Ross Lyon is a flawed genius

[bergholt]

I can't think of anyone who falls in this catergory though, unless people are saying our bright young stars have slowly dimmed and lost motivation through lack of opportunity and I'm only seeing the end result?

Can someone give me some examples?

i'm not sure i agree with the original thesis, but i reckon the closest would be lynch. missed six games in the first half of the season but played the rest of the year at sandy, and from what i've heard he looked good off half-back. unfortunately, the senior team doesn't need half-backs - it's in need of a third tall forward. so when he got an afl game, that's where he played. and got slaughtered.

so you could make a case that he was finding his square-pegness at sandy, but then couldn't fit into a round hole at afl level. which hurt his motivation.

presumably you could solve this by a better link-up between afl and vfl sides, so that players are played at vfl level in the positions the afl side needs. this would reduce the adjustment burden.

[Dr Spaceman]

I can't think of anyone who falls in this catergory though, unless people are saying our bright young stars have slowly dimmed and lost motivation through lack of opportunity and I'm only seeing the end result?

Can someone give me some examples?

i'm not sure i agree with the original thesis, but i reckon the closest would be lynch. missed six games in the first half of the season but played the rest of the year at sandy, and from what i've heard he looked good off half-back. unfortunately, the senior team doesn't need half-backs - it's in need of a third tall forward. so when he got an afl game, that's where he played. and got slaughtered.

so you could make a case that he was finding his square-pegness at sandy, but then couldn't fit into a round hole at afl level. which hurt his motivation.

presumably you could solve this by a better link-up between afl and vfl sides, so that players are played at vfl level in the positions the afl side needs. this would reduce the adjustment burden.

The alliance clubs are always going to have a disadvantage compared to the clubs with their own VFL sides, as we can only have a relatively small input into selection, the game plan and player’s positions.

The Zebs are their own team and they owe it to their supporters to do whatever they can to be successful, even though that may not assist our players development.

I know this may upset the Sandy fans, as opposed to the Saint’s Sandy fans, but Nick Sauntner is IMO a big problem for us.

His Plugger like command of the Zebra forward line makes it very difficult for us to develop forwards, particularly KPFs.

Probably not much we can do about it til NS hangs up the boots

[Saints43]

The alliance clubs are always going to have a disadvantage compared to the clubs with their own VFL sides, as we can only have a relatively small input into selection, the game plan and player’s positions.
....
Probably not much we can do about it til NS hangs up the boots

Early this year Greg Westaway said that Saints were looking into fielding a stand-alone Saints team in the VFL. I'm not sure how far the idea has gone (or if it has been shelved) but it would be a significant advantage if we were to IMO.

Particularly if we could keep the team going through the finals series.

[plugger66]

The alliance clubs are always going to have a disadvantage compared to the clubs with their own VFL sides, as we can only have a relatively small input into selection, the game plan and player’s positions.
....
Probably not much we can do about it til NS hangs up the boots

Early this year Greg Westaway said that Saints were looking into fielding a stand-alone Saints team in the VFL. I'm not sure how far the idea has gone (or if it has been shelved) but it would be a significant advantage if we were to IMO.

Particularly if we could keep the team going through the finals series.

I would think with us saying to sandy you can appoint a part time senior coach that this could be the last year of the alliance ootherwise there should be no way a part timer should be coaching our seconds.

Clubs have until the end of March next year to apply to have their own side. I would be more surprised if we didnt apply.

Also the good doctor said on the other post Sauntner is a huge issue. He is the laughing stock of Saints players but he just will not retire and as he can only play in one position then it stuffs up the forward line.

[meher baba]

i reckon RL is a bit orwellian. too much faith in the system of control. i know saints in the past have been way too rock'n'roll and we DEFINITELY needed some system. but have lurched too far in search of the dream? A society that went from years of anarchy to an over-reaching Brave New World Order?

Perhaps.

Or he could be just a middle aged man, with thinning hair, strong ideas and a stubborn disposition

you might just be onto something there....

I've never heard of a successful sporting coach who managed by consensus.....

[AnythingsPossibleSaints]

Perhaps those assistants need gentle reminding that the only reason they were probably sought after by other clubs in the first place, is because they were at St Kilda and under Ross Lyon.

As far how he treats the players outside the 22, I wouldn't know and it's really only gossip. However there is an easy solution to those outside of it, work your backside off to be inside of it.

