The Fox Report - 11/8/08

[saintsRrising]

.
Rookies are not drafted by any team, so EEVRYONE missed them, good twist though...

.

What do you mean everyone missed them? Or are you somehow too 'pure" to use rookies??

They were picked up by clubs and have played.

Part of the St Kilda underperformance in that period was not exploiting the rookie system.
If you think the main draft is thin..it is MORE reason to work the rookie system harder.

Our competitors did.

[saintsRrising]

You list players before the 2nd pick, .

All players listed were taken after MQualter and hence were available. None listed were taken prior.


In the comparison with Essendon over the three years I have listed ALL draft picks for both clubs. Essendon recruited better than we did.

[saintsRrising]

If you are going to throw up a defence make it a fair fight if you can open both eyes.

Why don't you document the clubs, or even one club, that did worse that the Saints over the three years?

I picked Essendon because they were a club people were ridiculing over that period....and we recruited worse than they did.

They have more and better players from that period than we do.

[saintsRrising]

Recruiting is the cumulative players you gain from trading, main draft picks, PSD and rookie selections...

What matters is not any one pick or trade...but how well you do from the lot combined.

If you choose to not worry about rookies..then you had better over-achieve in other areas.

Over those three years the Saints had:
* poor use of rookies
* poor trades
* given what was available below average draft selections.

[maverick]

If you are going to throw up a defence make it a fair fight if you can open both eyes.

Why don't you document the clubs, or even one club, that did worse that the Saints over the three years?

I picked Essendon because they were a club people were ridiculing over that period....and we recruited worse than they did.

They have more and better players from that period than we do.

Look, I thought I was arguing recycled players, but now its drafting, fair enough, maybe I missed it.

S Fisher is better than Ryder, Gilbert & Raph are probably as good as Dempsey and Stanton, as for the rest from both sides, not much chop, but still think we did as well.

But if you are arguing drafting why not call for Beveridge's head?

FWIW, I think Bevo has a blindspot to rangy athletic running players...

[saintsRrising]

Look, I thought I was arguing recycled players, but now its drafting, fair enough, maybe I missed it....

Ok then. Well that would bea different argument.

But if you are arguing drafting why not call for Beveridge's head?

FWIW, I think Bevo has a blindspot to rangy athletic running players...

Well we actually agree here.

I actually posted this week in another string that "in hidsight" that we kept Bevo on too long, though I hae been critial of him fora while (not as critical as St Mart who probably woke up to Bevo earlier than most, if not all)

Yes he had a blinspot to those players...but he also weighted footskills way too low....with the result that we often picked up players that other clubs rejected.

the reality is that the game has changed greatly ver the last 5-10 years....but that Bevos weightings on selections had not.

pace, run and footskills are much more importnat than than they werea decade ago. But you would not know it from our recruiting.

[saintsRrising]

But if you are arguing drafting why not call for Beveridge's head?

FWIW, I think Bevo has a blindspot to rangy athletic running players...

Maverick for example this is what I wrote in another post this week..

http://www.saintsational.com/forum/view ... highlight=

We would have to be the worst team in the AFL when it comes to footskills.

While many rave on about JB's great recruiting, this is the real legacy that he has left us.

Now while an AFL footballer can have a range of skills from Harvey's "jinking", to marking, to gut running, to reading the play and many others one criteria which was either ignored by JB, or wrongly weighted, is kicking.

Now sure you might take some players with poor kicking skills because they shine in other areas.

But as a GROUP, virtually ALL of our players are poor to average kicks.

In the John West salmon adds they boast about only selecting the best salmon and that others use the salmon they reject.

Well in our drafting I think JB had fallen into this trap.....that he has picked up players that other recruiters have discounted in their weighting due to their poor footskills. Other perceived strengths has seen him pick up players that other recruiters would not at that pick.

[maverick]

Look, I thought I was arguing recycled players, but now its drafting, fair enough, maybe I missed it....

Ok then. Well that would bea different argument.

But if you are arguing drafting why not call for Beveridge's head?

FWIW, I think Bevo has a blindspot to rangy athletic running players...

