2019 Coaching. It's a lose-lose.

[rodgerfox]

If it is arguable that four players out of say 50 over 5 years have improved then a lot haven't, yes? Can't see that the hypothesis that AR improves players has any validity. And if he is the 5% cherry top we paid a lot for the almost 1 win he can claim that represents 5% of our 2018 wins. Value for money you say?

It's no use arguing the point. We are at cross purposes.
The way I see it, if we want sustained success, we need to start recruiting to our team's needs and with a balanced and quality list in mind. We clearly haven't recruited as well as other teams who have sustained their success.
A coach will always be the cherry on top (and will make the final 5% difference).

Haven't we recruited Steele, Billings, Gresham, Ross, Clark, Hannebury, Newnes, Dunstan and Acres over the past few years?

Then as we were preparing for life after Fisher and Dempster, we recruited Brown, Goddard and Carlisle? Then as we prepared for life after Riewoldt we brought in Bruce then McCartin?

[samoht]

As Accidentally Tim posted above ...

"I don't normally post but this one got me fired up. ................... (it's got me fired up too, Accidentally Tim))

Thompson was a dud, cats kept him
Clarkson was a dud, hawks kept him
Buckley was a dud, pies kept him
Hardwick was a dud, tigers kept him
Simpson was a dud, Eagles kept him

All bar Buckley now have a flag on their CV."

That's not entirely true though.

Was Clarkson a dud?
He went 5 wins, 9 wins, 14 wins in his first 3 years. Won a final in his 3rd season.

Was Thompson a dud?
They'd been top 4 under his watch, and won a final.

Was Hardwick a dud?
They'd played finals for 3 straight years under him.

Seriously, was Simpson a dud?
? Played in a GF in his second season and only missed the finals once.

I'll give you Buckley.


It's rewriting history chronically to try to put Richardson in the same category as any of these guys, except maybe Buckley. But considering Luke Beveridge, Adam Simpson, Ross Lyon, Chris Scott and John Longmire all had teams in GFs within their first 2-3 years of coaching - why choose to follow the 'Buckley model' over the 'Beveridge model'?

In all cases, success finally came as a result of good recruiting. Success is 95% recruiting and 5% coach. All these coaches have tasted both success and failure.
And they'll taste failure, again, if the recruiting lets them down. Malthouse tasted failure again - Lyon is tasting failure again.

[rodgerfox]

In all cases, success finally came as a result of good recruiting. Success is 95% recruiting and 5% coach. All these coaches have tasted both success and failure. And they'll taste failure, again, if the recruiting let's them down.

?

Didn't each club restructure around the coach and bring in new assistants?


Note that West Coast won by playing two C-grade ruckmen too?

[samoht]

If it is arguable that four players out of say 50 over 5 years have improved then a lot haven't, yes? Can't see that the hypothesis that AR improves players has any validity. And if he is the 5% cherry top we paid a lot for the almost 1 win he can claim that represents 5% of our 2018 wins. Value for money you say?

It's no use arguing the point. We are at cross purposes.
The way I see it, if we want sustained success, we need to start recruiting to our team's needs and with a balanced and quality list in mind. We clearly haven't recruited as well as other teams who have sustained their success.
A coach will always be the cherry on top (and will make the final 5% difference).

Haven't we recruited Steele, Billings, Gresham, Ross, Clark, Hannebury, Newnes, Dunstan and Acres over the past few years?

Then as we were preparing for life after Fisher and Dempster, we recruited Brown, Goddard and Carlisle? Then as we prepared for life after Riewoldt we brought in Bruce then McCartin?

Who are our A grade midfielders/accumulators with elite skills - and how many of them are elite outside midfielders?
Brown is very ordinary. Newnes is a GOP, Acres and Ross have very average skills (as does Steven).
Let's hope Hannebury gets his body right and Clark, Billings and Gresham turn into genuine midfielders. Not all players can build the required stamina, of course.

I still think we will improve if we have less injuries next year .... so i'm quite optimistic, and hopeful that we will finally get the importance of quality recruiting according to team's needs and in a balanced way, that will fill in the gaps we lack.

[rodgerfox]

If it is arguable that four players out of say 50 over 5 years have improved then a lot haven't, yes? Can't see that the hypothesis that AR improves players has any validity. And if he is the 5% cherry top we paid a lot for the almost 1 win he can claim that represents 5% of our 2018 wins. Value for money you say?

