Lyon doesn't have to apologise for anything

[SainterK]

Yep VS is correct, Lovett was close to joining Geelong. It had alot to do with Geelong's salary cap issues at the time.

[Teflon]

Geelong didn't wise up. The Bombers took Lovett off the table. Bomber talked about it On The Couch last year. They asked him about Lovett. He said that Geelong thought they had a deal in place that would send Prismall to Essendon and Lovett to Geelong. The trade fell through. Geelong only wound up with a 3rd for Prismall. He sounded more than a little annoyed about that.

my read at that time also.

[barks4eva]

Geelong didn't wise up. The Bombers took Lovett off the table. Bomber talked about it On The Couch last year. They asked him about Lovett. He said that Geelong thought they had a deal in place that would send Prismall to Essendon and Lovett to Geelong. The trade fell through. Geelong only wound up with a 3rd for Prismall. He sounded more than a little annoyed about that.

my read at that time also.

How can this be?

Oh, c'mon surely you're not suggesting that Bomber Thompson knows more than stinger about why the Lovett deal with Geelong went belly up?

Stinger has made it clear that he knows more than Riewoldt about how Ball was disrespected by Lyon and apparently he shares the same opinion as Paul Connors, Eddie McGuire, Mick Malthouse and Mike Sheahan on this matter, to the point where he thinks Lyon and Riewoldt are at best being disingenuous, at worst carrying on like a pack of liars, so as you can see, with stinger already in agreement with such esteemed company, why should I believe for one millisecond the preposterous notion you put forward that somehow Bomber Thompson would know more about the Geelong trade that fell through, than him?

[barks4eva]

Behavioural science and psychology tell us the best pointer to future behaviour is past and present behaviour. All that glitters is not gold and changing the behaviour of a 27 year old is a difficult thing to do. As with all risky behaviour, in this instance the drafting of Lovett, the persons taking the risk don't believe they will fail. When it comes to long term behavioural change, the road is littered with failures. RL and company's record in recycling, developing and changing players' behaviour has been overwhelmingly good up to this point. As others have pointed out, the person who is to blame in this situation is AL, not the people that recommended, supported and selected him. HE has let everyone down. Only with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight can we now say his recruitment was a mistake.

AL is the exception rather than the rule at the saints. One thing it does show is that the leadership and integrity of the playing list is solid and intact. A good sign I would have thought, and a factor that is far more important in seeking long term success, than the performance of one "speedy" and inconsistent player with behavioural and attitudinal problems. It wasn't that long ago that a thing like this would've torn the saints apart. Not anymore. It looks as though the club is standing as one in this case. From the Board, CEO and Football Department, down to the playing list. I for one, while regretting the suffering caused to all involved, am glad to see the club taking a strong and unified stance. Bring on 2010!

+1

summed up perfectly!

[rodgerfox]

Geelong didn't wise up. The Bombers took Lovett off the table. Bomber talked about it On The Couch last year. They asked him about Lovett. He said that Geelong thought they had a deal in place that would send Prismall to Essendon and Lovett to Geelong. The trade fell through. Geelong only wound up with a 3rd for Prismall. He sounded more than a little annoyed about that.

my read at that time also.

How can this be?

Oh, c'mon surely you're not suggesting that Bomber Thompson knows more than stinger about why the Lovett deal with Geelong went belly up?

Stinger has made it clear that he knows more than Riewoldt about how Ball was disrespected by Lyon and apparently he shares the same opinion as Paul Connors, Eddie McGuire, Mick Malthouse and Mike Sheahan on this matter, to the point where he thinks Lyon and Riewoldt are at best being disingenuous, at worst carrying on like a pack of liars, so as you can see, with stinger already in agreement with such esteemed company, why should I believe for one millisecond the preposterous notion you put forward that somehow Bomber Thompson would know more about the Geelong trade that fell through, than him?

So simply put - Thompson only rated Lovett around the same level as Prismal and wasn't prepared to risk anything more to get Lovett?

Doesn't sound too desperate to get him.

