Ross Lyon Flames Baker

rodgerfox · Post: # 951027Post **rodgerfox** » Wed 30 Jun 2010 11:15pm

Wow.

Did anyone else see/hear what Lyon said?

OneEyedSainter77 · Wed 30 Jun 2010 11:16pm

Bernard Shakey · Wed 30 Jun 2010 11:17pm

He just stated facts.

Buckets · Post: # 951031Post **Buckets** » Wed 30 Jun 2010 11:18pm

When was this?
What was said?

Thinline · Post: # 951032Post **Thinline** » Wed 30 Jun 2010 11:19pm

Flamed him?

Hardly, unless there's more to it than what I read/saw.

Spoke the truth didn't he? Both players lost discipline for a bit and now they're paying the price.

Was there more to it than that?

I thought the flaming was left for the MRP muppet who spoke of Baker's unmanliness - "we only care about the respect of people we respect".

bergsone · Post: # 951033Post **bergsone** » Wed 30 Jun 2010 11:20pm

why didnt he take him off then

Thinline · Post: # 951036Post **Thinline** » Wed 30 Jun 2010 11:21pm

bergsone wrote:why didnt he take him off then

Because Baker is clearly capable of giving Johnson a bath without resorting to ill disciplined acts. See GF.

Why else wouldn't he take him off?

rodgerfox · Post: # 951038Post **rodgerfox** » Wed 30 Jun 2010 11:23pm

Thinline wrote:Flamed him?

Hardly, unless there's more to it than what I read/saw.

Spoke the truth didn't he? Both players lost discipline for a bit and now they're paying the price.

Was there more to it than that?

I thought the flaming was left for the MRP muppet who spoke of Baker's unmanliness - "we only care about the respect of people we respect".

Interestingly, I just read an article from the Age which was headlined "Saints Coach Backs Banned Baker".

Reading it, was very, very different to what was shown on Ch10 news. Quartermain introduced the clip by saying "if Steven Baker was looking for sympathy from his coach, he wasn't getting it...."

Two very, very different reports. Not sure of there were two interviews held, but the one I saw certainly wasn't 'backing Baker'.

saintbrat · Post: # 951045Post **saintbrat** » Wed 30 Jun 2010 11:27pm

I'd suggest you listen or watch for your selves rather than believe journalists.

I heard the reporter as well and in no way did Ross flame Bakes

as stated he only confirmed what happened BUT also backed him

http://www.saintsational.com/forum/view ... hp?t=62834

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/[ ... nned-baker[/b]-20100630-zlvn.html

Thinline · Post: # 951046Post **Thinline** » Wed 30 Jun 2010 11:27pm

rodgerfox wrote:
Thinline wrote:Flamed him?

Hardly, unless there's more to it than what I read/saw.

Spoke the truth didn't he? Both players lost discipline for a bit and now they're paying the price.

Was there more to it than that?

I thought the flaming was left for the MRP muppet who spoke of Baker's unmanliness - "we only care about the respect of people we respect".
Interestingly, I just read an article from the Age which was headlined "Saints Coach Backs Banned Baker".

Reading it, was very, very different to what was shown on Ch10 news. Quartermain introduced the clip by saying "if Steven Baker was looking for sympathy from his coach, he wasn't getting it...."

Two very, very different reports. Not sure of there were two interviews held, but the one I saw certainly wasn't 'backing Baker'.

Media. What can do? The only press Ross has done all day is the conf at the club so they'll just jump on whatever they reckons best and run with it. Having viewed the presser, I thought Ross was quite brilliantly diplomatic. As usual.

bergsone · Post: # 951049Post **bergsone** » Wed 30 Jun 2010 11:28pm

Thinline wrote:
bergsone wrote:why didnt he take him off then
Because Baker is clearly capable of giving Johnson a bath without resorting to ill disciplined acts. See GF.

Why else wouldn't he take him off?

You answered your own question,take him off because he was being un disciplined ,or do just let them keep doing it

Thinline · Post: # 951050Post **Thinline** » Wed 30 Jun 2010 11:30pm

bergsone wrote:
Thinline wrote:
bergsone wrote:why didnt he take him off then
Because Baker is clearly capable of giving Johnson a bath without resorting to ill disciplined acts. See GF.

