Ross Lyon Risk-Taker v's Structures?????

[murray 66]

First of all I would like to state that I am a RL supporter and believe we have the best tactical brain in the coaches box in the AFL,but at times I wish that RL would roll the dice during games before sticking to structures that at times don't seem to be working for us on the day but his stubborneness and beleif that structures will win out in the end doesn't always turn out that way,and at times RL talks of one thing but does another(Riddler).We must play the kids for a more sustained time and give them time to develop,their a senior players that are finishedand are getting a game because they are role players which is Re-active ,we all know who they are.
Play the kids Ross and we will reap the rewards sooner rather then later.

Thoughts

[plugger66]

Well the last few flags have been won by sides with a great structure. They also had some good kids on their books.

[Mr Magic]

I've got a headache reading your post.
A 90 word sentence (with 2 commas)!

That's almost got to be a record on here.

Not sure if you're a troll or not, but I would have thought that your post could have been placed in the myriad of other threads that are along similar lines?
Not sure why you needed to start another 'Lyon play the kids' thread?

[Teflon]

Murray makes a good point though - Lyon is not a risk taker and at times during games tactically this has been bought into question.

I too am a RL fan and believe tactically he's a great coach......but sometimes it would be nice to see some instinctive coaching that demonstrates that we have the flexibility to go with structure.

I also note at times Ross says 1 thing and can do an entire opposite. He's good at saying "we're off the hook" (which we all think means hes gonna play kids) only to see him a week later bring in Clarke, Blake, Mqualters etc ....

Soon he will have to make a choice on "playing the kids" - so far I feel circumstances have dictated that Lyon has had to......Im not convinced that had we won the close early season games that we'd be seeing Jack Steven tearing it up out of the middle at all.....

[SainterK]

We don't have that great a list though, not alot of 'flair' to work with, and I say that with the greatest respect.

[bigcarl]

We don't have that great a list though, not alot of 'flair' to work with, and I say that with the greatest respect.

It has been a very good list, good enough to play finals virtually non-stop since 2004 and to come agonisingly close to a flag more than once.

However the gameplan precludes a lot of risk-taking.

Nowadays it is an ageing list with mental scars

[Teflon]

We don't have that great a list though, not alot of 'flair' to work with, and I say that with the greatest respect.

I disagree.

Infact, I reckon flexibility wise with numbers of running 6"3 types we are quite well off.

Lyon has attimes drawn on this - Gilbert GF 1 , Fisher to guts, Goddard fwd...Gwilt fwd.

My question is the timing of these moves Ross makes.....Id like to see some a little earlier when a gameis slipping away...as opposed to just sticking to structures hoping it all comes good.

[SainterK]

We don't have that great a list though, not alot of 'flair' to work with, and I say that with the greatest respect.

It has been a very good list, good enough to play finals virtually non-stop since 2004 and to come agonisingly close to a flag more than once.

However the gameplan precludes a lot of risk-taking.

I would argue it is super talented towards the top, and the rest of the guys have been successful because of the structures. This is complimentary in the sense they have been extremely dedicated, disciplined, honest and hard working.

[Dr Spaceman]

We don't have that great a list though, not alot of 'flair' to work with, and I say that with the greatest respect.

It has been a very good list, good enough to play finals virtually non-stop since 2004 and to come agonisingly close to a flag more than once.

However the gameplan precludes a lot of risk-taking.

I would argue it is super talented towards the top, and the rest of the guys have been successful because of the structures. This is complimentary in the sense they have been extremely dedicated, disciplined, honest and hard working.

You'll never get total agreement on this sort of thing SainterK but for what it's worth I reckon you're 100% correct.

[bigcarl]

We don't have that great a list though, not alot of 'flair' to work with, and I say that with the greatest respect.

It has been a very good list, good enough to play finals virtually non-stop since 2004 and to come agonisingly close to a flag more than once.

However the gameplan precludes a lot of risk-taking.

I would argue it is super talented towards the top, and the rest of the guys have been successful because of the structures. This is complimentary in the sense they have been extremely dedicated, disciplined, honest and hard working.

You could be describing a lot of premiership teams with that definition. Most don't bat all that low.

[FortiusQuoFidelius]

Risk taking was the difference between Geelong and St Kilda in 2009 GF. Where Scarlett toe poked to Ablett, a St Kilda player will most likely have dived on the ball and caused a stoppage or picked up the ball and passed backwards to a player in the clear...