Well we actually agree here.

I actually posted this week in another string that "in hidsight" that we kept Bevo on too long, though I hae been critial of him fora while (not as critical as St Mart who probably woke up to Bevo earlier than most, if not all)

Yes he had a blinspot to those players...but he also weighted footskills way too low....with the result that we often picked up players that other clubs rejected.

the reality is that the game has changed greatly ver the last 5-10 years....but that Bevos weightings on selections had not.

pace, run and footskills are much more importnat than than they werea decade ago. But you would not know it from our recruiting.

Well I remember thinking sometime in 04 & 05 how far we had come in that almost every player in our team had good foot skills, Max was probably the only real shocker.

Now we have at least 6 who are dodgy at best Gilbert, Jones, Ball, Dempster, Blake, Geary...

No natural goalkickers and no defenders, I don't see anything different from the GT era to now, that is my point.

[saintsRrising]

Funny how we all see things differently.

Aussie to me was the only player we had with good footskills.

....and it is not just the passing but the running shots on goal too.

The others players were all average at best, though some like Black were better.


But we also do not play AFL in isolation.

The other AFL clubs have all moved on.

If I look at the Saints our footskills are probably not much different than what they were in the 97 GF.

Our competitors by comparison have all by and large vastly improved.

[Winmar7Fan]

Well, we are what we are.


A very, very ordinary football side.

The most poorly coached team in the comp.


As I said (yes, I told you so) we have been set back 5 years thanks to our previous admin.
The only part I may be wrong about - is that it could well be longer than 5 years.

We have to rebuild this side. The recruiting we've done since Lyon took over is horrific. We've topped up with average footballers, and are playing 'kids' with no future in a top side.

I'm very concerned that not only is Lyon unable to coach a team on game day, but is also unable to teach guys how to play football.

Can we afford to have him take the axe to our list? Can we afford to draft talented players, only to have them go backwards as players like everyone else on our list?


Some very big calls need to be made. Calls which frankly, could decide whether or not we remain St.Kilda - or someone else.

It's a factual that it's only a matter of time before a Melbourne club or two disappears. Right now, I'd say we're the most vunerable.

Don't kid yourselves. We prospered off-field during the 2003-2007 period because we were winning. We had a swagger on-field that was adopted by our supporters.

We're in trouble on-field. And that will spell serious trouble off it. We simply can't afford 3-4 years at the bottom of the ladder - which is exactly what will happen if something isn't done.

That's all from the Fox Report this week. There's nothing else to say. We're gone. Cactus.

We are what we are.


How we got there is a sad story that will go down as the lowest point in the club's history. We were good. We were proud. We had swagger, and we had respect. We were winners.

We're not now. We're a faceless, spiritless entity that doesn't appear to represent anything.

We need the spirit back. Perhaps having en 'ego' is exactly what we need at this club?

An 'ego' who is driven by his club winning footy matches. I am always staggered that the ignorant talk about egos at footy clubs as a problem. Ever been involved at a footy club? The best players, the best leaders, the winners, have one thing in common - their egos. Some drift into arrogance. Some find that perfect balance between arrogance and extreme confidence in their ability. It's irrelevant though - if it is fed by the club winning games then there is no problem.

If it is fed by the club's bank balance, then you're up the shiit.


The best thing about this club right now is that our President doesn't want the limelight. He doesn't need to feed his ego. He doesn't feel the need to 'be the club'. 'The club' is what happens on field. That's where the pride comes from.

The worst thing about the club at the moment, is that there is noone from the 'on-field' department doing anything close to generating some pride. Some spirit. Some belief.

Roo has led well this year. But it needs to come from the coach.

I hope your a long way from the Westgate Bridge!

[maverick]

Funny how we all see things differently.

Aussie to me was the only player we had with good footskills.

....and it is not just the passing but the running shots on goal too.

The others players were all average at best, though some like Black were better.


But we also do not play AFL in isolation.

The other AFL clubs have all moved on.

If I look at the Saints our footskills are probably not much different than what they were in the 97 GF.

