Positives for Ross Lyon

[rodgerfox]

Im convinced our previous "shoot out" style would fall over under finals pressure - and the proof is there to see.

'Shoot out'??

Since when did we ever had a 'shoot out' style?

We were top 4 in the comp for least points against for 3 straight years. We rarely had over 100 points kicked against us. Only when we had an injury list in double figures did the good sides start to score more freely against us.


Funny how history changes to suit people's 'agendas'.

[WayneJudson42]

We were a 1 trick pony. Then the opp wised up and began flooding and choked us to death.

The other, more important shortfall was that when sides got a run-on against us, we couldn't stem the tide.

Does this mean that we now better? No it doesn't. But you have to develop a style that allows you to defend and shut down when the opp gains momentum, and then counter attack when you can. We are NOT yet at this point.

Friday was a great example of how to do this correctly. They came, we stuck... then we buried them.

Yet, too many here will not accept this, nor will they accept what the players say, or what the coach says about the prefered game style.

According to them, RL is a liar, Harves is a liar, Roo is a liar, and Ball is a liar when they state that the plan is to play accountable - attacking footy.

I'm far from convinced ATM, but am quietly confident that we are on the right track. Hence my preference to give RL the time he requires.

I agree that we are top 4 material, and are not playing to our potential YET. Is this poor coaching? Or is it an inability of certain players to play as required?

If we can play attacking footy, and also have the capacity to shut down players like Wanganeen in 04 and Sydney 05. Then we will be a far better team in the long run.

[markp]

Funny how history changes to suit people's 'agendas'.

[markp]

We were a 1 trick pony. Then the opp wised up and began flooding and choked us to death.

The other, more important shortfall was that when sides got a run-on against us, we couldn't stem the tide.

Does this mean that we now better? No it doesn't. But you have to develop a style that allows you to defend and shut down when the opp gains momentum, and then counter attack when you can. We are NOT yet at this point.

Friday was a great example of how to do this correctly. They came, we stuck... then we buried them.

Yet, too many here will not accept this, nor will they accept what the players say, or what the coach says about the prefered game style.

According to them, RL is a liar, Harves is a liar, Roo is a liar, and Ball is a liar when they state that the plan is to play accountable - attacking footy.

I'm far from convinced ATM, but am quietly confident that we are on the right track. Hence my preference to give RL the time he requires.

I agree that we are top 4 material, and are not playing to our potential YET. Is this poor coaching? Or is it an inability of certain players to play as required?

If we can play attacking footy, and also have the capacity to shut down players like Wanganeen in 04 and Sydney 05. Then we will be a far better team in the long run.

Post of the week.... it's like learning the difference between boxing and brawling... Ali and Foreman, rumble in the jungle!

[rodgerfox]

We were a 1 trick pony. Then the opp wised up and began flooding and choked us to death.

The other, more important shortfall was that when sides got a run-on against us, we couldn't stem the tide.

We were a '1 trick pony' I suppose. We had a game plan, and we played it well. When we played it well (regardless of who we played and whether they flooded or not) we won easily. Easily.

The only times we got rolled, was when we had injuries to key players which didn't allow us to play the game plan well.

Geelong are a '1 trick pony'. Brisbane were. West Coast were. The only teams to win flags ever that haven't been - were Sydney and perhaps Port.

If you could beat Brisbane at their own game, you would win. Collingwood nearly did. But when challenged, Brisbane did not alter their game plan one iota. Ditto the Eagles in 05 and 06. Ditto Geelong since 2004.

The term '1 trick pony' is used as a negative term, but in reality all the good teams ever bar 1 or 2 have not been '1 trick ponys'.

Does this mean that we now better? No it doesn't. But you have to develop a style that allows you to defend and shut down when the opp gains momentum, and then counter attack when you can. We are NOT yet at this point.

I disagree. Many coaches disagree. As per above, there are very few teams that switch styles during a game. I know it's becoming popular to do it these days - but the fact remains very, very few teams ever master it to the point of winning a flag.

Friday was a great example of how to do this correctly. They came, we stuck... then we buried them.

We didn't stick at all. When we were defensive, they scored easily. They got to within 7 points until we opened it up again.

