Saints chasing big names

[sunsaint]

Aiden Bonar ?

Moist.

Going hard for Bonar

Is that what you're hearing Ted ?

In his dreams

He's good with whispers
But don't think he'd sense A Bonar creeping up on a dark night

[guitars4]

We have been chasing big names for 3 years or possibly more with very limited success so I don't think it's any ground breaking story.Lets just focus on this year & if we can get our act together & start winning a few games then we might be able to
attract a big fish or 2. Success is the key to attracting potential suitors & if we don't turn it around we will only get minnows at best .

[Jacks Back]

We've sacked so many coaches ... coach after coach.
Whenever we've replaced a coach, we would have aimed to improve with their replacement, on each occasion. My gut feeling is, it's mostly backfired - and we we either went backwards or it had no impact, most of the time.
Otherwise we would have already got to a successful supercoach by now - by constantly improving coach by coach (by progressively/successively replacing coaches with better ones, each time).

There are a lot of factors at play ....
We did okay in 2016 and 2017 --- won 50% of our games - and I'm not attributing it entirely to the coach. The coach was given a contract extension, on the back of this.
We turned over 34 players and had a difficult draw, in 2018 - and only had 4 wins - and I'm again not blaming the 4 measly wins on the coach - i.e., that it's all the coach's fault.
There are always bigger factors at play - and other areas that we need to improve in, that will make a bigger impact.

Your qestion has already been answered:

We really need to do the study (I can't be bothered; and as I said my gut feeling is that the study will show that coaching changes have not imporoved our team on most occasions,and in fact, may have impacted us negatively, more often than not).

You really think a W/L rate after changes of coach 100, 50 or even 10 years ago has any relevance to whether or not we should retain or replace richo?

What a pointless exercise and point you are trying to push.

Last 10 coaches…

Our W/L improved with Baldock, Davis, Sheldon, Thomas, Lyon

Our W/L went down with Alves, Watson, Blight, Watters, Richardson

And who cares, it has zero relevance to our current situation.

That's 50/50 although we got into a grand final under Alves

[Joffa Burns]

Yep, 2018 all over again. Joffa keeps stalking Ted like a school yard bully boy...then has nothing original to offer the forum like the SS.net mature aged online gang on here. Lol!

78 replies and my first topic for 2019 has only been active for 48 hours. Ted brings discussion to this forum whether you like it or not.

Wow, referring to yourself in the third person......winning....

Why do I always think of George Costanza when I read Teddysainters posts?

[SydneySainter]

Yep, 2018 all over again. Joffa keeps stalking Ted like a school yard bully boy...then has nothing original to offer the forum like the SS.net mature aged online gang on here. Lol!

78 replies and my first topic for 2019 has only been active for 48 hours. Ted brings discussion to this forum whether you like it or not.

Wow, referring to yourself in the third person......winning....

Why do I always think of George Costanza when I read Teddysainters posts?

I guess you do have to give Ted / Parkey credit, an awful lot of replies for such a trivial topic based on overly regurgitated PR - assuming that kind of thing is important to the poster, which seems apparent that it is.

[samoht]

see next post.

[samoht]

We've sacked so many coaches ... coach after coach.
Whenever we've replaced a coach, we would have aimed to improve with their replacement, on each occasion. My gut feeling is, it's mostly backfired - and we we either went backwards or it had no impact, most of the time.

Your qestion has already been answered:

That's 50/50 although we got into a grand final under Alves

Post Allan Jeans, in fact, it's more like 5 replacement coaches improved us, while we went backwards with 9 replacements.

I'm only counting coaches who have coached more than 15 games .... Allan Davis only coached 4 games, and improved us, while another one, Eric Guy, only coached 6 games and we went backwards with him - so I have skipped them.

Based on 15 games and over .... We went backwards with ... Ross Smith, Alex Jesaulenko, Tony Jewell, Graeme Gellie, Alves, Watson, Blight, Watters, and now Richardson (our 4 win injury riddled 2018 season didn't help).
We Improved with ... Mike Patterson, Baldock, Sheldon, Thomas, Lyon.

