It's not Lyon's fault!!

[st.byron]

BAM!! the criticism of GT for that period is not just about the draft picks he used on players who had been at other clubs.

It was also as you have raised....the lack of quality development in compariosn to to a club like the Hawks (who were cash strapped too)....

This was not helped by our relationship with Casey....or perhaps the fact that that realtionship was allowed to sour wasa sign that not another weight or attention was being given to the development of young and fringe players.

Add to this our poor rokie record and you get a cumulative result f why I and others were critical of GT's management of this in this period.


The early years of which he was a key part had assembled us a marvelous list full of promise, but as GT assumed total control this huge head start was then sqandered by:
*lack of player development
*lack of utilastion of the rookie system (and forget the rich WC, even poor clubs were doing it)
*poor relations with Casey
*horrid trading
*flawed list management which allowed gaps in the structure of the team to open up (ie rucks, lack of mids, footskills and pace)


No one is perfect....but the above list is to me simply too much done badly for a coach to survive in the job.

excellent summary sRr. Sums it up nicely.

[St.Kenny]

HAvent read most of SR's obsessive anti GT posts but i've seen enough to know he does encapsulate 'the St.Kildas' as one famous scribe called it. A fear of success and detemination to do everything he can to avoid it. Hide in conspiracies and peripheral side debate to denigrate a coach who quite simply got the club to 3 finals series in a row. They are the simple undeniable facts that are the measure of the coach. Until RL does better with a healthier (or fitter) list that he currnetly has ........well we have to concur with our outside critics.....we have a bad case of 'the St.Kildas' and to that end we thank you SR and all his disciples.

[joffaboy]

I am glad Rod Butters and Grant Thomas are gone.

Thomas was a failure as a coach. Not winning us a flag in 04 or 05 makes it so.

He did some very good things and put together a good list, but ultimately came up short.

All the Thomas huggers embrace mediocrity if they think he was succesful. Only guage of a successful coach is winning the flag.

The Saints have only ever had one successful coach. All the rest were failures. If Lyon doesn't win us a flag he will also be a failure as a coach.

Really time to face the fact that Thomas failed, and only fools with loser mentalities think he was a success or would want a failure like him back.

[Shaggy]

I think that watching other Clubs put resources (both financial and human) into these key areas of List Structuring, Recruitment and Player Development shows how 'flawed' GT's thinking was that he could 'do it all'.

It has becaome painfully clear that there were not physically enough hours in the day for him to be effective in all the areas he seems to have demanded control over, and therefore he prioritized these tasks into his own areas of importance.

Hindsight now tells us that we have had serious deficiencies in areas that GT may not have considered so important but most other Clubs have identified as 'critical'.

This is my key area of dissention.

GT was not in charge of the purse strings. Yes he prioritised areas and had dual roles. But IMO that is due to having an inadequate budget in the first place.

I give a lot of kudos to RL for demanding certain changes when he first came to us and for publicly raising the lack of expenditure in his first year. GT on the other hand worked around it by doing multiple jobs at the same time.

IMO the real problem was the Board ... not GT. It is the Board’s responsibility to ensure that operations are operating with an adequate budget to cover all bases. We didn’t and from 2004 when we were a force we should have been.

[Mr Magic]

I think that watching other Clubs put resources (both financial and human) into these key areas of List Structuring, Recruitment and Player Development shows how 'flawed' GT's thinking was that he could 'do it all'.

It has becaome painfully clear that there were not physically enough hours in the day for him to be effective in all the areas he seems to have demanded control over, and therefore he prioritized these tasks into his own areas of importance.

Hindsight now tells us that we have had serious deficiencies in areas that GT may not have considered so important but most other Clubs have identified as 'critical'.

This is my key area of dissention.

GT was not in charge of the purse strings. Yes he prioritised areas and had dual roles. But IMO that is due to having an inadequate budget in the first place.

I give a lot of kudos to RL for demanding certain changes when he first came to us and for publicly raising the lack of expenditure in his first year. GT on the other hand worked around it by doing multiple jobs at the same time.

