Man on a mission: Ross Lyon on our pre-season

[JeffDunne]

Should of saved yourself the time Teffers and simply posted "I blame Grant Thomas".

Actually, I think you did.

[Teflon]

Should of saved yourself the time Teffers and simply posted "I blame Grant Thomas".

Actually, I think you did.

Thats it?

Let me guess for such a lame response......you cant have run out of time.........could it be you've run outof ideas.......again...

Dont panic - Dodg and Mischa will be along shortly to "top you up".

[JeffDunne]

Should of saved yourself the time Teffers and simply posted "I blame Grant Thomas".

Actually, I think you did.

Thats it?

Did I miss something?

Is there anyone else you blame other than GT for this year's performances (or lack of)?

Oh that's right . . . you think this year was a smashing success.

David Parkin said so!

[Teflon]

they were best for converting inside 50s into goals; we were among the worst.

From Rounds 11-22, we were #3 in the AFL in this statistic. In 2006, we were around #8-9 in this statistic..

where did we sit for the season as a whole?

According to the coach we "sat" with the same game plan, the same "fundamentals", the same "strategy" as we had in Rd 1 yet by the hand of god only!! somehow started winning games in the second half of the year....let me guess....those games (according to you) we were losing out of the coaches box we all of a sudden started to win cause the coach got magically better???????????? ....OR the coach THREW out his game plan/stratgey and fundamentals...........nup.

[Teflon]

Should of saved yourself the time Teffers and simply posted "I blame Grant Thomas".

Actually, I think you did.

Thats it?

Did I miss something?

Im convinced this is actually written on your birth certificate......but the answer is...yes......yes you did......and who has the time to "school" Jeffery over, and over and over again.....

Maybe that wasnt written on your bitrh certificate.....perhaps more the wedding night...

[tezza1]

I like the way dodg compares the 2004 list to the 2007 and implies same personal but inferior performance.................must be the coach.

Thats because a lot of the list were not capable of 2004 like performance whether it was chronic injury ala hammill and Ball, best football behind them ala gehrig , or plain not on the field ala Goose or Goddard. or even recovering from major injury like Lenny...................

[JeffDunne]

Given your grasp of the English language Teffers I think I'll pass on your schooling.

[Teflon]

Given your grasp of the English language Teffers I think I'll pass on your schooling.

Yes but I can still see........so unlike yourself at least I havent been "grasping" something else a little to often....

[Teflon]

I like the way dodg compares the 2004 list to the 2007 and implies same personal but inferior performance.................must be the coach.

Thats because a lot of the list were not capable of 2004 like performance whether it was chronic injury ala hammill and Ball, best football behind them ala gehrig , or plain not on the field ala Goose or Goddard. or even recovering from major injury like Lenny...................

Bingo Tezza - throw in Jeffery and youve got the daily double for stupidity - Mischa gives you the trifecta.....

Its typical, fanciful "look at me" type rubbish from Dodg...........next week he'll say what a messiah Lyon is and then proceed to tell us all he was saying this all along...

[bigcarl]

they were best for converting inside 50s into goals; we were among the worst.

From Rounds 11-22, we were #3 in the AFL in this statistic. In 2006, we were around #8-9 in this statistic.

where did we sit for the season as a whole? i'm guessing it wasn't good.

[JeffDunne]

Yes but I can still see....

Quite an amazing feat given where your head is usually positioned.

[Teflon]

Yes but I can still see....

Quite an amazing feat given where your head is usually positioned.

Quite contrary to popular belief...the idea that one sees perfectly well when ones head is kept firmly on ones shoulders is perfectly normal.....

I think your "other" heads been doing the thinking for you of late.....going off some of your recent posts (Ive been up at Wandong at Board Training Camp so excuse my absence of late.. )

[bigcarl]

I felt we got the balance right between attack and defence in the second half of 2007.
But we fell over the line in some games? All fitness. Fitness. Fitness.
Fitness and nothing else IMO.

i genuinely hope you're right and that RL is the man to take us to the holy grail. i want to believe that he is, but you'll forgive me for not being convinced on the evidence of 2007.

[Oh When the Saints]

they were best for converting inside 50s into goals; we were among the worst.

From Rounds 11-22, we were #3 in the AFL in this statistic. In 2006, we were around #8-9 in this statistic.

where did we sit for the season as a whole? i'm guessing it wasn't good.