So the history shows we have mostly gone backwards rather than forwards each time we've replaced a coach - so my hunch was right.

And remember, each time we were looking to improve on the previous coach - so by the 3rd or 4th replacement we should have had a supercoach, you'd think. But it doesn't work that way.

[dragit]

We've sacked so many coaches ... coach after coach.
Whenever we've replaced a coach, we would have aimed to improve with their replacement, on each occasion. My gut feeling is, it's mostly backfired - and we we either went backwards or it had no impact, most of the time.

Your qestion has already been answered:

That's 50/50 although we got into a grand final under Alves

Post Allan Jeans, in fact, it's more like 5 replacement coaches improved us, while we went backwards with 9 replacements.

I'm only counting coaches who have coached more than 15 games .... Allan Davis only coached 4 games, and another only coached 6 games - so I have skipped them.

15 games and over .... We went backwards with ... Ross Smith, Alex Jesaulenko, Tony Jewell, Graeme Gellie, Alves, Watson, Blight, Watters, and now Richardson (following our 4 win 2018 season).
We Improved with ... Mike Patterson, Baldock, Sheldon, Thomas, Lyon,

So the history shows we have mostly gone backwards rather than forwards each time we've replaced a coach - I don't like those odds.

It's not like you to change the goal posts when you don't like the answer.

[dragit]

Don't tell me 15+ games magically fits your narrative better...

[samoht]

see next post ....

[samoht]

Don't tell me 15+ games magically fits your narrative better...

You need to have coached at least half a season ... they weren't really coaches, anyway.
Allan Davis only coached 4 games and had a 50% win/loss ratio - so he improved us over 4 games!
Eric Guy only coached 6 games -- and we went backwards with him. So, it's a nil all draw with those 2.

Whoever took over from them coached more games in their seasons.

[magnifisaint]

The burley we've been using to try and land a big fish has not worked so far.
We don't look like being contenders anytime soon so perhaps the marketing spiel needs to change
The message to ooc players might be that the Saints are a team who has to rebuild and they are looking for young stars who want to be part of a new leadership group. Hopefully that may attract a big name or two.

You really don't rate DH do you.

Right now I don't, but back when he was in AA form he was one of my favourite opposition players. I really admired his work ethic and his guts and determination. I used to get my son to watch his games (to try and emulate his running patterns and his commitment at every contest) because I thought he was one of the hardest working midfielders going around from about 2010 up to probably 2017.

I really do hope he can recapture that form, and that burst outside speed he used to have but from what I witnessed this year I think it's highly unlikely.

I also think we need to rebuild and we are 4 years away from challenging for a top 4 position and at least 2 years away from making finals. I think he was the wrong choice as a player for where the team sits right now. If it's all about on field leadership and training standards, then what the hell was going on under the current head coach and the previous footy leadership in the last 5 years. A lot more people needed the sack if we were dead set looking for a defacto captain coach

You are very much confusing two issues. Coaching performance and player leadership. They are linked but not in the way you believe. The leadership gap the club is trying to bridge is related to those short periods in a game when the opposition takes the game away from us. Many times in 2018 it was the last 5 minutes of a quarter.

You are throwing the baby out with the bath water with the sack everyone mentality. Not all is as bad as it seems. Stop jumping at shadows and learn to relax.

So you're blaming the players for the season we just had, yeah?

Show me which games in 2018 where we lost games because of these 5 minute periods at end of quarters you speak of

I'm betting you're not going to. I'm betting we lost games mainly because of poor starts; terrible middle periods in quarters; some lapses in the last 5 minutes of a handful of quarters where the game was already lost; and overall horrendous fundamental basics of football which falls back on coaching.

The strategies and gameplan of our head coach where so bad that the players had to speak up and make changes. Most people agree that training standards, skills, player development and team selection needs improving and all of these are directly related to Richo aren't they? Or...should Richo be given more time to show us he can improve on his 33% win loss ratio?

What is with the angry obsession in having to BLAME?

Geez I hope you go easy on your son and his footy.

