Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
tony74 wrote:If you have a day off and are in the Seaford area come down to the oval and see the mood of the playing group. Quite a few will begin pre season Wednesday week with the majority coming back on Nov 18. Some of you may then walk away with a different view.
I have seen training in 1983, 2000 and 2009 and apart from the skill level the mood of the group always looked upbeat.
Anyone that attended training in the 80's was a glutton for punishment. Therefore any comments made after this admission are rendered null and void due to obvious mental impairment.....
The heavy metal artist formerly known as True Believer!
IF you look around the room and can't identify who the sucker is, then it's probably you!
tony74 wrote:If you have a day off and are in the Seaford area come down to the oval and see the mood of the playing group. Quite a few will begin pre season Wednesday week with the majority coming back on Nov 18. Some of you may then walk away with a different view.
I have seen training in 1983, 2000 and 2009 and apart from the skill level the mood of the group always looked upbeat.
Anyone that attended training in the 80's was a glutton for punishment. Therefore any comments made after this admission are rendered null and void due to obvious mental impairment.....
I HAVE A LOT MORE REASONS FOR MENTAL IMPAIRMENT THAN JUST WATCHING TRAINING.
I have not heard people calling for a coach to be stood down the way Fine demanded. Not people in media who purport to 'love and support their club'
Tim Watson has never done it, Allastaire Lynch hasn't done it. Matthew Lloyd hasn't. I've never heard Richo come out and say "sack the coach." I've never heard BT say "sack Mick, or sack Bucks or Sack Terry Wallace." Darcy hasn't ever said sack Eade or sack whoever....
Fine was potentially causing damage and may have interrupted some of the trades that were vital for us and some of the negotiations that might be taking place with potential draftees...If you were the parents of a kid looking to come to St Kilda you might just believe some of the crap that was beeing peddled as fact....Fine is a flog
Tony74 sounds like a positive bloke unlike half the negative Nancys on here including myself.
It's good that he is picking up on a happy vibe but one can read into these things a bit much ala Mike Sheehan...."I just don't like the body langauge Gerard...."
Anyway, didn't Rosco look at Tony straight in the eye and tell him he was staying?
Holder of unacceptable views and other thought crimes.
Scollop wrote:I have not heard people calling for a coach to be stood down the way Fine demanded. Not people in media who purport to 'love and support their club'
Tim Watson has never done it, Allastaire Lynch hasn't done it. Matthew Lloyd hasn't. I've never heard Richo come out and say "sack the coach." I've never heard BT say "sack Mick, or sack Bucks or Sack Terry Wallace." Darcy hasn't ever said sack Eade or sack whoever....
Fine was potentially causing damage and may have interrupted some of the trades that were vital for us and some of the negotiations that might be taking place with potential draftees...If you were the parents of a kid looking to come to St Kilda you might just believe some of the crap that was beeing peddled as fact....Fine is a flog
Well it didn't and I think you might be understimating people who actually work in the football industry and who can tell the difference between fact and fiction or at least have access to find out what is really going on.
Holder of unacceptable views and other thought crimes.
SaintPav wrote:Tony74 sounds like a positive bloke unlike half the negative Nancys on here including myself.
It's good that he is picking up on a happy vibe but one can read into these things a bit much ala Mike Sheehan...."I just don't like the body langauge Gerard...."
Anyway, didn't Rosco look at Tony straight in the eye and tell him he was staying?
I believe that's what Tony said. Sounds like Rossy lied about staying. Then again if he had've told him "I'm off to Freo" I would've been more concerned.
Anyway, Tony is regularly at training and reckons the playing group as a whole are happy. The rumours on SEN suggest otherwise.
Most of us on here don't get to training so we can only take Tony at his word.
What one makes of this public display of happiness is of course totally up to the individual.
Spinner wrote:At the end of the day - is what Mark Fine said been anything different to the rumblings of others and to what Caroline Wilson has detailed?
People may not like it, call it damaging. But if it's true - well responsibility falls with the club.