I thought Friday, and the North game, and the Freo game were perfect examples of why we need to either improve hugely in this 'shutdown' style very quickly - or can it. Cause we are terrible at it. We get smashed when we try it. When we take risks and have a crack, we look good. We've only started doing this over the last 2 games.

I believe the reason we've been able to fight off opponents when challenged, is because we're mentally tougher now.

We've grown up. We're men now - not the kids we were in 2004-2007.

Although I believe it's a natural improvement that comes with age and experience, I'm prepared to give Lyon the credit. He's the coach after all.

Yet, too many here will not accept this, nor will they accept what the players say, or what the coach says about the prefered game style.

According to them, RL is a liar, Harves is a liar, Roo is a liar, and Ball is a liar when they state that the plan is to play accountable - attacking footy.

These guys are 'liars'. All football people lie publicly.

Was Roo's hammy 'fine' during last pre-season when he denied he'd done it? He missed a month.

Was Luke Ball's 2006 pre-season his best ever and was he feeling great? He now tells us that he was telling porkies back then.

Of course they lie. They tell us what they want us to know, and keep everything else under their hats.

If the plan is to play 'accountable and attacking footy', what's the story with the shutdown style? Where does that fit into it? It isn't attacking. And based on how easily we get scored against when we do it - it hardly appears accountable either.

I'm far from convinced ATM, but am quietly confident that we are on the right track. Hence my preference to give RL the time he requires.

I've always said that Lyon needs to stay - apart from the Freo game and the first Q against North. I seriously reconsidered my stance on our coaching department.

Full credit though, after Q time in the North game, we've looked quite good mostly.

I agree that we are top 4 material, and are not playing to our potential YET. Is this poor coaching? Or is it an inability of certain players to play as required?

It is categorically the coaches fault. Absolutely, categorically.

If we can play attacking footy, and also have the capacity to shut down players like Wanganeen in 04 and Sydney 05. Then we will be a far better team in the long run.

There is nothing to suggest that right now, we can shut anyone down.

We can't even shutdown Eddie Betts FFS.

Clearly, if we can defend as tightly and as well as anyone, and attack as effectievly as anyone we'll win the flag if we stay fit.

That's pretty obvious. That's what every coach in the history of the game has attempted to do.

The problem is, we have gone backwards in the defensive side of our game, and gone backwads in the attacking side since Lyon took over.

That's what concerns most people.

[WayneJudson42]

Rodge, we're mostly on the same page.

We were good defensivley, but we did have: Black, Penny and a stronger midfield which eased the pressure (younger Harves, Lenny, Thommo & co). At least now we are introducing fresh blood with Armo, and Gram... and Ball is fitter again. As they click, and they also click with the ruckmen, our defensive pressure increases also.

No matter how good you are (to a degree), if the opp wins the centre and keeps shooting the ball in quickly, then you'll look ordinary as we did on Friday.

Matthews is on the record as stating that he backs his team to play their game and doesn't worry too much about the opposition.

We were the same. It didn't work because (a) we were not mentally tough (b) injuries (c) the cattle weren't up to it? Take your pick.

Unfortunately, we do not know what the "game plan" is exactly. So we cannot state categorically, that it is either the coach's or players fault. Maybe both.

Because we seem to swing from one extreme to another, then it appears that the message isn't getting through. Coach's fault.

[rodgerfox]

Rodge, we're mostly on the same page.

We were good defensivley, but we did have: Black, Penny and a stronger midfield which eased the pressure (younger Harves, Lenny, Thommo & co). At least now we are introducing fresh blood with Armo, and Gram... and Ball is fitter again. As they click, and they also click with the ruckmen, our defensive pressure increases also.

No matter how good you are (to a degree), if the opp wins the centre and keeps shooting the ball in quickly, then you'll look ordinary as we did on Friday.

Matthews is on the record as stating that he backs his team to play their game and doesn't worry too much about the opposition.

We were the same. It didn't work because (a) we were not mentally tough (b) injuries (c) the cattle weren't up to it? Take your pick.

Unfortunately, we do not know what the "game plan" is exactly. So we cannot state categorically, that it is either the coach's or players fault. Maybe both.

Because we seem to swing from one extreme to another, then it appears that the message isn't getting through. Coach's fault.

I agree with that. Pretty much all of it. In regards to....

"We were the same. It didn't work because (a) we were not mentally tough (b) injuries (c) the cattle weren't up to it? Take your pick."