[clarky449]

Risk taking was the difference between Geelong and St Kilda in 2009 GF. Where Scarlett toe poked to Ablett, a St Kilda player will most likely have dived on the ball and caused a stoppage or picked up the ball and passed backwards to a player in the clear...

Zac Dawson running from the defensive half to punch the ball from Ablett was risk taking as well

[saintsRrising]

First of all I would like to state that I am a RL supporter and believe we have the best tactical brain in the coaches box in the AFL,but at times I wish that RL would roll the dice during games before sticking to structures

Not sure what roll the dice is meant to mean. But the teams like Melbourne when their structures fall down get their arse kicked.


The Pies and Cats are rigorous with their structures too.


Now YES gameplan and structures need to evolve, and the saints are in the process of this.

ie you can see us trying to play on quicker.


However our biggest problem at present is not really our structures and gameplans it is execution:

1. Poor kicking
2. Poor decision making.

On 2. Take the Cats game....our forwards often led into space...but the players still kicked to Roo when he was two out. This included sam.

Now gameplan could be to do that...but I doubt it. Gameplan is for players to make leads and for team-mates to take the best option.
Problem is too meant panic.and just blast it to Roo.
Gamble and Schneider both got off by themselves and were often ignored.

On 1. Cats hurt us on the rebound caused by poor kicks from our players turning over the ball. Evena normally good kick like Dal churned outa low 30% for kicking efficiency!!!! Cats players time and time again then took longs kicks to the advantage of a forward option...whereas saints players kick to Roo...or just blast aimlessly.


The gameplan and structures that Lyon rolled out against the Cats was good enough to win the game, and should have won the game.
* too many turnovers created Cat goals. Should have been less.
* runners mistake cost a Schneider goal...and resulted in a Cats goal
* shoddy Gilbert pass = Cats goal


What it is time for is for Lyon to give more focus on players with good footskills (we sorely lack though on our list)...and to focus more on developing players for 2012 and beyond.

Now sure no team is perfect...but the way the game has evolved footskills are the most important they have ever been.


Also any player who kicks to Roo when he is two out when there is a Saints player in a better spot, or in space...should be dragged to drive the point home.

Against the Cats we may well have won the game if Roo had not played!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[skeptic]

I think the term risk taking is misleading in this thread

what the op is getting at, is trying something different every once in a while.

we talk about Ross' structures/roles etc and his results show that he is no dummy. He is however, very predictable to the point of non-responsive.

Take Grandfinal vs Geelong:
The final team saw Eddy dropped for Dempster as a forward. Now Sean is an ok player and does his roles well, but he's not a forward. little x-factor or capacity to play that role.
Geary and or Gwilt may not have been established players but both looked more dangerous up forward... both much more worthy of a punt then the safe and secure player that we got.

Point 2 the ruck. We went in with Gardiner, King and Kosi. Gardiner was clearly worn down as the year progressed and his stella form of earlier in the season was past.
King was largely ineffective for the 2nd half of the year. Kosi was only playing as a forward.

A bold coach may have tried to bring in McEvoy for his around the ground, extra forward work at the expense of King, or bring in an extra runner and rotate Kosi and Gardiner through the ruck. Risky strategy but we could have used an extra forward/runner

Instead we went with the safe consistent performances of King and Gardiner who were both relatively quiet outside of the ruck.

Grandfinal Vs Collingwood
No rational person (IMO) will ever be able to justify the positions of McQualter, Jones and Dempster to me in that team based on form.

After the draw it stunned me that we only made the 1 forced change. Esp considering the team was reportedly so exhausted.
Based on the first performance, how could u possibly justify the spot of Gram, Peake and Eddy (not that it would have made a difference). Or the underdone Dal too

[skeptic]

I guess what I'm getting at is change things up when we know they're not working

people call it a risk.

I say when Baker, Blake or Gram are out of form replace them with Smith, Walsh, Lynch for a few weeks and just mix it up

[saintsRrising]

I guess what I'm getting at is change things up when we know they're not working

people call it a risk.

I say when Baker, Blake or Gram are out of form replace them with Smith, Walsh, Lynch for a few weeks and just mix it up

I think you will find that around the time of last years GF...that possible substitutes were injured. ie Steven had OP.


As for risk-taking. Lovett. Went with a risk to get EXACTLY the type of player that could have made a big difference.

