Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
samuraisaint wrote:Mike Patterson and Stan Alves were the best coaches we have had, apart from Jeansie. Patterson was an incredible coach, very much in the mould of Alan Killigrew (who is probably right up there with the Patto and Stan) who was inspirational and thought outside the square. Thomas and Lyon were all about the brand and corporate speak, which doesn't really inspire me too much.
Were you playing? I don't think he has to inspire you. I cant believe you could have Patterson and Alves ahead of RL unless of course you are basing it on how inspired you were.
Have a look at the list Lyon INHERiTED, compared to what Alves and Patterson had. And for your information, my uncle was at the club when Patterson was there, and I saw him in action, and let me assure you that as inspired as I was, the players were doubly so.
Nothing wrong with the alves list at all. Had around 3 or 4 team of the century players in it. Patterson didn't make the finals even though we probably should have in 78 but if you don't make the finals its hard to say you are better than a guy that got us to 2 GF's. Im pretty sure the players were inspired by RL also.[/quote]
no wonder you got a ban, you are a troll. Refresh my memory, how did Watson, Blight and Thomas go with the same list as what Alves had?. Oh, that's right, precisely nowhere. Thomas couldn't get us back into the finals until he'd turned over the list. And I know that you are going to come back with some glib comment, but if you do you are only reinforcing my opinion, which is that you are a troll.[/quote]
A troll because I don't agree Alves and Patterson were better coaches than RL. Seriously what is wrong with some people. They makes statements that I think lack a bit and don't want to fet called out on them.
Alves had the same list as GT. Well that is amazing. 9 years apart and the same players playing. No wonder Alves side went better.You just don't like to be called out. You would have been good at school when the going got tough. First to the teacher. Yep you made it personal and I will continue. Have the courage to discuss it properly otherwise go to the mods and dob me in. Something I think you would an expert at. Runaway now little boy. And what has those 3 coaches got to do with Alves being a better coach than RL anyway? The answer is nothing.
alves got us to a grand final in 97 and finals in 98. thomas took over in 2001. That' s 3 years not 9. How do you know that I'm male and who said anything about reporting people to mods? I just happen to notice that your comments nearly always seem to be replying negatively to another post when somebody is merely posting their opinion, which they are perfectly allowed to do in a public forum, after all, we are all st kilda supporters, are we not?
Lyon may have had a lot of success with us, bad had a lot of great players. I think, in my opinion, that a lot of his coaching was negative, and had he had a plan B we would have won a Flag. I believe Alves and Patterson were both better coaches than Lyon, you do not.
Players being asked to be flexible shows that a coach has a Plan B. Coaches who demand that their players play different positions and who have ultimate faith and can convince a bloke to play a position that they're not comfortable with are the coaches who have the cojones to win the ultimate. Lyon talked about Sam Gilbert being a forward option but after 2 or 3 attempts he quietly gave Gilbo back Gilbo's favoured position. Thompson might be a crack-pot but he demanded that Carlisle play forward and he didn't take no for an answer.
I reckon you're better off planning several Plan B's throughout the year and perhaps also keeping 1 or 2 trumps for the finals. If every one knows your Plan A and you go in without a Plan B and you are chasing your tail what happens then. I reckon in most cases it's too late. Being predictable might be seen as low risk but could cost you dearly if you are hoping that your opposition is going to be predictable as well.
You need to have a B on game day but those coaches who dare to win and go bold and surprise their opponents usually end up with finals glory. A Shane Ellen type of move is perhaps what a coach having a plan B is all about it.
An inclusion like that of Ted Hopkins that turns a game and creates footy folklore is having a Plan B. A coach who dares to surprise on Grand Final day and who can throw a player in to have a purple patch and win an epic Grand Final will always go down in history as a great coach
Do you think Alastair Clarkson is going to go into the match Saturday without a Plan B? He did it last year on Grand Final day and I'm sure that he'll go in again with a few surprises for the opposition.
Last edited by Scollop on Wed 24 Sep 2014 2:00am, edited 1 time in total.
