LYON is the dumbest and least inspiring coach in AFL….

[markp]

He's quoted in 'The Age' this morning as saying after the game,
"What we spoke about was if we want to pay respect to Robert it really is about getting our performance right and clearly any emotion for Robert doesn't contribute to your ability to defend and attack and use the ball."

How anyone could have issue with that statement is beyond me.

[barks4eva]

You don't mind a bit of bump/bumpee action yourself there either bloke....

Most of dodgy's bumping involves the odd inflatable or two and a fist full of sorbelene cream, leaving aside the whole matter of, the jaw imprints on his pillowcases.

Has this week's "The Flog Report " been posted yet, can hardly wait.

[rodgerfox]

You don't mind a bit of bump/bumpee action yourself there either bloke....

Most of dodgy's bumping involves the odd inflatable or two and a fist full of sorbelene cream, leaving aside the whole matter of, the jaw imprints on his pillowcases.

Has this week's "The Flog Report " been posted yet, can hardly wait.

Hi B4Eva.

[meher baba]

I don't know why I want to jump into this thread when the fact that I am going to be flamed is a near certainty.

I cannot deny that I have not been a great fan of Lyon's, or at least of the way he had the team playing until a couple of months ago (and at times since then). And I have always believed that the main problem has not been that of the players not trying hard enough, or that they were not skilled enough (most of them looked plenty skilled to me yesterday arvo: of course it has helped that some of our "low possession" players like Attard, Armo, Geary and Allen weren't running around out there).

For me, the problem has always been that Lyon was clearly nowhere near up to it in terms of experience or confidence when he was thrown in the deep end in late 2006. The fact that he began his first press conference with "I didn't seek this job" sums it up nicely, as does the fact that he started by trying to implement a carbon copy of the Rodney Eade/Paul Roos Swans game plan: the approach to setting up a team with which he was completely comfortable. In my career, I've seen a lot of people promoted into a lot of jobs, and can tell you that it's always a very bad sign when someone starts making excuses for sub-optimal performance from day one (and Lyon not only did this, but he soon moved on to the other great no-no of publicly blaming his staff).

None of this was really Lyon's fault. Blame must be sheeted home to those who selected him to fulfill a role in which he was expected to hit the ground running and who didn't have sufficient intelligence or skill to spot that Lyon was a man who had a very steep learning curve ahead of him before he could even hope to become an average coach. (And to think that Butterss made his personal fortune out of his supposed recruitment acumen!!).

Anyway, the good news is that, although Lyon certainly didn't hit the ground running, he realised (and/or Westaway helped him to realise) about 2 months ago that the time had come for him to seize the day or die. His decision to drop Milne and Dal for a game and, more generally, start selecting the team on form rather than a combination of reputation and his own preconceived (Swans-derived) notions about how an AFL team should look (2 lumbering ruckmen, one main forward target, 3-4 midfield taggers, etc). The WCE and Collingwood games were a bit disappointing (although Collingwood showed on Saturday night that Didak and the Shaws are probably a little less essential than many believed) but, since the first Freo game, Lyon has looked like a different coach; and far more his own man rather than the southernmost member of the Swans coaching staff.

Yesterday arvo was our best performance since 2006 (perhaps the second game against the Cats), and possibly since 2005 (the QF against the Crows). As others have noted, we showed genuine aggression: going hard for tackle and even harder for the ball. And we have made it to the finals as well: it's all good!!

Since the first Freo game, I have chosen to stop criticising Lyon's coaching performances. By virtue or necessity (eg, some strong warnings from the Board), Lyon has had a hard look at what he was trying to do and has made what appear to be the necessary adjustments. He is now starting to use his instinct and not just his intelligence, which is an essential part of high performance in team sport: both on the field and in the coaching box.

Does this mean that the decision to replace GT with him in 2006 was the right one? Certainly not!! That decision will remain a stupid and high risk decision no matter how we do over the next month or how many final series Lyon takes us to in the future.

Anyway, let the Lyon supporters on this forum crow all they like. I'm just glad we are winning (7 out of 9!!) and have made the finals. And at least we probably won't have to hear quite so much crap in future about how GT ruined the list because we didn't manage to snare four Brownlow winners with 2x pick 17 and the forced trades of Spider and Heath Black!!