Around 14th I believe. I took heart out of the improvement in that stat, which I mainly put down to injuries and a playing group still adapting to exactly what the coach wanted.

I felt we got the balance right between attack and defence in the second half of 2007.
But we fell over the line in some games? All fitness. Fitness. Fitness.
Fitness and nothing else IMO.

i genuinely hope you're right and that RL is the man to take us to the holy grail. but forgive me for not being convinced yet on the results i've seen so far.

Perfectly reasonable. At the end of the day the scoreboard doesn't lie, and the scoreboard doesn't have a premiership next to RL yet.

However, I do see the makings of a fine coach and feel that he has what is required ...

But even I will need to see some hard proof of that on the field this year, given a good run with injuries.

[Teflon]

I felt we got the balance right between attack and defence in the second half of 2007.
But we fell over the line in some games? All fitness. Fitness. Fitness.
Fitness and nothing else IMO.

i genuinely hope you're right and that RL is the man to take us to the holy grail. but forgive me for not being convinced yet on the results i've seen so far.

Fair enough Carl only 1 result really matters in the end and Grant never got that either so we'll see what Ross conjures...but I do have you top of my list of doubters for holy grail day.....

[bigcarl]

I felt we got the balance right between attack and defence in the second half of 2007.
But we fell over the line in some games? All fitness. Fitness. Fitness.
Fitness and nothing else IMO.

i genuinely hope you're right and that RL is the man to take us to the holy grail. but forgive me for not being convinced yet on the results i've seen so far.

Fair enough Carl only 1 result really matters in the end and Grant never got that either so we'll see what Ross conjures...but I do have you top of my list of doubters for holy grail day.....

i think ross will benefit from working under new leadership in 2008.

his first year was largely ruined by the split in the club caused by the GT sacking. hard to focus on one's job with a civil war going on around you and the president fighting for his job, i'd imagine.

but with the men who removed GT also gone, we're one big happy family again, aren't we teffers.



imo, RL starts with a clean slate this year. the civil war is yesterday's news ... even though some cannot seem to let it go ... yet.

with what he's inherited (due largely to the good work of RB and his "mate" GT) i expect no less than a top 4 finish.

[Quixote]

Note the way in which RL describes the Geelong brand of play... he thought they "competed well" (A), "tackled strongly" (B) and were "clean/efficient" (C).

they also had 5 guys who kicked 30 or more goals for the season; we had three. they were best for converting inside 50s into goals; we were among the worst.

what RL is talking about above is fundamentals. i'm talking about gameplan and structure. they are different.

our gameplan in 2007 was lousy and cost us games. as i've said countless times in other threads we need more consistent and reliable avenues to goal and it starts by having guys who can kick goals within kicking distance

btw. you're right that footy is a simple game ... if you don't outscore your opponent you won't win.

And you're right there also - football is a simple game.

I am aware that RL is talking about fundamentals - it is part and parcel with what I'm trying to say.

If we can get the fundamentals spot on, the game-plan almost pales in significance.

I think RL is trying to emulate Brisbane, if you want to know...

The Lions nailed A B and C during their dominant spell.

From there, you can choose how you play. If you have the luxury of controlling the primary aspects of a game, you will find there are many ways to win.

For the Lions, the Cats, and probably a host of successful teams, it was simply a matter of Play on Quickly, Always Run and Kick Long.

Who's saying we can't do that? They are simple instructions for a simple game.

The three above game-plan strategies are easily applied when the bricks have been laid and the structures have been mortared.

I think RL is looking at the equation holistically, whereas most are getting strung up with the details.

OWTS made a very valid point - team fitness.


I strongly believe that in 2007 the STKFC players were simply not fit enough to implement what their coach was striving for.

I desperately hope this changes in a relatively short period of time.

Think about it though - how can you run and play on and kick to your team-mate down the ground if everyone is flat-footed and knackered??

For mine if fitness is up to scratch, injuries are controlled and the fundamentals are firmly in place - its hello nurse.

[rodgerfox]

Ok...

In the interview, RL clearly states his three fundamental objectives for the team -

A) Win the contested ball
B) Tackle strongly
C) Use the ball well

These are very logical stipulations. If we could perform these three fundamentals to a high quality week-in week-out, we would be a very good football team.

