Ross Lyon after today

[Con Gorozidis]

Dugongs are very smart BTW, and they generally do a lot less coke than Bomber, so I would back a decent dugong all thing being equal.

I just imagined a dugong snorting a line.

[dragit]

Dugongs are very smart BTW, and they generally do a lot less coke than Bomber, so I would back a decent dugong all thing being equal.

I just imagined a dugong snorting a line.

Surely they just Hoover with their extraordinary mouths... I heard Bomber Thompson has booked in plastic surgery to emulate the capability.


"Back our boys, Carlisle to FF- NOW!!!"

[Scollop]

Schneider kicking a goal from 15 meters out and a Hawkins poster being correctly called are the difference in a coach being considered one of the best of the era, to just a plodder.

There it is there- the players failed to execute didn't they? That's what we were told weren't we?

Seems disciples of the messiah-Ross still believe in Lyonspeak after years of witnessing that footy games are not won and lost at half time. We know Ross was trying to emulate the Swans, but unfortunately for us he just wasn't innovative enough. Teams started learning how to combat Paul Roos gameplan.

WTF will it take to concede that his simplification of a few misses was NOT the ONLY reason that we lost. I know that is what he said, but surely by now even one eyed Ross Lyon fans understand that you can't expect to win games of footy if you can't kick goals.

We failed to score a major in the final term in 2009. Lyon's game plan failed. Who gives a sh!t about 19 in a row? I know we were awesome to make it again in 2010 after our captain was missing with injury for so long, and maybe we were awesome to have clawed back Collingwood's lead in GF1 after they kicked poorly in the first half, but the bloke whose gameplan is built on defense, just keeps failing to execute what he is paid to do.

[dragit]

Schneider kicking a goal from 15 meters out and a Hawkins poster being correctly called are the difference in a coach being considered one of the best of the era, to just a plodder.

There it is there- the players failed to execute didn't they? That's what we were told weren't we?

Seems disciples of the messiah-Ross still believe in Lyonspeak after years of witnessing that footy games are not won and lost at half time. We know Ross was trying to emulate the Swans, but unfortunately for us he just wasn't innovative enough. Teams started learning how to combat Paul Roos gameplan.

WTF will it take to concede that his simplification of a few misses was NOT the ONLY reason that we lost. I know that is what he said, but surely by now even one eyed Ross Lyon fans understand that you can't expect to win games of footy if you can't kick goals.

We failed to score a major in the final term in 2009. Lyon's game plan failed. Who gives a sh!t about 19 in a row? I know we were awesome to make it again in 2010 after our captain was missing with injury for so long, and maybe we were awesome to have clawed back Collingwood's lead in GF1 after they kicked poorly in the first half, but the bloke whose gameplan is built on defense, just keeps failing to execute what he is paid to do.

WTF are you on about?

That's what we were told, no mate - I was at the f****** game, I've never even heard the post match presser.

What is Lyon-speak? I'm talking about real events that happened.

If the players don't kick easy goals in a final then you usually lose against another good side, happened to Hinkley last week, Malthouse in 2010 (draw), Lyon in 2009, Thompson in 2008.

The only cult here is the "cult of the demented & bitter" - I don't even like Lyon… if he was coaching Carlton or Collingwood, I would hope that he missed the finals every single year.

I bet the people here who think every side should just have an all out attacking game plan are the same dickheads at the footy who still yell out "Kick it long down the guts". You work with what you have… a forward line with Roughead, Gunstan, Franklin and Hale… likewise this year Tippett, Franklin, Goodes, Reid… needs to restricted unless you have a forward line of similar quality. An open game against these sides ends in a flogging…

[saintly]

here is aninteresting article about ross and his recruitment.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/sport/afl/te ... 8f8a718ea1

[Bunk_Moreland]

Schneider kicking a goal from 15 meters out and a Hawkins poster being correctly called are the difference in a coach being considered one of the best of the era, to just a plodder.

There it is there- the players failed to execute didn't they? That's what we were told weren't we?