[Finna]

What I love about Lyon and the current people running our club is that they have got courage.

Not afraid to take a calculated risk and not afraid to call a spade a spade.

So things didnt work out on the AL deal. And as its already been mentioned plenty of times - with the number deals that have worked out in the past 2 years I believe we are still well in front.

I really like the way they were prepared to cut him loose the way we have. No pussyfooting around, walking on eggshells - just move him on.....

There seems to be no sentiment in this current group from the players to the coach to the president. They have a vision and if you're not fully aligned on that vision then move on.

Same happened with Luke Ball and although people carry on about getting nothing for him I am more than happy with what happened here. Instead of focusing on what we lost you can look at what we gained. A Presence. And we made a massive statement!

This group is so solid, so aligned, so congruent and so sure about what they need to do to achieve the ultimate goal....to be the best.....to win a flag.

Other clubs fear us, supporters of other teams loathe us and we do things the way we want to Now.

Hawthorn in the '80's didnt take no s*** nor Carlton or Essendon and as much as we despised this - thats whats required for success.

No longer are St. kilda the martyrs, the victims, the ones that every one loves as their second team.

We are now a club that does not get f***ed with, we have attitude, we dont take no crap from anyone - players included and if you're not up for it - go away.

Personally I love it!

Sure there will be mistakes but we're playing a bigger game now so its inevitable. The mistakes have been calculated and a rd 16 pick and Luke Ball (who by the way didnt want to play the bigger game) is not great loss.

Both are easily replaced and time will prove this.

Saints have got attitude and I Love It! We are Closer to a Flag Now more than we've ever been since '66 and no-one is gonna f*** this up.

Not if we can help it!

[barks4eva]

Great post Finna, excellently articulated, agree 100%!

[White Winmar]

Nice work Finna. Couldn't agree more.

[SainterK]

Geelong didn't wise up. The Bombers took Lovett off the table. Bomber talked about it On The Couch last year. They asked him about Lovett. He said that Geelong thought they had a deal in place that would send Prismall to Essendon and Lovett to Geelong. The trade fell through. Geelong only wound up with a 3rd for Prismall. He sounded more than a little annoyed about that.

my read at that time also.

How can this be?

Oh, c'mon surely you're not suggesting that Bomber Thompson knows more than stinger about why the Lovett deal with Geelong went belly up?

Stinger has made it clear that he knows more than Riewoldt about how Ball was disrespected by Lyon and apparently he shares the same opinion as Paul Connors, Eddie McGuire, Mick Malthouse and Mike Sheahan on this matter, to the point where he thinks Lyon and Riewoldt are at best being disingenuous, at worst carrying on like a pack of liars, so as you can see, with stinger already in agreement with such esteemed company, why should I believe for one millisecond the preposterous notion you put forward that somehow Bomber Thompson would know more about the Geelong trade that fell through, than him?

So simply put - Thompson only rated Lovett around the same level as Prismal and wasn't prepared to risk anything more to get Lovett?

Doesn't sound too desperate to get him.

I am pretty sure there was another player in the deal, I recall that it was salary cap issues more than anything.

[SainterK]

Should the Barry Hall decision go horribly wrong, Rodney Eade will cop his fair share of criticism.

Likewise, Voss accountable for the recruiting of the wayward Fev.

Collingwood, should the appointment of the coaching partnership go sour and rock the club.

All clubs take risks, nothing new here.

[AnythingsPossibleSaints]

- NO ONE knows the future or how someone is going to react. You take calculated risks on people.

We have intuition- You know in your guts if something's going to work out or not. It's easy to ignore it though, or not bother to check, especially if dollar signs, or other tantalising things, like extreme speed and goalkicking ability are being dangled in front of you. I think most of us made that mistake on this one.
"You've got to KNOW when to hold em, KNOW when to fold em, KNOW when to walk away and KNOW when to run". (The Gambler)

[BAM! (shhhh)]

Finna:

That post made me want to stand up and clap.

