Ball, the facts and Lyon

[desertsaint]

Have linked to a graph showing afl clubs ladder positions 2000-08 to now

Check it to see if there is indeed a particular pattern clubs follow or is the whole 'premiership window' a lot of guff.

The graph displays 1st position at bottom (1) and last at top (16)

You decide (sorry but image insert didn't work so had to paste link - if anyone can get image paste to work feel free to paste it)
http://bp3.blogger.com/_ftWrk8neHe0/SFi ... 000-08.JPG

but looks to me like there is no consistent pattern

[Ray Broughton]

I like the thinking Desert but that graph resembles a Jackson Pollock painting.. gives me a headache trying to look at it, perhaps plottin 3 or 4 at a time might be better

[desertsaint]

Have to agree - i was thinking of plotting a few only but was worried my choice could easily be swayed by what i wanted the graph to show.

Or more likely that i'd be accused of plotting a graph supporting one side of the argument.

[Ray Broughton]

Haha True True......

[Teflon]

it also appears that cycle can be managed, and that a team certainly does not peak over a period of 2 years and go into rapid decline.

I think Brisabane, Adelaide, Sydney (still waiting for their decline) prove the cycle can be managed - question at St Kilda is has it been?

Some very interesting posts re trends on here - we appear as a bang/bust club in some......it doesnt have to be that way IMO. BUT this is why I believe Lyon is behind the 8 ball and why needd stability.

I may be just hopeful.......but there is a core group there who can play....its whats around them, whats coming through thats the issues. IMHO players like Gwilt, Ferguson, Mqualter (even Brooks etc previously) should have been assessed far earlier as to whether they are the support we need or not AFL players. The best clubs who manage "the cycle" appear to do this better than anyone - I suspect Matthews is very very good at it.....

We have over the last few years had our eye solely on a flag with the current crop - thats not "sustainable success" thats short term, dash for the line stuff that if it doesnt pay off leaves you wityh not much left in the tank in terms of players coming through......which brings us to 2008....

Lyon's challenge in future has got to be to refuse to take top up players - hes tried it once, he obviously (like many of us) had us down as better than we are.....he now must KNOW where we are and recruit accordingly.

Kids, keep draft picks, target players from other clubs ONLY if they meet an age/need criteria for our club.

[To the top]

I'll buy back in!

Even if you win a premiership you need to improve 20% the following season - that is 4 players have got to significantly improve or are replaced by better prospects.

Those teams who are not successful have to improve by 40% - that is 8 players have got to significantly improve or are replaced by better prospects.

Simply, no matter where you finish you need to improve.

The days of going out and recruiting Kernahan, Bradley, Motley and Dorotich are gone.

These days it is about drafting 18 year olds and that is why you get the differing cycles - if your recruiting staff have a couple of misses (and that will happen no matter), you are under immediate pressure because where does your improvement come from?

This is exacerbated by the requirement that those drafted have to stay on the list for 2 years.

What the good and (therefore) enduring coaches have is an eye for those with the capabilities to play AFL footy - much the same as the Australian cricket selectors plucking Warne - and having the confidence to stick with him despite his debut of 1/150 against India.

Mind you, these coaches are supported by their "spotters network", upon whom they rely.

St Kilda appears to not have the toughness to recognise that even successful teams move on each and every year (we have 3 premiership players from the past couple of years in King, Schnieder and Dempster - why?).

We pay homage because we made a final.

Instead of looking at why we failed - and addressing the symptoms.

Cutting and re-pasting looking for that 40% improvement is not the St Kilda way with a team which has made the finals!

The scarcity of success in even making finals sees to that.

That is why we have collapsed so quickly after Sheldon, after Alves and after Thomas.

And even if you do "snag" a premiership (because there IS a lot of luck involved these days) you still do not stand still - because you are the target and everyone is out after you.

There are no friends in footy, as King, Schnieder and Dempster have found out.

St Kilda have not been ruthless enough, never have been (although I would present that the previous Board was right on the cusp - and paid a price!) and still are not.

WE are seduced by getting "top up" players who have been discarded by premiership sides in their quest to improve their lists. Get that 20% improvement.

I do make an exception with King because of the absolutely failed stategy that you do not need rucks - the very position the game commences from!

And today we have a dysfunctional list absolutely reliant on a few better than average footballers - and they can not carry the load as we are finding out.