Seems disciples of the messiah-Ross still believe in Lyonspeak after years of witnessing that footy games are not won and lost at half time. We know Ross was trying to emulate the Swans, but unfortunately for us he just wasn't innovative enough. Teams started learning how to combat Paul Roos gameplan.

WTF will it take to concede that his simplification of a few misses was NOT the ONLY reason that we lost. I know that is what he said, but surely by now even one eyed Ross Lyon fans understand that you can't expect to win games of footy if you can't kick goals.

We failed to score a major in the final term in 2009. Lyon's game plan failed. Who gives a sh!t about 19 in a row? I know we were awesome to make it again in 2010 after our captain was missing with injury for so long, and maybe we were awesome to have clawed back Collingwood's lead in GF1 after they kicked poorly in the first half, but the bloke whose gameplan is built on defense, just keeps failing to execute what he is paid to do.

WTF are you on about?

That's what we were told, no mate - I was at the f****** game, I've never even heard the post match presser.

What is Lyon-speak? I'm talking about real events that happened.

If the players don't kick easy goals in a final then you usually lose against another good side, happened to Hinkley last week, Malthouse in 2010 (draw), Lyon in 2009, Thompson in 2008.

The only cult here is the "cult of the demented & bitter" - I don't even like Lyon… if he was coaching Carlton or Collingwood, I would hope that he missed the finals every single year.

I bet the people here who think every side should just have an all out attacking game plan are the same dickheads at the footy who still yell out "Kick it long down the guts". You work with what you have… a forward line with Roughead, Gunstan, Franklin and Hale… likewise this year Tippett, Franklin, Goodes, Reid… needs to restricted unless you have a forward line of similar quality. An open game against these sides ends in a flogging…

Don't argue logic, it confuses some people on here.

I was told we kicked 7.7 to 7.1 in the first half of the 2009 GF, even though I was at the game and saw it with my own eyes. Apparently at halftime the scoreboard was only channeling Lyonspeak and the reality was that in fact we were just all Lyon lovers.

Is this the argument being put forward?

Really?

[Scollop]

It's real that a lot of Saints supporters just thought it was an unlucky bounce and poor kicking that cost us. They want to keep believing every word Ross spoke at the time because as pluggsy put it; "Ross gave him the best 2 weeks of his football life." I don't hate the bloke, I know he was pretty good for a relatively new coach and I know we had some bad luck, but don't just think that's the only reason we lost GF's. Most posters in this thread who have criticised him with some sort of reasoning just feel that the oversimplification was just a cop out and didn't reflect any accountability from the head coach.

Even smart people along with the sheep believed he was our messiah. Every word and every phrase he uttered became gospel. If Ross said we lost due to poor kicking then that's all there was to it. Conversation over.

Maybe the disciples should find out how many games of footy in the modern era - say the last 20 years- have been won with a team NOT kicking a major in the final quarter. We came second FFS.

Con's list of coaches that he thought are better than Lyon should give Lyonspeak followers some perspective, but we all know that true cult followers just deny that any other reality exists. He is the best coach going around and that's all there is to it. The fact that he keeps getting 2nd prize will not waiver their faith.

[plugger66]

It's real that a lot of Saints supporters just thought it was an unlucky bounce and poor kicking that cost us. They want to keep believing every word Ross spoke at the time because as pluggsy put it; "Ross gave him the best 2 weeks of his football life." I don't hate the bloke, I know he was pretty good for a relatively new coach and I know we had some bad luck, but don't just think that's the only reason we lost GF's. Most posters in this thread who have criticised him with some sort of reasoning just feel that the oversimplification was just a cop out and didn't reflect any accountability from the head coach.

Even smart people along with the sheep believed he was our messiah. Every word and every phrase he uttered became gospel. If Ross said we lost due to poor kicking then that's all there was to it. Conversation over.

Maybe the disciples should find out how many games of footy in the modern era - say the last 20 years- have been won with a team NOT kicking a major in the final quarter. We came second FFS.