[st.byron]

He's quoted in 'The Age' this morning as saying after the game,
"What we spoke about was if we want to pay respect to Robert it really is about getting our performance right and clearly any emotion for Robert doesn't contribute to your ability to defend and attack and use the ball."

How anyone could have issue with that statement is beyond me.

Well a resounding chorus of agreement with my post I see.
Agree that "getting our performance right" is the most important thing. Disagree that emotion and passion can't and shouldn't be a part of that.
It's all well and good to be dispassionate and calculating, or like Neil Craig and 'scientific'. But to take all of the passion and emotion out of the game is like sucking the blood out of it.
Easy to gloss over this stuff when we're winning, but I still don't have faith in Lyon. He's a robot.

[rodgerfox]

He's quoted in 'The Age' this morning as saying after the game,
"What we spoke about was if we want to pay respect to Robert it really is about getting our performance right and clearly any emotion for Robert doesn't contribute to your ability to defend and attack and use the ball."

How anyone could have issue with that statement is beyond me.

Well a resounding chorus of agreement with my post I see.
Agree that "getting our performance right" is the most important thing. Disagree that emotion and passion can't and shouldn't be a part of that.
It's all well and good to be dispassionate and calculating, or like Neil Craig and 'scientific'. But to take all of the passion and emotion out of the game is like sucking the blood out of it.
Easy to gloss over this stuff when we're winning, but I still don't have faith in Lyon. He's a robot.

Neil Craig gets off very lightly by the footy public.

Big game record is very ordinary.

[spert]

Even if we get a flag this year under Lyon, he should be replaced with GT as we played a prettier style of football under him, and that's better than any silly old premiership.

[Winmar7Fan]

He's quoted in 'The Age' this morning as saying after the game,
"What we spoke about was if we want to pay respect to Robert it really is about getting our performance right and clearly any emotion for Robert doesn't contribute to your ability to defend and attack and use the ball."

How anyone could have issue with that statement is beyond me.

Well a resounding chorus of agreement with my post I see.
Agree that "getting our performance right" is the most important thing. Disagree that emotion and passion can't and shouldn't be a part of that.
It's all well and good to be dispassionate and calculating, or like Neil Craig and 'scientific'. But to take all of the passion and emotion out of the game is like sucking the blood out of it.
Easy to gloss over this stuff when we're winning, but I still don't have faith in Lyon. He's a robot.

I agree with you on what your saying but as far as RL he's totally confusing me with his coaching ability now.

Everything good and bad that can happen has and I'm sure I mustn't be the only one who starting to not know what the hells going on.

In fact I'll go as far as to say I don't know how anyone ( apart from just purely sticking by their guns ) can confidently say he's proving them right either way and has no doubts ?

[markp]

He's quoted in 'The Age' this morning as saying after the game,
"What we spoke about was if we want to pay respect to Robert it really is about getting our performance right and clearly any emotion for Robert doesn't contribute to your ability to defend and attack and use the ball."

How anyone could have issue with that statement is beyond me.

Well a resounding chorus of agreement with my post I see.
Agree that "getting our performance right" is the most important thing. Disagree that emotion and passion can't and shouldn't be a part of that.
It's all well and good to be dispassionate and calculating, or like Neil Craig and 'scientific'. But to take all of the passion and emotion out of the game is like sucking the blood out of it.


Easy to gloss over this stuff when we're winning, but I still don't have faith in Lyon. He's a robot.

Not enough passion for you yesterday?

Emotion needs to be controlled in sport to win (particularly in the coach's box)... this isn't Hollywood.

[bigcarl]

Yesterday arvo was our best performance since 2006 (perhaps the second game against the Cats).

i'd agree with that. a shame it took a tribute match to one of our greatest players to get them showing some real passion.

what stood out more than anything to me is how much better we look when we're prepared to 1) take risks and 2) move the ball quickly.

yesterday made a mockery of the contention that our problems have been down to holes in the list and lack of talent.

imo we've had a confidence problem.

[rodgerfox]

what stood out more than anything to me is how much better we look when we're prepared to 1) take risks and 2) move the ball quickly.

That's the difference.

When we lazily switch play, or chip it around, we look woeful. And the results reflect it.

When we take risks and move it quickly, we look good and win.