Why else wouldn't he take him off?
You answered your own question,take him off because he was being un disciplined ,or do just let them keep doing it

He was ill disciplined for a small patch in one qr. He clearly self regulated! Or ran out of puff. Or got the word via a trainer. Or whatever. I'm guessing...

rodgerfox · Post: # 951051Post **rodgerfox** » Wed 30 Jun 2010 11:31pm

saintbrat wrote:I'd suggest you listen or watch for your selves rather than believe journalists.

I heard the reporter as well and in no way did Ross flame Bakes

as stated he only confirmed what happened BUT also backed him

http://www.saintsational.com/forum/view ... hp?t=62834

That's not the interview I saw on Ch10 this arvo.

To summarise, he said the tribunal's decision was correct, and that that sort of behaviour shouldn't be allowed in the game. He also said that Baker's actions were not the type of stuff that the Saints stood for and didn't fit with the type of footy we pride ourselves on.

Forgive any poetic license or misquoting, as I'm going on memory only. But it really took me aback.
It was not the response I was expecting at all.

saintbrat · Post: # 951057Post **saintbrat** » Wed 30 Jun 2010 11:34pm

as stated above- selected editing- they wanted to find a quote for that very slant.

which is why I always listen to the full interview

the 4 minutes on saints.com.au is obviously edited differantly.

rodgerfox · Post: # 951059Post **rodgerfox** » Wed 30 Jun 2010 11:37pm

saintbrat wrote:as stated above- selected editing- they wanted to find a quote for that very slant.

which is why I always listen to the full interview

the 4 minutes on saints.com.au is obviously edited differantly.

For what it's worth, I was really happy with what I saw on Ch10 - albeit a shock.

When I saw it, I almost instantly felt that although Lyon plays the game a bit too well (ie. is up the AFL's arse) it was very clear that we have moved on as a team.

Get on with it. Stiff shiit. He's gone - move on.

It was actually really good to hear. If not disappointing because I personally wasn't ready to move on!

saintbrat · Post: # 951062Post **saintbrat** » Wed 30 Jun 2010 11:40pm

rodgerfox wrote:
saintbrat wrote:as stated above- selected editing- they wanted to find a quote for that very slant.

which is why I always listen to the full interview

the 4 minutes on saints.com.au is obviously edited differantly.
For what it's worth, I was really happy with what I saw on Ch10 - albeit a shock.

When I saw it, I almost instantly felt that although Lyon plays the game a bit too well (ie. is up the AFL's arse) it was very clear that we have moved on as a team.

Get on with it. Stiff shiit. He's gone - move on.

It was actually really good to hear. If not disappointing because I personally wasn't ready to move on!

this is in line with my thinking when someone queried the fact that it was going back to the board and not the football department- seperating the legal/financial from the football
allowing the football department to concentrate on keeping the team focused.

Teflon · Post: # 951065Post **Teflon** » Wed 30 Jun 2010 11:45pm

rodgerfox wrote:
Thinline wrote:Flamed him?

Hardly, unless there's more to it than what I read/saw.

Spoke the truth didn't he? Both players lost discipline for a bit and now they're paying the price.

Was there more to it than that?

I thought the flaming was left for the MRP muppet who spoke of Baker's unmanliness - "we only care about the respect of people we respect".
Interestingly, I just read an article from the Age which was headlined "Saints Coach Backs Banned Baker".

Reading it, was very, very different to what was shown on Ch10 news. Quartermain introduced the clip by saying "if Steven Baker was looking for sympathy from his coach, he wasn't getting it...."

Two very, very different reports. Not sure of there were two interviews held, but the one I saw certainly wasn't 'backing Baker'.

If any hot air d!ckhead could totally misread a situation OR try and beat up a nothign story its quarterbrain. So Hawthorn biased and struggles to suggest St Kilda are any good. Complete d!ck and should stick to coke at parties.

Moccha · Post: # 951073Post **Moccha** » Thu 01 Jul 2010 12:00am

It's just what Lyon wants the AFL want to hear. Doesn't mean he believes what he's saying. I'm sure he's putting on a front because he doesn't want to be screwed over by the AFL. He's very smart, he knows the AFL are a bunch of arseholes and as long as they believe otherwise St.Kilda will not be attracting any more heat. Remember what you resist persists

saintly · Post: # 951092Post **saintly** » Thu 01 Jul 2010 12:21am

rodgerfox wrote:
saintbrat wrote:I'd suggest you listen or watch for your selves rather than believe journalists.

