Is RL really the right man for coach?

[bigred]

Nice thread.

He got us to the last game two years running....with this crap, flawed list.

Gotta give his SOME rope I reckon.

[Old Mate]

We need to take a couple of steps back in order to go forward. As an example Blake may be a better option than Simpkin short term however its important that we begin to put development into players such as Simpkin for the long term. I would be happy to miss the finals altogether next year and play youngsters to give them experience and further their development.

I constantly hear the same misconception on these boards that we did play the younger players and develop them. No we didn't. We played them for 1, 2 and 3 games then went back to the old guard when a slim finals chance came. Injuries didn't help however we cannot use that as the scapegoat. Ross had certain expectations from his management - to play finals. I would expect that his objectives next year would be very different. Further develop our players in order to have another crack in 2 or 3 years would be my guess.

I think we're all in agreement that a premiership with the current crop isn't going to happy. Sadly Lenny, Roo and co. have missed the boat. We play the old guard and play for a bottom finals position like this year or slide a few places down the ladder and think long-term.

I would say these guys will get plenty of opportunity next year:

Cripps
Crocker
Ledger
Siposs
Walsh
Stanley
Simpkin

These guys to gain further development:

Steven
Armo
McEvoy

The core to keep us relatively competitive:

Roo
Hayes
Dal Santo
Monty
Goddard
Milne
Fisher
Gilbert
Jones
Gwilt
Schnieder
Dempster

These guys will be on the outer (reserves/traded/delisted):

Blake
Dawson
Kosi
Gram
Peake
Polo
Geary
Raph
Gamble
Ray

My team for next year (for sh1ts and giggles):

B: Dempster Simpkin Gwilt
HB: Goddard Fisher Gilbert
C: Dal Santo Steven Montagna
HF: Schneider Riewoldt Cripps
F: Siposs Walsh Milne
R: McEvoy Hayes Jones
I: Stanley Armitage Crocker
S: Ledger

It would be interesting to see what out average age ended up....

And to answer the OP's question. Hell yeah Ross is the right person for the job. Like I said earlier he will have totally deferent objectives next year.

[joffaboy]

Nice post Old mate.

Cant argue too much with your logic.

The new players you mentioned need to be given a go.

Ross need to start the "churn" as Malthouse put the turnover of young players until he got the right mix.

With the churn you can get diamonds from the tones of dirt. Dane Swan was pick #50 something for example. Richard Cole was an early pick at Collingwood and is now gone.

Two examples of the churn.

[SainterK]

I don't want the churn, I want the blend.

Ross showed Rd 9 - 11 that he is more than capable of getting the right combo.

I won't hold it against him that injuries impacted this, and expect more of the same in 2012.

The likes of Mini, Eddy, Bakes, Gardi weren't in the starting squad v Swans, transition has already begun people, patience!

[St.Roly]

Agree Baba

We cannot afford to lose the way we play or we will definitly threaten our own survival. All these people who say if you don't love the club then F*** off! Well with out all those people who are supporters or watchers of the saints without being crazy devoted the club will fold. I'm not a member anymore simply coz i can't get to the games often enough due to other commitments and can't justify the money as i am a Uni Student but i still go and pay at the gate every chance i get. I have to admit the way we play often has me leaving the game even after we win wondering whether it is really worth the money to watch them. I have mates who used to come to lots of games with me when we played under Grant Thomas. They used to love the way we played. They are not Saints supporters. Just loved footy. Now not only will they not come to the footy with me they won't even go when there own side plays St kilda.

This should be real worry for the administration because in the end the side is in the entertainment business. Currently we are not entertaining

With all due respect to you and your mates, footy has moved on since GT was coach. No side can afford to be one dimensional all-out attack.

I reckon our persistent labelling as the standout dour "defend at all costs" side is seriously overstated and is primarily an example of the fact that the media just regurgitate their own commentary over and over again until it becomes gospel.

How much more exciting/entertaining than us are Collingwood really? Or Hawthorn? They both seek to work the ball out around the boundary with short passes and switch backwards when necessary but I don't hear them being criticised for it.

[Johnny Member]

I don't want the churn, I want the blend.

Ross showed Rd 9 - 11 that he is more than capable of getting the right combo.

I don't think he did.

I think what this season showed, clearly, is that we still can't score.


We can still defend well with such a strong discipline and solid defensive game plan - but we still can't score eough to beat the really good teams of this era.

[SainterK]

I don't want the churn, I want the blend.