It's no use arguing the point. We are at cross purposes.
The way I see it, if we want sustained success, we need to start recruiting to our team's needs and with a balanced and quality list in mind. We clearly haven't recruited as well as other teams who have sustained their success.
A coach will always be the cherry on top (and will make the final 5% difference).

Haven't we recruited Steele, Billings, Gresham, Ross, Clark, Hannebury, Newnes, Dunstan and Acres over the past few years?

Then as we were preparing for life after Fisher and Dempster, we recruited Brown, Goddard and Carlisle? Then as we prepared for life after Riewoldt we brought in Bruce then McCartin?

Who are our A grade midfielders/accumulators with elite skills - and how many of them are elite outside midfielders?
Brown is very ordinary. Newnes is a GOP, Acres and Ross have very average skills (as does Steven).
Let's hope Hannebury gets his body right and Clark, Billings and Gresham turn into genuine midfielders. Not all players can build the required stamina, of course.

I'm not saying they're good - I'm disputing your 'scatter gun' recruiting theory. I'm disputing your constant narrative of our Clouseauesque recruiting.

[rodgerfox]

Who are our A grade midfielders/accumulators with elite skills - and how many of them are elite outside midfielders?

Who are these 'A grade midfielders/accumulators with elite skills' that we missed from the draft?

[samoht]

If it is arguable that four players out of say 50 over 5 years have improved then a lot haven't, yes? Can't see that the hypothesis that AR improves players has any validity. And if he is the 5% cherry top we paid a lot for the almost 1 win he can claim that represents 5% of our 2018 wins. Value for money you say?

It's no use arguing the point. We are at cross purposes.
The way I see it, if we want sustained success, we need to start recruiting to our team's needs and with a balanced and quality list in mind. We clearly haven't recruited as well as other teams who have sustained their success.
A coach will always be the cherry on top (and will make the final 5% difference).

Haven't we recruited Steele, Billings, Gresham, Ross, Clark, Hannebury, Newnes, Dunstan and Acres over the past few years?

Then as we were preparing for life after Fisher and Dempster, we recruited Brown, Goddard and Carlisle? Then as we prepared for life after Riewoldt we brought in Bruce then McCartin?

Who are our A grade midfielders/accumulators with elite skills - and how many of them are elite outside midfielders?
Brown is very ordinary. Newnes is a GOP, Acres and Ross have very average skills (as does Steven).
Let's hope Hannebury gets his body right and Clark, Billings and Gresham turn into genuine midfielders. Not all players can build the required stamina, of course.

I'm not saying they're good - I'm disputing your 'scatter gun' recruiting theory. I'm disputing your constant narrative of our Clouseauesque recruiting.

Well, if they're not good in your eyes - how can we expect to compete against the best teams?
It's not a theory. When we needed a Brayshaw or a De Goey, an elite-skilled midfielder, or a player/playmaker with exquisite skills, X factor and outside speed, we went after a forward. We still don't have a genuine midfielder/accumulator with elite skills.
That's just one example.
If it was a theory, Trout would still be a recruiter for us.

[st.byron]

We don't have to rack our brains with worst-case what ifs and hypotheticals.
Lyon has already gone down that beaten path, recently! And I mean "beaten".
Freo "won" 4 games - that's not even 4 and 1/2 games - in RL's 5th year at Freo in 2016. Freo then won 8 games in both 2017 and 2018 and happily retained their coach's services at $1 million per annum.
Is that a lose-lose, or what? - and they haven't even batted an eyelid.

Lyon has already blazed and stunk up that trail - If we are going to start tearing coaches to shreds and holding them totally accountable when things go pear shaped.

Richo may or may not end up plumbing similar depths - but even if he does, he won't be the first coach - or the last, I bet.
Injuries, poor/good recruiting, the overall talent and skill of the list - there are a lot of factors at play - it's not only the coach's doing when you look at the w/l ratios. Of course the coach is also accountable - to a reasonable extent - when things go wrong. But other factors weigh in more - considerably more, in my opinion.
That’s why you have Malthouse the premiership coach and Malthouse the bottom of the ladder coach at different stages of his career. Malthouse and plenty of other premiershio coaches have experienced both the extreme ups and downs. That’s because there are bigger factors/determinants at play that outweigh (and overwhelm) coaching ability alone - whatever that amounts to.