Our options are restricted to 6 players, and they do not fill the critical gaps being a dearth of potential key defenders, where our VFL affiliate does not have St Kilda listed footballers to play in those positions we are so deficient in, playing Wall and Silvagni.

How long to correct?

Depends on the 6 - and it depends on who we can draft at the end of this season - hopefully there are a couple of prospective 192cm plus key defenders, a couple of fleet footed kids who love to get the footy, attack relentlessly and use it and someone who just loves competing and slotting them from 50.

[Ghost Like]

You've some great posts here TTT, please forward these thoughts of yours to Lyon, I think you're on the money and I'm sure he'd appreciate reading some well thought out and constructive concerns/beliefs from a supporter.

[rodgerfox]

I'll buy back in!

Even if you win a premiership you need to improve 20% the following season - that is 4 players have got to significantly improve or are replaced by better prospects.

Does that mean that the premiers in 2000 (the almost unbeaten Essendon team) are 160% worse than Geelong last year?

Sorry TTT, you do make some sense, but I think this line is just an old footy cliche that is infact a myth.

[rodgerfox]

St Kilda have not been ruthless enough, never have been (although I would present that the previous Board was right on the cusp - and paid a price!) and still are not.

We did sack two players mid-season.

At the time we were massively criticised for it - for two reasons...

One, because GT did it.

And two, because the perception was that they were sacked because they weren't A-Graders.


That's pretty ruthless.

[desperados]

TTT Thanks, one of the more reasoned posts I have read here.

[rodgerfox]

I do make an exception with King because of the absolutely failed stategy that you do not need rucks - the very position the game commences from!

One more thing - what do you mean by this?

Since when was having no ruckmen a strategy?

[Goody]

This has been one of the best reads I've had on this forum for a long time.
I like your style TTT, you make great sense, you need to write to G Westaway as you've writen here.
As mentioned we have to draw a line in the sand and this is the week.
No more crap, if Dal needs a run at the Scorps, so be it, Riewolt, go, we must get something really happening down there to generate a sense of urgency and let no one, no ego stand in the way.
Blood should be spilt at the end of the year, and if one of our prima donna's is playing for Carlton or Adelaide next year and we get a decent kid, so be it.
We are not going to hurt anyone with our list as it is, a captain with no confidence, a 37 year old as one of our best each time we play, an injury prone 197cm Forward/Ruck on 400k a year not delivering cosistantly, a bloke who was called the next Ian Stewart now just a handy outside reciever. And thats just some of it.
I dont rate the coach, I dont reckon the players play for him, he doesnt react quick enough and he has picked a team of B graders as his assistants. I loved Silvagni as a player but you only had to listen to him as a media person and he struggled putting together a sentence, the rest would be hard up holding down a job in the VFL.
I know its all negative but its what it is and its got change and quick.
We'll be raped blind when these new clubs start to get hold of all the young talent.
My Dad died 20 years ago this year, he was a Hawk, he saw the 61 71,76,78, 83,86,88, premierships in his life. I have just turned 43 and I have yet to taste success, the way things are going I'll be well in my 50's before we see it.
Time to get cracking

[rodgerfox]

We pay homage because we made a final.

Instead of looking at why we failed - and addressing the symptoms.

Cutting and re-pasting looking for that 40% improvement is not the St Kilda way with a team which has made the finals!

Actually, a couple of more things....

It was believed, and I completely and utterly agree, that a huge improvement would come from our list if they actually all played.

When looking at why we 'failed', looking at 05 and 06, it was quite simply that we only had about 60-70% of our list available.

Get them healthy, and 'hey presto' you've improved about 40%!

[rodgerfox]

This has been one of the best reads I've had on this forum for a long time.
I like your style TTT, you make great sense, you need to write to G Westaway as you've writen here.
As mentioned we have to draw a line in the sand and this is the week.
No more crap, if Dal needs a run at the Scorps, so be it, Riewolt, go, we must get something really happening down there to generate a sense of urgency and let no one, no ego stand in the way.
Blood should be spilt at the end of the year, and if one of our prima donna's is playing for Carlton or Adelaide next year and we get a decent kid, so be it.
We are not going to hurt anyone with our list as it is, a captain with no confidence, a 37 year old as one of our best each time we play, an injury prone 197cm Forward/Ruck on 400k a year not delivering cosistantly, a bloke who was called the next Ian Stewart now just a handy outside reciever. And thats just some of it.
I dont rate the coach, I dont reckon the players play for him, he doesnt react quick enough and he has picked a team of B graders as his assistants. I loved Silvagni as a player but you only had to listen to him as a media person and he struggled putting together a sentence, the rest would be hard up holding down a job in the VFL.
I know its all negative but its what it is and its got change and quick.
We'll be raped blind when these new clubs start to get hold of all the young talent.
My Dad died 20 years ago this year, he was a Hawk, he saw the 61 71,76,78, 83,86,88, premierships in his life. I have just turned 43 and I have yet to taste success, the way things are going I'll be well in my 50's before we see it.
Time to get cracking

