Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
Teflon wrote:Wheres Saints 43 - one of Lyons biggest critics?, MeherBaba?, JeffDunne?, Rodgerfox (never sighted after a win...)....how you enjoying those eggs ladies?
I only watched the game last night - and SS was unavailable last night.
My criticisims of Lyon:
Team doesn't work as a cohesive unit.
Team doesn't hold a forward structure when not in possesion.
Doesn't get the best out of the list.
Don't get reward for effort on the scoreboard due to gameplan.
The last two weeks these criticisms (except perhaps the last) cannot be laid at his door.
As for not logging in after a win? Is that meant to be serious? If you think that there are Saints supporters hoping that St Kilda lose matches so that RL loses his job then you are fooling youself.
Try to remember that when you were cheering Brad Boyd sending our club to the bottom of the ladder a lot of us were working to save this club so that you could watch them on TV and call us names. Try and show a bit of respect to those that give you something else to do while sitting on your couch. Ladies...
Anyway, am extremely happy with the start to the season.
As for eggs, how good is the list he inherited looking now? And if you think rounds one & two of 2009 are justification for you thinking he was getting it right in 2007 then you are fairly desperate for vindication...
After reading this I'm getting confused did we win or lose this game?
Last edited by Winmar7Fan on Mon 06 Apr 2009 4:15pm, edited 1 time in total.
rodgerfox wrote:After Saturday night, you'd have to be impressed.
However, I don't really think that 1 game proves alot.
If we can do that all year and win the flag then yes, I'll get a 'I think Ross Lyon is a hero and I was wrong' t-shirt made up and wear it every day for a year.
Until we do, I giggle at those getting him cast in bronze in after Round 2 of the season!!
So ridiculously funny.
And that is the whole point I would think.
We are two rounds in. We have had an OK game against Sydney and a pretty good game against the Crows. But thats it - the jury is out on the Saints until we actually play the likes of Geelong, Hawthorn, and the Bulldogs.
If we can stifle these teams and kick 16 goals a game, I'll get a second copy of the t shirt made.
Anyway coaches are really overrated. if you get even an adequate coach anf you have the cattle you should be a half decent team.
OTOH if you get a coach like Mark Harvey and you have the cattle, you get a team like Fremantle.
I'm talking the progression from last season as well not just these first two games. Surely you can see a definite improvement in the whole team as a team since half way through last year?
I'm sure two bad games would be enough to crucify him though if we had got a pumping.
Saints43 wrote:
As for eggs, how good is the list he inherited looking now? And if you think rounds one & two of 2009 are justification for you thinking he was getting it right in 2007 then you are fairly desperate for vindication...
Fifteen new players have been introduced into the seniors by Lyon - hardly an inherited list.
One thing Lyon had on Thomas was a core list of extremely good players but no high dps - the exact opposite of Thomas.
The list he is is nothing like the list he received from Thomas. The list he is crafted over two and a bit years is playing the way he wants.
Too bad your dislike for Lyon wont let you see the wood for the trees
Lance or James??
There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in <redacted>. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a <redacted>investigation followed by <redacted> witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for <redacted>and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense. (Oops just got a spontaneous errection <unredacted>)
So the last 2 weeks we've had the following in our team picked from the 'non-inherited list':-
King
Gardiner
Geary
Schneider
Jones
Ray
Dawson
plus Emergencies Eddy and McEvoy
That makes a little over 35% of the total team (9 out of 25).
Surely you're also not attempting to suggest that some of the 'inherited list' have gone backwards under RL (for various reasons most notably age and/or injury) whilst others have progressed (notably through development)?
By all means dislike/like RL's coaching for whatever reason but to try and denigrate his performance on some 'airy-fairy concept' that he has 'inherited the team' that GT gave him some 2 years down the track is farcical.
Anybody can see that he has over the last 3 pre-seasons and 2 seasons attempted to mould his team (inherited or not) into his vision of St Kilda.
To constantly harp on about the 'inherited players' is IMHO purely another attempt to belittle his achievements with this group.
He may well be a terrible coach in your eyes but wouldn't it be nice just for once to give him credit for the things that are working, rather than find some convoluted logic to avoid admitting that he has done some things well?
Is it so hard to give credit when it is warranted?
yeah except Hudghton Maguire LFisher Raph and X Clarke where not in the 22 on Friday night therefore there were 10 players in the 22 not there in Round 1 2006.
Or more than 45% is different.
Game
Set
Match.
Lance or James??