Sliding Doors moment where Lovett just goes off the rails....whereas say Krakouer just knuckles down and takes his chance after stuffing up at the Toges...and then stuffing up worse in WA.


I find it a bit amusing that many think Lyon does not take a risk.

He took a big risk when he started to radically rework our gameplan, and play like no other team had before....which achieved almost the perfect season.


Against the Cats RL went for the experienced players as being our best chance of a win....and we almost one it.

But as I posted above...gave has changed...so time to bring in more of what you need now...pace and footskills, though our pool of both is limited.

I think that is a different situation to now....and I would tend to think Ross will pay several kids now every week. Our recruiting at last was decent in terms of kids.

While many have had a crack at Lyon about not playing kids since his arrival...IMO the reason is that the kids we have taken have by and large not been a fruitful bunch since he arrived.

JB staying in charge of recruiting for so long has in hindsight turn out to have been a huge mistake. While other clubs adopted more rigorous and professional recruiting regimes we stayed in amateur land.

JB was good in his day competing against fellow part-timers going on gut instincts...but as other clubs move to science it became pretty clear that we were gaining picks that other clubs rejected.

I mean why do the saints as a whole have one of the worst kicking lists in the AFL ? = JB.

Why last year was this highlighted as a priority area to redress? I would guess that it was due to Lyon having a gutful of making do with players with poor footskills.

Pies were going backwards till they fixed their recruiting. They had some awful picks. Now I am not dismissing Malthouse...but getting their recruiting of kids right was big plus. Add to this they were bad traders vs recent trading which has been first class.

Cats have been so good for so long in large part due to their current recruiting guy making some really good calls. I mean look at their CHB plucked out of nowhere.

By contrast Lyon IMO has been coaching with one hand tied behind his back.

You only have to look at Cripps, Ledger, Sippos this year to see what we had been missing out on for years....

[Teflon]

I guess what I'm getting at is change things up when we know they're not working

people call it a risk.

I say when Baker, Blake or Gram are out of form replace them with Smith, Walsh, Lynch for a few weeks and just mix it up

I think you will find that around the time of last years GF...that possible substitutes were injured. ie Steven had OP.


As for risk-taking. Lovett. Went with a risk to get EXACTLY the type of player that could have made a big difference.

Sliding Doors moment where Lovett just goes off the rails....whereas say Krakouer just knuckles down and takes his chance after stuffing up at the Toges...and then stuffing up worse in WA.


I find it a bit amusing that many think Lyon does not take a risk.

He took a big risk when he started to radically rework our gameplan, and play like no other team had before....which achieved almost the perfect season.


Against the Cats RL went for the experienced players as being our best chance of a win....and we almost one it.

But as I posted above...gave has changed...so time to bring in more of what you need now...pace and footskills, though our pool of both is limited.

I think that is a different situation to now....and I would tend to think Ross will pay several kids now every week. Our recruiting at last was decent in terms of kids.

While many have had a crack at Lyon about not playing kids since his arrival...IMO the reason is that the kids we have taken have by and large not been a fruitful bunch since he arrived.

JB staying in charge of recruiting for so long has in hindsight turn out to have been a huge mistake. While other clubs adopted more rigorous and professional recruiting regimes we stayed in amateur land.

JB was good in his day competing against fellow part-timers going on gut instincts...but as other clubs move to science it became pretty clear that we were gaining picks that other clubs rejected.

I mean why do the saints as a whole have one of the worst kicking lists in the AFL ? = JB.

Why last year was this highlighted as a priority area to redress? I would guess that it was due to Lyon having a gutful of making do with players with poor footskills.

Pies were going backwards till they fixed their recruiting. They had some awful picks. Now I am not dismissing Malthouse...but getting their recruiting of kids right was big plus. Add to this they were bad traders vs recent trading which has been first class.

Cats have been so good for so long in large part due to their current recruiting guy making some really good calls. I mean look at their CHB plucked out of nowhere.

By contrast Lyon IMO has been coaching with one hand tied behind his back.

You only have to look at Cripps, Ledger, Sippos this year to see what we had been missing out on for years....

Malthouse made a conscious choice to discard players who were NOT going to take Pies fwd - see Obree, Lockyer, Medhurst etc and play kids. Not ALL his kids were guns - he had to work out BY PLAYING THEM who was/wasnt going to make it. See Wellingham last year.....not a household name....now stepping up in the absence of star players.