IMO the real problem was the Board ... not GT. It is the Board’s responsibility to ensure that operations are operating with an adequate budget to cover all bases. We didn’t and from 2004 when we were a force we should have been.

But at the risk of re-igniting this whole 'war', do you really believe that someone of GT's personality would have ever taken 'no' for an answer to something he really wanted?

I don't believe that the Board refused to give him what he demanded.
I do believe that he took complete control of teh Football Dept and told the Board what he wanted them to know.
I further believe that some 'alarm bells' started to ring and the Board , independantly of GT, started asking questions in the wider football community, as to what/how an 'ideal model' should be. They then came to teh realization that the way GT was running the Club's Football Dept wan't ideal.

[saintsRrising]

[

. GT on the other hand worked around it by doing multiple jobs at the same time.

.

GT also:

* refused a full time football manager when offerred.
* negotiated a $500,000 salary for which for a coach of his record and experience at the time was way above the odds.

Maybe $300,000 for him and two $100,000 assistants would have been better for the club???

The multiple roles was actually a weakness. GT's comfort zone was playing contracts etc....and so he got involved in an area that distracted him from the important issues....but which he enjoyed doing.

I mean what is more important for a coach...developing your players.....or confronting their managers over contracts????

GT stated in an interview that he did not have the time to adequately develop rookies.........but yet he made time to negotiate contracts?????

[Saints43]

GT stated in an interiew that he did not have the time to adequately develop rookies.........

When & Where was that statement made?



My brother and I spoke to John Beveridge in 2002 regarding recruiting. He bemoaned the lack of spending on scouting. (Less than 1% of turnover apparently)

1. If the head recruiter thinks we are not spending enough on talent identification wouldn't the board know about it? If yes, isn't it their decision on whether it is increased?

2. Why would the coach not want more spent as it would only enhance his performance?

It's time that people remember the state of the finances when RB took over.

[saintsRrising]

GT stated in an interiew that he did not have the time to adequately develop rookies.........

When & Where was that statement made?


.

On radio....I don't remember the daet. But it would certainly have been after 2002.

I have posted on this before and other forumites who heard it too....supported my recollection with their subsequent posts.

The interview included discussion on rookies and the Saints lack of joy there. In the interview GT said that he preferred to use his coaching resources on the senior list. His overall tone was dismissive of the worth of developing rookies........

[saintsRrising]

It's time that people remember the state of the finances when RB took over.

I remember well...

However the Kangaroos managed to develop rookies.

The Hawks finances were dibalocal to...but they developed rookies.

[Shaggy]

I think that watching other Clubs put resources (both financial and human) into these key areas of List Structuring, Recruitment and Player Development shows how 'flawed' GT's thinking was that he could 'do it all'.

It has becaome painfully clear that there were not physically enough hours in the day for him to be effective in all the areas he seems to have demanded control over, and therefore he prioritized these tasks into his own areas of importance.

Hindsight now tells us that we have had serious deficiencies in areas that GT may not have considered so important but most other Clubs have identified as 'critical'.

This is my key area of dissention.

GT was not in charge of the purse strings. Yes he prioritised areas and had dual roles. But IMO that is due to having an inadequate budget in the first place.

I give a lot of kudos to RL for demanding certain changes when he first came to us and for publicly raising the lack of expenditure in his first year. GT on the other hand worked around it by doing multiple jobs at the same time.

IMO the real problem was the Board ... not GT. It is the Board’s responsibility to ensure that operations are operating with an adequate budget to cover all bases. We didn’t and from 2004 when we were a force we should have been.

But at the risk of re-igniting this whole 'war', do you really believe that someone of GT's personality would have ever taken 'no' for an answer to something he really wanted?

I don't believe that the Board refused to give him what he demanded.
I do believe that he took complete control of teh Football Dept and told the Board what he wanted them to know.
I further believe that some 'alarm bells' started to ring and the Board , independantly of GT, started asking questions in the wider football community, as to what/how an 'ideal model' should be. They then came to teh realization that the way GT was running the Club's Football Dept wan't ideal.

There is no war. GT's time has come and gone. Nexus is the only one who thinks it would be good to have GT back now .