Con's list of coaches that he thought are better than Lyon should give Lyonspeak followers some perspective, but we all know that true cult followers just deny that any other reality exists. He is the best coach going around and that's all there is to it. The fact that he keeps getting 2nd prize will not waiver their faith.

Can you show us one post where anyone has suggested they believe every word RL said. Just one would be nice. Its emotive rubbish to try and justify your comment that he was a pretty good coach for a relatively new coach. You must rate GT very poorly then or every other coach the Saints have had in the last 140 years bar Alan jeans and even he failed for 13 years because apparently its a fail if you don't win the GF.

[samoht]

I'm with scollop, on this. Some good posts.

I'll credit RL for one thing, and that is he got on top of our spate of soft tissue injuries.

However, as a coach, especially from what I've seen in our finals, there was one major flaw in his game plan, IMHO - our forward 50 defensive pressure was lacking. It's ironic that a so called defensive coach could not get this area right.

Take any opposition half back line in the finals, whether it be Milburn, Enright, Corey or Shaw, Thomas, O'Brien , even Harbrow etc..for the Bulldogs, and the common denominator was our lack of F50 defensive pressure and therefore the amount of rebound and free run that we allowed the opposition half backs. We nearly lost the final against the Bulldogs due to Harbrow's run and carry - Milburn kept rebounding everything in the final - he had a huge game and influence. Shaw, Thomas and O'Brien - their run and carry could not be curbed. Harbrow, for instance, had his career-high 36 possessions v St Kilda, 30th Apr 2010 as a half back - it typifies our lack of F50 pressure.
A major, major flaw - which was never rectified. And it cost us.

[Johnny Member]

Only having 3 scoring shots in the 2nd half of 09 was surely a bigger reason for losing than missing 3-4 get table shots at goal in the first half?

Didn't we have 4 rushed behinds in the 1st half?

[skeptic]

Plugger and Bunk

Can I ask you, do you think RL coached well in the 09 GF yes or no?
In addition, can you give an example of a coaching move/s that reflect your opinion?

[Con Gorozidis]

Great post samoht.

I had forgotten a lot of that stuff - but gee you make some good points.

I think I tried to block it all out - but Harbrow gave us some nightmares - as did guys like Shaw, Thomas and even O'Brien. Even when we were good they did huge amounts of damage. We would then need to rely on heroic efforts from our big guns to get us out of trouble - which they did most of the time. But we relied on too few to do too much.

[dragit]

Great post samoht.

I had forgotten a lot of that stuff - but gee you make some good points.

I think I tried to block it all out - but Harbrow gave us some nightmares - as did guys like Shaw, Thomas and even O'Brien. Even when we were good they did huge amounts of damage. We would then need to rely on heroic efforts from our big guns to get us out of trouble - which they did most of the time. But we relied on too few to do too much.

Con you didn't get back to me on:
if all of those coaches were available and you were in charge of hiring a new coach for either GWS or gold coast, would your order of preference be the same as your ranking?

1. Clarkson
4. M Malthouse
5. Worsfold
6. Longmire
7. Roos
8. M Williams
9. C.Scott
10. R Lyon
11. K Hinkley

[Con Gorozidis]

Great post samoht.

I had forgotten a lot of that stuff - but gee you make some good points.

I think I tried to block it all out - but Harbrow gave us some nightmares - as did guys like Shaw, Thomas and even O'Brien. Even when we were good they did huge amounts of damage. We would then need to rely on heroic efforts from our big guns to get us out of trouble - which they did most of the time. But we relied on too few to do too much.

Con you didn't get back to me on:
if all of those coaches were available and you were in charge of hiring a new coach for either GWS or gold coast, would your order of preference be the same as your ranking?

1. Clarkson
4. M Malthouse
5. Worsfold
6. Longmire
7. Roos
8. M Williams
9. C.Scott
10. R Lyon
11. K Hinkley

Yes except take out Malthouse and Williams (both past it).

Apart from that im happy with that order for GC or GWS but you might even sneak Hinkley up a rung or two.

[samoht]

Great post samoht.