You're kidding aren't you? I would have expected better from you, SainterK. My mistake.
Are you telling me that no-one would have wanted Leigh Tudor, who came to us with enormous wraps, after having apparently done wonders at Geelong, had he not been "at St Kilda and under Ross Lyon"? That's hilarious. Or Stephen Silvagni, the "fullback of the century", who was in charge of the best performed backline of all time (statistically), which I doubt was all Ross's doing, or Brian Royal, who, unless I'm greatly mistaken, didn't just start doing this under Ross?
I don't remember who the others were, off the top of my head, but I'd dare say they may also have something to offer as well as our "IP".
And what he said about how how things are done at the club may be "gossip", but he was at least there. If you don't take the word of someone who was there, who do you listen to? People are wanting answers, yet it seems they want the answers to be only to their liking, wrapped with a nice little bow. Sometimes the truth isn't as great as the fantasy we have in our minds, of how we're this "perfect club".
And it's all well and good to say they ought to "work their backsides off", to get in the team, but that doesn't excuse the situation, if it is how he said it was. Those guys not coming through as we expected them to, based on their talent, probably cost us the flag this year. Collingwood, on the other hand, made huge strides this year and it was largely due to their "second tier" giving them great depth and really pushing hard into the seniors. I doubt that happened by them just getting the bare minimum of attention, specialist coaching, etc. Do you?

[ChicagoSaint]

You're kidding aren't you? I would have expected better from you, SainterK. My mistake.
Are you telling me that no-one would have wanted Leigh Tudor, who came to us with enormous wraps, after having apparently done wonders at Geelong, had he not been "at St Kilda and under Ross Lyon"? That's hilarious. Or Stephen Silvagni, the "fullback of the century", who was in charge of the best performed backline of all time (statistically), which I doubt was all Ross's doing, or Brian Royal, who, unless I'm greatly mistaken, didn't just start doing this under Ross?
I don't remember who the others were, off the top of my head, but I'd dare say they may also have something to offer as well as our "IP".
And what he said about how how things are done at the club may be "gossip", but he was at least there. If you don't take the word of someone who was there, who do you listen to? People are wanting answers, yet it seems they want the answers to be only to their liking, wrapped with a nice little bow. Sometimes the truth isn't as great as the fantasy we have in our minds, of how we're this "perfect club".
And it's all well and good to say they ought to "work their backsides off", to get in the team, but that doesn't excuse the situation, if it is how he said it was. Those guys not coming through as we expected them to, based on their talent, probably cost us the flag this year. Collingwood, on the other hand, made huge strides this year and it was largely due to their "second tier" giving them great depth and really pushing hard into the seniors. I doubt that happened by them just getting the bare minimum of attention, specialist coaching, etc. Do you?

the number is 1300GOPIES should you care to join collingwood.
secondly, royal is a spud.
finally, 'guys not coming through as we expected them to' WTF? take it easy!

[AnythingsPossibleSaints]

That's an awfully talkative unnamed source. From the sounds of things it was a fringe player unhappy with his opportunities that has intimate knowledge of what the coaches are doing, even though the coaches don't talk to fringe players.

My advice would be if you're driving down south road and you see Luke Miles ranting at the sky, just keep driving. Don't stop to listen. He's probably just bitter anyway.

Doesn't mean that, now that they're out of there, they haven't had the chance to talk to them, does it? And if they were directed to do things that way while they were there, they're now free to do whatever they want/talk to whoever they want to, for as long as they want to. Aren't they?
And just because someone's unhappy or "bitter" doesn't mean they don't know what they're talking about, or that they're lying. Maybe you would, in the same situation, which might explain why you came to that conclusion, but I'm not sure you speak for everyone on the planet.

[AnythingsPossibleSaints]

Heard some very interesting news last night, from someone on our senior list this year, that, apart from anything else, those who were Ross's assistants this year "couldn't get out the door fast enough". He even said that one or more of them actually spoke to one or more of those who have taken their place, to tell/warn them that "there's more to life than the St K FC" and that they're "much happier to be out of the club, than they were in it". If true that would go a long way to explaining why they all left a club that just played in 3 GF's in 13 months. So apparently working under Ross is far from a pleasant experience.
He also said that the "main 22", on the playing list are treated "like kings", while the rest are treated like "second class citizens" and get very little "attention"/time, etc, compared with those who were playing AFL most/every week. Which, if true, and I have little reason not to believe him, would explain why those playing mostly in the VFL haven't come on anywhere near as well as we hoped/thought they would. That will need to change significantly next year, or we're likely to be in serious strife, at least if we want to win the flag. If we don't improve from those outside the "first 22" it's hard to see where we're going to improve, considering we don't have a draft pick till the mid 20's and didn't trade for anyone.

one word: hogwash

Well, now that you've spoken, it's put me right at ease. I guess you're closer to the situation than he was. Thanks for clearing that up.