To those wringing their hands over the offseason:

Think how sweet the misery of the rest of the AFL will be when the 2010 Saints hoist the Premiership cup, when some journo asks how they overcame the Luke Ball defection, the Andrew Lovett issues, and Nick Reiwoldt replies "the adversity just brought the group closer together, and made us more focused."

Good with the bad, we've taken some other punts in Ross Lyon's time here that have and haven't worked:
- Tommy Walsh: we've spent two years and a lot of $$$ recruiting this kid. If he comes good, the offseason from h3ll won't seem so bad.
- Michael Gardiner and Stephen King. What kind of lunatic recruits old men? Our lunatic.

I'll also note that when we got Schneider & Dempster for a 2nd, both we and Sydney supporters wondered how the price had been that low. Post Luke Ball negotiations, I suspect we now know.

It's been a rough offseason, and it's not tough to understand why Lyon's got his critics right now - but I would suggest that those who don't get why he's made his moves not sit down for a game of poker with the man.

[Con Gorozidis]

luke ball for nothing?

pick 16 for nothing?

if not lyon then who? i think some ego's need to be tamed...

a few years back carlton lost hamill + pick 4 for nothing (livingston)

yeah - and they have been rubbish for 10 years.
you cant afford to make many mistakes ni trade period. one or 2 you can live with for sure.

20009 wont go down in history as our greatest trade period ever.

but heck we have jesse w smith!

[BAM! (shhhh)]

- NO ONE knows the future or how someone is going to react. You take calculated risks on people.

We have intuition- You know in your guts if something's going to work out or not. It's easy to ignore it though, or not bother to check, especially if dollar signs, or other tantalising things, like extreme speed and goalkicking ability are being dangled in front of you. I think most of us made that mistake on this one.
"You've got to KNOW when to hold em, KNOW when to fold em, KNOW when to walk away and KNOW when to run". (The Gambler)

Interesting: I've had the same line running through my head the other way.

poker math: you're playing holdem, with A-J hearts suited in your hand. It's run past the flop to the turn, and you're sitting right now with flat bupkus, but a flush draw (i.e. 2 hearts to go with the two in your hand) on the board.

If there's a pot of $100, and your opponent raises by $20, what's the play?

A: call or bluff. If you've got $100 or more, don't fold a 1:5 flush draw on the river.

reason being that with 6 cards values identified, that leaved 46 in the deck, 4 hearts identified, there are 9 more in the deck. 9/46 ~1:5... so for every 5 times you see that river card, one of those times is going to be a heart, and you'll break even; with the extra round of post river betting to come, you should be able to get a better than 1:1 return on the call.

HOWEVER,

That still leaves 4 times out of 5 that you don't hit the flush, and don't get that great big river card payoff. The skill is in getting as much as possible out of the 1 that you do get.

Intuition is nice, but without the benefit of hindsight, you weigh up your risk:reward, and make a decision. There was plenty of risk that Lovett would be a troublemaker at St Kilda, but anyone who can say they knew it was going to blow up in THIS manner would have to be psychic. If you fold your 1:5 flush draw 5:5, there's $100 to keep spending on more hands, and 4 times you don't need to back down or bluff... but over the long term, it's $100+ you didn't win.

[Dr Spaceman]

luke ball for nothing?

pick 16 for nothing?

if not lyon then who? i think some ego's need to be tamed...

a few years back carlton lost hamill + pick 4 for nothing (livingston)

yeah - and they have been rubbish for 10 years.
you cant afford to make many mistakes ni trade period. one or 2 you can live with for sure.

20009 wont go down in history as our greatest trade period ever.

but heck we have jesse w smith!

Don't think any of us here will be around in 20009 to know

[fingers]

Interesting: I've had the same line running through my head the other way.

poker math: you're playing holdem, with A-J hearts suited in your hand. It's run past the flop to the turn, and you're sitting right now with flat bupkus, but a flush draw (i.e. 2 hearts to go with the two in your hand) on the board.

If there's a pot of $100, and your opponent raises by $20, what's the play?