There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in <redacted>. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a <redacted>investigation followed by <redacted> witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for <redacted>and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense. (Oops just got a spontaneous errection <unredacted>)
Mr Magic wrote:Is it so hard to give credit when it is warranted?
For this Saints43 character?
Yes
Lance or James??
There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in <redacted>. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a <redacted>investigation followed by <redacted> witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for <redacted>and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense. (Oops just got a spontaneous errection <unredacted>)
Mr Magic wrote:So the last 2 weeks we've had the following in our team picked from the 'non-inherited list':-
King
Gardiner
Geary
Schneider
Jones
Ray
Dawson
plus Emergencies Eddy and McEvoy
That makes a little over 35% of the total team (9 out of 25).
Surely you're also not attempting to suggest that some of the 'inherited list' have gone backwards under RL (for various reasons most notably age and/or injury) whilst others have progressed (notably through development)?
By all means dislike/like RL's coaching for whatever reason but to try and denigrate his performance on some 'airy-fairy concept' that he has 'inherited the team' that GT gave him some 2 years down the track is farcical.
Anybody can see that he has over the last 3 pre-seasons and 2 seasons attempted to mould his team (inherited or not) into his vision of St Kilda.
To constantly harp on about the 'inherited players' is IMHO purely another attempt to belittle his achievements with this group.
He may well be a terrible coach in your eyes but wouldn't it be nice just for once to give him credit for the things that are working, rather than find some convoluted logic to avoid admitting that he has done some things well?
Is it so hard to give credit when it is warranted?
I'm pretty sure my first post in this thread said that I RL had covered my four main criticisms of his coaching in rounds one and two of this season and that I "am extremely happy with the start to the season."
When somebody writes 'hardly an inherited list' is there any reason why I shouldn't point out that plenty of the players at the club were already established at the club?
You say that RL has moulded the club over the past three seasons. I take that as a suggestion that each season has seen the development of the game plan. Piece by piece. A smooth transition. I don't see that - to me there has been a major overhaul each season. There was nothing to stop him implementing this seasons style (which looks to be working well) in 2007.
Of course I will be happy to praise RL hen he gets it right - as I've been willing to criticise when he's got it wrong IMO.
Last edited by Saints43 on Mon 06 Apr 2009 6:08pm, edited 2 times in total.
joffaboy wrote:[yeah except Hudghton Maguire LFisher Raph and X Clarke where not in the 22 on Friday night therefore there were 10 players in the 22 not there in Round 1 2006.
Or more than 45% is different.
Game
Set
Match.
We were talking about the "list'. All players I bolded were from a selection I made prior to Round 1 2006 that are still on the list. A year before RL was appointed.
I'm pretty sure that St Kilda would have participated in the draft and trade periods and changed the playing list from 2006 no matter who was appointed coach, don't you?
Mr Magic wrote:So the last 2 weeks we've had the following in our team picked from the 'non-inherited list':-
King
Gardiner
Geary
Schneider
Jones
Ray
Dawson
plus Emergencies Eddy and McEvoy
That makes a little over 35% of the total team (9 out of 25).
Surely you're also not attempting to suggest that some of the 'inherited list' have gone backwards under RL (for various reasons most notably age and/or injury) whilst others have progressed (notably through development)?
By all means dislike/like RL's coaching for whatever reason but to try and denigrate his performance on some 'airy-fairy concept' that he has 'inherited the team' that GT gave him some 2 years down the track is farcical.
Anybody can see that he has over the last 3 pre-seasons and 2 seasons attempted to mould his team (inherited or not) into his vision of St Kilda.
To constantly harp on about the 'inherited players' is IMHO purely another attempt to belittle his achievements with this group.
He may well be a terrible coach in your eyes but wouldn't it be nice just for once to give him credit for the things that are working, rather than find some convoluted logic to avoid admitting that he has done some things well?
Is it so hard to give credit when it is warranted?
I'm pretty sure my first post in this thread said that I RL had covered my four main criticisms of his coaching in rounds one and two of this season and that I "am extremely happy with the start to the season."
When somebody writes 'hardly an inherited list' is there any reason why I shouldn't point out that plenty of the players at the club were already established at the club?
You say that RL has moulded the club over the past three seasons. I take that as a suggestion that each season has seen the development of the game plan. Piece by piece. A smooth transition. I don't see that - to me there has been a major overhaul each season. There was nothing to stop him implementing this seasons style (which looks to be working well) in 2007.
Of course I will be happy to praise RL hen he gets it right - as I've been willing to criticise when he's got it wrong IMO.