If that's what he believes and his sources stipulate - well great for him voicing. Reconciling with other media - doesn't sound like he was far off. I mean, the board basically deciding to sack SW (caro) the president confirming the issues between SW and CP (the president) the football review and maybe unrelated the CEO resigning.
Unless MF is downright lying - I'm fine with him calling out what he thinks or has insight into. Be upset for where the problem really lies. A little radio show "that apparently no one listens to similar to TFS" won't affect our membership to any significant degree to what our performances/incidents will do to ourselves.
What are you saying?
It's ok because Caro also said it!!
It's Ok becasue Fine's not causing as much damage as the dwalf incident or as much impact to memberships than the win-loss ratio?
So in your mind it's Ok to speculate and casue potential harm to the club you purport to support? And to call for the coach to be sacked because a few senior players have hurt egos and they want to set the agenda?
Interesting read. But, interesting as it is, I'm afraid I'm still stuck at thinking most, if not all, of what has been tossed in Watters' direction is opinion dressed up as fact, then embellished, extended by the whispering Chinese, too narrowly attributed responsibility, too narrowly sourced opinion, driven by bruised or inflated egos, exploitative of the imbalance of reason in modern communications - in short, a mess.
As Johnny M wrote, some of the digressions from the core issue (which surely must be Watters' competence) have been downright vicious. The "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" stuff only serves to excite those who desire or need scandal to get through the day, those who want simple answers to complex questions or those who prefer to think the worst of someone as a route to the simplistic solution - seeking scapegoats is nuttin' new.
While "news" of people holding Watters responsible for our predicament have been reported as fact, those people who are holding Watters responsible are still just expressing their opinion. Views about game plans, communications, what the job should be, who should do it and how they should do it, are still just opinions, and just the opinions of some, however many some might be. Unless Watters has committed some indictable offence, there ain't no facts at play here. There are merely assessments and judgements borne of opinion.
A random cobbling;
Some don't think Watters has a game plan. Some don't like the game plan (from which it can reasonably inferred they think he has one). Some think he chops and changes the game plan too often, including mid game. It seems to me some people have their expectations set too high. This is a transition, from a decade long solid core playing list, developed in the 1st half of the decade and merely tinkered with in the 2nd half (which was all reasonable at the time, but mistakes were made in that 2nd half).
The selection panel (not just Watters) has played a lot of kids and inexperienced players in the last 2 years. Not having had high draft picks for years, we had no inductees with elite junior backgrounds. We didn't bring in senior Top 50 talent from other clubs. We've seen more change in the last 2 years than the previous 8'ish. Last year we finished on the fringes of the 8. This year we slid. We had injuries and form slides at the experienced and key end. We played kids who were drafted 30+ in 2012 (e.g. Murdoch, Saunders). Blokes with a little more age and experience from that same trade/draft period, like Lee and Hickey, were identified very early on as needing to develop "AFL bodies". Watters said early in the year Tom Lee would need to spend a lot of time developing the body necessary to compete at AFL level.
Numerous successful people at the top of the AFL tree have been acknowledging for years that game plans take time for a group to learn. Even an experienced and outwardly capable group, like Lyon's 1st year, took time. And, Lyon changed it at the end of his second year year, anyway (those who can recall the practice match at Princes Park vs the Doggies pre-'09, and heard what Lyon said in reference to something they were trying, know what I'm referring to). Once they mastered the Lyon plan, off 2 years of his basic philosophy and a change to suit the make up of the list, it almost got the ultimate result.
But, Lyon's 2 years to educate the group and develop his own best option game plan was done with a stable list, with a number of top end players in their prime. Watters has had no such comfort. Players past their prime will always struggle to make change, if only because their physical capabilities are on the wane, anyway.
How quickly do people think kids can learn a game plan AND develop the physical and skill requirements to carry it out consistently? Introducing a couple of kids each year when you're side is stable still requires a lot of attention. Throw lots of kids in when you're not stable and the pain is inevitable. Roos has been saying for years he doubts the value in drafting/playing many kids in 1 year. Geelong and Hawthorn have done a lot of topping up with experienced players.