Worth noting though, that these 3 fundamentals have been 'the' fundamentals of the club for the past 5 years.

This isn't anything new.

The only 'new' thing is that we went backwards in these areas last year.

[rodgerfox]

We went from having the 'best list in the AFL' and finishing 4th, 4th and 6th (% off 4th again) to missing the 8 by 2 wins and suddenly having gaping holes in our list.

This is the same "best list" you told us all for weeks was a nonsense?........this is worse hypocrisy than our rotational cpataincy policy developing leaders yet the job is merely a coin toss - which is Dodg? best list or a convenient argument when Jeff pandering?

Oh dear.

You'll find (once you grasp the English language) that I used inverted commas to highlight the fact that in the eyes of alot of morons (such as yourself), we had the 'best list in the comp'. The only thing holding them back was the coach. We miraculously went from that, within the space of 6 months, to a 'terrible list with gaping holes' that the poor new coach was carrying to 9th spot.

The inverted commas were there to highlight the hilarious stupidity of those who used the argument for years that 'anyone could coach this list to the top 4'.

[joffaboy]

To be fair to RodgerFox, he has consistanty pooh poohed the best list in the comp myth for many years.

I cant think I remember him saying it once.

I would like to hear from RodgerFox on his other pet theory regarding last season which is injuries. I seem to recall that we had a plethora of injuries for the whole of the first half of the season. This must have something to do with performance and the three "fundamentals" of

A) Win the contested ball
B) Tackle strongly
C) Use the ball well

being inferior to the three previous years.

However I do feel that it is just not a simplistic blame the current, previous coach.

Our season was a combo of injuries, new coach and gameplan (and no settling into the gameplan due to the turnover of personnel in the team), poor fitness (terrible and dissapointing fadeouts in the second half of the year), a distablised environment (the previous coach sticking his bib in until the President was eventually forced out) and the board problems, were all causes for a poor year.

However, like Thomas, like Butterss, 2007 is gone. And I think the optimism toward 2008 is more than the usual pre season optimism.

Things on the injury front haven't looked as good in a long time. Recruits in King, Schneider (the bigger names) Dempster (could be a good pickup according to Swans fans) and Charlie Gardiner (good reports from the training track) could add much to the coaches gameplan. M.Gardiner fit means we have a very good ruck combo (potentially), and the new fitness guy from Sydney getting us fitter tha last season, is all positive.

The new board that I was critical of has kicked goals and have so far done what they said they would do - found extra revenue streams to fund the extra football dept spending - all power to them and thumbs up. Best of all the "old boys" club that Thomas/Butterss turned it into has gone.

Membership is on the up and it seems there is a whole new enthusiam about the place, something that has been missing since about 2004.

The place under Lyon and the recruiters have done better than anytime since 2001 (IMHO), and along with the fresh new board, has rejuvenated the place.

But as RodgerFox has pointed out time and again, only the team with the least injuries invariably wins a flag. We have the cattle, can we keep them fit enough to win the flag?

[rodgerfox]

I like the way dodg compares the 2004 list to the 2007 and implies same personal but inferior performance.................must be the coach.

Thats because a lot of the list were not capable of 2004 like performance whether it was chronic injury ala hammill and Ball, best football behind them ala gehrig , or plain not on the field ala Goose or Goddard. or even recovering from major injury like Lenny...................

Hamill didn't play in the finals of 2005. Ball was cactus for the second half of 2005 and couldn't run in the finals. Roo played the year with a bad shoulder.
Goose had OP all year in 05 then did his hip late in the year. Kosi never got on the park. Max the same. Gehrig had busted thumbs and wore a moon boot all year.

2006 was no different. Lenny wasn't there after the first 2 months. Goose broke his leg, Bally still couldn't run or kick, Kosi cracked his head, Hamill was still a no show and Sam Fisher was recovering from a broken foot for most of the year.


Goddard, Gehrig, Fiora, Kosi, Lenny, Harves, Gram, Fisher, X, Max, Dal, Ball, Blakey, Bakes, Milne, BJ, Joey, Goose, Roo, Voss, Thompson and Leigh Fisher is a starting 22 that was available in 2005, and also in 2007.

Throw in Hamill who was also on the list.

There of course there is the fringe of Raph, Ferguson, Brooks etc. who were also on the 2007 list.

The core was still there. The core will still be there in 08.