I'm sitting on a dunny in a remote office at the moment so I can't access my footy spreadsheets to give you stats but one game I can think of off the top of my scon is the Bulldogs game where we were in control and they went bang in the last 4 to 5 mins of the 2nd. It was a pattern that was noticable to those who aren't blinded with anger and irrational and emotive thoughts processes.

Games aren't finished at the end of the second quarter.
I remember the game and we were close enough at half time for the game to still be up for grabs.

Not sure why you think that it is ok for a team to capitulate in the second half just because the other team got some momentum and we surrendered the lead. The weakness and lack of fight shows some serious leadership issues. If the coach isn't the most important football department leader, I'd like to know who is?

Is it just me or is there an echo in here...

You

[tedtheodorelogan2018]

112.

In all seriousness...did anyone see us or even for a microsecond of their life think we would pick up Dan H this time last year? No, so stand by and watch this space.

Again, Simon Lethlean and Gubby Allan are a potentially very deadly duo.

[asiu]

ted is the new Donald McRonald

we had that many in the other thread
whilst u were away

in a dead week

did Stinger enjoy fiji with you ?

[Aussie Jonestown]

In all seriousness...did anyone see us or even for a microsecond of their life think we would pick up Dan H this time last year? No, so stand by and watch this space.

In all seriousness imho Hannebury is a massive mistake.
800,000 over 4 or 5 years for a 28 yo who last year was ranked around 365 in the AFL
His best football is way behind him.
I watched his last game for Sydney where he was soft in some contests and turned it over almost every time he touched the ball and I prayed they would not be so stupid as to waste a pick on him.
Then they paid way too much money and gave away the second round pick in next years draft
I fully expect him to be sidelined for more games than he plays.
And then you carry on like we just snared Dustin Martin
SERIOUSLY

[sunsaint]

In all seriousness , weren't we whispering to every big name open for a big $ contract in the last 4 years - obviously before teddies time here
In the desperation we just handed out a big contract

[saint6709]

I think it’s been well documented that we have lacked leadership since Riewoldt left ... Hannebery from all accounts has been providing plenty of that so far during preseason training - so that’s a tick for me .... also we need to be using money to pay players - it’s part of the rules that we spend a certain amount- and I would think in 4-5 years time we might need a bloke on high coin or 2 to retire to help us keep young stars at the club - king brothers (? Maybe 2,of them ) and hopefully a bunch of others we want to keep - I would be shocked if Hanneberrys recruitment is not part of a longer term strategy - if it’s not then we are never going to be a better club — from what I have read so far he seems to be doing the job he was recruited for - and cost very little in terms of draft picks

[Trev from the Bush]

Aussie has crowed early!

12 January, 2019, Mark it on your calenders, Aussie Jonestown declares recruiting Hannebury a massive mistake.

Interesting the detail you provide re Hannebury's last game. Not a Swans supporter are you Aussie? Or another club, maybe? You don't seem to be a Saints supporter, more like a Saints knocker.

[desertsaint]

Happy to wait and see on Hannebery - shocking last season but may find himself again with the change and brings much needed experience and leadership. It’s not like we have anyone else to overpay. So long as the warchest has enough to entice kelly in a year it’s all good. No chance to get him if we don’t show a good future.

[Aussie Jonestown]

Aussie has crowed early!

12 January, 2019, Mark it on your calenders, Aussie Jonestown declares recruiting Hannebury a massive mistake.

Interesting the detail you provide re Hannebury's last game. Not a Swans supporter are you Aussie? Or another club, maybe? You don't seem to be a Saints supporter, more like a Saints knocker.

Be fair, I called this earlier in September 2018 when I first heard they were keen on him.
MY reaction was NOOOOOOOOOO way PLEASE NOOOOOOOOOO
Then again, I didn't vote for Footy First so what would I know!

[Aussie Jonestown]

cost very little in terms of draft picks

Giving away a round two draft pick is way too expensive for an injury prone 28 year old coming off two very ordinary seasons!
If they were paying him $500,000 for three years and giving up a third round pick I would have been more in favour.
I think they jumped early and were walked over by The Swans who were rapt to free up space and get him out as he was way overpaid based on performances over his past two seasons.

