WTF

[The G Train Legacy]

David King on Foxfooty gave us these 'corridor' stats and talked about the frustration Saints fans might have (that we can play with such dare and excitement). He said the Saints were basically forced into playing that way because of the scoreboard.

They didn't exactly smash us in the first half. We weren't far off with matching them in contested ball and clearances and inside 50's....but we had 40 disposals in the corridor in the first half and that changed dramatically for the second half.

We had 92 disposals in the corridor in the second half. We took every opportunity to look inside.

I was shocked at how good we were in that second half and how quickly we moved the footy and how well we played through the corridor.

David King said that's not the way the Saints normally play. He reckons we "rarely play with the brakes off". Meaning dare and express ball movement through the corridor is not happening often enough.

Jason Dunstall asked; Whose fault is it?
King said; "It has to be Ross's decision to play the way they (normally) play. There's no one more responsible than the senior coach."

King asked Dunstall if he agreed with that. Dunstall referenced the coaches as a group and sat on the fence. Dunstall says he wasn't sure whether it was the players or the 'coaching panels' fault.

And David King is completely wrong. Has he considered the possibility that our players just play with more dare when they've got no choice, because they are under substantial scoreboard pressure.

Lyon only tweeked a few things at half time (such as Stocker into the middle. It helps when you win contested ball, even better when you smash the opposition in contested ball. It also helps when you don't fumble under pressure, contest in the air and make better decisions.

[Vortex]

The Cats gave us a lot of room to play in the 3rd, I'd almost say bruise free type space, we obliged by playing really well with good skills and trying to take the corridor a lot which worked most times.

The Cats certainly weren't playing top 4 footy only 2 weeks out from finals when the game was up for grabs in the 2nd half.

[St Dave]

David King on Foxfooty gave us these 'corridor' stats and talked about the frustration Saints fans might have (that we can play with such dare and excitement). He said the Saints were basically forced into playing that way because of the scoreboard.

They didn't exactly smash us in the first half. We weren't far off with matching them in contested ball and clearances and inside 50's....but we had 40 disposals in the corridor in the first half and that changed dramatically for the second half.

We had 92 disposals in the corridor in the second half. We took every opportunity to look inside.

I was shocked at how good we were in that second half and how quickly we moved the footy and how well we played through the corridor.

David King said that's not the way the Saints normally play. He reckons we "rarely play with the brakes off". Meaning dare and express ball movement through the corridor is not happening often enough.

Jason Dunstall asked; Whose fault is it?
King said; "It has to be Ross's decision to play the way they (normally) play. There's no one more responsible than the senior coach."

King asked Dunstall if he agreed with that. Dunstall referenced the coaches as a group and sat on the fence. Dunstall says he wasn't sure whether it was the players or the 'coaching panels' fault.

And David King is completely wrong. Has he considered the possibility that our players just play with more dare when they've got no choice, because they are under substantial scoreboard pressure.

Lyon only tweeked a few things at half time (such as Stocker into the middle. It helps when you win contested ball, even better when you smash the opposition in contested ball. It also helps when you don't fumble under pressure, contest in the air and make better decisions.

Are you suggesting that the coaches game plan didn't change, but the players took it on themselves to play differently because we were behind on the score board?

Doubling the corridor ball shows we clearly looked to go sideways more and control the ball. We knew when to push forward quickly and when to go sideways and it opened up massive gaps in the Geelong defence. A good coaching change, not the players just deciding to do it.

[Scollop]

David King on Foxfooty gave us these 'corridor' stats and talked about the frustration Saints fans might have (that we can play with such dare and excitement). He said the Saints were basically forced into playing that way because of the scoreboard.

They didn't exactly smash us in the first half. We weren't far off with matching them in contested ball and clearances and inside 50's....but we had 40 disposals in the corridor in the first half and that changed dramatically for the second half.

We had 92 disposals in the corridor in the second half. We took every opportunity to look inside.

I was shocked at how good we were in that second half and how quickly we moved the footy and how well we played through the corridor.

David King said that's not the way the Saints normally play. He reckons we "rarely play with the brakes off". Meaning dare and express ball movement through the corridor is not happening often enough.

Jason Dunstall asked; Whose fault is it?
King said; "It has to be Ross's decision to play the way they (normally) play. There's no one more responsible than the senior coach."

King asked Dunstall if he agreed with that. Dunstall referenced the coaches as a group and sat on the fence. Dunstall says he wasn't sure whether it was the players or the 'coaching panels' fault.

And David King is completely wrong. Has he considered the possibility that our players just play with more dare when they've got no choice, because they are under substantial scoreboard pressure.