I accept there could be mitigating factors with Richardson’s accountability, but on the other hand, there are some people who are just not good coaches. Tim Watson come on down. Scott Watters come on down. In spite of all their experience as players, even as assistants - they just don’t translate into effective senior coaches. My money’s on that horse with Richardson.
And re Freo and Lyon - they are crazy. If I was a Freo member I’d be livid Lyon is still there.

What I'm getting at is even if Richo happens to be a poor coach relative to other coaches, and I'm not sure how we can determine that exactly, but let's assume that this is the case - a poor coach will not negatively impact to the extent that poor recruiting and/or injuries would/do. We are talking about AFL coach and assistants vs AFL coach and assistants.
Re: Lyon - we're referring to the 19-0 coach with us. Same guy and coach, different list and circumstances at Freo. Same with Malthouse - the multiple premiership coach at West Coast and Collingwood and the bottom of the ladder coach at Carlton and Collingwood. The same guy and "great coach", but different circumstances - where his great coaching amounts/amounted to nothing -it makes/made no difference - because it's the talent of the list and how healthy it is that counts for much, much more......

With your argument about Malthouse and Lyon, it seems you are not considering at all the relevance of their game plan in the context of the evolution of the game. You say, “same guy, same coach”. What you don’t add is, “same game plan”. You seem to me in all of your posts about recruiting being the #1 issue and coaches being generic (your word not mine), to be not at all considering what they bring to the table in terms of game plan, strategy and ability to respond on match day. You’re arguing that as Lyon is the guy who took us to 19-0 and is the same guy taking Freo to the bottom, his quality as a coach is not the issue. The reasons lie elsewhere.
When we went 19-0, Lyon’s game plan was cutting edge. No-one could score against us. Until they worked it out, which Malthouse did by the next year, and then Lyon was no longer the leading edge of coaching. And it appears to me, from a distance, as though he’s stuck where he was in 2010. You only have to look at Freo’s scores in finals under Lyon - ie. mostly low and sub 70 points, to see that he’s still trying to apply the same defensive game plan he had in 2010. But the game has gone past him. So his team takes dive down the ladder.

Now is that because his players aren’t good enough or because he’s one dimensional as a coach? Coaches aren’t generic. They’re crucial.

In addition to strategy, there’s the immeasurable factor of leadership. Coaches aren’t robots. What they bring to the table in terms of leadership and inspiration is also crucial. When I’ve worked with a really good manager, who brings excellent leadership, my output, my attitude, my investment in my work is higher. Coaches are the same. If they have the complete buy in of the players, is that not worth something significant in their cohesiveness and sense of team? Richardson is about as inspiring as soggy cardboard. He’s not a leader’s bootlace and our performances this year reflected that. Dispirited, disjointed, uninspired, listless - just a few words reflective of our lack of quality leadership.

[samoht]

You're attaching way too much importance to the coach and completely ignoring our list, the overall talent of the list, st byron.

1. Who are our genuine A grade midfielders/accumulators with elite skills? Name one.
And ..
2. Did we have our fair-share of injuries this year?

Alan Jeans came across as inspiring as the soggy cardboard you described - but the 1966 St Kilda team was "star-studded".

It's 95% about recruiting and the list. I'm convinced of that - and our club finally saw the light, too - Trout's departure was not coincidental. He had to go.
The club agrees with me on that score.
I just hope our recruiting improves from this point on, as it will need to.

My final post on this thread - we can go on all day.

I just wanted to bring some balance - it's all been about the coach this and the coach that.

[rodgerfox]

Well, if they're not good in your eyes - how can we expect to compete against the best teams?
It's not a theory. When we needed a Brayshaw or a De Goey, an elite-skilled midfielder, or a player/playmaker with exquisite skills, X factor and outside speed, we went after a forward. We still don't have a genuine midfielder/accumulator with elite skills.
That's just one example.
If it was a theory, Trout would still be a recruiter for us.

So your theory is because in one draft we chose a key forward to replace a retiring key forward?

[samoht]

You listed/cited some of our players and didn't have the coinfidence to say they are good (let alone great players).

So how can we expect to compete against the best lists?

Enough said. Viva la difference.

[rodgerfox]

Well, if they're not good in your eyes - how can we expect to compete against the best teams?
It's not a theory. When we needed a Brayshaw or a De Goey, an elite-skilled midfielder, or a player/playmaker with exquisite skills, X factor and outside speed, we went after a forward. We still don't have a genuine midfielder/accumulator with elite skills.
That's just one example.
If it was a theory, Trout would still be a recruiter for us.