Scollop wrote:Plan A is usually what the opposition expect to confront. No point being predictable when it's the big dance.
Players being asked to be flexible shows that a coach has a Plan B. Coaches who demand that their players play different positions and who have ultimate faith and can convince a bloke to play a position that they're not comfortable with are the coaches who win the ultimate prize.
I reckon you're better off planning several Plan B's throughout the year and perhaps also keeping 1 or 2 trumps for the finals. If every one knows your Plan A and you go in without a Plan B and you are chasing your tail what happens then. I reckon in most cases it's too late. Being predictable might be seen as low risk but could cost you dearly if you are hoping that your opposition is going to be predictable as well.
You need to have a B on game day but those coaches who dare to win and go bold and surprise their opponents usually end up with finals glory. A Shane Ellen type of move is perhaps what a coach having a plan B is all about it.
An inclusion like that of Ted Hopkins that turns a game and creates footy folklore is having a Plan B. A coach who dares to surprise on Grand Final day and who can throw a player in to have a purple patch and win an epic Grand Final will always go down in history as a great coach
Do you think Alastair Clarkson is going to go into the match Saturday without a Plan B? He did it last year on Grand Final day and I'm sure that he'll go in again with a few surprises for the opposition.
This. Thanks Scollop, and that is why I rate other coaches in our history as being better coaches than RL. True, none one of the names I mentioned won us a flag, but Stan went close. I rate coaches on what they have been able to get out of their respective teams. They had their faults, I'm sure, but those sides played exciting footy for the most part, but may not have had the cattle to go sll the way, or even play finals in some cases.
Lyon has a way of selling his message and he does it well - he'll make a great politician one day. Stan didn't promote himself enough or sell himself the way Lyon does.
A coaches relationship with his players and the message he sells to them and to the whole board are just as important as your ability to coach. Stan wasn't thinking about being a career coach, he just demanded respect and went about it the old fashioned way - the way he learnt from his coaches in the 70's.
Scollop wrote:Lyon has a way of selling his message and he does it well - he'll make a great politician one day. Stan didn't promote himself enough or sell himself the way Lyon does.
A coaches relationship with his players and the message he sells to them and to the whole board are just as important as your ability to coach. Stan wasn't thinking about being a career coach, he just demanded respect and went about it the old fashioned way - the way he learnt from his coaches in the 70's.
Seriously what a load of crap.RL said probably less in public than Alves. Its rather embarrassing how the argument shifts from one fault to another to try and prove other people are better coaches or RL wasn't a good coach. I think you proved how weak your argument is when you said those who thought was a very good coach for our club were knobjocjeys. Just proves you are either a little kid or have a really weak argument. And just because a few agree doesn't make you right no matter how much I imagine you are pumping your chest out at home whilst looking in the mirror.
It gets back to this simple question that people like you dont answer. If RL had all the many faults you keep saying he had how the hell did we nearly win 2 GF with a list no where near as good as the list GT had.
plugger66 wrote: If RL had all the many faults you keep saying he had how the hell did we nearly win 2 GF with a list no where near as good as the list GT had.
plugger66 wrote: If RL had all the many faults you keep saying he had how the hell did we nearly win 2 GF with a list no where near as good as the list GT had.
"List" or "available team"?
Two very different things.
List. That's how footy clubs work. Unfortunately both GT and RL were restricted by lack of funds and RL was hampered by pathetic list management. Both GT were effected by poor recruiting and GT was effected by pathetic medical staff.
Scollop wrote:Lyon has a way of selling his message and he does it well - he'll make a great politician one day. Stan didn't promote himself enough or sell himself the way Lyon does.
A coaches relationship with his players and the message he sells to them and to the whole board are just as important as your ability to coach. Stan wasn't thinking about being a career coach, he just demanded respect and went about it the old fashioned way - the way he learnt from his coaches in the 70's.