Ross showed Rd 9 - 11 that he is more than capable of getting the right combo.

I don't think he did.

I think what this season showed, clearly, is that we still can't score.


We can still defend well with such a strong discipline and solid defensive game plan - but we still can't score eough to beat the really good teams of this era.

That's another subject, I was talking personnel.

[Old Mate]

....

The likes of Mini, Eddy, Bakes, Gardi weren't in the starting squad v Swans, transition has already begun people, patience!

I think he was hedging his bets a bit.

I'm expecting him to be more committed at developing the kids next year.

[Old Mate]

Nice post Old mate.

Cant argue too much with your logic.

The new players you mentioned need to be given a go.

Ross need to start the "churn" as Malthouse put the turnover of young players until he got the right mix.

With the churn you can get diamonds from the tones of dirt. Dane Swan was pick #50 something for example. Richard Cole was an early pick at Collingwood and is now gone.

Two examples of the churn.

Cheers mate. It think this is a good topic.

[meher baba]

How much more exciting/entertaining than us are Collingwood really? Or Hawthorn? They both seek to work the ball out around the boundary with short passes and switch backwards when necessary but I don't hear them being criticised for it.

Collingwood averaged 40% more points per game (around 30 points a game) than us in 2011-12 and Hawthorn averaged 25% more (around 20 points a game).

I think points scored over a season relative to results is a reasonable indicator of the entertainment value of a team. Our mentors the Swans came 11th and we came 12th on average points scored per game but finished 6th and 5th on the ladder.

Put simply, we and the Swans tend to triumph more because we restrict our opponents' ability to score than because we have won in a shoot out.

That's fabulous while we are winning more games than we lose. But, as NoMore and I have pointed out, it isn't going to cut it with fans if we are in a rebuilding phase and are languishing at the bottom of the table.

[Johnny Member]

Agree Baba

We cannot afford to lose the way we play or we will definitly threaten our own survival. All these people who say if you don't love the club then F*** off! Well with out all those people who are supporters or watchers of the saints without being crazy devoted the club will fold. I'm not a member anymore simply coz i can't get to the games often enough due to other commitments and can't justify the money as i am a Uni Student but i still go and pay at the gate every chance i get. I have to admit the way we play often has me leaving the game even after we win wondering whether it is really worth the money to watch them. I have mates who used to come to lots of games with me when we played under Grant Thomas. They used to love the way we played. They are not Saints supporters. Just loved footy. Now not only will they not come to the footy with me they won't even go when there own side plays St kilda.

This should be real worry for the administration because in the end the side is in the entertainment business. Currently we are not entertaining

With all due respect to you and your mates, footy has moved on since GT was coach. No side can afford to be one dimensional all-out attack.

This annoys me a bit. Somehow over time, that era has falsely been described as 'all out attack'. It wasn't! It wasn't even close to that.

We were top 4 for 'Least Points Against' for 3 years straight, were a fierce tackling team and were defensive monsters all over the ground - in particular the F50! Thomas was nearly run out of town for his 'uber floods' in 2002 which were designed to teach the team 'defense first'.

We weren't all out attack at all. We actually had that great balance between the two I felt. What was lacking, was having the key players on the ground when it mattered!

Thomas, I believe, looked to individuals to 'step up' and do something when we were under pressure. He loved the players showing leadership and the old fashioned concept of some bloke picking the team up and carrying them over the line.

The fact was, that no matter how good you are, if you are as ravaged with injury as we were in 05 and 06, you just can't expect to make GF's, let alone win them!

Lyon though, relies on his structure and his players' ability to stick to the plan when we're under pressure.

In my opinion, a mix of the two is what would be ideal! If you could get as team that is full on as we are defensively and in terms of discipline to the game plan - and had a couple of blokes who could step up and carry the team over the line with freak individual efforts, then we'd be right.

Riewoldt and us in 2009 was pretty close to that. Sadly, he wasn't able to do it in the GF.


Anyway....

I reckon our persistent labelling as the standout dour "defend at all costs" side is seriously overstated and is primarily an example of the fact that the media just regurgitate their own commentary over and over again until it becomes gospel.

I think it is though. To me, it's a clear situation where we defend first. We set up at stoppages to defend, at the selection table, and even in the forward line now!

That's fine, because most coaches do that too. The difference is, that Malthouse, Thompson, Clarkson and now Scott have been able to find a way to defend intensely without limiting their own chances to score. In a way, Collingwood and Geelong almost score better now that more defensive!