So your theory is because in one draft we chose a key forward to replace a retiring key forward?

As I said, I just cited that draft as an example.
Our recruiting has been poor over the last 10-12 years, relative to other teams.

Our list is not balanced - and we don't have one A grade genuine midfielder/accumulator with elite skills.
We also copped a lot of injuries this year.
You listed/cited some of our players and didn't have the coinfidence to say they are good.

Enough said. Viva la difference.

Because they're not good, doesn't reflect on the recruiting strategy though.

We recruited midfielders, forwards, defenders, ruckmen, small forwards and running defenders.

The problem was that the bulk of this recruiting took place from compromised drafts.

The other factor is that due to terrible coaching, talented players have not flourished.

[samoht]

Well, if they're not good in your eyes - how can we expect to compete against the best teams?
It's not a theory. When we needed a Brayshaw or a De Goey, an elite-skilled midfielder, or a player/playmaker with exquisite skills, X factor and outside speed, we went after a forward. We still don't have a genuine midfielder/accumulator with elite skills.
That's just one example.
If it was a theory, Trout would still be a recruiter for us.

So your theory is because in one draft we chose a key forward to replace a retiring key forward?

As I said, I just cited that draft as an example.
Our recruiting has been poor over the last 10-12 years, relative to other teams.

Our list is not balanced - and we don't have one A grade genuine midfielder/accumulator with elite skills.
We also copped a lot of injuries this year.
You listed/cited some of our players and didn't have the coinfidence to say they are good.

Enough said. Viva la difference.

Because they're not good, doesn't reflect on the recruiting strategy though.

We recruited midfielders, forwards, defenders, ruckmen, small forwards and running defenders.

The problem was that the bulk of this recruiting took place from compromised drafts.

The other factor is that due to terrible coaching, talented players have not flourished.

I'm trying to work out what you're arguing ...
You're saying we have an average list, but that Richo should have nevertheless done better than the coaches with the stronger and more balanced/complete lists whom you see as being successful coaches?
Au contraire ... Steele, Roberton, Membrey and now Austin have all flourished. And Marshall is looking good, too.

[Cairnsman]

... as for the topic of lightning rods... I'm more seeing a master class being given in the art of fishing.

Fishing rods....lightning rods...doesn’t matter whether you’re calling it down or dredging it up, the intent is the same. To cause trouble.

At least they are causing trouble with people that have the right of reply. You on the other hand lack the courage to take on people who can respond to your false claims and character assassinations. Claiming you know the reason for the team's poor performance this year is because an ITK told you it was because of the coach is absolute BS and you are embarrassing yourself as a weak person by spreading such BS. Spreading BS as though it's fact just lacks courage and you should be ashamed of yourself.

[skeptic]

Have they though?

Is Austin even in the top 22? He played 7 games this year.

Membrey looked to me like he went backwards this season... 34.28 vs 38.14 the year before... less goals more behinds. I guess he’s having more shots but I liked his previous season better

Steele was dropped once or twice before getting it together at the end and finishing the season off strongly

Marshall seemed to only play consistently when the other rucks when down... at one point Acres, Paddy and Steele lined up as the back up rucks

Dunstan, Sinclair, White, Paddy, Longer, Savage, Dmac, Rice, Pierce, Acres, Webster... all guys that have been around a while now. I think it’s fair to say that there is some talent there. That’s the group where I think a good coach could get some development.

[rodgerfox]

I'm trying to work out what you're arguing ...
You're saying we have an average list, but that Richo should have nevertheless done better than the coaches with the stronger and more balanced/complete lists whom you see as being successful coaches?
Au contraire ... Steele, Roberton, Membrey and now Austin have all flourished. And Marshall is looking good, too.

Those guys haven't flourished at all.

2 of those are very good players, that are only playing Ok football.

The other two are an Ok footballer playing Ok footy, and an unknown quantity playing average football.



I'm saying we recruited poorly from 2009-2013, but largely that was purely due to the comprised drafts - not bad strategy nor poor choices.

I'm.saying that since then, we've recruited very well.

I'm saying that our style of play is repulsive, and that it gives zero chance to young talented players to break.put and become stars.

How can our coach allow Geary and Austin to get the ball 20 times every week? It's unfathomable.

How can we expect a midfield to benefit from those guys bringing the ball out of defence?

How can we expect our forwards to.function when our attack starts in the D50 with guys like Austin and Geary?


