Comparison with 2004 team

[Mr X from the West]

Quote Aaron Hammill immediately prior to Bulldogs game:-

Hamill said the current side was "on a par" with that of 2004, but it needed to maintain consistency over a period of time, rather than five weeks.

"I wouldn't say it is a better side," he said. "I don't think they are a better side, talent-wise; they are probably a bit more workmanlike than we were.

"Grant Thomas had that passion and drive with the players for a few years, and hopefully that's something Ross has been able to develop, too."

So Aaron thinks that the current side is no better than the 2004 side. Maybe he's right when he says they are no better talent wise. That is always arguable.

But our structure is so much better. They are better coached. I know that before each game Ross Lyon will have done his homework on the opposition and had developed a plan for them. I didn't get that feeling with GT.

That to me is the major difference.

Any comments?

[perfectionist]

As they say in the text books, time will tell. Let's hope it says "Saints Premiers 2009"!

[Saint_Gooner]

I think it's been said plenty of times on here, the teams are playing very different styles of footy.

We're a lot better defensively now where I think the 2004 team was more about outscoring the oponnent with our forwards than preventing them from kicking a good score.

Not that we're not getting high scores now

I think this team is more well rounded.

All that said I'd been in the country 2 years in '04, still didn't understamd the bloody game, so I could be horribly wrong!

[Superboot]

Well, it depends on your measure of quality.

My recollection is that the 2004 side came into that season having won 4 of the last 5 games in 2003. It then proceeded to win the preseason comp (4 wins) and then 10 in a row in the season proper.

That's 18 wins in 19 games.

It was very unlucky to lose the preliminary final and arguably wouldn't have if Gehrig had kicked his 100th during the previous game.

The problem with the 2004 team was that it had no Plan B. Whether you blame the players or the coach for that is a matter of conjecture.

The current team puts in just as much effort in as the 2004 team but doesn't look as brilliant on paper. It does however seem to be more tactically astute. Again, whether you give the playing group or the coach credit for that is a matter for debate.

[saintm]

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/ ... 72,00.html - St Kilda ditches old ways

Link to the full article from Sunday's Herald Sun, which I don't think has been posted on here yet, is above.

Danny Frawley and Aussie Jones have also provided their thoughts on the 2009 team.

[bigcarl]

don't have the stats to back me up on this, but i think that in general we are harder-bodied and more experienced and mature.

in 2004 we had a lot of kids (talented, but kids nevertheless) who really hadn't played that much senior football.

we have some of those now, but they seem better developed physically and several years older than the class of 2004.

the other difference i can see is that thus far the injury gods have been relatively kind to us (touch wood).

[savatage]

Our bottom 6 is a hell of a lot better. Our player management is a lot better. Our coaching is a lot better. I think talent is a subjective thing - depends how you view it - but the other pluses stated above hold us in better stead IMO.

[Winmar7Fan]

Better list then but we're definitely playing better football and structure as a team now.

[saintbrat]

this column by P S is along similiar lines-
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/st ... 70,00.html

Egos controlled, Saints march onFont Size: Decrease Increase Print Page: Print Patrick Smith | May 05, 2009
Article from: The Australian
THESE appear heady days for St Kilda. Top of the ladder, unbeaten, spiffy percentage and critics running desperately to catch up with the bandwagon they had previously waved on its way. Coach Ross Lyon asks for a measure of restraint, for unbridled expectation is as debilitating to a club as a busted knee is to a player.

Lyon has no crystal ball, which is good because they can be most uncomfortable. He cannot see past the next training session and each match must be treated as a means to an end that cannot be thought about until grand final week. That way everything is contained; everything can be controlled. As yet no club has successfully or usefully calibrated anticipation.

Lyon asked for sensible heads after the club recorded its sixth consecutive win on Sunday, beating the respected Western Bulldogs by 28 points. "Clearly Geelong are the benchmark team of the competition and Hawthorn have been decimated with injuries and they have still got themselves 3-3. Everyone else is chasing those two and we are no different," Lyon said after the Bulldogs match.

As it is, St Kilda is hardly breaking new ground. So far it is barely half as good as the 2004 team that won its first 10 matches, developed an ego the size of the MCG and failed to reach the grand final. When the Saints defeated Brisbane by one point in round six in 2004, it sat on top of the ladder, with easily the best percentage in the league. Very much the same as Lyon's mob.

Come round 10 and the Saints kicked 31 goals to shred Carlton by 108 points and sit unchallenged on top of the ladder, clear of second-placed Melbourne by three games and 42 percentage points. It had been a solid coaching performance by the controversial Grant Thomas for rarely - until this burst of games - could he call upon his very best 22 players.