[AnythingsPossibleSaints]

Sounds like extremely doubtful gossip to me.

Really, it's not at all plausible to your mind? All 6 take off from a successful club like they were fired from a gun and we're lamenting on here all year how those in the VFL aren't coming on as we expected they would and it couldn't be that they're not getting the same sort of attention, etc as the "main group"?
What do you put it all down to, "coincidence", or "bad luck"?
There have to be reasons for these things and this is the "real world", which means they may just be reasons we don't really like.

[ChicagoSaint]

Heard some very interesting news last night, from someone on our senior list this year, that, apart from anything else, those who were Ross's assistants this year "couldn't get out the door fast enough". He even said that one or more of them actually spoke to one or more of those who have taken their place, to tell/warn them that "there's more to life than the St K FC" and that they're "much happier to be out of the club, than they were in it". If true that would go a long way to explaining why they all left a club that just played in 3 GF's in 13 months. So apparently working under Ross is far from a pleasant experience.
He also said that the "main 22", on the playing list are treated "like kings", while the rest are treated like "second class citizens" and get very little "attention"/time, etc, compared with those who were playing AFL most/every week. Which, if true, and I have little reason not to believe him, would explain why those playing mostly in the VFL haven't come on anywhere near as well as we hoped/thought they would. That will need to change significantly next year, or we're likely to be in serious strife, at least if we want to win the flag. If we don't improve from those outside the "first 22" it's hard to see where we're going to improve, considering we don't have a draft pick till the mid 20's and didn't trade for anyone.

one word: hogwash

Well, now that you've spoken, it's put me right at ease. I guess you're closer to the situation than he was. Thanks for clearing that up.

that's understood as verbatim is it?

[Dr Spaceman]

That's an awfully talkative unnamed source. From the sounds of things it was a fringe player unhappy with his opportunities that has intimate knowledge of what the coaches are doing, even though the coaches don't talk to fringe players.

My advice would be if you're driving down south road and you see Luke Miles ranting at the sky, just keep driving. Don't stop to listen. He's probably just bitter anyway.

Doesn't mean that, now that they're out of there, they haven't had the chance to talk to them, does it? And if they were directed to do things that way while they were there, they're now free to do whatever they want/talk to whoever they want to, for as long as they want to. Aren't they?
And just because someone's unhappy or "bitter" doesn't mean they don't know what they're talking about, or that they're lying. Maybe you would, in the same situation, which might explain why you came to that conclusion, but I'm not sure you speak for everyone on the planet.

What you say doesn’t ring true. Whether that’s because you made it up, or whether it’s because the guy you spoke to has a grudge, is not for me to judge.

If things are really that bad for those outside “the 22â€

[BAM! (shhhh)]

Perhaps those assistants need gentle reminding that the only reason they were probably sought after by other clubs in the first place, is because they were at St Kilda and under Ross Lyon.

As far how he treats the players outside the 22, I wouldn't know and it's really only gossip. However there is an easy solution to those outside of it, work your backside off to be inside of it.

You're kidding aren't you? I would have expected better from you, SainterK. My mistake.
Are you telling me that no-one would have wanted Leigh Tudor, who came to us with enormous wraps, after having apparently done wonders at Geelong, had he not been "at St Kilda and under Ross Lyon"? That's hilarious. Or Stephen Silvagni, the "fullback of the century", who was in charge of the best performed backline of all time (statistically), which I doubt was all Ross's doing, or Brian Royal, who, unless I'm greatly mistaken, didn't just start doing this under Ross?
I don't remember who the others were, off the top of my head, but I'd dare say they may also have something to offer as well as our "IP".
And what he said about how how things are done at the club may be "gossip", but he was at least there. If you don't take the word of someone who was there, who do you listen to? People are wanting answers, yet it seems they want the answers to be only to their liking, wrapped with a nice little bow. Sometimes the truth isn't as great as the fantasy we have in our minds, of how we're this "perfect club".
And it's all well and good to say they ought to "work their backsides off", to get in the team, but that doesn't excuse the situation, if it is how he said it was. Those guys not coming through as we expected them to, based on their talent, probably cost us the flag this year. Collingwood, on the other hand, made huge strides this year and it was largely due to their "second tier" giving them great depth and really pushing hard into the seniors. I doubt that happened by them just getting the bare minimum of attention, specialist coaching, etc. Do you?