Waldron, Bundy and Watts were not yes men and yet they worked well with GT. So why couldn’t the Board? They didn't have to work well with him anyway. They could have just told him.

The director I think really failed was Kellett. He was football director. He was a good footballer and very successful business man. He above all should have been able to recognize the changes and expenditure needed. I suspect he was more business man at the end.

And it wasn't just during GT's time.

Andrew Thompson ran against the former Board as a result. The Board really should have implemented more of the changes recommended by the consultants back in 2006 rather than just use it for justification of GT’s dismissal.

[saintsRrising]

The Board really should have implemented more of the changes recommended by the consultants back in 2006 rather than just use it for justification of GT’s dismissal.

Agreed that the previous Board acted too slowly.....and indecisevely.

[saintsRrising]

[The director I think really failed was Kellett. He was football director. He was a good footballer and very successful business man. He above all should have been able to recognize the changes and expenditure needed. I suspect he was more business man at the end.

.

I think this underlines what a loss Waldron was......and I personally rate losing him as a huge blow to the Saints.

While some just saw him asa CEO...I think many do not appreciate all of his talents or experience..

From his CV

Brian began his professional life working in Secondary Education. In 1991 he commenced a Sports administration career when he was appointed Development Manager with the Richmond Football Club. Over the ensuing years he held the positions of National Recruiting Manager and General Manger, Football Operations with the Richmond Football Club finishing his time there in late 1997.

I personally believe that we really lost focus after BW left.

[Shaggy]

The Board really should have implemented more of the changes recommended by the consultants back in 2006 rather than just use it for justification of GT’s dismissal.

Agreed that the previous Board acted too slowly.....and indecisevely.

I suspect the only changes made were demanded by RL as a condition of joining. It wasn't even half way through the 2007 season before RL started mentioning the lack of expenditure (i.e. he should have demanded a lot more before he joined).

[cowboy18]

I think this underlines what a loss Waldron was......and I personally rate losing him as a huge blow to the Saints.

Why did he leave? Was he moved on for legal grounds? Or moral grounds?

He's been a huge boost for the storm - a key to many parts of their on-field success IMO.


All I can remember is some nudge nudge wink wink posts suggesting some fairly innocuous in-house relationships. Have his reasons been made public?

[meher baba]

It's a quiet night, so I have just had a good look through the rookie drafts.

Warning: this post is only one for the afficionados.

Unlike sRr I didn't go back to 1999 because my recollection is that GT wasn't involved with our club back then, so he can't be blamed for anything that was done or not done (correct me if I'm wrong: I have an unfortunate tendency to overlook many aspects of GT's perfidy).

I have only looked at the first two rounds of the rookie draft (typically around 30 players, as some clubs pass).

In 2002 we, like all other clubs, took a couple of rookies in the first two rounds of the draft: Allan Murray and Jordan Barham. Both of these guys can be considered to be failures. However, from the players selected by clubs in the first two rounds of the rookie draft, only 7 - Brad Sewell, Michael Firrito, Nick Maxwell, Michael Osborne, Mark Nicoski and Jason Porplyzia - have gone on to have substantial AFL careers. Over a dozen of the top 30 or so never played an AFL game.

In 2003, we took Dylan Pfinzer and Nick Stone (and, interestingly, Hawthorn took Michael Rix). Of the 32 selected by clubs in the first two rounds, once again only 7 - Andrew Carazzo, Aaron Davey, Nathan Foley, Brett Jones, Daniel Pratt, Nathan Lovett-Murray and Adam Bentick - have gone on to have substantial AFL careers. The first 3 of these were snapped up before we had our first pick in the draft. Around half of the top 30 or so have never played an AFL game.

In 2004, we took Luke Mullins and Ed McDonnell. Of the 32 selected by clubs in the first two rounds, only 4 - Danyle Pearce, Clinton Young, Dale Morris and O'Brien - have made a major impact so far. Two-thirds of the top 30 or so have never played an AFL game.