Except that you cannot change 15 players in one season - it can only be done over time. And if you're going to change the whole philosophy of the way the team plays, then you may have to significantly change the personnel.
I just hope that if/when you do choose to praise the job RL is doing (maybe already has done?) it is not a begrudging praise that so many seem to feel the need to give.
As I said previously, I don't understand whay praise for a good job needs to be 'qualified'. IMHO a good job should just be praised. Are we all so precious on here that we cannot admit that maybe we weren't 100% correct in our initial thoughts?
Because that's what it looks like to me - some are so incapable of admitting (maybe even to themselves?) that they may have been hasty in jumping to their conclusions that they paint themselves into an ever diminishing corner over it.
I mean you've got posters like Rodgerfox stating that he made up his mind after 3 months about RL and started voicing publicly his fears. We hadn't even played a game yet this particular poster was prepared to call it.
I'm not for one second suggesting that you're in the same category as him, but I do see a willingness to try and downplay the positives that are obvious for all to see (notwithstanding your first post in this thread )
Mr Magic wrote:Except that you cannot change 15 players in one season - it can only be done over time. And if you're going to change the whole philosophy of the way the team plays, then you may have to significantly change the personnel.
I don't believe that 15 players had to be turned over to play thestyle of football we have played in the first two rounds of this season. It just so happens that it took that long and the list will turn over naturally over three seasons.
Mr Magic wrote:I just hope that if/when you do choose to praise the job RL is doing (maybe already has done?) it is not a begrudging praise that so many seem to feel the need to give.
I'm pretty sure my first post in this thread said that I RL had covered my four main criticisms of his coaching in rounds one and two of this season and that I "am extremely happy with the start to the season."
I'm not sure I can/should give more praise than that with at leaset 20 (hopefully 23) more matches to go.
Mr Magic wrote:As I said previously, I don't understand whay praise for a good job needs to be 'qualified'. IMHO a good job should just be praised. Are we all so precious on here that we cannot admit that maybe we weren't 100% correct in our initial thoughts?
Two weeks isn't doing a good job. A good job in football takes 6 months, surely. We can only comment on what we've seen not what we expect/hope to see.
Mr Magic wrote:Because that's what it looks like to me - some are so incapable of admitting (maybe even to themselves?) that they may have been hasty in jumping to their conclusions that they paint themselves into an ever diminishing corner over it.
We're entering the third year of RL tenure. I don't think any statement made this week is hasty. Surely if St Kilda wins the flag this year it could be true that RL did a good job in 2009 but a poor job in 2007?
Mr Magic wrote:I mean you've got posters like Rodgerfox stating that he made up his mind after 3 months about RL and started voicing publicly his fears. We hadn't even played a game yet this particular poster was prepared to call it.
I'm not for one second suggesting that you're in the same category as him, but I do see a willingness to try and downplay the positives that are obvious for all to see (notwithstanding your first post in this thread )
Well I went to the first two practice matches at OO against Collingwood and North in 2007 (so weeks before the season started) and had a fairly good idea how that season would (and did) turn out.
It was pretty obvious to all who cared to look.
Anyway, that's history and hopefully we're on the right track (the signs are pretty positive with a few players to come back and strengthen the squad - some depth even) and if we can capture some consistency - which will lead to confidence - there is no reason that the club cannot give the premiership a shake.
One thing that is annoying is the inference (statement by some clowns) that if you have ever criticised RL (I have and in IMO it has been well deserved at times) you must 'hate' RL. And you hope that the club you have supported your whole life fails. Just infantile.
Saints43,
Surely you're not just looking at the last 2 weeks in isolation?
Surely the signs that the team, the gameplan, the coaches were all coming together was apparent in the later part of last season?
As for the 2 practice matches - might I suggest that anybody who is reaching conclusions based on practice match form is not being serious.
I mean why didn't you change your opinion of RL's coaching after last year's pre-season form when we won the NAB/Wizard/Mortgage House whatever it is called competition?
Surely if you can tell after 2 praccy matches the season before you would also be able to tell after 4 winning praccy matches in 2008?
ANd the truth is that praccy match form, whether winning or losing, is not much of a guide to real form. Just look at this season so far.
And whilst I agree with your expression about 'infantile' when used in your example I would humbly suggest that the same adjective could and should be applied to those pushing the 'anti-RL' line to further their own particular agendas?