[Winmar7Fan]

Yesterday arvo was our best performance since 2006 (perhaps the second game against the Cats).

i'd agree with that. a shame it took a tribute match to one of our greatest players to get them showing some real passion.

what stood out more than anything to me is how much better we look when we're prepared to 1) take risks and 2) move the ball quickly.

yesterday made a mockery of the contention that our problems have been down to holes in the list and lack of talent.

imo we've had a confidence problem.

I totally agree with you BigCarl and it really shows when we get a bit panicky when the opposition get a bit of a run on and we freeze up.

Then when they go for broke because they have to catch up it's almost like they're shocked themselves at what they're capable of.

[WayneJudson42]

what stood out more than anything to me is how much better we look when we're prepared to 1) take risks and 2) move the ball quickly.

That's the difference.

When we lazily switch play, or chip it around, we look woeful. And the results reflect it.

When we take risks and move it quickly, we look good and win.

What stood out for me was the constant effort to apply pressure and tackles. When we do that, we win. Coz it causes errors.

As for the chipping... pyss poor effort from fans booing IMO. The players have a plan and must be disciplined to stick with it regardless if we are 10 points or 100 pints ahead.

It's called discipline, and if we get that right, we'll be fine.

Any talk of playing more "exciting" footy to please some supporters is the biggest load of bollocks I've ever heard.

So we can we now agree that the game plan is based on: defensive pressure, keepings off, then attack?

[Saints43]

As for the chipping... pyss poor effort from fans booing IMO. The players have a plan and must be disciplined to stick with it regardless if we are 10 points or 100 pints ahead.

It's called discipline, and if we get that right, we'll be fine.

I agree with that. That was one of the major things that used to annoy me with the old regime - that we refused to ice the clock in close games - that we didn't know how.

We didn't need to do it yesterday - or on previous occasions - but we will need to do it for real one of these days and we will actually know how to do it properly because it's been honed in the real stuff.

[rodgerfox]

what stood out more than anything to me is how much better we look when we're prepared to 1) take risks and 2) move the ball quickly.

That's the difference.

When we lazily switch play, or chip it around, we look woeful. And the results reflect it.

When we take risks and move it quickly, we look good and win.

What stood out for me was the constant effort to apply pressure and tackles. When we do that, we win. Coz it causes errors.

As for the chipping... pyss poor effort from fans booing IMO. The players have a plan and must be disciplined to stick with it regardless if we are 10 points or 100 pints ahead.

It's called discipline, and if we get that right, we'll be fine.

Any talk of playing more "exciting" footy to please some supporters is the biggest load of bollocks I've ever heard.

So we can we now agree that the game plan is based on: defensive pressure, keepings off, then attack?

I'm not sure amny want us to be 'exciting' just because it looks good.

As I pointed out in last week's Fox Report, when we cross and sloppily switch play in the D50, we struggle.

When we move the ball forward more directly, and take risks to do so, we play well.

It's a coincidence that it also 'looks attractive'.

My theory is that when we seem to be switching alot and going sideways, it's when guys like Max and Blake get the ball in their hands. They don't have the skills to break lines with their kicking or spot risky options in-board.

When we get the ball into BJ, Gram or Sam Fisher's hands we look far more direct and efficient. And the results follow.

The 'chipping it around to wear the clock down' one is a different issue. One that I don't really care about to be honest.

[BigMart]

Lyon can make a pretty simple game look overcomplicated when his tactics do NOT work.....players can look hesitant, slow and

When his tactics do work the team finds a good balance of defense over attack, we look very disciplined and drilled....his GP requires HARD running (both ways) a facet of footy not many saints have as a hallmark of their game

His accountability to space is either his undoing or success....ie/ his wingman, instead of being an outlet out of defence (montagna etc) they get into the back half......which requires Roo to compete against their opponents on the way out.....when we run & carry - we look good....when we chip we look terrible, because we have a lot of numbers back....

[WayneJudson42]

His decision to drop Milne and Dal for a game and, more generally, start selecting the team on form rather than a combination of reputation and his own preconceived (Swans-derived) notions about how an AFL team should look (2 lumbering ruckmen, one main forward target, 3-4 midfield taggers, etc).

Since the first Freo game, I have chosen to stop criticising Lyon's coaching performances.

Does this mean that the decision to replace GT with him in 2006 was the right one? Certainly not!! That decision will remain a stupid and high risk decision no matter how we do over the next month or how many final series Lyon takes us to in the future.

