perfect? ... No ... but it is as good as I have seen at the Saints.
So your point of expanding the era to include the Waldron period is not discussing what I am.
If you include the Waldon era...yes I am in full agreement....our list became very good.
It was built and improved.
Then the period I am talking of...it went into decline.
It is now being improved again.
PS Purely from a football success point of view I rate Waldron leaving the club as one of the worst things that happened to the Saints.
The consultants were brought on to justify a decision which they did. If the Saints Board really wanted change they would have forced it upon GT. Instead the only change our Board wanted was GT. Geelong was the opposite. They didn't play the blame game. They instituted changes they thought were required at operational level.saintsRrising wrote:???? so this is meant to be an acceptable way fora coach to act????Shaggy wrote:
IMO GT was sacked because he cut out the board and AF..
How many employees elsewhere do you know that would not be sacked for such behaviour????
Shaggy wrote:
. But he didn't trust the Board or their appointees to make decisions .
Strange... I thought that it was actually the St KFC and not the GTFC ???
So why did GT.....only one person......have the right to overule the Board of what is meant to be a public club???
More importnatly why did GT think he had this right????? Very revealing about GT i would think and full reason in itself why sucha power -freak became so destructive at the Saints.
Must be wonderful to consider oneself omniponent???????Shaggy wrote:
He thought he was better placed to make those decisions and IMO he probably was. .Shaggy wrote:
IMO GT was sacked because of Board politics..
The Board wanted to bring in a more modern football structure. GT point blanked refused.
The guy was control freak that was holding us back.
.Only problem with your fantasy...is that the dual role was not required..and fact was not wanted. This in fact was what the restructure was largely about. To bring MORE resources to bare including a football manager position.Shaggy wrote:
As it turned out RL in his own way led to the Board going. He brought to bear the lack of support the Board was giving to our operations with their tight monetary control. RL was not prepared to shoulder the dual roles GT was. .
Westaway's group may well spend more on football resources, but the previous Board had already starting to ramp this up.
Drain for example was meant to have been employed one year prior to GT going....but GT would not have it.To carry the Board???Shaggy wrote:
That is not a critisism of RL either. I think it was necessary to move the club along but I don't blame GT either for trying to carry the Board.
Also do not forget that a review was done by external consultants to make recommendations about a what modern football club should be like.
By coincidence the Cat's came to similar conclusions.
Thompson did not agree with his Board..but accepted their decisions.
GT did not agree with his Board....and actively opposed the Board's decisons.
This is one reason why he was quite rightly sacked.
??? Considering that my current business is achieved through relationships....and my remuneration is almost totally tied to my personal performance and is variable due to it....you might be surprisedShaggy wrote:
SR we obviously fundamentally disagree with business principles..
.....the Saints became strong through the relationships of RB, MK, RB and GT and others.Shaggy wrote: IMO relationships and performance always comes first before control and process. .
Well 4 years ago I made a personal decision to leave such an environment...so while I understand your point...I do not see it as relevant to GT....and certainly not to my views on business.Shaggy wrote: I have very little time for corporate politics and BS and spinning to justify the BS which invariably comes from the control and process side..
Well that is your opinion. I disagree. However I have posted a number of times that RL was very direct with the club in what was required for success and that the "game" needed to be lifted.Shaggy wrote: IMO RL ultimately was the reason the Board went. He would not make up for their shortfalls whilst GT did. .
Why but? The Board was not a discussion point.Shaggy wrote: But it was right that the Board went.
In the end they did....but in a way that GT did not expect.Shaggy wrote:
. If the Saints Board really wanted change they would have forced it upon GT.
??? Interesting view.Shaggy wrote: Instead the only change our Board wanted was GT.
and we have a winner.Mr Magic wrote:
Easy,
NeXuus managed to post a 'bait thread' that so far has manged to elicit 3500 views and 100+ responses.
the saints now have full time recruiters in every state. This was told at the neil roberts luncheon last week. So recruitment strategy has changed, and this should begin to be reflected in draftees this year onwards.vacuous space wrote:Our recruiting blunders have been indicative of the way our recruiting department has been run for some time. While our board was pumping up debt retirement and $1M profits, our recruiting budget slipped to dead last, behind even the Doggies and Roos. Have a look at those two teams draft and trade records. You get what you pay for in recruiting.
Essendon and Collingwood now have full time recruiters in WA. We haven't even drafted a kid out of WA this decade. We've only had a couple of kids come over from SA. We've spent about as many picks on suburban football as we have SA and WA combined. That's not good enough, IMO, and all this blind speculation on GT ignores that the two post-GT drafts don't look that great either.
Interesting, but over the same period (leaving aside the priority and very early picks which got them the likes of Franklin and Roughead) the Hawks used first and second round draft picks to recruit the likes ofsaintsRrising wrote:How can you possibly ignore rookies???
From 2002 on in the GT period:
Saints
Murray (15 games)
Hawks
Sewell (69 games) Thurgood (13 games) C Young (49 games) Gilham (33 games)
Osborne (78 games) McGlynn(25 games)
Yes leave out rookies and the comparison would certainly look better. Trouble is that the Hawks rookies are still deilvering benefits on the field.
That's very good news. If we're going to be able to compete in the long term, we have to be able to identify talent outside the first round, which is a lot easier to do if you're looking all over the country, not just in Victoria and at the national championships.saintly wrote:the saints now have full time recruiters in every state. This was told at the neil roberts luncheon last week. So recruitment strategy has changed, and this should begin to be reflected in draftees this year onwards.
Shaggy wrote:In 2003 we recruited Raph, Gram, Guerra and Chips. You may be disappointed with the 2003 selections but I doubt RL is. And I am sure RL prefers having Gram and Chips playing for him in their prime rather than as youngsters.st.byron wrote:Lyon is having to rebuild depth in the 20-23 y.o age group because of Thomas' crap choices from 2003 - 2005.
Agree with you here. He does have an excellent bunch of players in their prime. My point is that there is a bloody great yawning gap between these guys and the next gen. of players pushing for senior selection such as Armitage, Allen and Geary. Bugger all in the 20-23y.o bracket except for B.J and Gilbert. Three years of crap selections which Thomas was responsible for.BAM! (shhhh) wrote:If with the quality he has on the list in the 24-26 bracket, Lyon's legacy is decided by the 21-23 year olds, then he doesn't deserve much of a legacy.st.byron wrote:BAM! (shhhh) wrote:[
What I'm saying is that recruiting's impact on the current list is being overplayed. T
What I'm saying is that Grant Thomas' recruiting has zero to do with the legacy of Ross Lyon
Of course it does. Lyon is having to rebuild depth in the 20-23 y.o age group because of Thomas' crap choices from 2003 - 2005.