But form can be turned on its head in an instant. St Kilda lost four of the next five games - its one victory was over Hawthorn which won four games for the year. By the end of the season it had fallen to third with 16 wins and six losses and was finally knocked out in the preliminary final to eventual premier Port Adelaide. Within two seasons Thomas was sacked. With that, a period of St Kilda's history thought by many ripe to deliver a premiership, was closed.

Thomas, who had predicted two premierships within a decade when he was in charge, now works in the media. His coaching period will be remembered as a lost opportunity where he might have tried too hard to be different and not hard enough to be good.

He left behind him a disintegrating group. The team that took St Kilda to its sixth win in a row in 2004 is different to the team Lyon coached to victory on Sunday. It has a new face and fresh arms and legs but its torso, its heart, is very much the same.

Of the team Thomas coached in round six of 2004 only seven lined up under Lyon against the Bulldogs on the weekend. But they are the essence of the team now as they were under Thomas. Brendon Goddard, Lenny Hayes, Luke Ball, Nick Dal Santo, Nick Riewoldt, Stephen Milne and Justin Koschitzke. Stephen Baker, suspended in 2004, and Matt Hudghton, injured this season, are the only other players who remain on the list who might automatically be considered in Lyon's best 22.

Lyon has recruited purposefully to flesh out his team. Farren Ray is a former Bulldog who has become a critical part of St Kilda's team. As have Adam Schneider, Zac Dawson and Michael Gardiner. Unlikely types Andrew McQualter, Robert Eddy, Clinton Jones and Jarryn Geary fulfil their role in Lyon's game strategy without fuss but with effect.

Many other things have changed at St Kilda. It has a new board and chairman. Chief executives have come and gone. A new man runs the fitness program, a new man heads the recruiting staff. It is at least one winter away before we discover whether this St Kilda version will reach the grand final the teams under Thomas could not. But Lyon has brought a sense of order to St Kilda. Its match plan is now dissected as oppositions look for elements to unpick, to exploit. They haven't had much luck.

Next Monday St Kilda must beat Collingwood to keep its unbeaten record and Collingwood must beat St Kilda so it does not fall to a negative win-loss ratio. The evolution of the two clubs since round six back in 2004 is very different. Mick Malthouse still coaches but is, more than likely, in his last year. Eddie McGuire is still running the club as well as the umpiring and football departments of the AFL. But Neil Balme is no longer football manager and Greg Swann has taken his chief executive skills to Carlton.

Critics say that Malthouse continues to use the same tactical approach he did five years ago. His list has changed significantly nonetheless. Only Dane Swan, Leon Davis, Josh Fraser, Shane O'Bree and Simon Prestigiacomo played both in round six of 2004 and last Friday. Alan Didak remains injured.

But if there is something to learn from 2004 it is this. Geelong was building the great team that now has won 48 of its past 51 matches. The team that beat Melbourne on Sunday had 10 players who played for the Cats in round six five years ago. They were Gary Ablett, Paul Chapman, Joel Corey, David Johnson, James Kelly, Andrew Mackie, Darren Milburn, Cameron Milburn, Matthew Scarlett and David Wojcinski. And another three - Cameron Ling, Tom Harley and Josh Hunt - missed out because of injury.

Missing the 2004 game were the injured Steve Johnson and Corey Enright while Jimmy Bartel was an emergency. As well Mark Thompson was the coach back then and now, Frank Costa was the chairman and Brian Cook the chief executive.

Dynasties are built by keeping your personnel as well as your head.

[widereceiver]

[quote="Superboot"]
The problem with the 2004 team was that it had no Plan B. Whether you blame the players or the coach for that is a matter of conjecture.


I agree with this, when the other teams figured out a way to stop Thomas' blitzkrieg approach, we were ordinary.

2005 was a measure of how many had sorted us out, as well as how important a lack of injury is. If we keep our guys relatively injury-free there is great cause for optimism.

[evertonfc]

More stars in 2004, but a better bottom six in 2009.

Incredibly entertaining in 2004, more accountable in 2009.

Young and excitable in 2004; mature and wiser in 2009.

Bold and brash; clinical and unrelenting.

Both were good. The 2004 team had greater potential when it all clicked - as it did in the opening 10 weeks - but there is a well-oiled consistency about this team that looks as though very few teams will find a way through.

I mean, the names of that 2004 team were top shelf talent - Harvey, Hamill, Gehrig, Powell, Black, Thompson, Jones, Penny - to start with.

But the bottom six wasn't always flash. Troy Schwarze, Trent Knobel, Allan Murray and Jason Blake (hack at the time) all played in our QF against Brisbane.