In short Malthouse took a risk to go fwd.

Lyon has played kids this year. Has he done this as a definate decision to take the club forward......or was in reality it forced upon him? i think the answer is its forced because you see when any "big" game comes up......Ross reverts to "experienced bodies" who have sadly failed us in the past.In short, Ross doesnt like risks.

Playing Ledger over Montagna and Lynch over Clarke against Cats would be a risk. It was also a great time to expose these kids to the best sides getting around. Instead, Ross went "safe" and lo and behold culprits like Jason Gram couldnt hit the side of a barn when it really mattered.

Didnt we know this? Dont we know it now?

Ross says "we are now off the hook" - good. Put up then Ross, STICK with kids and see where they take us if not for this year then maybe next.

[AnythingsPossibleSaints]

Malthouse made a conscious choice to discard players who were NOT going to take Pies fwd - see Obree, Lockyer, Medhurst etc and play kids. Not ALL his kids were guns - he had to work out BY PLAYING THEM who was/wasnt going to make it. See Wellingham last year.....not a household name....now stepping up in the absence of star players.

In short Malthouse took a risk to go fwd.

Lyon has played kids this year. Has he done this as a definate decision to take the club forward......or was in reality it forced upon him? i think the answer is its forced because you see when any "big" game comes up......Ross reverts to "experienced bodies" who have sadly failed us in the past.In short, Ross doesnt like risks.

Playing Ledger over Montagna and Lynch over Clarke against Cats would be a risk. It was also a great time to expose these kids to the best sides getting around. Instead, Ross went "safe" and lo and behold culprits like Jason Gram couldnt hit the side of a barn when it really mattered.

Didnt we know this? Dont we know it now?

Ross says "we are now off the hook" - good. Put up then Ross, STICK with kids and see where they take us if not for this year then maybe next.

This.

[saintsRrising]

I thought Ledger was rested due to pulling up sore? The same player that was out recently with a long hammy break.

Last time we got a good batch of kids we played them all early and ended up with a crop of injury prone players.


Yes lets drive Ledger into the ground and create another X.....

I wonder what Luke Ball may have done at the Saints if we had taken a different approach with him ...


We have played kids this year (more than any club bar the GC) and will continue to do so.

[Johnny Member]

Malthouse made a conscious choice to discard players who were NOT going to take Pies fwd - see Obree, Lockyer, Medhurst etc and play kids. Not ALL his kids were guns - he had to work out BY PLAYING THEM who was/wasnt going to make it. See Wellingham last year.....not a household name....now stepping up in the absence of star players.

In short Malthouse took a risk to go fwd.

Lyon has played kids this year. Has he done this as a definate decision to take the club forward......or was in reality it forced upon him? i think the answer is its forced because you see when any "big" game comes up......Ross reverts to "experienced bodies" who have sadly failed us in the past.In short, Ross doesnt like risks.

Playing Ledger over Montagna and Lynch over Clarke against Cats would be a risk. It was also a great time to expose these kids to the best sides getting around. Instead, Ross went "safe" and lo and behold culprits like Jason Gram couldnt hit the side of a barn when it really mattered.

Didnt we know this? Dont we know it now?

Ross says "we are now off the hook" - good. Put up then Ross, STICK with kids and see where they take us if not for this year then maybe next.

This.

The the thing is, if your team is flying it's usually because your gun players are up and about.
When your gun players are up and about, life is easier for the bottom 6 and the 'role players'.

So I guess the question is, and what I was asking over the past 2 seasons, is why not slide young guys into the bottom 6 and as role players whilst they can be hidden away behind the efforts of the guns?


That's the best time to blood kids.


Maybe Ross Lyon believed the bottom 6 and role players were why we were winning and couldn't be replaced with kids or we'd struggle.

[Johnny Member]

We have played kids this year (more than any club bar the GC) and will continue to do so.

People can justifiably wonder though, if we'd played young guys over the past 2 years, would we not have a better wave of 'middle 6' or 'bottom 6' players in the team right now?
By playing the kids this year, we'll hopefully see that next year and the year after - but will that be too late?

I think that's the issue people have.

[Teflon]

Malthouse made a conscious choice to discard players who were NOT going to take Pies fwd - see Obree, Lockyer, Medhurst etc and play kids. Not ALL his kids were guns - he had to work out BY PLAYING THEM who was/wasnt going to make it. See Wellingham last year.....not a household name....now stepping up in the absence of star players.