Really?

Seems to me the real answer's aren't awfully hard to find. 2009 GF, the Saints blew it. 2010 GF1, the Saints blew it. 2010 GF2 the Pies were simply too good.

Personally I find it difficult to buy this picture of the Saints as a club in turmoil. Even on the word of someone who was "on the senior list". Frankly, if this is turmoil, why risk calm? Any attempt to pin the losses on morale would seem disingenuous at best.

I suspect you're right in a lot of people are underestimating the impact of the changes in assistants is going to have... but while our turnover is obviously higher than the norm, I'm not honestly sure what the norm IS for an assistant's tenure. I'm pretty sure that turnover isn't going to go back and make the Grand Final heartbreak any worse.

[plugger66]

Perhaps those assistants need gentle reminding that the only reason they were probably sought after by other clubs in the first place, is because they were at St Kilda and under Ross Lyon.

As far how he treats the players outside the 22, I wouldn't know and it's really only gossip. However there is an easy solution to those outside of it, work your backside off to be inside of it.

You're kidding aren't you? I would have expected better from you, SainterK. My mistake.
Are you telling me that no-one would have wanted Leigh Tudor, who came to us with enormous wraps, after having apparently done wonders at Geelong, had he not been "at St Kilda and under Ross Lyon"? That's hilarious. Or Stephen Silvagni, the "fullback of the century", who was in charge of the best performed backline of all time (statistically), which I doubt was all Ross's doing, or Brian Royal, who, unless I'm greatly mistaken, didn't just start doing this under Ross?
I don't remember who the others were, off the top of my head, but I'd dare say they may also have something to offer as well as our "IP".
And what he said about how how things are done at the club may be "gossip", but he was at least there. If you don't take the word of someone who was there, who do you listen to? People are wanting answers, yet it seems they want the answers to be only to their liking, wrapped with a nice little bow. Sometimes the truth isn't as great as the fantasy we have in our minds, of how we're this "perfect club".
And it's all well and good to say they ought to "work their backsides off", to get in the team, but that doesn't excuse the situation, if it is how he said it was. Those guys not coming through as we expected them to, based on their talent, probably cost us the flag this year. Collingwood, on the other hand, made huge strides this year and it was largely due to their "second tier" giving them great depth and really pushing hard into the seniors. I doubt that happened by them just getting the bare minimum of attention, specialist coaching, etc. Do you?

I dont know if you were told directly by a former player or heard something second hand but i can assure you that whoever told that information is either lying or pissed off with the club. i have first hand knowledge from many first second and third year players and what you have mentioned is complete hogwash from what i have heard over the last 2-3 years. i think the only thing that upsets younger players is that they sometimes cannot play in their best positions at Sandy because of other Sandy players. That will hopefully be fixed in 2012 when we may have our own seconds side. That maybe the reason the Pies players have come on more quickly. They have their own side.

[SainterK]

Perhaps those assistants need gentle reminding that the only reason they were probably sought after by other clubs in the first place, is because they were at St Kilda and under Ross Lyon.

As far how he treats the players outside the 22, I wouldn't know and it's really only gossip. However there is an easy solution to those outside of it, work your backside off to be inside of it.

You're kidding aren't you? I would have expected better from you, SainterK. My mistake.
Are you telling me that no-one would have wanted Leigh Tudor, who came to us with enormous wraps, after having apparently done wonders at Geelong, had he not been "at St Kilda and under Ross Lyon"? That's hilarious. Or Stephen Silvagni, the "fullback of the century", who was in charge of the best performed backline of all time (statistically), which I doubt was all Ross's doing, or Brian Royal, who, unless I'm greatly mistaken, didn't just start doing this under Ross?
I don't remember who the others were, off the top of my head, but I'd dare say they may also have something to offer as well as our "IP".
And what he said about how how things are done at the club may be "gossip", but he was at least there. If you don't take the word of someone who was there, who do you listen to? People are wanting answers, yet it seems they want the answers to be only to their liking, wrapped with a nice little bow. Sometimes the truth isn't as great as the fantasy we have in our minds, of how we're this "perfect club".
And it's all well and good to say they ought to "work their backsides off", to get in the team, but that doesn't excuse the situation, if it is how he said it was. Those guys not coming through as we expected them to, based on their talent, probably cost us the flag this year. Collingwood, on the other hand, made huge strides this year and it was largely due to their "second tier" giving them great depth and really pushing hard into the seniors. I doubt that happened by them just getting the bare minimum of attention, specialist coaching, etc. Do you?