Lyon only tweeked a few things at half time (such as Stocker into the middle. It helps when you win contested ball, even better when you smash the opposition in contested ball. It also helps when you don't fumble under pressure, contest in the air and make better decisions.

Are you suggesting that the coaches game plan didn't change, but the players took it on themselves to play differently because we were behind on the score board?

Doubling the corridor ball shows we clearly looked to go sideways more and control the ball. We knew when to push forward quickly and when to go sideways and it opened up massive gaps in the Geelong defence. A good coaching change, not the players just deciding to do it.

The G Train Legacy might have a slight issue comprehending written words

Of course it was a good coaching change. That's the whole point of this thread.

The question is why....?? Why should it take a massive deficit on the scoreboard for Ross to pull the trigger?

Saints fans would prefer we play daring corridor footy right from the very first bounce.

Why don't we start games well? We all know the reason we were reluctant to play attacking footy early in games this year is because Lyon coached teams don't play that way.

Don't restrict the flare and dash. Play with the "brakes off" more often and don't just pull this out when you are 5 goals down on the scoreboard.

[The Fireman]

Wilson The Fabulous?

[The G Train Legacy]

David King on Foxfooty gave us these 'corridor' stats and talked about the frustration Saints fans might have (that we can play with such dare and excitement). He said the Saints were basically forced into playing that way because of the scoreboard.

They didn't exactly smash us in the first half. We weren't far off with matching them in contested ball and clearances and inside 50's....but we had 40 disposals in the corridor in the first half and that changed dramatically for the second half.

We had 92 disposals in the corridor in the second half. We took every opportunity to look inside.

I was shocked at how good we were in that second half and how quickly we moved the footy and how well we played through the corridor.

David King said that's not the way the Saints normally play. He reckons we "rarely play with the brakes off". Meaning dare and express ball movement through the corridor is not happening often enough.

Jason Dunstall asked; Whose fault is it?
King said; "It has to be Ross's decision to play the way they (normally) play. There's no one more responsible than the senior coach."

King asked Dunstall if he agreed with that. Dunstall referenced the coaches as a group and sat on the fence. Dunstall says he wasn't sure whether it was the players or the 'coaching panels' fault.

And David King is completely wrong. Has he considered the possibility that our players just play with more dare when they've got no choice, because they are under substantial scoreboard pressure.

Lyon only tweeked a few things at half time (such as Stocker into the middle. It helps when you win contested ball, even better when you smash the opposition in contested ball. It also helps when you don't fumble under pressure, contest in the air and make better decisions.

Are you suggesting that the coaches game plan didn't change, but the players took it on themselves to play differently because we were behind on the score board?

Doubling the corridor ball shows we clearly looked to go sideways more and control the ball. We knew when to push forward quickly and when to go sideways and it opened up massive gaps in the Geelong defence. A good coaching change, not the players just deciding to do it.

I suggest that's how we're supposed to play and we tried to play in the first half.

However we were terrible at centre bounces in the first half and got smashed in contested ball.

[The G Train Legacy]

David King on Foxfooty gave us these 'corridor' stats and talked about the frustration Saints fans might have (that we can play with such dare and excitement). He said the Saints were basically forced into playing that way because of the scoreboard.

They didn't exactly smash us in the first half. We weren't far off with matching them in contested ball and clearances and inside 50's....but we had 40 disposals in the corridor in the first half and that changed dramatically for the second half.

We had 92 disposals in the corridor in the second half. We took every opportunity to look inside.

I was shocked at how good we were in that second half and how quickly we moved the footy and how well we played through the corridor.

David King said that's not the way the Saints normally play. He reckons we "rarely play with the brakes off". Meaning dare and express ball movement through the corridor is not happening often enough.

Jason Dunstall asked; Whose fault is it?
King said; "It has to be Ross's decision to play the way they (normally) play. There's no one more responsible than the senior coach."

King asked Dunstall if he agreed with that. Dunstall referenced the coaches as a group and sat on the fence. Dunstall says he wasn't sure whether it was the players or the 'coaching panels' fault.

And David King is completely wrong. Has he considered the possibility that our players just play with more dare when they've got no choice, because they are under substantial scoreboard pressure.

Lyon only tweeked a few things at half time (such as Stocker into the middle. It helps when you win contested ball, even better when you smash the opposition in contested ball. It also helps when you don't fumble under pressure, contest in the air and make better decisions.

Are you suggesting that the coaches game plan didn't change, but the players took it on themselves to play differently because we were behind on the score board?