Anyway, let the Lyon supporters on this forum crow all they like. I'm just glad we are winning (7 out of 9!!) and have made the finals. And at least we probably won't have to hear quite so much crap in future about how GT ruined the list because we didn't manage to snare four Brownlow winners with 2x pick 17 and the forced trades of Spider and Heath Black!!

And yet you continue to bore us with the same old drivel.

Still living in the past and hankering for the "good ole days".

Do you know that was Lyon's strategy for a fact, do you? Have you ever considered that the players have taken a while to adapt???

Have you ever been able to look past what happened in 2006?

HAve you ever considered that given we've had some great quaters, that maybe the players were not executing on a regular basis? Were these quaters of footy just an abberation, or the players ignoring RL's instructions to play boring Swans footy?

I gues you never have... nor ever will, because your views are trapped in the rear view mirror of Saints history.

Even yesterday, the Crows jumped us, and we were able to stem the tide.

Dude, you have some serious blinkers on. Which is really sad, coz it stops you from enjoying the moment. GT is gone, get over it.

Bottom line: you want Lyon sacked. Until you can seriously get on here with a truly "objective" view, please refrain. It is becoming extremely boring.

Even if we win the flag... you'll likely come here and claim that it would have happenned anyway under GT, or that GT would have won 2 flags by now.

And if we don't, you'll just keep harping on about the glory days of 2 prelims under GT, and how he should never have been saked.

Sad, very sad.

[st.byron]

Neil Craig gets off very lightly by the footy public.

Big game record is very ordinary.

agree Rog. Yet to take them to a GF. Was their fitness advisor when they went back to back but yet to take them to the big one.

[WayneJudson42]

what stood out more than anything to me is how much better we look when we're prepared to 1) take risks and 2) move the ball quickly.

That's the difference.

When we lazily switch play, or chip it around, we look woeful. And the results reflect it.

When we take risks and move it quickly, we look good and win.

What stood out for me was the constant effort to apply pressure and tackles. When we do that, we win. Coz it causes errors.

As for the chipping... pyss poor effort from fans booing IMO. The players have a plan and must be disciplined to stick with it regardless if we are 10 points or 100 pints ahead.

It's called discipline, and if we get that right, we'll be fine.

Any talk of playing more "exciting" footy to please some supporters is the biggest load of bollocks I've ever heard.

So we can we now agree that the game plan is based on: defensive pressure, keepings off, then attack?

I'm not sure amny want us to be 'exciting' just because it looks good.

As I pointed out in last week's Fox Report, when we cross and sloppily switch play in the D50, we struggle.

When we move the ball forward more directly, and take risks to do so, we play well.

It's a coincidence that it also 'looks attractive'.

My theory is that when we seem to be switching alot and going sideways, it's when guys like Max and Blake get the ball in their hands. They don't have the skills to break lines with their kicking or spot risky options in-board.

When we get the ball into BJ, Gram or Sam Fisher's hands we look far more direct and efficient. And the results follow.

The 'chipping it around to wear the clock down' one is a different issue. One that I don't really care about to be honest.

Yep, I agree 100%. Hopefully the skill and execution will come with time and confidence.

Yesterday, the Crows flooded in Q1 and manned up ok, so apart from a few blemishe, I reckon we switched ok.

There were a few times in the 3rd where we could have gone into the corridor but went sideways. Now I don't know if these are team rules or hesitation TBH. Maybe the plan is to go wide defensively, and then switch back into the middle? Thoughts?

[st.byron]

I agree with you on what your saying but as far as RL he's totally confusing me with his coaching ability now.

Everything good and bad that can happen has and I'm sure I mustn't be the only one who starting to not know what the hells going on.

In fact I'll go as far as to say I don't know how anyone ( apart from just purely sticking by their guns ) can confidently say he's proving them right either way and has no doubts ?

Yep I find him unconvincing. Time will tell.

[TimeToShineFellas]

For me, the problem has always been that Lyon was clearly nowhere near up to it in terms of experience or confidence when he was thrown in the deep end in late 2006.

So if Ross Lyon had no experience in your eyes when he was thrown into the "deep end" at AFL level (funny thought he was assistant at Carlton, Richmond and Sydney - plenty of experience on his CV), what experience did your fallen idol have in the AFL with experience before he got handed the job to him?

The only experience I heard he had was getting thrown out of coaches boxes by Schimmelbusch and Blighty.