Why on earth would you expect better from me?

Because I find a current listed player not cracking into the seniors and having a bit of a whinge about it (and everything else it seems) a bit well....actually, dunno what the right word is.

Of course working at St Kilda (and with Ross) would see assistants in high demand, unless you're arguing that someone being at St Kilda would lessen their value as a coach?

Other than Lynch who someone mentioned (and who it has already been said on here that he had a major operation this year which would of impacted his season significantly) nobody is giving me any examples of people languishing away because Ross doesn't treat them like a king?

Have you got anyone that fits this profile APS, so we can discuss it further?

[markp]

Heard some very interesting news last night, from someone on our senior list this year

Who?

[SainterK]

Heard some very interesting news last night, from someone on our senior list this year

Who?

Now why didn't I think of that

[stinger]

That will hopefully be fixed in 2012 when we may have our own seconds side. That maybe the reason the Pies players have come on more quickly. They have their own side.

you think that up all on your lonesome albert,

[kalsaint]

Perhaps those assistants need gentle reminding that the only reason they were probably sought after by other clubs in the first place, is because they were at St Kilda and under Ross Lyon.

Not sure I agree totally here. All clubs have their strengths and weaknesses in coaching staff. I dont believe they would put ROSS as the Messiah for deputies. There are plenty of options.

[kalsaint]

ross just played the same blokes all the time and would only promote vfl guys if there were serious injuries in the main group.

There were pretty much injuries all year long. Aside from Smith, I don't think a senior player could claim they didn't get a shot. Gwilt was the only player who came from outside the 22 and really made a spot his own. Steven showed some promise, but his last couple of games were terrible. Stanley looked really good while doing nothing. Armo couldn't find any consistent form. Geary tailed off as the year went on.

Ross played our senior players because they were our best chance of winning.

Have to agree with Con on this one.

The seniors definitely got the game time at the elite level but at the expense of exposure of other younger players. Engagement and involvement of younger players is always a risk but a necessary one if you are to set up the culture of success for the longer term.

Geelong did this, Collingwood coulddo this (according to pundits) although its to be proven.

Too many solid players in 2009 were carried or became passengers in 2010 when they didnt match their 2009 performance.

I reckon our best chance was 2009. The team list for 2010 deteriorated in terms of depth, quality and suffered more injuries from the phenomenal freedom from injury evident in 2009. I cant see the list being better than in 2010 and the team doesnt have the pace to meet the needs of good attacking football to score quickly (unless against a grossly lower ranked team).

[kalsaint]

i have been saying all year that there appears to be a poor development culture and incentive structure at the saints. this explains why the vfl players havent been "knocking the door down".

No offence Con, but this attitude actually makes me a little huffy.

I am still quite young (I think so anyway) but why on earth would I have to wait for someone to motivate me?

If the incentive of a spot in the best 22 isn't enough....well (shrugs)

I think Con is talking about if you get in the best in the VFL it gives you chance for promotion which currently it doesn't neccessarily as opposed to being picked cause you meet a need according to the game plan strategy and injuries.

Confusing isn't it.

Kids lose belief and motivation if its not performance based IMO.

thanks shaggy. you articulated my thoughts better than i could. yes thats exactly what i was trying to say. im not talking ra ra yelling motivation. i mean the incentive system as a whole seems to have placed the "role" above actual performance. so lets say u performed at 100% effort over 2 years and i said mate ur doing well but ur a square peg and ive only got 5 round holes so no matter what u do ull always be a square peg - but u should work on being a round peg. i reckon ud lose a bit of ur motivation.

its a bit like racism.

Luke Ball ........trumpet plays ta ta ...

[kalsaint]

i have been saying all year that there appears to be a poor development culture and incentive structure at the saints. this explains why the vfl players havent been "knocking the door down".

No offence Con, but this attitude actually makes me a little huffy.

I am still quite young (I think so anyway) but why on earth would I have to wait for someone to motivate me?

If the incentive of a spot in the best 22 isn't enough....well (shrugs)

I think Con is talking about if you get in the best in the VFL it gives you chance for promotion which currently it doesn't neccessarily as opposed to being picked cause you meet a need according to the game plan strategy and injuries.

Confusing isn't it.