I think that in 04 it was a cross between A and C.

And in 05 and 06, it was purely a case of B. Resulting in C.

[Saints43]

I was looking at a forum for Southampton FC who have recently appointed a new manager and came across this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by buctootim
http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/news/?page_id=10312

Pleased overall. Sounds like first half team didnt stick to the game plan.


I can't work out from what he says whether it was his bad judgement the way they played in the 1st half or whether he's 'blaming' the players? Either way, isn't he saying that he had no control over how we played in the first half and if so, isn;t that a tad worrying? Either he can make the players play a certain way all the time or he can't....dunno...could be my misinterpretation....

[markp]

I was looking at a forum for Southampton FC who have recently appointed a new manager and came across this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by buctootim
http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/news/?page_id=10312

Pleased overall. Sounds like first half team didnt stick to the game plan.


I can't work out from what he says whether it was his bad judgement the way they played in the 1st half or whether he's 'blaming' the players? Either way, isn't he saying that he had no control over how we played in the first half and if so, isn;t that a tad worrying? Either he can make the players play a certain way all the time or he can't....dunno...could be my misinterpretation....

Sack the coach....

[Saints43]

I was looking at a forum for Southampton FC who have recently appointed a new manager and came across this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by buctootim
http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/news/?page_id=10312

Pleased overall. Sounds like first half team didnt stick to the game plan.


I can't work out from what he says whether it was his bad judgement the way they played in the 1st half or whether he's 'blaming' the players? Either way, isn't he saying that he had no control over how we played in the first half and if so, isn;t that a tad worrying? Either he can make the players play a certain way all the time or he can't....dunno...could be my misinterpretation....

Sack the coach....

Why? Their list is no good.

[sunsaint]

RogerF you need to get off it.
You have some seriously rose coloured glasses on the GT era.
How many times did we get over ran in the last quarter by sides because of our fitness level. You will cry about injuries depleting the ability of the side, but we are now keeping more players on the track and the depth of the list has never been better.

People need to get this fact through their heads, we are NOT sydney, we are StKilda with a coach trying to add a new bow to our string.
And this is where I perceive the problem to be. We have a list that is lazy, and quite possibly not intelligent/committed enough to avoid the brain fades that seem to happen during the course of the four quarters.
Roos in the first, Carlton in the last.

The carlton game was a perfect example.
Roger can you show me the tactic that RL employed that would be indicative of your hatred for his coaching....
In the last quarter, it was the players that put themselves on the back foot. THEY stopped running forward of the ball carrier, THEY stopped presenting themselves. THEY were happy to hold possession by chipping, cheap stats, run down the clock.
Carlton got a big sniff, and with their A team on top in the middle, the game turned, & it took a defensive flood to turn it round again.

So for three and a half quarters we play pretty good football, and for 10-15 minutes the players stop doing what they are meant to be doing.

The only possible way I could agree with your assessment of RL's coaching would be if we lined up 18 players in our defensive half at the first bounce of the last quarter.

now you can bump

[WayneJudson42]

So it now becomes a chicken and egg argument.

Agree we are not Sydney etc.

So, is RL not getting the message through? Or do we not have the type of list required to play his style?

Not sure about laziness, maybe fitness levels required? Also, our list is/ was too slow to execute the "plan".

Hence the introduction of faster legs in the mid, and why CJ will get a game.

I fear that Goose will struggle next year TBH.

Good teams figured us out, and I do not agree that we won when we were flodded. I recall Geelong doing it quite well.

If we are to criticse Lyon for trying to make us play like Sydney, and that style is redundant... Then we must also criticise GT for trying to make us play like Brisbane which no longer worked.

[Cairnsman]

RogerF you need to get off it.
You have some seriously rose coloured glasses on the GT era.
How many times did we get over ran in the last quarter by sides because of our fitness level. You will cry about injuries depleting the ability of the side, but we are now keeping more players on the track and the depth of the list has never been better.

People need to get this fact through their heads, we are NOT sydney, we are StKilda with a coach trying to add a new bow to our string.
And this is where I perceive the problem to be. We have a list that is lazy, and quite possibly not intelligent/committed enough to avoid the brain fades that seem to happen during the course of the four quarters.
Roos in the first, Carlton in the last.