Some have attributed fault to Watters' communications with players. Perhaps some didn't like the message? Collingwood have been through the exact same thing, and experienced players have walked, or been pushed, in greater numbers than us (and they played finals!!). BfrUSA mentions having spoken to a range of people and seems to have detected most disgruntlement among older players and ex-board members. Both issues, for mine, lay at the feet of the NEW board to address through the clarity and coherence of THEIR communications. Many an organisation has faltered because of deficiencies at the highest level of governance, not because of deficiencies among the employees.
As I've been saying for some time, I reckon Summers and the new board have started very well. Summers has acted and spoken with clarity and coherence. They clearly have more to do, but it seems to me the areas requiring most attention are beyond the list and coaching i.e. a CEO, financial performance and Moorabbin/Seaford. As far as Watters' extension goes, I'll just defer to Summers' statements and reasoning, because what he has said actually makes sense. Let's not forget, not many people thought Summers would get the gig and he's only been there for a short time. In that time, a review has been done, appointments confirmed, direction has been espoused and given, the list changes have accelerated and, it seems to me, people are getting on with it (as they should).
And, that's the best way to deprive Mark Fine et al from oxygen.
Whoever suggested we'd go better in '14 than many expect, I agree. I'd be at the top of the suggested 6-10 win range. Optimist? Maybe. But, if I'd succumbed to the doomsayers, sectional interests, opinions dressed up as fact and forecasts of human behaviour based on those opinions, the GFC would have busted me and I would have had to return to salaried employment. Thankfully I didn't succumb 'cos I'm extremely confident no-one would hire me.
We'll be OK.
'I have no new illusions, and I have no old illusions' - Vladimir Putin, Geneva, June 2021
I have no idea - Im just summising. I think all the player 'dont like SW' is small picture stuff and has been dealt with already.
But what if say the Pelch does a presentation to the Board.
And it says something like '2013/14 - attack the draft and get 5-6 top 20 draft picks in these 2 drafts'.
Involves 2 bottom 4 finishes.
Then the Board has SW kpis as must get 6-10 wins in 2014.
Then we have a bit of a clash.
I'm guessing that is the bigger picture issue that Thommo and the new President have had to sort out in the last month or so.
Just my guess. But sounds like they have now cleared this all up and agreed on a path fwd that is fair on all parties. Heres hoping!.
SaintPav wrote:Tony74 sounds like a positive bloke unlike half the negative Nancys on here including myself.
It's good that he is picking up on a happy vibe but one can read into these things a bit much ala Mike Sheehan...."I just don't like the body langauge Gerard...."
Anyway, didn't Rosco look at Tony straight in the eye and tell him he was staying?
In his words - " I want to stay but they have to want me ". I don't think I was the Lone Ranger in the deception stakes!
Brilliantly written, The Other Thommo.
There is no simplistic solution - whoever thinks otherwise is dreaming.
As if a new coach or another game plan would make a difference.
(For those who think it would - why then was the previous coach's game plan beginning to fail miserably in 2011?).
The coach is trying to improve the team and is a pragmatist.
He has reminded the few senior players that remain, who may have an exaggerated view of their worth, their place in the scheme of things and where things are really at.
I see today that the HS are reporting that Trevor Nisbett didn't receive a call from the club. I suppose if you use the scatter gun approach to journalism like Wilson does then eventually you are going to publish information that is factual and/or not misleading.
Expect Wilson to publish something in tomorrow's Age to counter the HS article. The Headline will be something like, "Saints fail to recruit top CEO"
Cairnsman wrote:I see today that the HS are reporting that Trevor Nisbett didn't receive a call from the club. I suppose if you use the scatter gun approach to journalism like Wilson does then eventually you are going to publish information that is factual and/or not misleading.
Expect Wilson to publish something in tomorrow's Age to counter the HS article. The Headline will be something like, "Saints fail to recruit top CEO"
Maybe someone from the club gave her wrong info or maybe the HS is wrong or maybe she is wrong. i know its hard to believe but they do get told things from inside that we dont hear. Funny how many had a go at her for naming Fisher and issues that he had/has but now it seems most agree she was right.
