If Lyon was our coach

[SaintPav]

I was pointing out the simplistic thoughtlessness behind the "play the kids" mantra (just like the "man up" mantra, and the "kick it up the guts" mantra you hear from supporters at the game who cant grasp the basics of a zone or a press ).

The "man up" mantra I hear at kick ins during games is my personal favourite. It reminds me of the Captain and the Major and takes me back to my childhood circa 1981.

[skeptic]

sorry if i don't see developing a few kids by playing the most deserving, and challenging for a flag with a solid as mutually exclusive

[SaintPav]

They usually are when the kids are not good enough in the first place.

The kids were not good enough because the St Kilda administration did not put the resources and personnel into both the football and recruiting department in order to compete with the like of other teams such as Geelong, Collingwood and Hawthorn who have recruited extraordinary well without having to bottom out. Point the blame in the right direction and not at the previous coaching staff.

[skeptic]

see that's ur opinion and you can't prove that just as much as I can't prove mine

if played a bit more IMO McEvoy, Armitage and Steven could have come on sooner
Lynch and Miles if played more would have showed they were worth persevering with
I think Johnson showed potential too

Certainly Luke Ball walked out with the feeling he had to get out... would slot nicely into our team right now

Will be interesting to watch Geary this year too

i agree that our recruting def needs to improve... still doesn't mean we're developing our players as best as we could be

[joffaboy]

see that's ur opinion and you can't prove that just as much as I can't prove mine

but the fact is that by playing the best team available in 09 and 10 we have a crack at two flags and nearly won both.

You weaken the team by your simplistic "play the kids" and we dont have a settled team who then falters in the finals and doesn't even reach the big dance.

And anybody who writes ur instead of you are cant be taken seriously anyway

[SaintPav]

see that's ur opinion and you can't prove that just as much as I can't prove mine

but the fact is that by playing the best team available in 09 and 10 we have a crack at two flags and nearly won both.

You weaken the team by your simplistic "play the kids" and we dont have a settled team who then falters in the finals and doesn't even reach the big dance.

And anybody who writes ur instead of you are cant be taken seriously anyway

"simplistic" is the perfect way to describe it really.

[skeptic]

where do you get the idea that I'm suggesting play undeserving kids against performing senior players?

time and time again that's what you guys boil it down too but that's not the argument

we actually played some consistently under performing/achieving sneior players in that time too

[skeptic]

[quote="SaintPavYou weaken the team by your simplistic "play the kids" and we dont have a settled team who then falters in the finals and doesn't even reach the big dance.

And anybody who writes ur instead of you are cant be taken seriously anyway[/quote]


Furthermore, you would think that if you are going to pick on someone's grammar or the shortcuts they use, you wouldn't make 2 errors in the one sentence. See if you can pick them genius.

[The Fireman]

If Lyon was our coach then little would change, we can now expect change, where that takes us....hold your breath.

[SaintPav]

I'd rather have a beer with someone who had bad grammar (not JB) than someone who was so sanctimonious any day.

[BigMart]

Ross had a simple philosphy

He just picked the 22 oldest players available on the list every week. With the proviso they played defensive footy...

[joffaboy]

where do you get the idea that I'm suggesting play undeserving kids against performing senior players?

time and time again that's what you guys boil it down too but that's not the argument

we actually played some consistently under performing/achieving sneior players in that time too

We consistantly underperformed so badly we stumbled into two GF's in a row.

[joffaboy]

[quote="SaintPavYou weaken the team by your simplistic "play the kids" and we dont have a settled team who then falters in the finals and doesn't even reach the big dance.

And anybody who writes ur instead of you are cant be taken seriously anyway

Furthermore, you would think that if you are going to pick on someone's grammar or the shortcuts they use, you wouldn't make 2 errors in the one sentence. See if you can pick them genius.[/quote]

It nice error on the quotes you big dummy.

Play the kids
Play the kids
Play the kids

Kick it up the guts
Man up.

Got any others to your borish repertoire

ur way to kewl for me, or did you write like thast for the lulz?