The carlton game was a perfect example.
Roger can you show me the tactic that RL employed that would be indicative of your hatred for his coaching....
In the last quarter, it was the players that put themselves on the back foot. THEY stopped running forward of the ball carrier, THEY stopped presenting themselves. THEY were happy to hold possession by chipping, cheap stats, run down the clock.
Carlton got a big sniff, and with their A team on top in the middle, the game turned, & it took a defensive flood to turn it round again.

So for three and a half quarters we play pretty good football, and for 10-15 minutes the players stop doing what they are meant to be doing.

The only possible way I could agree with your assessment of RL's coaching would be if we lined up 18 players in our defensive half at the first bounce of the last quarter.

now you can bump

Good post SunSaint. Aggree with the Lazy bit and the also about their loss of effort in 10-15 minute spurts. We have repeatedly shown how much damage we can do when we are switched on such as quarters against the Cats and Dogs this year. I believe it was evident in the earlier part of the year that our players had problems mostly above the shoulders. I mean look what has happened to the team since RL came out after the Sydney game and questioned the teams energy and enthusiasm (and also dropped a couple of players). We've had energy and enthusiasm in spades ever since.

[Teflon]

RogerF you need to get off it.
You have some seriously rose coloured glasses on the GT era.
How many times did we get over ran in the last quarter by sides because of our fitness level. You will cry about injuries depleting the ability of the side, but we are now keeping more players on the track and the depth of the list has never been better.

People need to get this fact through their heads, we are NOT sydney, we are StKilda with a coach trying to add a new bow to our string.
And this is where I perceive the problem to be. We have a list that is lazy, and quite possibly not intelligent/committed enough to avoid the brain fades that seem to happen during the course of the four quarters.
Roos in the first, Carlton in the last.

The carlton game was a perfect example.
Roger can you show me the tactic that RL employed that would be indicative of your hatred for his coaching....
In the last quarter, it was the players that put themselves on the back foot. THEY stopped running forward of the ball carrier, THEY stopped presenting themselves. THEY were happy to hold possession by chipping, cheap stats, run down the clock.
Carlton got a big sniff, and with their A team on top in the middle, the game turned, & it took a defensive flood to turn it round again.

So for three and a half quarters we play pretty good football, and for 10-15 minutes the players stop doing what they are meant to be doing.

The only possible way I could agree with your assessment of RL's coaching would be if we lined up 18 players in our defensive half at the first bounce of the last quarter.

now you can bump

Post of the thread - its a pleasure to read a response from someone who clearly WATCHES the game and doesnt merely spew out rhetoric based on nothing but lame opinion sold as fact...

The only "1 trick pony" about St Kilda in 04-06 was our excuses - weekly injury after injury and a coach apologising for being "outcoached"...

Meanwhile the rest of the comp realised very simply - choke St Kilda and you win. Geelong did it so well and Adelaide at the Dome gave us a lesson in defensive footy turned into attack off a HB line...

But at least we had "1" great game plan based on Brisbane circa 2003 (minus a ruckman...which was sorta important to it...) to cling to...

Bump*

[WayneJudson42]

WRONG WRONG WRONG!

Ruckmen were useless and had zero to do with the Lions 3 flags.

Oh, hang on... Matthews stated that once he saw his ruckmen smashing into Fraser, he new that the flag was theirs in 02.

I try not to be abusive, but it just "sucks" you in...

Anyone who thinks we went defensive at the start of the 4th has got rocks in their head. Judd, let me repeat JUDD turned it on.

I challenge even Geelong to stay on track with that sort of pressure of the ball being shot into the 50 arc by the opposition.

We didn't switch plans... they went up a notch thanks to (drumroll) JUDD!

The fact the we stuck to ours allowed us to get back into it.

BTW, in case anyone hasn't noticed, the players will hold the ball above their head to signal when to slow it down. Or did that escape knuckleheads around here? Didn't see that happen at the start of the 4th.

BTW, Teffers, unless you're female stop winking at me. I'm a homophobe

[Teflon]

WRONG WRONG WRONG!

Ruckmen were useless and had zero to do with the Lions 3 flags.

Oh, hang on... Matthews stated that once he saw his ruckmen smashing into Fraser, he new that the flag was theirs in 02.

I try not to be abusive, but it just "sucks" you in...