Cairnsman wrote:I see today that the HS are reporting that Trevor Nisbett didn't receive a call from the club. I suppose if you use the scatter gun approach to journalism like Wilson does then eventually you are going to publish information that is factual and/or not misleading.
Expect Wilson to publish something in tomorrow's Age to counter the HS article. The Headline will be something like, "Saints fail to recruit top CEO"
Maybe someone from the club gave her wrong info or maybe the HS is wrong or maybe she is wrong. i know its hard to believe but they do get told things from inside that we dont hear. Funny how many had a go at her for naming Fisher and issues that he had/has but now it seems most agree she was right.
Yes it would appear she reported something that wasn't factual and/or misleading so who knows how she received the information on the Nisbett story, did she make it up, in any case it looks like she forgot to check if her information was accurate. Why would such an experienced journalist not check that her information was accurate, isn't that 1st year stuff.
Cairnsman wrote:I see today that the HS are reporting that Trevor Nisbett didn't receive a call from the club. I suppose if you use the scatter gun approach to journalism like Wilson does then eventually you are going to publish information that is factual and/or not misleading.
Expect Wilson to publish something in tomorrow's Age to counter the HS article. The Headline will be something like, "Saints fail to recruit top CEO"
Maybe someone from the club gave her wrong info or maybe the HS is wrong or maybe she is wrong. i know its hard to believe but they do get told things from inside that we dont hear. Funny how many had a go at her for naming Fisher and issues that he had/has but now it seems most agree she was right.
Yes it would appear she reported something that wasn't factual and/or misleading so who knows how she received the information on the Nisbett story, did she make it up, in any case it looks like she forgot to check if her information was accurate. Why would such an experienced journalist not check that her information was accurate, isn't that 1st year stuff.
It doesnt appear that way at all unless all of a sudden you think the HS is never wrong. We dont 100% know who is right or wrong or even why. It does seem she was right about Fisher but it didnt appear that anyone believed her at the time.
Maybe someone from the club gave her wrong info or maybe the HS is wrong or maybe she is wrong. i know its hard to believe but they do get told things from inside that we dont hear. Funny how many had a go at her for naming Fisher and issues that he had/has but now it seems most agree she was right.
Yes it would appear she reported something that wasn't factual and/or misleading so who knows how she received the information on the Nisbett story, did she make it up, in any case it looks like she forgot to check if her information was accurate. Why would such an experienced journalist not check that her information was accurate, isn't that 1st year stuff.
It doesnt appear that way at all unless all of a sudden you think the HS is never wrong. We dont 100% know who is right or wrong or even why. It does seem she was right about Fisher but it didnt appear that anyone believed her at the time.
Why was she right about fisher.
Where was that stated, or is putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5 proving things now....
plugger66 wrote:
Maybe someone from the club gave her wrong info or maybe the HS is wrong or maybe she is wrong. i know its hard to believe but they do get told things from inside that we dont hear. Funny how many had a go at her for naming Fisher and issues that he had/has but now it seems most agree she was right.
Yes it would appear she reported something that wasn't factual and/or misleading so who knows how she received the information on the Nisbett story, did she make it up, in any case it looks like she forgot to check if her information was accurate. Why would such an experienced journalist not check that her information was accurate, isn't that 1st year stuff.
It doesnt appear that way at all unless all of a sudden you think the HS is never wrong. We dont 100% know who is right or wrong or even why. It does seem she was right about Fisher but it didnt appear that anyone believed her at the time.
Wilson wrote in her article last Wednesday that Nisbett was "ambitiously targeted". Today Kim Hagdorn quotes Nisbett as saying, "I haven't been contacted by them".
It's not a question of the HS never being wrong, however more the case they have actually reported a quote from Nisbett that completely contradicts the assertions made by Wilson on the matter. So in this case we know 100% that Wilson published something that has been refuted by Nisbett himself.
Yes it would appear she reported something that wasn't factual and/or misleading so who knows how she received the information on the Nisbett story, did she make it up, in any case it looks like she forgot to check if her information was accurate. Why would such an experienced journalist not check that her information was accurate, isn't that 1st year stuff.