[skeptic]

where do you get the idea that I'm suggesting play undeserving kids against performing senior players?

time and time again that's what you guys boil it down too but that's not the argument

we actually played some consistently under performing/achieving sneior players in that time too

We consistantly underperformed so badly we stumbled into two GF's in a row.

Again you're changing the topic - nobody is saying that we didn't do well.

Are you saying we couldn't have done better?

Where have I ever said lets play Rhys Stanley ahead of Roo or Kosi??? My point was that maybe we could have played alternatives to guys like McQualter, Gram and Gardiner who were all really struggling leading into 2010 GF (not all of them obviously as we had some injuries if I recall).

Am I not saying it right? Can someone who is not JB, Saint Pav or plugger (the usual guys I have this argument with [not meant in a nasty way]) tell me if my argument is expressing a clear need to play underdeserving kids ahead of performing senior players?
JB and Saint Pav, you both keep bringing the topic back to that but it's not and has never been the point.

And fair dinkum you have a fair bit of cheek attacking me for the grammar comment, I didn't bring that up Saint Pav you did - then you call me sanctimonious... why are you guys so nasty? Why not just discuss the topic rather than resort to ridicule?

I can understand why JB may have an axe to grind as I was quite nasty to him in the cricket topic after he riled my (not that that's an excuse and I shouldn't have resorted to that, so a belated apology to you JB) but Saint Pav I just don't get your argument - "everything was perfect the way it was and went, RL was perfect and any level of disagreeing with him is a reactionary response in hindsight now that he's gone"

[SaintPav]

where do you get the idea that I'm suggesting play undeserving kids against performing senior players?

time and time again that's what you guys boil it down too but that's not the argument

we actually played some consistently under performing/achieving sneior players in that time too

We consistantly underperformed so badly we stumbled into two GF's in a row.

Again you're changing the topic - nobody is saying that we didn't do well.

Are you saying we couldn't have done better?

Where have I ever said lets play Rhys Stanley ahead of Roo or Kosi??? My point was that maybe we could have played alternatives to guys like McQualter, Gram and Gardiner who were all really struggling leading into 2010 GF (not all of them obviously as we had some injuries if I recall).

Am I not saying it right? Can someone who is not JB, Saint Pav or plugger (the usual guys I have this argument with [not meant in a nasty way]) tell me if my argument is expressing a clear need to play underdeserving kids ahead of performing senior players?
JB and Saint Pav, you both keep bringing the topic back to that but it's not and has never been the point.

And fair dinkum you have a fair bit of cheek attacking me for the grammar comment, I didn't bring that up Saint Pav you did - then you call me sanctimonious... why are you guys so nasty? Why not just discuss the topic rather than resort to ridicule?

I can understand why JB may have an axe to grind as I was quite nasty to him in the cricket topic after he riled my (not that that's an excuse and I shouldn't have resorted to that, so a belated apology to you JB) but Saint Pav I just don't get your argument - "everything was perfect the way it was and went, RL was perfect and any level of disagreeing with him is a reactionary response in hindsight now that he's gone"

When did I say the last bit?? Don't put quotations around something I didn't say or even imply..

I couldn't care less about this but your arguments are non sensical, trite and all in hindsight. I have no idea what you are banging on about but you are bagging a strategy that got us there in the first place. Name the players who shoud have played instead of those guys..?

The opposition were pretty good as well and at the end of the day, we were not good enough.

btw, you lost me completley when you wrote "whatever" in response to a point I made...I don't do whatever.

[plugger66]

Ross had a simple philosphy

He just picked the 22 oldest players available on the list every week. With the proviso they played defensive footy...

Sometimes you just lose it dont you?