We aren't there yet.

[Johnny Member]

I don't want the churn, I want the blend.

Ross showed Rd 9 - 11 that he is more than capable of getting the right combo.

I don't think he did.

I think what this season showed, clearly, is that we still can't score.


We can still defend well with such a strong discipline and solid defensive game plan - but we still can't score eough to beat the really good teams of this era.

That's another subject, I was talking personnel.

I don't think we have the cattle on our list to match the type of game plan we need to be successful.

Lyon recruited for his game plan. Which was fine in 09, because it 'up to date'. But now, the game plan is outdated (sounds silly but in footy it doesn't long!) and the 'role' players and unskillful stoppers aren't capable of playing the 'play on at all costs/move the ball fast/take risks' type of style he appears to be trying to implement.

[St.Roly]

I think points scored over a season relative to results is a reasonable indicator of the entertainment value of a team.

I guess it ultimately depends upon how you define "entertainment value". Personally, I don't consider points scored to be any sort of indicator of whether I will find any particular team or game "entertaining". Unfortunately I must concede that the majority may disagree.

[St.Roly]

With all due respect to you and your mates, footy has moved on since GT was coach. No side can afford to be one dimensional all-out attack.

This annoys me a bit. Somehow over time, that era has falsely been described as 'all out attack'. It wasn't! It wasn't even close to that.

Fair enough - that was an exaggeration of the GT approach, perhaps we can agree that it was "less structured".

[Johnny Member]

With all due respect to you and your mates, footy has moved on since GT was coach. No side can afford to be one dimensional all-out attack.

This annoys me a bit. Somehow over time, that era has falsely been described as 'all out attack'. It wasn't! It wasn't even close to that.

Fair enough - that was an exaggeration of the GT approach, perhaps we can agree that it was "less structured".

Definitely less structured!

I think he focussed on individual guys winning their positions, and learning to play together.

Old fashioned now, and was just starting to be then - but with the right team it was very still effective. Problem was, and this can kill any team no matter how good the structure, too many injuries to important players.

So when I talk about defence under Thomas, it was each player being very defensive skilled. Not a defensive structure or setup designed to work in any situation.

[Johnny Member]

I think points scored over a season relative to results is a reasonable indicator of the entertainment value of a team.

I guess it ultimately depends upon how you define "entertainment value". Personally, I don't consider points scored to be any sort of indicator of whether I will find any particular team or game "entertaining". Unfortunately I must concede that the majority may disagree.

I'm with you there. Seeing goals kicked doesn't 'entertain' me neccessarily.

A highly skilled, intense, physical and passionate game entertains me.

We don't bring skill to the table, and due to the way we play our games don't appear to be intense. I'm sure they are - but to view it from the grandstands they don't have that frantic feel to them.

[Austinnn]

Dont. I believe what I wrote as the Op to be pretty close to the mark.

I firmly believe that RL is a very good gameday coach who has a very demanding and well crafted gameplan.

I believe that he has the credits to be given the opportunity to draft some talent and develop the team while some of the core stars are still about to have another tilt.

Along the lines of Malthouse did after twin GF failures in 2002-03.

Does this mean I like the defensive gameplan? Not necessarily. However I do like the winning.

Do i like the fact that i almost had two coronary's watching the GF's in 09 and 10 and the fact that our gameplan ensured close games? Not necessarily, however I liked the fact we GOT to the two GF's and with an ounce of luck could be back to back premiers right now.

there is much I dont like about Lyon. Much that can be critisised. What I like is his results and what I see from Lyon as a person.

He deserves a go. He has earned it. However I would like to see an increase in our skills and injection of youth. I dont want to see a procession of Polo's and Attards for the next three years (in all due respect to those guys).

Totally agree.

I admire RLs' efforts to get us back on track-sort of, this season, but there's no excuse for shocking skills at this level, and the poor depth of the playing list is another concern he must wear. There's still major problems with the forward line functionality, and problems with clearance work, and that is one of RL's big problems to try and sort out. Let's see how the team performs over the next season and then we will have a better idea

Totally agree.

[stinger]

no he's not the right man for us...good riddance....

[joffaboy]

no he's not the right man for us...good riddance....

lol - have to agree.

glad we sacked him

[saintpeter]

seems that OP has a valid point

[saintly]

seems that OP has a valid point

oh well the the OP has many good points, and now we can look back only hours adfter the OP and say. well what do we want for our new coach!