For those who argue that the output of several of those guys diminished due to age, therefore the list was not at as strong - you must surely take into account the fact that Goose, Kosi, Roo, BJ, Dal, Ball, Joey etc. all had another 2 pre-seasons under their belts, plus an extra 50 games experience. Including finals experience.

Worth noting too that Gram and Fisher are now considered elite running backs in the comp. They weren't in 04 and 05.

Alot of the guys mentioned above didn't have huge input in 07. But don't forget that 05 and 06 were the worst years for injuries in the comp aswell.

[rodgerfox]

To be fair to RodgerFox, he has consistanty pooh poohed the best list in the comp myth for many years.

I cant think I remember him saying it once.

I would like to hear from RodgerFox on his other pet theory regarding last season which is injuries. I seem to recall that we had a plethora of injuries for the whole of the first half of the season. This must have something to do with performance and the three "fundamentals" of

A) Win the contested ball
B) Tackle strongly
C) Use the ball well

being inferior to the three previous years.

However I do feel that it is just not a simplistic blame the current, previous coach.

This to me, summarises my view on everything over the past 3-4 years. I'm often misquoted or misinterpreted, so I'll lay it out again....

The 3 fundamentals mentioned above are fundamentals at every club. We prided ourselves on these areas since 2003. We became very good at them in 2004.

When injuries hit, especially to key players, the ability to carry out the above fundamentals becomes difficult. History says it's impossible. This is why when clubs suffer injuries, they fall down the ladder. Traditionally, those with injuries finish in the bottom 4. Collingwood, Geelong, Sydney and all these clubs have proven this. When they're fit, they're good. When they have injuries, they're not. Geelong were pathetic in 06 when their list wasn't fit. Collingwood were a bottom 4 side when not healthy. Sydney, even in their premiership year, couldn't get within 40 points of anyone until they had the same unchanged lineup for 10 straight weeks.

Joffaboy says above it's simplisitc to blame the coach.

I've been saying this for years.

The big difference, and why I gave Thomas credit as a coach. was that we bucked that trend. We were a top 4 side in 05 when we had terrible injuries. Hell, with 8 of our best missing, we nearly won a prelim final! The week before we won an away final against the minor premier when we were barely able to field a team.

06 the same. We were decimated. Yet we were % off the top 4. We had Melbourne's pants down in week 1 of the finals until we lost 4 key players during the game. We still held on until the last 10 minutes.

What has given me the shiits for years, is the 'experts' bagging our depth. We suffered injuries for 2 years that saw other clubs with half of our injuries become bottom 4 sides. Yet, with our terrible depth, we remained a top 4 side.

The difference in 07, was that with injuries we were pathetic. Without them we were Ok - not overly convincing, but Ok.

We appeared to go from a club that was top 4 when suffering injuries, and a deadset flag favourite should we get everyone fit - to a club that was bottom 4 when suffering injuries, and perhaps top 4 when fully fit.

We lost games we should have won. And some wins were nowhere near as convincing as they should be from a top 4 club.

[Oh When the Saints]

It is a very convincing argument rodgerfox.


Personally, I believe there needs to be a condition applied.


That condition is that we had a vastly under-funded and under-resourced Fitness Department between 2002 and 2006.

It was probably the worst in the AFL, and IMO contributed heavily to our injury toll.


I lay blame for the state of that Fitness Department equally with the previous board and coach, and believe that in the end it was what cost us a flag or two.

[JeffDunne]

In fairness OWTS, and I'm no fan of the previous admin, some injuries are just rotten luck.

Sure we've had our share of what on the surface appear to be preventable soft tissue injuries, but we've have a lot too that the entire sports science community couldn't have prevented.

[cuz60]

I probably lean more towards Teflon's viewpoint.
The main problem we had last season was fitness or more so a lack of it. We werent able to run out games due to:
- Players having poor pre-seasons, and post season surgery
- The horrible run of injuries rounds (8 - 11)

In saying that though the idea of having G-train, Kosi, and Milney being down the back pocket during games doesnt sit well with me. Re the Skipper mark with every player back in defence.

Our results were better in the second half of the season though and I believe RL given time will find the right balance between defence and attack.

Also having ruckmen where we might actually start to win some clean ball out of the middle instead of having to wait for secondary ball-ups or even worse, sharking the opposition's hitout will be very useful next season.