Anyone who thinks we went defensive at the start of the 4th has got rocks in their head. Judd, let me repeat JUDD turned it on.

I challenge even Geelong to stay on track with that sort of pressure of the ball being shot into the 50 arc by the opposition.

We didn't switch plans... they went up a notch thanks to (drumroll) JUDD!

The fact the we stuck to ours allowed us to get back into it.

BTW, in case anyone hasn't noticed, the players will hold the ball above their head to signal when to slow it down. Or did that escape knuckleheads around here? Didn't see that happen at the start of the 4th.

BTW, Teffers, unless you're female stop winking at me. I'm a homophobe

Cheers Wayne...I am female. Had the Op few years back...

That aside I agree with your thoughts re Judd and our game plan NOT being changed the question with game plans is as Lyon stated it - how well can you pla your game when the opposition put the heat on? Geelong consistency and ability to "hold" sides under pressure before attacking again is class...they did it to us.

[WayneJudson42]

Judging by some of your post, Teff, the doctors might have missed a testicle.

[rodgerfox]

Ok, so when we were under pressure and challenged - we didn't adapt and slow things down???

We stuck to our guns and rode it out by playing to 'our plan'?? Regardless of who we were playing, what the score was and the tempo of the game???

[rodgerfox]

We didn't switch plans... they went up a notch thanks to (drumroll) JUDD!

The fact the we stuck to ours allowed us to get back into it.

To elaborate -

What you've just said is exactly what I've been saying for years.

It also directly contradicts what Nuflon and his mates have been saying.

[Otiman]

Ok, so when we were under pressure and challenged - we didn't adapt and slow things down??

I thought we slowed down first, which brought on the pressure and carlton's final challenge early in the last quarter.

[WayneJudson42]

Ok, this is splitting hairs, but...

1- based on selective comments that people reply to, Judd had nothing to do with it?

2- We talk about maintaining our "gameplan". So if tempo footy is part and parcel of our "GP" then we did slow it down, but we still kept to our plan, did we not?

If point #2 is correct, then the "GP" wasn't exectuted as it should. Which goes with what others have said about our defensive side not being up to scratch. Which it isn't yet.

So do we throw it out and go 100% attack? and end up like the Bummers or the Scum? Or do we persist until we learn it and it becomes instictive?

I believe the latter. Geelong are the best at both IMHO.

I'm not contradicting my comments nor looking for a way out. This is just a thought.

[barks4eva]

I said at 3/4 time the game is ours providing we make sure Judd is kept quiet.

Whilst I'm rapt to have Gram in the midfield or at least out of defence, been banging on about this for over a year, Gram's defensive accountability is pathetic, he is very often a spectator watching on and in this case his direct opponent Judd, was the most significant factor in Carlton's comeback.
At one centre bounce I said look at Gram he is giving Judd too much space and sure enough, seconds later Judd runs away with the ball and delivers yet again into their forwardline for yet another goal.

FAIR DINKUM, Jason Gram's lack of accountability was the key factor in Carlton's comeback,

At the very time, start of the last quarter, when the only way they could get back, was for Judd to play a blinder, Gram was spectating and giving Judd way too much latitude, almost costing us the game,

simply not good enough,

happy to have Gram's pace going through the midfield, but fair dinkum, if anyone needs to improve their accountability in this team, then look no further than Jason Gram,

his lack of presence around Judd almost cost us the game, pure and simple,

SFA to do with anything else,

if Judd was held in check, then Carlton's comeback wouldn't have even eventuated.

[markp]

This is just a thought.

No thinking allowed here... take a position and stick to it to the bitter end please.

[markp]

FAIR DINKUM, Jason Gram's lack of accountability was the key factor in Carlton's comeback,

There were a couple of efforts there that were in stark contrast to Joey's head first dive into a contest.

[Teflon]

We didn't switch plans... they went up a notch thanks to (drumroll) JUDD!

The fact the we stuck to ours allowed us to get back into it.

To elaborate -

What you've just said is exactly what I've been saying for years.

It also directly contradicts what Nuflon and his mates have been saying.

Lookout.....Dodg's found a friend who can communicate...

May I suggest Dodg.....all future posts from you are PM'd to Wayne where he can "brush em up" prior to release?

Better still.......just allow Wayne to post them for you....it'll save you having to steal his thoughts.....