[plugger66]

see that's ur opinion and you can't prove that just as much as I can't prove mine

if played a bit more IMO McEvoy, Armitage and Steven could have come on sooner
Lynch and Miles if played more would have showed they were worth persevering with
I think Johnson showed potential too

Certainly Luke Ball walked out with the feeling he had to get out... would slot nicely into our team right now

Will be interesting to watch Geary this year too

i agree that our recruting def needs to improve... still doesn't mean we're developing our players as best as we could be

This is where you confuse me. Miles probably got 2 games he didnt deserve and then was delisted. No one picked him up because they thought he wasnt good enough. Has gone back to Wafl footy and still isnt good enough. Same goes with Johnson. Playing more would just see that they werent good enough. Lynch got as many games last year as he deserved. McEvoy has played a lot of games for young ruckman. Certainly been given every chance. Steven has played as much because of injury. He had very bad groins for 2 years and that is fact. Armo Played a lot last year and didnt seem to improve so him getting a huge chance hasnt helped his footy. Geary has certainly been given every chance. Many would say more than he deserved. Ball worked because of opportunity. That I do agree on but it wasnt because he wasnt playing.

[SaintPav]

see that's ur opinion and you can't prove that just as much as I can't prove mine

if played a bit more IMO McEvoy, Armitage and Steven could have come on sooner
Lynch and Miles if played more would have showed they were worth persevering with
I think Johnson showed potential too

Certainly Luke Ball walked out with the feeling he had to get out... would slot nicely into our team right now

Will be interesting to watch Geary this year too

i agree that our recruting def needs to improve... still doesn't mean we're developing our players as best as we could be

This is where you confuse me. Miles probably got 2 games he didnt deserve and then was delisted. No one picked him up because they thought he wasnt good enough. Has gone back to Wafl footy and still isnt good enough. Same goes with Johnson. Playing more would just see that they werent good enough. Lynch got as many games last year as he deserved. McEvoy has played a lot of games for young ruckman. Certainly been given every chance. Steven has played as much because of injury. He had very bad groins for 2 years and that is fact. Armo Played a lot last year and didnt seem to improve so him getting a huge chance hasnt helped his footy. Geary has certainly been given every chance. Many would say more than he deserved. Ball worked because of opportunity. That I do agree on but it wasnt because he wasnt playing.

yep +1

[spert]

Lyon was a one-trick-pony who got a couple of cracks at glory with us and couldn't pull it off, once the opposition worked him out, and Ross had no plan B. Still only one premiership cup on the shelf, so let's see how Watt Scotters goes.

[plugger66]

Lyon was a one-trick-pony who got a couple of cracks at glory with us and couldn't pull it off, once the opposition worked him out, and Ross had no plan B. Still only one premiership cup on the shelf, so let's see how Watt Scotters goes.

Have people actually thought that the make up of our side made RL become that one trick pony. I suppose we will know more after both the Saints and Froe this year.

[whiskers3614]

Chicken/egg situation Plugger.
Surely Lyon had SOME influence over make up of the list
Did well with some very ordinary C graders
BUT, that didn't stop him and recruiters churning other teams C graders looking for gold instead of aiming hjgher at the risk of short term pain.

[plugger66]

Chicken/egg situation Plugger.
Surely Lyon had SOME influence over make up of the list
Did well with some very ordinary C graders
BUT, that didn't stop him and recruiters churning other teams C graders looking for gold instead of aiming hjgher at the risk of short term pain.

We were in the flag window. Whats the point of short term pain? He got guys that he thought would enhance the list. The funny thing is apart from the Lovett pick which picks did we lose that probably got us good player. I cant think of many. We also got Schneider and Dempster who have become regulars.

I think it is a bit of a myth that we lost good draft picks because of Rl and he certainly cant be blamed for the poor drafting in his era. That is what has really hurt.

[8856brother]

Good thread about Ross on BF at the moment. Interesting reading some views of people with no emotional link to St Kilda. Hard to get those sort of views here. Taking no notice of posts by saints or dockers fans, most agree he is a good coach but how he left us was pretty ordinary.

[whiskers3614]

Are you suggesting coach has no influence on drafting?

[plugger66]

Are you suggesting coach has no influence on drafting?

If he does it wouldnt be much as it shouldnt be.. I think it would only be when a recruiter rates 2 players pretty level. When they read out a name straight away I would suggest that is totally the recruiters decision.