But is it the list?

Or is it how the list is being coached?


I'm perplexed that people would be prepared to trade and sack guys whom only 3 years ago were AAs as kids.

Why is sacking a coach considered a quick fix and 'St kilda'esque', but sacking or trading gun players isn't?

It's a worrying time.

Is the list no good? Or is the coach no good?

If it's the latter and we head off to trade week with him at the helm - we'll be set back a decade.

[wheels13]

rl is the problem. ass coach to a relative genius in roosy who had the absolute support of his players and the sydney members and public. rossy looked good just standing next to him. really who else was rl and his speech mannerisms would struggle to inspire. i know we dont live in the alan killigrew hot gospeller age any more but fair dinks rossy would have a lot of blokes zzzzzing and 1/2 available . And who else wanted the sainters at the time. we took what we could get because the ex president ego prevented a patch up of his relationship with gt which may have been the precursor to some more conciliatory relations between gt and the board as it alwaysn seemedt eh players bled for gt. mauybe he should have been a assistant coach with a rodney eade as match day/head coach
this is all said a s a sainter since 1968 and still bleeding

[Teflon]

This has been one of the best reads I've had on this forum for a long time.
I like your style TTT, you make great sense, you need to write to G Westaway as you've writen here.
As mentioned we have to draw a line in the sand and this is the week.
No more crap, if Dal needs a run at the Scorps, so be it, Riewolt, go, we must get something really happening down there to generate a sense of urgency and let no one, no ego stand in the way.
Blood should be spilt at the end of the year, and if one of our prima donna's is playing for Carlton or Adelaide next year and we get a decent kid, so be it.
We are not going to hurt anyone with our list as it is, a captain with no confidence, a 37 year old as one of our best each time we play, an injury prone 197cm Forward/Ruck on 400k a year not delivering cosistantly, a bloke who was called the next Ian Stewart now just a handy outside reciever. And thats just some of it.
I dont rate the coach, I dont reckon the players play for him, he doesnt react quick enough and he has picked a team of B graders as his assistants. I loved Silvagni as a player but you only had to listen to him as a media person and he struggled putting together a sentence, the rest would be hard up holding down a job in the VFL.
I know its all negative but its what it is and its got change and quick.
We'll be raped blind when these new clubs start to get hold of all the young talent.
My Dad died 20 years ago this year, he was a Hawk, he saw the 61 71,76,78, 83,86,88, premierships in his life. I have just turned 43 and I have yet to taste success, the way things are going I'll be well in my 50's before we see it.
Time to get cracking

But is it the list?

Or is it how the list is being coached?


I'm perplexed that people would be prepared to trade and sack guys whom only 3 years ago were AAs as kids.

Why is sacking a coach considered a quick fix and 'St kilda'esque', but sacking or trading gun players isn't?

It's a worrying time.

Is the list no good? Or is the coach no good?

If it's the latter and we head off to trade week with him at the helm - we'll be set back a decade.

whose sacking AAs ?

Ive read on this board for those that arent up to it and have never shown anything to indicate they will be (and we have enough of them at present) then they should depart - so what? isnt that what the good clubs do?

I guess that reasoning doesnt suit the old agenda huh?

[To the top]

RogerFox, the almost un-beaten premiers of 2000 have gone where since, and where are they now?

Did they win the flag in 2001?

If they were so dominant in 2000, why didn't they string a few together?

What went wrong immediately after such a season of domination?

So yes, compared to Geelong in 2007, Essendon have gone backwards by 160% because Essendon did not make the finals in 2007.

In terms of saying that improvement was going to come from injured players returning, well a fact of life is that you will always have injuries.

And guess what that brings us back to?

But, just to speculate, if we have had such a run with injury since 2004, why have we debuted so few players playing their first AFL game in a St Kilda jumper since then?