Got the feeling the depth factor of this year is a lot stronger. And I think the players are less reliant on skill and more reliants on the system, which is breeding a great deal of confidence.

Interest to compare; let's hope we can go a step-and-a-bit further.

[stinger]

"Eddie McGuire is still running the club as well as the umpiring and football departments of the AFL. "



fatprick thinks he's clever doesn't he..........

[plugger66]

The problem with the 2004 team was that it had no Plan B. Whether you blame the players or the coach for that is a matter of conjecture.


I agree with this, when the other teams figured out a way to stop Thomas' blitzkrieg approach, we were ordinary.

2005 was a measure of how many had sorted us out, as well as how important a lack of injury is. If we keep our guys relatively injury-free there is great cause for optimism.

The only thing 2005 proved is that you cannot win the flag with the injuries we had as could no side.

[noob]

from our last 70 games at the docklands we've won like 54.

[Winmarvellous]

As far as I can tell, last years team was as good as 2004. Both prelim finalists. The 97 team went one better, GF. We should be judging ourselves by the '66 team. The 2004 had a streak, but couldn't take out the big one. I'm sure in many years, people will have forgotten the so-called streak, but they won't forget '66. Enough said.

[Sainter_Dad]

The important comparison can only be points for and points against

2004 points for:665
2009 points for:659

2004 points against:444
2009 points against:338

So - we are one straight kick from the blitzkreig of 2004 but 106 points more frugal!

Its not only important to get the score on the board - it is vital to stop the opposition doing the same!

I feel so much more confident about this year - and I feel that the boys rather than being flat track bullies are in fact learning to be obnoxious about their belief that it is our right to have the ball - and if we dont have it - the opposition should give it back!

[InkerSaint]

this column by P S is along similiar lines-
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/st ... 70,00.html

I notice the punchline for that article is one of the pillars my site front-page article is based on. It's not a new idea, and it's weighted to suggest that Geelong still has an edge because it has been stable for longer. Which doesn't explain Hawthorn pinching a flag.

[InkerSaint]

The 2004 had a streak, but couldn't take out the big one. I'm sure in many years, people will have forgotten the so-called streak, but they won't forget '66.

They will indeed forget the streak... if opposition fans let them!

I know it's been a long time between drinks, but why oh why did they release that DVD set...

Even now we're being lampooned with suggestions of a "Winning Streak II" box set.

Gotta cop that one on the chin, laugh, and move on...

[saintly]

The problem with the 2004 team was that it had no Plan B. Whether you blame the players or the coach for that is a matter of conjecture.


I agree with this, when the other teams figured out a way to stop Thomas' blitzkrieg approach, we were ordinary.

2005 was a measure of how many had sorted us out, as well as how important a lack of injury is. If we keep our guys relatively injury-free there is great cause for optimism.

however, we do not know if the 2009 team has a plan B as yet

[Unforgiven]

I think the team of 2009 would beat the team of 2004. Accountablility being the deciding factor. (oh and CJ to Harves )

[Superboot]

The problem with the 2004 team was that it had no Plan B. Whether you blame the players or the coach for that is a matter of conjecture.


I agree with this, when the other teams figured out a way to stop Thomas' blitzkrieg approach, we were ordinary.

2005 was a measure of how many had sorted us out, as well as how important a lack of injury is. If we keep our guys relatively injury-free there is great cause for optimism.

however, we do not know if the 2009 team has a plan B as yet

Good point, and I guess we still haven't met a serious challenge as yet.

The need for a plan B in 2004 wasn't even apparent until round 11. We've played pretty much the same way in each game so far this season and it has paid off. It will be interesting to see what happens in a game where we are under the pump and need a change of tack.

[Sainter_Dad]

I think we did meet a team that would have required a plan B in their attack on the footy in the Bulldogs. If it had been the 2004 version of the Saints that was playing on Sunday I think 14.20 would have lost the game. I think our Plan A is strong enough to withstand 13 of the oppositions of 2009 - and probably 14 - Geelong the only query I have!

[But I must state my bias - My dog is playing frisbee with the lid]

[Superboot]

It was in fact the kind of game we lost in 2004, in Rnd 12 at the MCG.

We kicked 11.14 and lost by 23 points. Eagleton, who was pretty ordinary at the time, ran riot.

Funny how the memory plays tricks. I've always remembered that game as being a complete disaster, but we were 15 points in front at half time.

[ThePunter]

59 wins a a draw from the last 78 games at Telstra Dome.

[Moccha]

Ultimately the 2004 team achieved nothing so whats the point of the comparisons?