I had forgotten a lot of that stuff - but gee you make some good points.

I think I tried to block it all out - but Harbrow gave us some nightmares - as did guys like Shaw, Thomas and even O'Brien..

Thanks, Con.
(My last post on this interminable thread).

You've also jogged my memory now of our prelim final vs the Bulldogs, 2009.
For those who keep coming up with "if only we kicked straight" or "if only the ball bounced straight", etc and taking the focus off RL .. you need to realise that
we wouldn't have even made the 2009 GF if the Bulldogs kicked straight !!
So you can't have it one way and not the other!

Preliminary Final 2009
St Kilda Saints 0.2 3.6 7.6 9.6 60
Western Bulldogs 2.5 4.7 6.7 7.11 53

If the Bulldogs kicked 4.1 in the final term instead of 1.4 (we were lucky enough to kick 2 goals straight in the final term) they would have beaten us 11.7 to 9.6, and it would have been them - and not us - playing off for the GF!! The Bulldogs had 57 inside 50's to our dismal 40 - that's 17 more inside 50's - they probably deserved to be in the GF!!

[plugger66]

Great post samoht.

I had forgotten a lot of that stuff - but gee you make some good points.

I think I tried to block it all out - but Harbrow gave us some nightmares - as did guys like Shaw, Thomas and even O'Brien..

Thanks, Con.
(My last post on this interminable thread).

You've also jogged my memory now of our prelim final vs the Bulldogs, 2009.
For those who keep coming up with "if only we kicked straight" or "if only the ball bounced straight", etc and taking the focus off RL .. you need to realise that
we wouldn't have even made the 2009 GF if the Bulldogs kicked straight !!
So you can't have it one way and not the other!

Preliminary Final 2009
St Kilda Saints 0.2 3.6 7.6 9.6 60
Western Bulldogs 2.5 4.7 6.7 7.11 53

If the Bulldogs kicked 4.1 in the final term instead of 1.4 (we were lucky enough to kick 2 goals straight in the final term) they would have beaten us 11.7 to 9.6, and it would have been them - and not us - playing off for the GF!! The Bulldogs had 57 inside 50's to our dismal 40 - that's 17 more inside 50's!!

So you are saying we were lucky to get in the GF but basically we had the same stats as WB in the GF and Geelong were similar to ours but Geelong weren't lucky in the GF or we weren't unlucky. Seems only sides playing against us can be unlucky. Thanks for backing what a few have said all along. And I thought you were trying to prove that we lost the GF because of coaching but now we can see you really think it was bad luck. Thanks.

[dragit]

Well hes been bloody unlucky - but I cant see Ross Lyon ever winning a flag now.

Replace Taverner with McPharlin or Johnson - Freo win .

So I guess what I am getting at here is that on the one hand you have said how unlucky he is… suggesting that he is a very good coach, but this bad luck puts his coaching ability behind 10 other coaches.

So if he'd had some good luck you would place him in the top 2 or 3 coaches is that right? And if Clarkson had of faced sides on Grand Final day that happened to kick straight, then he wouldn't make the top 10?

It feels like you are trolling here.

I am tipping that Lyon would be in the shortlist if all of those coaches were available…

[samoht]

I was just illustrating a point, plugger - and directing it to those who are happy to selectively play the "missed shots card" and take the focus off RL.
I'm not one of those people.
I'm just pointing out an inconsistency or hole in their argument.

After all, if we were to play that same card and use it fairly and consistently here, wasn't it our straight kicking that got us over the Bulldogs in the 2009 preliminary final - that got us into the GF in the first place?

Shouldn't that card therefore be logically and duly removed from the deck - does it have any right to be used as an excuse for our 2009 GF loss?

The focus should be on RL, where it belongs. No excuses.

My last post on this thread - and I mean it this time.

[Con Gorozidis]

Well hes been bloody unlucky - but I cant see Ross Lyon ever winning a flag now.

Replace Taverner with McPharlin or Johnson - Freo win .

So I guess what I am getting at here is that on the one hand you have said how unlucky he is… suggesting that he is a very good coach, but this bad luck puts his coaching ability behind 10 other coaches.