I've listed them in an earlier post, so the question remains, why so few? I think there is 8 in 5 years, including Rix from someone else's Rookie List.

And why the absolute scarcity between 2004 and 2006 inclusive?

Granted there may be some who debuted (playing their first AFL game in a St Kilda jumper) since 2004 who have now moved on.

But this tells its own story, surely?

Given you sit behind injuries, these are pretty good questions, aren't they?

And they tell their own story as to why we are at where we are now.

160% behind the leading bunch - at least.

[Teflon]

RogerFox, the almost un-beaten premiers of 2000 have gone where since, and where are they now?

Did they win the flag in 2001?

If they were so dominant in 2000, why didn't they string a few together?

What went wrong immediately after such a season of domination?

So yes, compared to Geelong in 2007, Essendon have gone backwards by 160% because Essendon did not make the finals in 2007.

In terms of saying that improvement was going to come from injured players returning, well a fact of life is that you will always have injuries.

And guess what that brings us back to?

But, just to speculate, if we have had such a run with injury since 2004, why have we debuted so few players playing their first AFL game in a St Kilda jumper since then?

I've listed them in an earlier post, so the question remains, why so few? I think there is 8 in 5 years, including Rix from someone else's Rookie List.

And why the absolute scarcity between 2004 and 2006 inclusive?

Granted there may be some who debuted (playing their first AFL game in a St Kilda jumper) since 2004 who have now moved on.

But this tells its own story, surely?

Given you sit behind injuries, these are pretty good questions, aren't they?

And they tell their own story as to why we are at where we are now.

160% behind the leading bunch - at least.

You make the world a better place.

Well done.

I shall buy you a beer one day and tell you all about what a flog Dodg is.

[rodgerfox]

RogerFox, the almost un-beaten premiers of 2000 have gone where since, and where are they now?

Did they win the flag in 2001?

No. They were runners up after finishing on top of the ladder.

They didn't improve 20% - they were beaten by a freak side.

Surely, it's clear that the sums don't add up. If every premier is 20% better than the one before them (as you say they need to be) then our game by now could be only played by god himself such would be the standard! And he'd still struggle to get a kick.

If they were so dominant in 2000, why didn't they string a few together?

What went wrong immediately after such a season of domination?

The salary cap for a start. And playing against a side which had a different salary cap - that was the fundamental difference between Essendon being back to back premiers and them not.

So yes, compared to Geelong in 2007, Essendon have gone backwards by 160% because Essendon did not make the finals in 2007.

I must have misinterpreted what you said then. Of course by now Essendon are about 1000 times worse than Geelong. But that's not what you said. You effectively said that Brisbane were better than the Essendon side that won it in 2000. I disagree with this. You don't need to be 20% better than the team that won it the year before - you only need to be better than the teams that front up the following year.

ie. technically, you don't have to improve at all. What happened the year before is basically irrelevant.

The standard of footy in 2005 was horrible. Absolutely horrible, and the premier was the worst football side to raise the cup since Adelaide in 97. Sydney didn't improve, there main rivals dropped away (Port and Brisbane) and we couldn't field a team.

It had nothing to do with blooding players or improvement.

In terms of saying that improvement was going to come from injured players returning, well a fact of life is that you will always have injuries.

Sydney didn't. Geelong didn't last year. Infact the premiers historically is the team with the least injuries. The bottom 4 are the teams with the worst injuries. Somehow we broke that trend.

But, just to speculate, if we have had such a run with injury since 2004, why have we debuted so few players playing their first AFL game in a St Kilda jumper since then?

Because as I've said all along, contrary to another popular footy myth - we have had very good depth.

We've been able to cover the loss of key players over that period because we had depth.

We weren't completely rooted when we lost players, and be forced to bring in 5 debutants because our list was so thin.

I've listed them in an earlier post, so the question remains, why so few? I think there is 8 in 5 years, including Rix from someone else's Rookie List.

And why the absolute scarcity between 2004 and 2006 inclusive?

Why does it matter?

But this tells its own story, surely?

Given you sit behind injuries, these are pretty good questions, aren't they?

And they tell their own story as to why we are at where we are now.

160% behind the leading bunch - at least.

I don't think it tells any story. Infact, what it probably tells us is that our core was good enough to carry depth players and suffer injuries whilst still winning in excess of 14 games a year.