Seriously what a load of crap.RL said probably less in public than Alves. Its rather embarrassing how the argument shifts from one fault to another to try and prove other people are better coaches or RL wasn't a good coach. I think you proved how weak your argument is when you said those who thought was a very good coach for our club were knobjocjeys. Just proves you are either a little kid or have a really weak argument. And just because a few agree doesn't make you right no matter how much I imagine you are pumping your chest out at home whilst looking in the mirror.
It gets back to this simple question that people like you dont answer. If RL had all the many faults you keep saying he had how the hell did we nearly win 2 GF with a list no where near as good as the list GT had.
You are very good at twisting things around. You make out sometimes that you don't read and understand what is written but I think that's just your excuse to pour out tonnes of apologist crap.
Note the difference in what you just said. You say people are trying to prove he wasn't good. No one has ever said that. The arguments are about whether he should be held on a pedastool and whether he should be lauded as 'very good' or bordering on being a 'great' coach.
The commentary in the media is becoming a bit better balanced now that Walls and Roos are busy doing other things. And even a relatively junior coach in the senior coaches ranks is being held in equal regard as the great Toss
Rodney Eade took the Swans into a GF in his first year as a senior coach and came within a beesdick twice with the Dogs of relegating Toss to the average brigade. When Rocket was at his best he was the equal of Toss. Even a guy like Chris Scott who won a flag in his first year (all be it with a champion team) might be miles ahead of Lyon if he continues to give Geelong regular top 4 opportunities.
Mick or Bomber are now different breeds but at their best they are also far better. Clarko and Horse have the runs on the board. When Lethal or Sheeds or Roos were at their best RL is miles off emulating their achievements. We should be comparing these guys based on the years they had when they were coaches at their peak.
If you want to compare the overall package of GT coach versus RL coach than we can do that too. The senior coach is more than just a line coach or a game day or strategist coach. I'll take GT's legacy anyday compared to the legacy of Toss
Scollop wrote:Lyon has a way of selling his message and he does it well - he'll make a great politician one day. Stan didn't promote himself enough or sell himself the way Lyon does.
A coaches relationship with his players and the message he sells to them and to the whole board are just as important as your ability to coach. Stan wasn't thinking about being a career coach, he just demanded respect and went about it the old fashioned way - the way he learnt from his coaches in the 70's.
Seriously what a load of crap.RL said probably less in public than Alves. Its rather embarrassing how the argument shifts from one fault to another to try and prove other people are better coaches or RL wasn't a good coach. I think you proved how weak your argument is when you said those who thought was a very good coach for our club were knobjocjeys. Just proves you are either a little kid or have a really weak argument. And just because a few agree doesn't make you right no matter how much I imagine you are pumping your chest out at home whilst looking in the mirror.
It gets back to this simple question that people like you dont answer. If RL had all the many faults you keep saying he had how the hell did we nearly win 2 GF with a list no where near as good as the list GT had.
You are very good at twisting things around. You make out sometimes that you don't read and understand what is written but I think that's just your excuse to pour out tonnes of apologist crap.
Note the difference in what you just said. You say people are trying to prove he wasn't good. No one has ever said that. The arguments are about whether he should be held on a pedastool and whether he should be lauded as 'very good' or bordering on being a 'great' coach.
The commentary in the media is becoming a bit better balanced now that Walls and Roos are busy doing other things. And even a relatively junior coach in the senior coaches ranks is being held in equal regard as the great Toss
Rodney Eade took the Swans into a GF in his first year as a senior coach and came within a beesdick twice with the Dogs of relegating Toss to the average brigade. When Rocket was at his best he was the equal of Toss. Even a guy like Chris Scott who won a flag in his first year (all be it with a champion team) might be miles ahead of Lyon if he continues to give Geelong regular top 4 opportunities.
Mick or Bomber are now different breeds but at their best they are also far better. Clarko and Horse have the runs on the board. When Lethal or Sheeds or Roos were at their best RL is miles off emulating their achievements. We should be comparing these guys based on the years they had when they were coaches at their peak.