So if he'd had some good luck you would place him in the top 2 or 3 coaches is that right? And if Clarkson had of faced sides on Grand Final day that happened to kick straight, then he wouldn't make the top 10?

It feels like you are trolling here.

I am tipping that Lyon would be in the shortlist if all of those coaches were available…

Not all bad luck. Too many holes in his squads and he doesnt score. That comment was after the Swans game I think so on isolation I was only referring to 'bad luck' with Michael Johnson and LUke McPharlin both missing. So in that context he was unlucky.

Overall as pointed out on here - his game plan is flawed (not enough avenues to goal and not enough fwd pressure) and his squad creation/building is flawed - he tries to rely on too much from too few and also tries to carry 4 or 5 duds and then rely on super human heroic efforts from his top 6 gun players. That is not a sustainable way to play out a season and doesnt give you a high chance of winning a flag as he needs every single ounce from a small number of players - and then has several passengers. Note this 'too much from too few' approach explains why we got absolutely pantsed in GF2 which the apologists pretend never happened.

You can look at individual things and talk about 'luck'. But overall it is about maximising your chances - some 'luck' elements you cant control. But has he maxmised his chances? Well he hasnt - because of those mentioned reasons. For him to win one everything had to bounce his way - another way to look at the 'luck coin' is to say he actually needed to be bloody lucky to win a flag.

[stinger]

kicking points isn't bad luck...it has always been bad football.......

[Bunk_Moreland]

I was just illustrating a point, plugger - and directing it to those who are happy to selectively play the "missed shots card" and take the focus off RL.
I'm not one of those people.
I'm just pointing out an inconsistency or hole in their argument.

What in the hell is the "missed shots card".

It has been said for a century that bad kicking is bad football. Saints players kicked 7.7 to 7.1, in the first half of the 2009 GF, an indisputable FACT, but you want to make into some assertoric philosophical parlour game

After all, if we were to play that same card and use it fairly and consistently here, wasn't it our straight kicking that got us over the Bulldogs in the 2009 preliminary final - that got us into the GF in the first place?

yes well played the Saints team on that night, Bulldogs players lost it for them, not Eade.

Shouldn't that card therefore be logically and duly removed from the deck - does it have any right to be used as an excuse for our 2009 GF loss?

Shouldn't discredited idiotic straw man delusional arguments be taken off someone not playing with a full deck.

The focus should be on RL, where it belongs. No excuses.

Who said? You? Just because you cant make a cogent argument, you make up dumb proclamations.

Why should it only be focused on a coach when the player have a hand in the outcome of a match? Because it doesn't suit your increasingly confused and retrograde argument?

My last post on this thread - and I mean it this time.

Thank goodness for that, your posts in this thread have been an embarrassment since your last tangential argument of Scott Watters arresting the slide of the team and then back tracking like all get out and then qualified it by saying you meant arresting the RATE of the slide (after JM rescued you with a get out excuse).

Really all your arguments about slides and "cards" and other irrelevancies has lowered the debate on this thread to infantile levels.

I haven't read such poorly thought out and argued garbage since the Tommy Walsh must get a game argument you ran with. How did that one work for you?

[samuraisaint]

Schneider kicking a goal from 15 meters out and a Hawkins poster being correctly called are the difference in a coach being considered one of the best of the era, to just a plodder.

There it is there- the players failed to execute didn't they? That's what we were told weren't we?

Seems disciples of the messiah-Ross still believe in Lyonspeak after years of witnessing that footy games are not won and lost at half time. We know Ross was trying to emulate the Swans, but unfortunately for us he just wasn't innovative enough. Teams started learning how to combat Paul Roos gameplan.

WTF will it take to concede that his simplification of a few misses was NOT the ONLY reason that we lost. I know that is what he said, but surely by now even one eyed Ross Lyon fans understand that you can't expect to win games of footy if you can't kick goals.