Doubling the corridor ball shows we clearly looked to go sideways more and control the ball. We knew when to push forward quickly and when to go sideways and it opened up massive gaps in the Geelong defence. A good coaching change, not the players just deciding to do it.

Interestingly, none of the teams occupying the top 4 with 1 game to go, look like top 4 sides with the exception of GWS. Brisbane 5th and Collingwood 9th, look more like top 4 sides.

[Scollop]

In terms of the opinions attributed to Lyon (by an obviously anti Lyon cohort I would suggest), they should really listen to what the Lyon has to say (which includes the reason we Drafted Wilson).

And in regards the likes of King, Howard et al who cop flack on this Forum, these players are vital to where St Kilda is at and where it is on trajectory to go because they significantly improve the side including its structure (so spine).

That's a bullsh*t cop out. That's not what someone who analyses the game objectively would say. That's an apologist response.

Why is it that we can score 7 goals in a quarter against a team chasing a top 4 spot and we we're reluctant to pull the trigger for most other games this year?

Why listen to what a coach tells you when you can just watch the game of football for yourself. It's not a National Geographic documentary that needs David Attenborough narration.

Go back and look at the scores for our game against Hawthorn in Round 9. We scored 7 goals for the entire game. This was on a perfectly sunny day and on one of the best playing surfaces in the country.

Of course personnel matters but both King and Howard were playing that day. So was Liam Henry. So was Windhager ...but guess what?

Lyon picked Ben Paton in the team (as he had done surprisingly for quite a few games this year). Instead of going for someone with speed or someone who provides flare and dash, he chose a stopper. He chose a player who is a recognised defender or who plays as a defensive tagger.

The mids that day were more interested in defending and restricting the opposition instead of actually winning the footy first. We played safe boring footy and we used the flanks and played the boundary line instead of the corridor.

Scores were tight most of the match. Just before the 3 quarter time break the Hawks scored a goal. The 3 quarter time score was Hawks 53 to Saints 39. The Hawks didn't score a goal in the last, but they managed to hang on and win. That summed up 'Ross Lyon's Saints footy'

I think a few things including that particular Round 9 game against Hawthorn, helped us change some of the thinking in regards to our game plan. And thank f*ck we did otherwise who would want to come and play for St Kilda...if that's the sort of footy the coach wants you to play

No wonder there was murmurings in the media of players wanting out

The rules changes are obviously part of helping AFL footy look more appealing. I think the changes to the holding the ball rule this year also helped to convince Ross that you can't just hold the ball in.

You have to move it forward. You have to play attacking footy. You can't just have stoppage after stoppage.

Look at the Premiers from last year. Look at the Bulldogs and GWS. Look at how Richmond won 3 flags. Look at what Hawthorn has been producing.

No one wants to go back to the Swans style from 2005.

[St Dave]

David King on Foxfooty gave us these 'corridor' stats and talked about the frustration Saints fans might have (that we can play with such dare and excitement). He said the Saints were basically forced into playing that way because of the scoreboard.

They didn't exactly smash us in the first half. We weren't far off with matching them in contested ball and clearances and inside 50's....but we had 40 disposals in the corridor in the first half and that changed dramatically for the second half.

We had 92 disposals in the corridor in the second half. We took every opportunity to look inside.

I was shocked at how good we were in that second half and how quickly we moved the footy and how well we played through the corridor.

David King said that's not the way the Saints normally play. He reckons we "rarely play with the brakes off". Meaning dare and express ball movement through the corridor is not happening often enough.

Jason Dunstall asked; Whose fault is it?
King said; "It has to be Ross's decision to play the way they (normally) play. There's no one more responsible than the senior coach."

King asked Dunstall if he agreed with that. Dunstall referenced the coaches as a group and sat on the fence. Dunstall says he wasn't sure whether it was the players or the 'coaching panels' fault.

And David King is completely wrong. Has he considered the possibility that our players just play with more dare when they've got no choice, because they are under substantial scoreboard pressure.

Lyon only tweeked a few things at half time (such as Stocker into the middle. It helps when you win contested ball, even better when you smash the opposition in contested ball. It also helps when you don't fumble under pressure, contest in the air and make better decisions.

Are you suggesting that the coaches game plan didn't change, but the players took it on themselves to play differently because we were behind on the score board?

Doubling the corridor ball shows we clearly looked to go sideways more and control the ball. We knew when to push forward quickly and when to go sideways and it opened up massive gaps in the Geelong defence. A good coaching change, not the players just deciding to do it.

The G Train Legacy might have a slight issue comprehending written words

Of course it was a good coaching change. That's the whole point of this thread.

The question is why....?? Why should it take a massive deficit on the scoreboard for Ross to pull the trigger?