[SuperDuper]

cost very little in terms of draft picks

Giving away a round two draft pick is way too expensive for an injury prone 28 year old coming off two very ordinary seasons!

But we got pick 28 back in that deal (as well as outlaying pick 39)... It is just plain dishonest to characterize the deal as Hannebury for a 2nd rounder when we got a second rounder back.

In the end we traded 28 for 2 picks and got Bytel (who we wanted at around 33-35, which is known because we tried to trade up in picks for him i.e. where 28 ended after priority picks etc) as well as Parker. Parker we got with a pick around the mark of where 39 ended so that cancels out.

The other player we apparently liked was Will Hammill who went to Adeliade at 30... we could not have got him with the pick 28 we traded out... so that did not affect us

So in the end we more or less traded next years second for Hannebury *and Bytel*

So, lets judge on that basis rather than Hannebury for a second which is plain wrong.

[Aussie Jonestown]

cost very little in terms of draft picks

Giving away a round two draft pick is way too expensive for an injury prone 28 year old coming off two very ordinary seasons!

But we got pick 28 back in that deal (as well as outlaying pick 39)... It is just plain dishonest to characterize the deal as Hannebury for a 2nd rounder when we got a second rounder back.

In the end we traded 28 for 2 picks and got Bytel (who we wanted at around 33-35, which is known because we tried to trade up in picks for him i.e. where 28 ended after priority picks etc) as well as Parker. Parker we got with a pick around the mark of where 39 ended so that cancels out.

The other player we apparently liked was Will Hammill who went to Adeliade at 30... we could not have got him with the pick 28 we traded out... so that did not affect us

So in the end we more or less traded next years second for Hannebury *and Bytel*

So, lets judge on that basis rather than Hannebury for a second which is plain wrong.

Good post

I still think an injury prone 28 yo Hannebury coming off two very poor seasons is a big mistake and he is in no way worth $800,000 for four or five years.
I'll be surprised if he plays more games than he misses through injury and poor form.
Very happy to be proven wrong on this.

[Joffa Burns]

112.

In all seriousness...did anyone see us or even for a microsecond of their life think we would pick up Dan H this time last year? No, so stand by and watch this space.

Again, Simon Lethlean and Gubby Allan are a potentially very deadly duo.

Lol Teddysainter, this type of post is why you are my favorite poster on saintsaitional.

And seriously yes you get the activity happening on this site with your threads.

In regard to Dan he would have been considered a big fish to land three years ago but not now IMO. Hope to be proven wrong.

[samuraisaint]

We've sacked so many coaches ... coach after coach.
Whenever we've replaced a coach, we would have aimed to improve with their replacement, on each occasion. My gut feeling is, it's mostly backfired - and we we either went backwards or it had no impact, most of the time.

Your qestion has already been answered:

That's 50/50 although we got into a grand final under Alves

Post Allan Jeans, in fact, it's more like 5 replacement coaches improved us, while we went backwards with 9 replacements.

I'm only counting coaches who have coached more than 15 games .... Allan Davis only coached 4 games, and improved us, while another one, Eric Guy, only coached 6 games and we went backwards with him - so I have skipped them.

Based on 15 games and over .... We went backwards with ... Ross Smith, Alex Jesaulenko, Tony Jewell, Graeme Gellie, Alves, Watson, Blight, Watters, and now Richardson (our 4 win injury riddled 2018 season didn't help).
We Improved with ... Mike Patterson, Baldock, Sheldon, Thomas, Lyon.

So the history shows we have mostly gone backwards rather than forwards each time we've replaced a coach - so my hunch was right.

And remember, each time we were looking to improve on the previous coach - so by the 3rd or 4th replacement we should have had a supercoach, you'd think. But it doesn't work that way.

Went backwards with Stan Alves? The guy who got us into our first Grand Final for a generation, in a season in which we finished on top of the ladder for only the second time in 100 years, plus our first Night Grand Final win since 1958? Nah, don't think so.