If you want to compare the overall package of GT coach versus RL coach than we can do that too. The senior coach is more than just a line coach or a game day or strategist coach. I'll take GT's legacy anyday compared to the legacy of Toss
I don't know how you rated GT as a coach because you weren't on here at the time but of course he was going to leave the list in better shape than RL due to the ages of our star players. Any person who didn't understand how the list was going to be after RL left must have had their eyes shut or just doesn't understand footy but was it worth the punt for a side who won one flag in 140 years. Bloody oath. As for GT under his watch we wasted a top 10 on Brookes and a top 20 pick on Watts. Under RL we wasted a top 20 pick on Lovett. I would suggest that the rot started all the way back to 2004 and it was neither coaches fault. We spent bugger all on recruiting so neither coach could trust that side of things so went for players from other clubs which neither can be blamed for looking at how poor our recruiting was once we didn't have the regulat top 5 picks. And we have now got Toss as well as knobjockey. Do you realise you sound like a 10 year old who has been told off by his best friend. RL was great for the saints and was a very good coach for us. You can call p[eople who think that knobjockeys but it makes your argument very weak. I can wait until the day this week has my side playing in the GF. Best 2 weeks of my footy life thanks to both the players and RL combining to get us there.
plugger66 wrote:
Best 2 weeks of my footy life thanks to both the players and RL combining to get us there.
Yes, but it nearly was a Bulldogs vs Geelong GF in 2009 ...the Bulldogs put on a real show with 57 inside 50's to our lowly 40 in the prelim. final.
How should we rate Eade, given he extracted everything from his much less fancied team that day, who were clearly behind us in talent, when the stakes were high?
samoht wrote:Yes, but it nearly was a Bulldogs vs Geelong GF in 2009 ...
But it wasn't. Nearly isn't good enough. nearly wasn't good enough in 2009 or 10 GF's.
samoht wrote:the Bulldogs put on a real show with 57 inside 50's to our lowly 40 in the prelim. final.
And the Saints scored 7 more points to advance to a Grand Final
samoht wrote:How should we rate Eade, given he extracted everything from his much less fancied team that day, who were clearly behind us in talent, when the stakes were high?
Going on your logic, he is no good because his team kicked poorly. They were a top four team so why were they much less fancied in 2009. In 2010 they were cooked so they were much less fancied. What were the inside 50s on that night (you know before we played the last 20 minutes with 5 on the bench?
samoht wrote:(This post is dedicated to Bunk).
Don't know why? Are you a bit rattled by logic or something?
plugger66 wrote:
Best 2 weeks of my footy life thanks to both the players and RL combining to get us there.
Yes, but it nearly was a Bulldogs vs Geelong GF in 2009 ...the Bulldogs put on a real show with 57 inside 50's to our lowly 40 in the prelim. final.
How should we rate Eade, given he extracted everything from his much less fancied team that day, who were clearly behind us in talent, when the stakes were high?
(This post is dedicated to Bunk).
Eade was very good…
We had more inside 50's than Geelong in the Grand Final.
How should we rate Lyon, given he extracted everything from his much less fancied team that day, who were clearly behind Geelong in talent, when the stakes were high?
plugger66 wrote:
Best 2 weeks of my footy life thanks to both the players and RL combining to get us there.
Yes, but it nearly was a Bulldogs vs Geelong GF in 2009 ...the Bulldogs put on a real show with 57 inside 50's to our lowly 40 in the prelim. final.
How should we rate Eade, given he extracted everything from his much less fancied team that day, who were clearly behind us in talent, when the stakes were high?
(This post is dedicated to Bunk).
I rate Eade as a good coach, nearly very good who didn't have the lists like Matthews and MM had or even Clarkson who is a fantastic coach. Yep you are right we nearly didn't get there but it was obviously Eades fault they didn't get there even though you say he extracted everything from a less fancied list. Im a bit confused. We seem to not be able to say RL and the Saints had those type of stats in the GF but you are allowed to laud Eade for losing with those type of stats in the prelim. Its all very confusing.
dragit wrote ...