It doesnt appear that way at all unless all of a sudden you think the HS is never wrong. We dont 100% know who is right or wrong or even why. It does seem she was right about Fisher but it didnt appear that anyone believed her at the time.
Why was she right about fisher.
Where was that stated, or is putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5 proving things now....
If she wasnt right about Fisher then i give up. I think most people acknowledge she was pretty much spot on. maybe she is also wrong about Essendon ot as that isnt our club she is certainly right. Anyway i stand by what I said. Some reporters get infiormation that others dont get and a lot of the time it is leaked by the club. Have no doubt the Fisher stuff was leaked.
plugger66 wrote:
If she wasnt right about Fisher then i give up. I think most people acknowledge she was pretty much spot on. maybe she is also wrong about Essendon ot as that isnt our club she is certainly right. Anyway i stand by what I said. Some reporters get infiormation that others dont get and a lot of the time it is leaked by the club. Have no doubt the Fisher stuff was leaked.
That's a bit like saying that a rumour is now the accepted version so it must be true. So Fisher has come out and said he has a drug and drink problem? Has the club said anything? Was he traded out because he was a bad influence? Did you also claim we shouldn't believe that Dane Swan was a drug user because it was just speculation?
plugger66 wrote:
It doesnt appear that way at all unless all of a sudden you think the HS is never wrong. We dont 100% know who is right or wrong or even why. It does seem she was right about Fisher but it didnt appear that anyone believed her at the time.
Why was she right about fisher.
Where was that stated, or is putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5 proving things now....
If she wasnt right about Fisher then i give up. I think most people acknowledge she was pretty much spot on. maybe she is also wrong about Essendon ot as that isnt our club she is certainly right. Anyway i stand by what I said. Some reporters get infiormation that others dont get and a lot of the time it is leaked by the club. Have no doubt the Fisher stuff was leaked.
What was she right about and how could you be so confident about the club leaking information on Fisher.
plugger66 wrote:
If she wasnt right about Fisher then i give up. I think most people acknowledge she was pretty much spot on. maybe she is also wrong about Essendon ot as that isnt our club she is certainly right. Anyway i stand by what I said. Some reporters get infiormation that others dont get and a lot of the time it is leaked by the club. Have no doubt the Fisher stuff was leaked.
That's a bit like saying that a rumour is now the accepted version so it must be true. So Fisher has come out and said he has a drug and drink problem? Has the club said anything? Was he traded out because he was a bad influence? Did you also claim we shouldn't believe that Dane Swan was a drug user because it was just speculation?
I dont think Wilson said Fisher had drug or drinking problems. I think you just said it. No idea about Swan. I remember saying something though. Cant remember what it was. It seems there are no issues with Fisher than. A few people on here owe him an apology then. A fair few.
Why was she right about fisher.
Where was that stated, or is putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5 proving things now....
If she wasnt right about Fisher then i give up. I think most people acknowledge she was pretty much spot on. maybe she is also wrong about Essendon ot as that isnt our club she is certainly right. Anyway i stand by what I said. Some reporters get infiormation that others dont get and a lot of the time it is leaked by the club. Have no doubt the Fisher stuff was leaked.
What was she right about and how could you be so confident about the club leaking information on Fisher.
If she wasnt right about Fisher then i give up. I think most people acknowledge she was pretty much spot on. maybe she is also wrong about Essendon ot as that isnt our club she is certainly right. Anyway i stand by what I said. Some reporters get infiormation that others dont get and a lot of the time it is leaked by the club. Have no doubt the Fisher stuff was leaked.
What was she right about and how could you be so confident about the club leaking information on Fisher.
Its called common sense.
What was she right about, seriously can you expand out your common sense?
How can you be confident the club leaked the information? common sense? what is common sense about being confident the club leaked information on Fisher, that doesn't make sense.
What was she right about and how could you be so confident about the club leaking information on Fisher.
Its called common sense.
What was she right about, seriously can you expand out your common sense?
How can you be confident the club leaked the information? common sense? what is common sense about being confident the club leaked information on Fisher, that doesn't make sense.
No you are right. You have convinced me she made up stuff about Fisher and he has no issues at all.