It doesn't get to these guys by mistake. Opposition coaches isolate them. We do nothing to counter it.

[samoht]

Flourishing doesn't mean they became superstars. Does it?
Every player has a ceiling.
It means developing successfully. And they have all successfully developed at St Kilda.

Well done.
You've brought it back to coach this and coach that. It's not about the list, at all.
Trout was unfairly let go.

It's all about the coach. You've successfully converted me.
If you can't beat them, join them, as they say.

I tried, anyway. Who needs balance and perspective, right?

[st.byron]

You're attaching way too much importance to the coach and completely ignoring our list, the overall talent of the list, st byron.

1. Who are our genuine A grade midfielders/accumulators with elite skills? Name one.
And ..
2. Did we have our fair-share of injuries this year?

Alan Jeans came across as inspiring as the soggy cardboard you described - but the 1966 St Kilda team was "star-studded".

It's 95% about recruiting and the list. I'm convinced of that - and our club finally saw the light, too - Trout's departure was not coincidental. He had to go.
The club agrees with me on that score.
I just hope our recruiting improves from this point on, as it will need to.

My final post on this thread - we can go on all day.

I just wanted to bring some balance - it's all been about the coach this and the coach that.

Okay bring some balance and respond to my points about game plan, evolution of the game, strategy, leadership and coaches' role in all of that. You haven't responded at all to the debate. You've just re-hashed the same old that you've been on about, which suggests that you don't have anything to counter with.

And now Trout's departure equates to the club agreeing with you. Okay. Except they've also replaced, is it 3 or 4, coaches. Does that equate to the club agreeing with you that coaches are only 5% influential. Why would the club even bother having assistant coaches if it's just about recruiting? I guess they don't agree with you after all.

Okay Samoht. You're totally a one track album on this. A long playing one at that. Not even a skerrick of willingness to entertain opposing points of view, which paradoxically, does not equal bringing balance.

[samoht]

I was going against the tide --- but I've been converted. I give up.

For accuracy's sake ... st byron.
One of the coaches left for greener pastures, he did a runner - one was arrogant and unpopular and lost the players' respect, and his position became untenable and he had to go - one had an ego battle with Butters and was shown the door.

How much influence do you attribute to their coaching prowess?

Mind you, 5% is a substantial difference if you have a strong list vs an equally strong list. Even 1%, all else being equal - it's a game of percentages.
So I'm attributing quite a lot to the coach's influence, as the cherry on top. Probably more than I ought to.

But the thing is our list is way behind the stronger lists, talent wise - and the 5% is not going to bridge the gap in talent between us and the stronger clubs.

In the meantime, you can list all our genuine A grade midfielders with elite skills.
I'm one track because I'm trying to bring some balance and perspective to this - but I've given up.

[st.byron]

I was going against the tide --- but I've been converted. I give up.

For accuracy's sake ... st byron.
One of the coaches left for greener pastures, he did a runner - one was arrogant and unpopular and lost the players' respect, and his position became untenable and he had to go - one had an ego battle with Butters and was shown the door.

How much influence do you attribute to their coaching prowess?

Mind you, 5% is a substantial difference if you have a strong list vs an equally strong list. Even 1%, all else being equal - it's a game of percentages.
So I'm attributing quite a lot to the coach's influence, as the cherry on top. Probably more than I ought to.

But the thing is our list is way behind the stronger lists, talent wise - and the 5% is not going to bridge the gap in talent between us and the stronger clubs.

In the meantime, you can list all our genuine A grade midfielders with elite skills.
I'm one track because I'm trying to bring some balance and perspective to this - but I've given up.

We have zero A grade mids by my estimation. Could be recruiting. Could be complete lack of cohesive leadership and effective development. Another thing you seem to think is that coaching has zero impact on player development. They're just recruited as going to be stars or not. Gresham and Steele could be A grade based on last year's performances. Clark I'm sure we all hope will be A grade as well. Why Billings, Acres, Dunstan and Sinclair aren't anywhere near being A grade could be recruiting and it could be poor development and leadership. Will be interesting to see how those players go with a new coach and more effective game plan.

Trying to bring some balance and perspective. Arguing that a coach is only 5% responsible for the team's performance is balanced? Okay. Each to their own.

[rodgerfox]

Flourishing doesn't mean they became superstars. Does it?
Every player has a ceiling.
It means developing successfully. And they have all successfully developed at St Kilda.

Well done.
You've brought it back to coach this and coach that. It's not about the list, at all.
Trout was unfairly let go.