I heard the reporter as well and in no way did Ross flame Bakes

as stated he only confirmed what happened BUT also backed him

http://www.saintsational.com/forum/view ... hp?t=62834
That's not the interview I saw on Ch10 this arvo.

To summarise, he said the tribunal's decision was correct, and that that sort of behaviour shouldn't be allowed in the game. He also said that Baker's actions were not the type of stuff that the Saints stood for and didn't fit with the type of footy we pride ourselves on.

Forgive any poetic license or misquoting, as I'm going on memory only. But it really took me aback.
It was not the response I was expecting at all.

selected editing by channel 10 of the one and only saints press conference.

SainterK · Post: # 951098Post **SainterK** » Thu 01 Jul 2010 12:28am

The press conference was very good, I heard it on SEN after the 3 o'clock news and Ross had to make the distinction that the 15 mins that resulted in the suspension was not Steven Baker or St Kilda footy...

I liked this bit in particular...

While conceding Baker's reputation had taken a big hit, Lyon backed his fierce tagger.

"That's not typical of Steven - it's easy to take potshots at him now," he said.

"He certainly beats players on his merits, he's a (club best and fairest) winner, he's played a lot of football, he's an elite player.

"He certainly plays close and can niggle, but he beats players, he has great speed, power and footy smarts."

saintDal · Post: # 951099Post **saintDal** » Thu 01 Jul 2010 12:30am

Moccha wrote:It's just what Lyon wants the AFL want to hear. Doesn't mean he believes what he's saying. I'm sure he's putting on a front because he doesn't want to be screwed over by the AFL. He's very smart, he knows the AFL are a bunch of arseholes and as long as they believe otherwise St.Kilda will not be attracting any more heat. Remember what you resist persists

Thats the way I saw it. No use attacking the AFL. Might as well play along and hope they take their attention somewhere else.

saintbrat · Post: # 951123Post **saintbrat** » Thu 01 Jul 2010 1:42am

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/l ... -zmsq.html

Lyon behind 'respected' Baker LAUREN WOOD
July 1, 2010
.

ST KILDA coach Ross Lyon has vehemently defended the character of Steven Baker following his nine-match suspension but believes the charges against Baker were warranted.

The club will not appeal against the decision handed down by the AFL tribunal on Tuesday night.

''[Baker] certainly beats players on his merits, he's a [best-and-fairest] winner, he's played a lot of football, he's an elite player. It's unfortunate that the perception that this creates of Steven is really inaccurate,'' Lyon said yesterday.

''Over the journey he is a credit to himself and his family.''

saintnick12 · Thu 01 Jul 2010 2:17am

saintbrat wrote:http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/l ... -zmsq.html

Lyon behind 'respected' Baker LAUREN WOOD
July 1, 2010
.
ST KILDA coach Ross Lyon has vehemently defended the character of Steven Baker following his nine-match suspension but believes the charges against Baker were warranted.

The club will not appeal against the decision handed down by the AFL tribunal on Tuesday night.

''[Baker] certainly beats players on his merits, he's a [best-and-fairest] winner, he's played a lot of football, he's an elite player. It's unfortunate that the perception that this creates of Steven is really inaccurate,'' Lyon said yesterday.

''Over the journey he is a credit to himself and his family.''

I heard the quotes on SEN too, then heard the channel 10 report and thought - what - were they watching the same interview as me.

The Age article is a much better summary.

He certainly is not happy with Baker for going out side the rules, especially when he knew he was carrying a 50% loading. And he certainly can't be seen to be condoning that behaviour. The club is clearly of the opinion that he deserved several weeks for his behavior, just not the 9 he ended up getting due to the loading...and I tend to agree. They do feel he has let the club down to an extent and thats fair enough. He's a required player....when he breaks the rules and we miss him in the team, thats not good.

But by the same token, he refusing to let Baker's character be attacked as it had been....he went out of his way to mention that he is a B&F winner, elite player, credit to himself and his family etc. Also backing him to be a chance to come back in if he stays fit enough.
He has certainly backed him, not flamed him as some have suggested. Typical of some news agencies to run with that angle and try and make more of a story out of it.

I particlularly the line "we only care about the respect of people we respect". A typical Lyon line.

bob__71 · Post: # 951152Post **bob__71** » Thu 01 Jul 2010 9:59am

Reactive, is not Ross's way.

markp · Post: # 951156Post **markp** » Thu 01 Jul 2010 10:12am

"Flames"?