In 2005, we went with Cathal Corr and, yet again, Dylan Pfinzer. Of the top 32, the standouts are Jason Roe (who I think was a redraftee: correct me if I'm wrong), Stephen Armstrong and Matthew Priddis. Around half of the top 30 or so have never played an AFL game.

By the time of the 2006 draft, GT was gone.

What does all this tell us. First of all, that we failed miserably with our rookie selections (and perhaps development, although I don't think our list of choices was brimming over with talent) over this period. Hawthorn, North Melbourne, Collingwood, Essendon, Port, West Coast and a few others did a fair bit better than us. However, leaving aside the SA and WA clubs (who have strong local leagues in which to develop their players) we were excelled by clubs which typically finished below us on the table during this time.

However, plenty of other clubs didn't do any better at all.

I think the main lesson is that rookie selection and development is a bit of a lottery. It's too early yet to say whether any rookies recruited since 2005 (under a completely different system, I shouldn't have to point out, although I suspect I do) are total successes. Attard surely doesn't count, having already played quite a few AFL games and having been elevated before the start of the 2007 season. Jones does, as does Geary, but we'll have to wait and see what sort of careers these guys have in the longer term: eg, is Jones really all that much better than Murray? An interesting question, surely.

[saintsRrising]

Unlike sRr I didn't go back to 1999 because my recollection is that GT wasn't involved with our club back then, .

Dan Warna asked about Milne....who was taken in 1999...which is why I discussed 1999.........

[Shaggy]

[

. GT on the other hand worked around it by doing multiple jobs at the same time.

.

GT also:

* refused a full time football manager when offerred.
* negotiated a $500,000 salary for which for a coach of his record and experience at the time was way above the odds.

I suspect that the football manager offered was a control rather than an operational issue and I would have told the Board where to go also if there were other more pressing areas (i.e. lets take a full list ).

$500,000 salary to take a team to the finals within 3 years from winning 6 games in 2 years whilst also satisfying the Boards focus of making a $1 million profit per year (i.e. the lowest expenditure budget in the league) seems to be fair. Compared to what we paid Blight it was a bargain.

[saintsRrising]

However, plenty of other clubs didn't do any better at all..

So do we aspire to be the best of the best in what we do......or are we content to say well some clubs did lousy too so thats ok???

I think the main lesson is that rookie selection and development is a bit of a lottery. .

That is why it is the rookie system..

By definition the players in it have some flaw or doubt.....and so the chances of sucess in it are less.

However the clubs that have given it due attention have reaped rewards.

If you can generate a senior player every second year or so through it...then you have an edge over clubs that have not done so.

Some clubs have done far better than that....but to be be near the bottom of the table with rookies developed is not something that helps you to bea better tea.

Use of rookies is only one factor....but they all add up.


If you are no good at rookies,,,,then you need to make up for it in any ways.

[rodgerfox]

The Saints have only ever had one successful coach. All the rest were failures. If Lyon doesn't win us a flag he will also be a failure as a coach.

The coach doesn't win the flag.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

I don't know where to find the rookie draft results, .

One source is www.footywire.com

Look for AFL Drafts..

or http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_drafts

Thanks for the link. For the sake of diligence I'll follow it up though people appear to have moved on from the 21-23 year olds who are apparently crippling Ross Lyon and hence relevance of these results.

Here then, are the Hawthorn Rookie Draft Results 2003-05:
2003:
1- Ben Clifton
2- Michael Rix
3- Josh Thurgood
4- Shaun Bergin
5- Paul Shelton
2004:
1- Ruory Kirby
2- Clinton Young
3- Thomas Willday
4- Kristan Height
2005:
1- Luke McEntee
2- Lukas Markovic
3- Stephen Gilham
4- Ben Kane
5- Ben McGlynn

People can judge for themselves whether from the above they want to credit the recruiters or developers for Hawthorn's success with the rookies. Personally I very much believe it's the latter... high turnover, progress focused management of these 6 rookie list positions has paid dividends to a rebuilding club.

[rodgerfox]

Why is any list being mentioned other than Geelongs?

They are the reigning premier, therefore the only successful club.

Why are we talking about Hawthorn? What have they done exactly?