The only story right now, is why aren't our good players playing well?


Your argument TTT, is based on what is on paper.

Lists on paper. Names on paper. Stats on paper.

Someone posted about Brian Goorjian and the technical detail he went into with basketballers.
This is where I believe people get confused.

A basketball is round. There is no wind. The court is small. There are only 5 players on the court at a time.

The comparison between tactics in basketball and footy is crazy. The reliance on what is on paper (ie. your team list above) is simply wrong.

James Gwilt in the QF against Adelaide in 05. On paper, that would never have worked. In reality, it pretty much won us the game.

The fact that you have 4 'holes' in our list, doesn't mean much at all. If Roo kicks 6 straight every week instead of 2.4 - suddenly those holes disappear.

If Gram gets his health back, suddenly those holes disappear.

If 90% of our side gets their heads right and are coached well, there would be no holes at all.

[To the top]

RogerFox, you lose me.

So you only have to be better than the rest of the teams in the competition to win a flag, which is obvious.

But you then attempt to present that the teams which did not win the premiership do not have to improve to win a premiership the following season!

Simply, heading into any season each and every side looks to improve on what they put on the park the previous year - you can not rely on other teams going backwards - so St Kilda (by example) has to improve each and every year - premiers or not.

And if they are not premiers, they firstly have to breach the gap and then move forward.

And even if they are premiers they have to improve, because the rest of the competition is gunning for them.

You can not sit there and say what a wonderful list you have because a "wonderful list" is a moving target - and those who stand still lose ground.

So, tell me, exactly why are St Kilda again languishing so soon after having had a "wonderful list"?

The players are not trying?

The coaching staff is not up to it?

Because, if they are the reasons, where is the Board?

Plus, what direction is the Board setting for the Football Department?

In regards Brisbane, and conceding they had (appropriate) salary cap concessions, they were a "freak" side in 2001 - because they improved or because other clubs faltered?

This is a quest for the top, not a race to the bottom to see who takes longest to get there - and wins flags because they are declining slower than the competition.

[rodgerfox]

So, tell me, exactly why are St Kilda again languishing so soon after having had a "wonderful list"?

The players are not trying?

The coaching staff is not up to it?

For a start, I've never felt we had a 'wonderful' list. I thought we had the makings of a very good list, but we're ready in terms of maturity.

We had the makings of a good list - which was playing good footy. When players play well together, they get 'labelled' as stars, guns, superstars etc. When in reality, if well coached and in a team that is mentally switched on to put in - they can be relatively average players.

This is why I don't really buy the whole 'list' thing as the recipe for success.

We have players who have proven they can play fantastic football. Right now - they're not. None of them are.

We're being poorly coached.

Our 'list' now, is better than it was. It's the same players but they're stronger and wiser now. Plus we've added other players who have won flags and been AAs.

Plus, what direction is the Board setting for the Football Department?

They shouldn't be setting any direction. They're a Board. The only direction they should set, is to win a flag.

How the Football Dept goes about it, should be none of the Boards business.

I knew a Board member 2 years ago, and I can assure you he had absolutely no idea about footy. None. Just a hardcore barracker who I felt sorry for.

Should guys like him be telling the Football Dept what to do? No way.

If they do, you end up with coaches being sacked after 3 finals series in a row.

In regards Brisbane, and conceding they had (appropriate) salary cap concessions, they were a "freak" side in 2001 - because they improved or because other clubs faltered?

Both.

However I argue the improvemtn comes from playing an extra 20 games together, plus getting fitter and more mature from an extra pre-season - rather than an 'on paper' improvement like adding new players.

[Otiman]

I think the days of the top up from AFL rejects are now in past.

Now, the rookie list will be used to get some late developing talent in the VFL/SANFL/WAFL.

[To the top]

"Technically you do not have to improve at all. What happended last year is basically irrelevant".

And "the Board do not need to know anything about football".

No wonder we are in strife!

The core business of St Kilda FC Ltd. is playing football in the AFL football competition.

For what other reason do St Kilda FC Ltd. exist?

Incidentally, I am now worried that Demitriou is going to persue me in regards my red white and black wind-cheater because they are St Kilda's colours.

And I had better not cut myself and bleed over my black and white wind-cheater!

Whoops, black and white are the same colours as worn by an AFL team!

What an self opinionated, over fed, bloated and incompetent buffoon Demitriou is!