In short Malthouse took a risk to go fwd.

Lyon has played kids this year. Has he done this as a definate decision to take the club forward......or was in reality it forced upon him? i think the answer is its forced because you see when any "big" game comes up......Ross reverts to "experienced bodies" who have sadly failed us in the past.In short, Ross doesnt like risks.

Playing Ledger over Montagna and Lynch over Clarke against Cats would be a risk. It was also a great time to expose these kids to the best sides getting around. Instead, Ross went "safe" and lo and behold culprits like Jason Gram couldnt hit the side of a barn when it really mattered.

Didnt we know this? Dont we know it now?

Ross says "we are now off the hook" - good. Put up then Ross, STICK with kids and see where they take us if not for this year then maybe next.

This.

The the thing is, if your team is flying it's usually because your gun players are up and about.
When your gun players are up and about, life is easier for the bottom 6 and the 'role players'.

So I guess the question is, and what I was asking over the past 2 seasons, is why not slide young guys into the bottom 6 and as role players whilst they can be hidden away behind the efforts of the guns?


That's the best time to blood kids.


Maybe Ross Lyon believed the bottom 6 and role players were why we were winning and couldn't be replaced with kids or we'd struggle.

THIS IS the only criticims of Ross Lyon I have.

Pies know by bleeding kids into their side while they are flying they will speed up their confidence/development.

We are now demanding Armo become Lenny overnight.

[saint58]

I thought Ledger was rested due to pulling up sore? The same player that was out recently with a long hammy break.

Last time we got a good batch of kids we played them all early and ended up with a crop of injury prone players.


Yes lets drive Ledger into the ground and create another X.....

I wonder what Luke Ball may have done at the Saints if we had taken a different approach with him ...


We have played kids this year (more than any club bar the GC) and will continue to do so.

No we wont according to ross in the Herald sun he has given up on the YOUTH POLICY THIS YEAR!
So next game we will see gardy,blake,joey,and maybe even minin (i hope not) so where the club goes from here i dont know if thats the attitude.

Perhaps we could trade some of our talls to GWS they are looking for mature key positioned players.Like ARcher,Johnson,stanley,Walsh caus they wont get a game with the saints anytime soon.

Not even though they get named in the best week after week Kosi was not even named in the best for Sandi and stillcome into the side last week,so that must tell you that ross has no confidence in the young talls thats what he said anyway.

[plugger66]

Malthouse made a conscious choice to discard players who were NOT going to take Pies fwd - see Obree, Lockyer, Medhurst etc and play kids. Not ALL his kids were guns - he had to work out BY PLAYING THEM who was/wasnt going to make it. See Wellingham last year.....not a household name....now stepping up in the absence of star players.

In short Malthouse took a risk to go fwd.

Lyon has played kids this year. Has he done this as a definate decision to take the club forward......or was in reality it forced upon him? i think the answer is its forced because you see when any "big" game comes up......Ross reverts to "experienced bodies" who have sadly failed us in the past.In short, Ross doesnt like risks.

Playing Ledger over Montagna and Lynch over Clarke against Cats would be a risk. It was also a great time to expose these kids to the best sides getting around. Instead, Ross went "safe" and lo and behold culprits like Jason Gram couldnt hit the side of a barn when it really mattered.

Didnt we know this? Dont we know it now?

Ross says "we are now off the hook" - good. Put up then Ross, STICK with kids and see where they take us if not for this year then maybe next.

This.

The the thing is, if your team is flying it's usually because your gun players are up and about.
When your gun players are up and about, life is easier for the bottom 6 and the 'role players'.

So I guess the question is, and what I was asking over the past 2 seasons, is why not slide young guys into the bottom 6 and as role players whilst they can be hidden away behind the efforts of the guns?


That's the best time to blood kids.


Maybe Ross Lyon believed the bottom 6 and role players were why we were winning and couldn't be replaced with kids or we'd struggle.

THIS IS the only criticims of Ross Lyon I have.

Pies know by bleeding kids into their side while they are flying they will speed up their confidence/development.

We are now demanding Armo become Lenny overnight.

Or maybe RL knew he was never going to be Lenny afterall he has played about 80 games in the last 4 years.

[desertsaint]

No we wont according to ross in the Herald sun he has given up on the YOUTH POLICY THIS YEAR!.

link?