If prelims don't count as a measure to success, then surely one season in a semi-final doesn't make you a benchmark??


It will be funny when Lyon's game plan settles in a couple of weeks and our list looks awesome again. What are you all going to blame then?

[meher baba]

Why is any list being mentioned other than Geelongs?

They are the reigning premier, therefore the only successful club.

Why are we talking about Hawthorn? What have they done exactly?

If prelims don't count as a measure to success, then surely one season in a semi-final doesn't make you a benchmark??

Too right: especially when you look through that list of rookies and realise that you wouldn't particularly want any of them (including Michael Rix) at St Kilda.

Indeed, leaving aside the top 3 or so on the Hawks list (particularly Buddy, Mitchell and Hodge), I can't say that I would be desperate to see any of the others playing in red, white and black.

Given my drothers, I think I'd be most interested in having Clarkson: I think he potentially looks much more like becoming a supercoach than either GT or RL ever have.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

It will be funny when Lyon's game plan settles in a couple of weeks and our list looks awesome again. What are you all going to blame then?

From your keyboard to god's ear.

My plan, should you be correct, is to sit back, relax, and enjoy the ride. Perhaps when there's a hiccup, I might panic, just to change things up, but I'll follow it up by putting on a nice rose coloured pair of glasses and predicting a Saints premiership the moment we qualify for finals.

More than happy for this to look funny if that means the Saints are winning convincingly.

[saintsRrising]

This is my key area of dissention.

GT was not in charge of the purse strings. Yes he prioritised areas and had dual roles..

I think someone mention "spin" earlier...

..and here we have a classic case...where GT's supposed dual roles were used to justify his over the top salary for a coach of his experience.

Dual roles???

Any head coach at AFL team basically has a 24/7 job.

They live and breathe it...

It is not a 9/5 job.

This is part of the reason they are paid many times the average man's salary. However even without the cash....a properly motivated coach would do it anyway as they "hunger" to be a head AFL coach....and if they do not have the hunger to do it....they would not.

Indeed that is why Blight was sacked...as he was not prepared to spend enough time coaching. ...as his hunger had swapped to playing golf rather than coaching.

If you have heard any of the various coaches wives interviewd over the years you would gain an appreciation of how dedicated and foccused their husbands were to coaching and the hours put in.

Dual roles somehow is meant to imply that he worked extra hours and so therefore was justified in the extra cash.

In reality it was not extra hours....but less hours spent on what he really needed to be doing...coaching.

[saintsRrising]

People can judge for themselves whether from the above they want to credit the recruiters or developers for Hawthorn's success with the rookies. Personally I very much believe it's the latter... high turnover, progress focused management of these 6 rookie list positions has paid dividends to a rebuilding club.

Is that not the point....though it is not just rookies..but this process applied to the whole list?????

It is this building and development of the TOTAL list using every resource which to me is where the Saints went off the rails post-Waldron.

This is to me called list management....and it where GT was a chronic underachiever when he was left to oversee and manage the process..

While the recent discussion here has focussed on rookies.....there are various paths that can be used to improve your list. Different coaches may choose to use different strategies here and various combinations of the possible paths.... Point is you have to excell at least somehwere if you want to be top of the pile.

In the period under discussion:

* rookies...we sucked
* trades for players from other clubs...were dismal
* developing players already at the club....err what evidence was there of it as being good????? Indded soured relationship such as we had with Casey were evidence of the neglect.
*achieving proper balance and structure...holes in the list everywhere..no good rucks...no enough mids recruited for a clearly aging midfield....recruiting players opposte to the trands in the game (pace, footskills....butr wanted big lumbering forwards when there time was mainly past).

I ask you this...in this period what did GT do well in to improve our list??????

GT chose the path of trading for talent and using players who had been at other clubs......but he got his calls wrong in this period.

It is not to say that topping up cannot work....but for GT it did not work post-Waldron.

GT put his eggs in this basket.....and they now lay shattered on the ground.


Now RL...has also decided to use this as one of his strategies to improve the list. Whether he has done it well we should know by the end of this season.