We failed to score a major in the final term in 2009. Lyon's game plan failed. Who gives a sh!t about 19 in a row? I know we were awesome to make it again in 2010 after our captain was missing with injury for so long, and maybe we were awesome to have clawed back Collingwood's lead in GF1 after they kicked poorly in the first half, but the bloke whose gameplan is built on defense, just keeps failing to execute what he is paid to do.

WTF are you on about?

That's what we were told, no mate - I was at the f****** game, I've never even heard the post match presser.

I for one will look back on that era between 97 and 2011 fondly. True we got a spoon during Watson's tenure, and had the Blight fiasco, but overall, we were right into it up to our necks and ha d a lot of great wins. Geelong and Collingwood have had similar eras of exciting flag-barren times, as have Richmond going back a ways, and reckon that getting into Grand Finals is an important colourful part of our history as a club. We also have had our share of night flags and McClelland Cups, which are a poor replacement for a Flag, but nonetheless, how many of these did Fitzroy or South Melbourne get, near the end.
My main complaint against Lyon was that the club failed to cash in economically on some of the good times we had. Almost a bit like North in the 70s.

What is Lyon-speak? I'm talking about real events that happened.

If the players don't kick easy goals in a final then you usually lose against another good side, happened to Hinkley last week, Malthouse in 2010 (draw), Lyon in 2009, Thompson in 2008.

The only cult here is the "cult of the demented & bitter" - I don't even like Lyon… if he was coaching Carlton or Collingwood, I would hope that he missed the finals every single year.

I bet the people here who think every side should just have an all out attacking game plan are the same dickheads at the footy who still yell out "Kick it long down the guts". You work with what you have… a forward line with Roughead, Gunstan, Franklin and Hale… likewise this year Tippett, Franklin, Goodes, Reid… needs to restricted unless you have a forward line of similar quality. An open game against these sides ends in a flogging…

[samuraisaint]

It's real that a lot of Saints supporters just thought it was an unlucky bounce and poor kicking that cost us. They want to keep believing every word Ross spoke at the time because as pluggsy put it; "Ross gave him the best 2 weeks of his football life." I don't hate the bloke, I know he was pretty good for a relatively new coach and I know we had some bad luck, but don't just think that's the only reason we lost GF's. Most posters in this thread who have criticised him with some sort of reasoning just feel that the oversimplification was just a cop out and didn't reflect any accountability from the head coach.

Even smart people along with the sheep believed he was our messiah. Every word and every phrase he uttered became gospel. If Ross said we lost due to poor kicking then that's all there was to it. Conversation over.

Maybe the disciples should find out how many games of footy in the modern era - say the last 20 years- have been won with a team NOT kicking a major in the final quarter. We came second FFS.

Con's list of coaches that he thought are better than Lyon should give Lyonspeak followers some perspective, but we all know that true cult followers just deny that any other reality exists. He is the best coach going around and that's all there is to it. The fact that he keeps getting 2nd prize will not waiver their faith.

Can you show us one post where anyone has suggested they believe every word RL said. Just one would be nice. Its emotive rubbish to try and justify your comment that he was a pretty good coach for a relatively new coach. You must rate GT very poorly then or every other coach the Saints have had in the last 140 years bar Alan jeans and even he failed for 13 years because apparently its a fail if you don't win the GF.

Mike Patterson and Stan Alves were the best coaches we have had, apart from Jeansie. Patterson was an incredible coach, very much in the mould of Alan Killigrew (who is probably right up there with the Patto and Stan) who was inspirational and thought outside the square. Thomas and Lyon were all about the brand and corporate speak, which doesn't really inspire me too much.

[samuraisaint]

And how are we all going to feel when the Swans waltz off with Ryder?

[samoht]

Bunk( short for bunkum?), as I already pointed out to you Arrest is a synonym for "slow down" - a concept that's obviously foreign to you. Your motto is: run off at the mouth first then think about it later. You make no sense.

So it was bad kicking that cost us the GF - not lack of F50 defensive pressure or the fact that we kicked no goals in the final quarter - or that some moves could have been made and weren't! Yeah, sure!