Eade was very good…
We had more inside 50's than Geelong in the Grand Final.
How should we rate Lyon, given he extracted everything from his much less fancied team that day, who were clearly behind Geelong in talent, when the stakes were high?
We had most of our F50's in the 1st half vs Geelong, then we stopped running in the second half, and the rest is history - whereas the Bulldogs had more inside 50's quarter after quarter. They were at us all game, and ran the game right out.
I take my hat off to Eade .. a terrific coach.
Last edited by samoht on Wed 24 Sep 2014 4:37pm, edited 1 time in total.
dragit wrote ...
Eade was very good…
We had more inside 50's than Geelong in the Grand Final.
How should we rate Lyon, given he extracted everything from his much less fancied team that day, who were clearly behind Geelong in talent, when the stakes were high?
We had most of our F50's in the 1st half vs Geelong, then we stopped running in the second half, and the rest is history - whereas the Bulldogs had more inside 50's quarter after quarter. They were at us all game, and ran the game right out.
Seriously can you change the goal posts a bit more. Now its quarter by quarter to prove absolutely jack s***. Can you tell us all the inside 50's quarter by quarter for both games please. Just want to check not that it means a thing.
plugger66 wrote:
Seriously can you change the goal posts a bit more. Now its quarter by quarter to prove absolutely jack s***. Can you tell us all the inside 50's quarter by quarter for both games please. Just want to check not that it means a thing.
The Bulldogs ran the game out - whereas we stopped running. We rested on our 7.7 to 7.1 half-time laurels.
plugger66 wrote:
Seriously can you change the goal posts a bit more. Now its quarter by quarter to prove absolutely jack s***. Can you tell us all the inside 50's quarter by quarter for both games please. Just want to check not that it means a thing.
The Bulldogs ran the game out - whereas we stopped running. We rested on our 7.7 to 7.1 laurels.
plugger66 wrote:
Seriously can you change the goal posts a bit more. Now its quarter by quarter to prove absolutely jack s***. Can you tell us all the inside 50's quarter by quarter for both games please. Just want to check not that it means a thing.
The Bulldogs ran the game out - whereas we stopped running. We rested on our 7.7 to 7.1 laurels.
Stats to prove your point please? By the way just to prove how silly your point is the WB were 7 points up at half time. Maybe they ran out the game but it wasn't at the G.
plugger66 wrote:
Seriously can you change the goal posts a bit more. Now its quarter by quarter to prove absolutely jack s***. Can you tell us all the inside 50's quarter by quarter for both games please. Just want to check not that it means a thing.
The Bulldogs ran the game out - whereas we stopped running. We rested on our 7.7 to 7.1 laurels.
Stats to prove your point please? By the way just to prove how silly your point is the WB were 7 points up at half time. Maybe they ran out the game but it wasn't at the G.
We kicked 3 behinds in the last quarter to Geelong's 3 goals 4 !
the Bulldogs kicked 1.4 to our 2 goals straight in the last quarter .. we just got over them by a few points. They ran the game out.
Last edited by samoht on Wed 24 Sep 2014 4:49pm, edited 1 time in total.
plugger66 wrote:
Seriously can you change the goal posts a bit more. Now its quarter by quarter to prove absolutely jack s***. Can you tell us all the inside 50's quarter by quarter for both games please. Just want to check not that it means a thing.
The Bulldogs ran the game out - whereas we stopped running. We rested on our 7.7 to 7.1 laurels.
Stats to prove your point please? By the way just to prove how silly your point is the WB were 7 points up at half time. Maybe they ran out the game but it wasn't at the G.
We kicked 3 behinds in the last quarter to Geelong's 3 goals 4 !
Im sorry you mentioned the half time score. I should have known you meant another score. Goal posts. Got those stats yet to prove they ran out the game better? I have no idea what you are trying to prove anyway. How is any of this relevant. Goal posts.
Last edited by plugger66 on Wed 24 Sep 2014 4:50pm, edited 1 time in total.