A: call or bluff. If you've got $100 or more, don't fold a 1:5 flush draw on the river.

reason being that with 6 cards values identified, that leaved 46 in the deck, 4 hearts identified, there are 9 more in the deck. 9/46 ~1:5... so for every 5 times you see that river card, one of those times is going to be a heart, and you'll break even; with the extra round of post river betting to come, you should be able to get a better than 5:1 return on the call.

HOWEVER,

That still leaves 4 times out of 5 that you don't hit the flush, and don't get that great big river card payoff. The skill is in getting as much as possible out of the 1 that you do get.

Intuition is nice, but without the benefit of hindsight, you weigh up your risk:reward, and make a decision. There was plenty of risk that Lovett would be a troublemaker at St Kilda, but anyone who can say they knew it was going to blow up in THIS manner would have to be psychic. If you fold your 1:5 flush draw 5:5, there's $100 to keep spending on more hands, and 4 times you don't need to back down or bluff... but over the long term, it's $100+ you didn't win.

Yeah. What he said.

[saintsRrising]

Great post Finna!!!

On Lovett...obviously both Lyon and Thompson thought that they could turn him into a useful player that filled a need. With Lovett this will not occur, and has not worked out.

Stating that you should not take a player because of what they are, rather than what could be is the stuff of also-rans.....and having a bit of faith and vision is why Lyon and Thompson are where they are....

Bomber took an underperforming Ottens and turned him into the missing link that their team and structure needed. Gablett while good was made into a true elite by answering Thompson's Challenge to get better.




With Lyon...who would have thought that CJ would become arguably the best tagger in the AFL in 2009? Who would have thought that Zac could be an AFL level fullback? Gardiner was meant to be finished and Ray a has-been not in the Dogs best 22.

Lyon and the recruiting team will be judged by whether they make the team better...and not on any one decision.

Sure no one will be happy with how Lovett has panned out.

But lets focus on the big picture of constant team improvement.

IMO our list is better than it has every been both in quality and in depth...and also with a good raft of younger players coming through. Younger players who will struggle to break into the seniors not because they are not worthy, but just due to the overall quality of the seniors being so damn good.

[degruch]

- NO ONE knows the future or how someone is going to react. You take calculated risks on people.

We have intuition- You know in your guts if something's going to work out or not. It's easy to ignore it though, or not bother to check, especially if dollar signs, or other tantalising things, like extreme speed and goalkicking ability are being dangled in front of you. I think most of us made that mistake on this one.
"You've got to KNOW when to hold em, KNOW when to fold em, KNOW when to walk away and KNOW when to run". (The Gambler)

Interesting: I've had the same line running through my head the other way.

poker math: you're playing holdem, with A-J hearts suited in your hand. It's run past the flop to the turn, and you're sitting right now with flat bupkus, but a flush draw (i.e. 2 hearts to go with the two in your hand) on the board.

If there's a pot of $100, and your opponent raises by $20, what's the play?

A: call or bluff. If you've got $100 or more, don't fold a 1:5 flush draw on the river.

reason being that with 6 cards values identified, that leaved 46 in the deck, 4 hearts identified, there are 9 more in the deck. 9/46 ~1:5... so for every 5 times you see that river card, one of those times is going to be a heart, and you'll break even; with the extra round of post river betting to come, you should be able to get a better than 1:1 return on the call.

HOWEVER,

That still leaves 4 times out of 5 that you don't hit the flush, and don't get that great big river card payoff. The skill is in getting as much as possible out of the 1 that you do get.

Intuition is nice, but without the benefit of hindsight, you weigh up your risk:reward, and make a decision. There was plenty of risk that Lovett would be a troublemaker at St Kilda, but anyone who can say they knew it was going to blow up in THIS manner would have to be psychic. If you fold your 1:5 flush draw 5:5, there's $100 to keep spending on more hands, and 4 times you don't need to back down or bluff... but over the long term, it's $100+ you didn't win.

Warney? Is that you?

[saintsRrising]

The other discards he recruited were woeful when it mattered too. That's the catch with high risk recruiting.

I see this nonsense has been peddled out again.

Woeful??? Geelong must have won the GF by a 100 points did they?