Saints fans would prefer we play daring corridor footy right from the very first bounce.

Why don't we start games well? We all know the reason we were reluctant to play attacking footy early in games this year is because Lyon coached teams don't play that way.

Don't restrict the flare and dash. Play with the "brakes off" more often and don't just pull this out when you are 5 goals down on the scoreboard.

If I could take a guess at why, I suspect it comes back to Ross wanting us to be the fittest team in the comp and run out games better than anyone. Try to play defensively solid early to keep it close, if we are in front at half time that's a bonus. Retain the ball through uncontested marks to tire out the opposition. Keep running and spreading through to the end of the game to run over the top.

I don't think it is a good plan, mostly because I don't want to hate our game plan for half a match.

And I don't think it is part of the plan to have to come back from 5+ goals down in the third quarter every game either.

[Scollop]

My posts are not anti Ross Lyon. I want Ross to succeed. We all love the Saints. We have to acknowledge that all players and even the senior coach has to get better if we’re going to become a contender

He admitted himself that he needed to take on board what’s happening with rule changes like 6/6/6 and the stand rule. He admitted he would lean on his assistants for a more ‘modern’ game plan. That was code for following the most dominant premiers in the last 5-6 years like Richmond, and more recently Geelong.

Collingwood adopted that style and won it in 2023.

You can’t tackle and bring someone to ground these days. It’s been near impossible getting a free against your opponent for holding the ball, so it means the footy is going to be continuously in motion most of the time. What’s the point of getting meaningless possessions backwards and sideways? The best way to put pressure on opposition is through scoreboard pressure

One other thing that’s a huge positive for Ross and his coaching (and the whole football department). The fact that we can produce the sort of footy that we saw in the second half is great reward and shows the club are on the right track.

This was a prime time Saturday night clash on free to air. It means sponsors are happy. It means the AFL is happy and decides to give us more of those prime time slots next year. It means fans and supporters are looking forward to attending games.

[Scollop]

So, what conclusions or inferences can be drawn?

Was this a one off freak show or a sign of something good happening? A future to actually be positive about?

Personnel has a lot to do with it. We had a fair few injuries and suspensions.

Would be interesting to see how many games we've won when both Hunter Clark and Paddy Dow have played together. They seem to work well as a group with their captain at stoppages.

I just did a check on Clark alone. He's been in for 10 games this year and when he plays we've won 7 out of 10. That's a pretty good win rate.

Jimmy Webster was missing at the start of the year and he's just a very solid contributor. With Webster in the team this year we've won 8 and lost 6.

You're obviously going to get inconsistency with some of our 1st, 2nd and 3rd year players.

I think competition for spots is going to be massive next year and hopefully that drives effort on the training track and performance on game day.

Bump

Stat update.

When Hunter Clark played this year we won 8 out of 11 games

[groupie1]

For reasons I don't understand, they played him injured in the first game, which triggered an extension. Hasn't been seen since and is reported to have degenerative knee concerns making him unlikely to ever play again. Now unless the extended year was for minimal cash AND they DO believe he can play again, I have no idea why he was played to trigger.

To this side you can add Windhager, Crouch, King, Henry and Phillipou.

I'd scratch Crouch from that list. Unless he gets himself a bionic knee.

I forgot about Henry in my earlier posts. Is our list going into next season really going to be as bad as many think?

I agree that Crouch looks gone, although I believe we might be contractually obliged to keep him on the list for one more year?

It's a pity: he's a good player who would be a helpful addition to our current team.

[repta]

A lot to be said about timing.

Sydney Essendon and Carlton all playing dreadfully when we played them. All going through a rough patch with there game plans worked out.

I believe that 10% down v 10% up. Top v bottom of the ladder is anyone's game. We'll I would back the bottom of the ladder. There is not that much between the teams.
Saints golden patch coincided with other teams bad patches.
Clarke good addition.
Covering King worked really well.

Team balance is crucial. Some players bring more balance maturity or energy than others and it is infectious. Good and bad.

[damienc]

A lot to be said about timing.

Sydney Essendon and Carlton all playing dreadfully when we played them. All going through a rough patch with there game plans worked out.

I believe that 10% down v 10% up. Top v bottom of the ladder is anyone's game. We'll I would back the bottom of the ladder. There is not that much between the teams.
Saints golden patch coincided with other teams bad patches.
Clarke good addition.
Covering King worked really well.

Team balance is crucial. Some players bring more balance maturity or energy than others and it is infectious. Good and bad.

Our golden patch coinciding with their bad patch is stating the blindingly obvious.

Pretty much how all footy games are won and lost.