Our competitors by comparison have all by and large vastly improved.

Well back then, Aussie was a standout, so were Black, Dal Santo, Harvs, Ball, Hayes, BJ and Peckett. Roo was pretty good as was Milne, Voss, Hamill and Gehrig, all good shots for goal back then....

Powell was the worst looking but very effective kick for goal as well...

[saintsRrising]

Well back then, Aussie was a standout, so were Black, Dal Santo, Harvs, Ball, Hayes, BJ and Peckett. Roo was pretty good as was Milne, Voss, Hamill and Gehrig, all good shots for goal back then....

Powell was the worst looking but very effective kick for goal as well...

I would not describe the others as standouts. Black yes was good and a cut above the others.

Banger is actually a better kick now IMO than he was there. He is good at upto 30m (is outstanding now), not so good over that and throughout his career has missed gettable goals.

Dal yes was good.

GTtrain was a good kick at goal..very accurate. As was Milne with his snaps, but not the rest of his kicking.

The others were not bad...but were not good either.

Frankie was shocking early on, but steadilly improved over his year to become competent.

[saintsRrising]

BJ ...

I remember thinking when we drafted BJ, thank god that we finally drafted a player known for being an accurate kick.

[maverick]

Well back then, Aussie was a standout, so were Black, Dal Santo, Harvs, Ball, Hayes, BJ and Peckett. Roo was pretty good as was Milne, Voss, Hamill and Gehrig, all good shots for goal back then....

Powell was the worst looking but very effective kick for goal as well...

I would not describe the others as standouts. Black yes was good and a cut above the others.

Banger is actually a better kick now IMO than he was there. He is good at upto 30m (is outstanding now), not so good over that and throughout his career has missed gettable goals.

Dal yes was good.

GTtrain was a good kick at goal..very accurate. As was Milne with his snaps, but not the rest of his kicking.

The others were not bad...but were not good either.

Frankie was shocking early on, but steadilly improved over his year to become competent.

Gehrig is a great field kick, fantastic at kicking to advantage.
Peckett at the end was an excellent kick, had porblems picking the right option which may get confused with kicking.
Banger rarely missed targets post his knee reco I reckon, before then he was unfairly marked down for kicking, mainly because he stabbed at goal.

[saintsRrising]

Interesting to note that of the players you mention with good footskills that:

Black, Voss, Hamill and Gehrig would all most likley have had little input from JB in terms of their recruitment.

[rodgerfox]

Somehow this discussion has changed from 'thanks to GT's poor recruiting we're hopeless now' to 'other clubs recruited better than us'.

They are two very different arguments.

The argument is, before SRR tried to spin out of it, was that due to recruiting Watts and Brooks we're now shiit.

It's not true.

At best, we would have recruited 2 fairly 'run of the mill' footballers. And considering the actual names that in hindsight we could have used those picks on - we would not have been much better off at all.

And assuming both these picks did a knee and broke a leg (to be fair), I'd say those decisions haven't really impacted us that much at all.

[saintsRrising]

The argument is, before SRR tried to spin out of it, was that due to recruiting Watts and Brooks we're now shiit.

.

Still activively misleading Rodge.

You may not have realised this Rodge, but Brooks was part of the 2002 Draft!!!!!

Maverick specifically asked me about the 03/04/05 drafts. Therefore Brooks was not part of my reply to him.

The drafts of 03, 04 & 05 after the top 10 were extremely ordinary, yes we struggled, but there was very little decent at our picks or after in those drafts (excluding BJ).

Trading at the time was worth the risk IMO, the only one I violently disagree with was McGough.

[saintsRrising]

Somehow this discussion has changed from 'thanks to GT's poor recruiting we're hopeless now' to 'other clubs recruited better than us'.

They are two very different arguments.

.

Not really...as it is a compariosn, and you cannot make a comparison unless you actually compare to others.



All that matters is recruiting BETTER than our opposition.

If we are poor, but they are dismal then you are still improving.

But if we are poor, and they are average to good, then we fall behind.

If we are average, and our key opponents are good then we still fall behind.