The Saints had one of the best H&A Seasons in the history of the game and in the GF dominated the game for most of it and barely lost by a small margin. A margin that should not have been there with Hawkins being awarded a goal fora point at vital stage of the game.

The Cats in 2009 were widely hailed as one of the best AFL teams in the history of the game...and yet this nonsense is put up that we had so many woeful players in GF.

What utter rubbish. Talk to neutral fans and they will tell you what a hard fought contest it was with amazing pressure.

Our discards were all part of this effort..all part of the TEAM effort.
If we had so many woeful players the Cat's would have pummeled us like they do to woeful teams.

All of our discards in that team were picked up cheaply and were meant to be support players and not stars. Recruited to improve depth and structure.

Our "discards" will again play a vital role in 2010...

[rodgerfox]

The other discards he recruited were woeful when it mattered too. That's the catch with high risk recruiting.

I see this nonsense has been peddled out again.

Woeful??? Geelong must have won the GF by a 100 points did they?

The Saints had one of the best H&A Seasons in the history of the game and in the GF dominated the game for most of it and barely lost by a small margin. A margin that should not have been there with Hawkins being awarded a goal fora point at vital stage of the game.

The Cats in 2009 were widely hailed as one of the best AFL teams in the history of the game...and yet this nonsense is put up that we had so many woeful players in GF.

What utter rubbish. Talk to neutral fans and they will tell you what a hard fought contest it was with amazing pressure.

Our discards were all part of this effort..all part of the TEAM effort.
If we had so many woeful players the Cat's would have pummeled us like they do to woeful teams.

All of our discards in that team were picked up cheaply and were meant to be support players and not stars. Recruited to improve depth and structure.

Our "discards" will again play a vital role in 2010...

Milne (whom apparently Lyon kept) and Gardiner have always suspect in big games.

Nothing changed.

King's always been injury prone. Nothing changed as he carried an injury into the GF.

Schneider's always been suss under pressure and had a questionable attitude (hence Roos gladly letting him go cheaply). Nothing changed in the GF.

Dempster has always been an average footballer. Nothing changed.

So guys that were recruited and kept on the list that had question marks over their heads, fell short in the precise areas they were suspect.

Dawson's ability against good forwards has been questioned. Nothing changed in the GF. On a day when Roo couldn't get near it - Dawson's man was very influencial.

They were all gambled on - and it didn't pay off.


The only difference between the GF and the rest of the year was that Lenny and Roo's brilliance meant that these question mark's were never really raised.
When they were raised once Roo was beaten and Lenny went quite in the GF, the answers were the same as they always were.

[saintsRrising]

Wow! Such a dismal team according to RF...and yet the Cat's, one of the best teams in history, struggled to beat them.

[rodgerfox]

Wow! Such a dismal team according to RF...and yet the Cat's, one of the best teams in history, struggled to beat them.

Do you think the Cat's team that beat us on GF day were one of the best teams in history?


And I'm not sure I've said anywhere that the Saints are a dismal team. Where did you that from?? Are you going to start making things up again SrR?

I really get sick of your inability to speak the truth.

[saintsRrising]

I really get sick of your inability to speak the truth.

Oh here we go again.

Through facts at RF and he trots out his "liar" card. I have proven you to bea liar many times on this forum and you are only trotting it now again to bait. You are one sick dude.

Why dont you either BUY a membership and actually support the Saints or p** off and start your very own anti-Saints Forum. You know the Violent Stool rant. But they that would make it hard to Troll...

[Dr Spaceman]

Who cares what RF and other pessimistic posters think. Apart from the GF result, if you're not happy as a Saints supporter at this point in time then perhaps it's time for you to get a new hobby/interest!

Roll on 2010

[BAM! (shhhh)]

Stating that you should not take a player because of what they are, rather than what could be is the stuff of also-rans...

Who are you, and what have you done with saintsRrising?

(yes, kidding, the above is why I never quite understand the internet-forum archivists... not just saintsational, every forum has them. Opinions change and evolve, if they didn't, this wouldn't be fun)