By the way, I am intrigued - you claim he had no confidence - how the hell would you know?

Bad news for you and your zealots - GT is gone, RL now has a terrific opportunity to show us what he can do with a team under the heat of finals pressure.

[rodgerfox]

Yep, I agree 100%. Hopefully the skill and execution will come with time and confidence.

Yesterday, the Crows flooded in Q1 and manned up ok, so apart from a few blemishe, I reckon we switched ok.

I'm not saying we execute the switch poorly and need to get better at it, I'm saying that when we switch we look slow and predictable - and can't score. We need to try to switch as little as possible.

I see the switch as a sympton, not a cause. We switch when players with average to poor footskills are getting their hands on the ball. When our skilled players get the ball, we use better options and therefore are more direct.

As for skill improving - I don't think Max or Blakey's footskills are going to get any better.

There were a few times in the 3rd where we could have gone into the corridor but went sideways. Now I don't know if these are team rules or hesitation TBH. Maybe the plan is to go wide defensively, and then switch back into the middle? Thoughts?

My thoughts are as per what I wrote above. However I'd imagine due to the obsession with 'tempo footy' these days that there are times when we attempt to slow things down by going sideways.

Otherwise, I believe it's confidence. Good players getting the ball and chipping slowly and without intensity sideways, is not going to win many games. And it didn't for us.

Good players getting the ball, carrying it and using direct and quick options will. And it has for us.

[WayneJudson42]

For me, the problem has always been that Lyon was clearly nowhere near up to it in terms of experience or confidence when he was thrown in the deep end in late 2006.

So if Ross Lyon had no experience in your eyes when he was thrown into the "deep end" at AFL level (funny thought he was assistant at Carlton, Richmond and Sydney - plenty of experience on his CV), what experience did your fallen idol have in the AFL with experience before he got handed the job to him?

The only experience I heard he had was getting thrown out of coaches boxes by Schimmelbusch and Blighty.

By the way, I am intrigued - you claim he had no confidence - how the hell would you know?

Bad news for you and your zealots - GT is gone, RL now has a terrific opportunity to show us what he can do with a team under the heat of finals pressure.

Me thinks we're wasting our breath.

All this talk about being a robot... pfft. Better than all the corporate spin and silly comments AFAIAC.

Want passion? Take a look at the great passion exhibited in the 04 Wizard cup photo. FFS. (not you TTSF)

[st.byron]

Not enough passion for you yesterday?

Emotion needs to be controlled in sport to win (particularly in the coach's box)... this isn't Hollywood.

As I said, I didn't see the game. I was at work.
Maybe Lyon's press conferences cast a slant on his approach that doesn't really reflect what's going on.
But the quote I mentioned above along with his, "we need to excite ourselves into action", following the loss to West Coast both sound like a man who's bereft of passion.
Yes, emotion needs to be controlled. Agree with that. But not annihilated.
From the few games I've been at this year and those I've watched on the box, I have mostly seen a team playing without real cohesion or passion. Credit to Lyon and the boys for turning 5 and 7 into 12 and 9, but a similar turn-around happened last year and it didn't translate into anything much at the beginning of the season proper this year.
Science, benchmarks and performance measures are all well and good, but passionate belief and gut instinct need to be there as well.

[TimeToShineFellas]

the OP of this thread is about Lyon lacking inspiration as a coach.
He's quoted in 'The Age' this morning as saying after the game,
"What we spoke about was if we want to pay respect to Robert it really is about getting our performance right and clearly any emotion for Robert doesn't contribute to your ability to defend and attack and use the ball."

This goes to the heart of my doubts about Lyon. He seems to be devoid of passion. Like he's analysed the game within an inch of it's life and has taken all of the passion and emotion out of it. Hence a team that plays that way.
I'm pleased with the win and pleased to be playing finals, but I'm just not convinced about Lyon. It's as though he's reduced the game to a set of key deliverables that can be measured with kpi's and benchmarks. There's no space for flair and passion. He continues to fail to impress me.

I think this comment by Ross Lyon hopefully squares the ledger in terms of what he was quoted in The Age with this quote in an article from The Hun

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/ ... 42,00.html

"What I will remember is, I felt the emotion when they roared, when he ran out and I saw his kids. You feel good for Robert.

Sounds like a man who's got passion for mine.......