It's all about the coach. You've successfully converted me.
If you can't beat them, join them, as they say.

I tried, anyway. Who needs balance and perspective, right?

flourishing
/ˈflʌrɪʃɪŋ/Submit
adjective
developing rapidly and successfully; thriving.



Secondly, it's not all about the coach at all. But, our overall coaching has been putrid.

But...even with Clarkson in charge, we still wouldn't be a contender. We have a huge gap in the senior group. Until that is addressed, which it will be naturally over the next 12-18 months, we'll be average.

But, unless our coaching is sorted out, even when we get that age and experience balance right - our young guys might be ruined anyway.

[samoht]

5% may be a bit on the generous side, all things being equal. It's not pork chop vs AFL coach, it's AFL coach and assistants vs AFL coach and assistants.
If you can get a 5% advantage, with all things being equal, you're doing well. That would be a huge advantage.

But the thing is all things are rarely equal ...
Perspective includes taking injuries, strengths of lists, etc into account, not just what a coach can and what they can't achieve - there always is an opposing coach and opposing list, a coach doesn't operate in a vacuum.

Development I attribute more to the players organically and individually improving and getting the most out of themselves, than to the coach nurturing them - so Steele, Roberton, Membrey and Austin are all a credit to themselves, by and large, the way I see it. The framework may be set by the coach to facilitate and support their improvement, but it's the players doing in the finale.

[Flagless]

(Lots of good stuff left out for brievity reasons.)

... I should also add my impression of him is strongly influenced by what I’ve been told by a friend who worked with the playing group and Richardson from 2014 - 2016. The reports he gave me about Richardson’s M.O are borne out in our dismal performances this year and by Richardson’s demeanour and media presentation.

So I’m firmly in the camp he should be sacked as soon as possible and that we will go nowhere significant whilst he remains head coach.

So by your reckoning Justin Langer should be sacked as coach of the Australian cricket team, after all they are performing terribly, having a winning percentage under his watch of about 20%. their style of game is boring and the team clearly lacks confidence.- He must be a poor coach.

Hi Flagless, by my reckoning, Justin Langer won't (and should not) still be the senior coach if he has that sort of record... after five years in the job.
Didn't he inherit the same side that won the ashes ? and now has lost 8 matches in a row. Oh that's right, he lost his 2 best players (Smith and Warner) the two players who regularly saved Australia when they were in trouble over the past 3-4 years. In exactly the same way Reiwoldt and to a lesser degree Montagna had done for Stkilda over recent times. I have been fortunate enough to coach winning premiership teams but also teams that have finished in the bottom rungs of the ladder and as any coach will tell you- it doesn't matter how good a coach you are, if you don't have the cattle you wont win. At present the saints just don' t have the cattle and anyone who thinks that is totally down to the coach, knows SFA about footy and coaching

[saynta]

This continuous denigration of the club and its officials, in particular the coach, has to stop.

It does nothing but undermine the club and if continued and believed, will do untold damage to the club's efforts to recruit new member, imho.

Hopefully most supporters will have more sense than the "Chicken Little" brigade who have done nothing but whinge since the Nth Melbourne game.

Saints officials have made numerous changes to the list of coaches, players and support staff. All for the better I might add but the whinging goes on.....and on...and on.

If these so called "supporters " are unhappy with the club, hopefully they will piss off and support some other team.

I, for one, am sick and tired of reading their rubbish, and so i might add, or plenty of other posters.

I can only hope ( and pray ) that the players don't read this garbage.

[st.byron]

This continuous denigration of the club and its officials, in particular the coach, has to stop.

It does nothing but undermine the club and if continued and believed, will do untold damage to the club's efforts to recruit new member, imho.

Hopefully most supporters will have more sense than the "Chicken Little" brigade who have done nothing but whinge since the Nth Melbourne game.

Saints officials have made numerous changes to the list of coaches, players and support staff. All for the better I might add but the whinging goes on.....and on...and on.

If these so called "supporters " are unhappy with the club, hopefully they will piss off and support some other team.

I, for one, am sick and tired of reading their rubbish, and so i might add, or plenty of other posters.

I can only hope ( and pray ) that the players don't read this garbage.

You're entitled to your opinion, as is everyone else. I find the ignore function useful with posters who I find difficult. Makes it much better for me and is, if I can't bear the repeated opinions or style of particular posters, a preferable option to insulting, belittling and name calling.