Kids lose belief and motivation if its not performance based IMO.

thanks shaggy. you articulated my thoughts better than i could. yes thats exactly what i was trying to say. im not talking ra ra yelling motivation. i mean the incentive system as a whole seems to have placed the "role" above actual performance. so lets say u performed at 100% effort over 2 years and i said mate ur doing well but ur a square peg and ive only got 5 round holes so no matter what u do ull always be a square peg - but u should work on being a round peg. i reckon ud lose a bit of ur motivation.

its a bit like racism.

I can't think of anyone who falls in this catergory though, unless people are saying our bright young stars have slowly dimmed and lost motivation through lack of opportunity and I'm only seeing the end result?

Can someone give me some examples?

All of Lynch, Miles, Steven, Armo and Geary as far as I'm aware this year, struggled with injuries/medical issues, some late into the season.

We have to be mindful, it's easy to have a whinge and point the finger elsewhere.

The question is how many younger Saints hve come through the ranks compared to other clubs. I dont have the facts but I believe the Saints would be in the bottom 4 with this stat.

Involvement provides the mechanism for engagement and improvement. The opposite is stagnation, no improvement to second rated performance and ultimately in wasted delistings per year.

Either the recruitment side is getting it wrong nowadays or the engagement isnt there.

[meher baba]

The only young Saint who has undoubtedly made it since Lyon started coaching is Sam Gilbert, and he had already been at the club one season and had been given a taste of AFL football.

I would have said that McEvoy had made it too, but we must remember that he (unlike Robert Eddy!!) wasn't considered good enough to play in a GF until Gardi was injured.

CJ has come off the rookie list to become an established player, but he is actually older than some of our long-established senior players (Dal, Gram, BJ, even Schneider).

Gwilt and McQualter don't count IMO: both were already fringe senior players when Lyon arrived at the club. However, Lyon has certainly done an excellent job at bringing these guys along (leaving aside McQualter's piss poor 2010), as well as CJ and (when he's fit) Raph.

You might say that it's a case of younger players not being needed when a side is doing well. However, the management of younger and fringe players was different in the 2004-06 period. I can recall players like Raph, Sam Fisher, Montagna, BJ, Barry Brooks, Sam Gilbert, Gwilt and others getting picked for big, meaningful games (including finals) when they had failed to prove themselves any more convincingly than Armo, Steven, Stanley and co. in recent years.

Of course we had a lot of injuries in the 2004-06 era, so we were arguably forced to play more youngsters. Nevertheless, nobody could surely deny that Lyon has shown a bit of a reluctance to "blood" the youngsters.

This obviously hasn't been a problem up to now (we made and almost won two GFs in two years FFS). But I think the time has more or less come when we need one or two of the younger blokes to fire. I reckon the trick is to pick a couple of the most likely and give them a sustained run in the top 22.

If it were up to me, I'd start by focusing on Armo and Stanley, with Steven and Walsh next in the queue. These are the four I've seen who look to have something special. I reckon Geary ought to be in our top 22 anyway: he's always been better value than the likes of Eddy (and possibly McQualter and even CJ as well).

[stinger]

Lyon did enough to get us into two GF in consecutive years....and was within a bees dicks of winning two flags.

Lyon will refresh in gameplan and in players...

* Every year he has been there the gameplan has changed in some way..

* Every year he has been there the playing list has changed...


2011... our best 22 will be different...and the gameplan will be altered. Bank on both.

i f****** hope so...but.....two bad bounces cost us two flags ...not ross's coaching......i will blame the last loss on that though....

[Dr Spaceman]

Lyon did enough to get us into two GF in consecutive years....and was within a bees dicks of winning two flags.

Lyon will refresh in gameplan and in players...

* Every year he has been there the gameplan has changed in some way..

* Every year he has been there the playing list has changed...


2011... our best 22 will be different...and the gameplan will be altered. Bank on both.

i f****** hope so...but.....two bad bounces cost us two flags ...not ross's coaching......i will blame the last loss on that though....

I don't blame Ross for the second loss because, due to my crystal ball being broken, I have absolutely no idea as to whether anything he could have done would have made any difference.

He could have brought in a couple of kids for a couple of guys carrying injuries and got flogged even more.

Any losing coach would do things differently if they could have another shot at it but of course that can never happen. I note a lot of the media thought the replay would favour us and that wasn't based on us bringing in kids; it was based on us having more experienced, and more seasoned, players.

Not the end everyone here wanted, but hey, what can you do?