What I notice about this thread is how those who, like me, continue to believe that the decision to sack GT in 2006 was a mistake, are prepared to give credit where credit is due to the way the team is now playing under Lyon
BUT
the blinkered GT haters just go on and on with their usual nonsense about "GT ruined the list", "RL was always a genius and it was all the fault of the list and the players that we played such a crap brand of football until mid-2008", etc.
While I am now a staunch supporter of Lyon, I still consider the following facts to be indisputable.
1. The St Kilda Board sacked GT in 2006 without any firm dea of who they wanted to replace him with: the idea of getting Lyon emerged very late in the process and was - presumably - not a likely name in the minds of any members of the Board when they made the decision to sack GT.
2. Given that they did not have a premiership-winning coach like Matthews or Malthouse lined up to replace him, the decision to sack GT remains hard to fathom on football-related grounds alone. Despite serious injury problems, we made the top 4 after the home and away season for two seasons and then just missed the top 4 (arguably unfairly) in the third season. Has any coach ever been previously been sacked in the history of the game after three such seasons (I have asked this question many times on this forum, without anyone coming up with a name)?
3. The reasons given by Butterss for sacking GT did not include blaming him for our injury problems or for "ruining our list". These ideas are just fantasies in the minds of some biased posters on here.
4. The key players used by Lyon week in and week out were almost all established as key players under GT. Sure, Lyon might have played a dozen or so new players in the past 2 years. So might GT: perhaps some of you didn't notice, but we have lost Gehrig, Hamill, Thommo, Peckitt, Powell and Harvey through injury over that period. The fact is that only 4-5 of them have threated to become permanent fixtures (Schneider, King, Dempster, Jones, Gardiner). This hardly represents a major reworking of the list by any measure. Yes, we have gotten rid of a lot of players under Lyon, but relatively few of them had been first team players under GT.
5. According to News Limited, best on ground in our Rd 1 win over Sydney were "B Goddard S Gilbert S Fisher N Dal Santo J Koschitzke L Montagna F Ray". Best on ground in our Rd 2 win over Adelaide were "Dal Santo, Montagna, Koschitzke, S. Fisher, Ball, Gram, Schneider". That's a 12 out of 14 score for the St Kilda list as of September 2006!!
6. So why did we start to go better as 2008 wore on and are already looking even better this season. Two main reasons: (a) some of our key players look to be finally getting over their major injury problems (Ball, Kosi, Raph until Rd 1) and (b) as you would expect from any sort of leader who has been newly promoted to the top job at an organisation at which he or she has never previously worked, Lyon took a while to get the hang of the job.
7. To sum up, the decision to sack GT was an idiotic one that was taken by Board which - when the members got the opportunity - was rewarded by being resoundingly voted out of office. The fact that Lyon was a surprise choice to almost everyone in the AFL world means that he was a bit of a gamble, to say the least. (On the other hand, he was nowhere near as big a gamble as GT when he was appointed and yet, at least in my opinion, GT turned out really well.) Fortunately, the gamble appears to have paid off and, now that he has had sufficient time to develop into the role, Lyon now looks set to perform as least as well as GT had done and - presuming that the current Board is not going to make a similarly ridiculous decision to get rid of him while he is performing well - could perhaps take us all the way.
I know it's difficult for some of you to understand that it is possible for someone simultaneously to think that Lyon is a great coach and also that the decision to sack GT was totally wrong. Not only do I think this, but I also think that the decision to appoint GT in the first place was wrong as well. You can't always judge a decision by the eventual results: you can make a low percentage choice and, more by luck than good management, end up better off than if you had made the high percentage choice. All this means is that you were lucky, not sensible.
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."
- Jonathan Swift
Can't argue with much of what you've written in your last post MB.
But I will add my own perspective that there appears to have been a 'hardcore group' of posters prepared to write off RL as a coach from day one because he was the person who replaced GT and he wasn't Matthews or Malthouse (etc).
So just as you find the decision to sack GT as nonsensical (and wrong) I find this inability to judge RL's coaching as just as nonsensical (and wrong).
Quite frankly I'm in no position to judge whether Lyon is/isn't a good coach. I know we play a totally different style of game to that of 2004-2006 but I also know that AFL footy isn't played the same way it was back then - it has evolved into a different game like it always has.
We can all hypothesize over whether GT would have tweaked/changed our game style to suit the evolution, I personally believe he wouldn't have done it quickly enough (if at all) so I really don't have an issue with replacing him in 2006.
But who's to say whether I'm right or wrong?
It's only my opinion
Mr Magic wrote:Saints43,
Surely you're not just looking at the last 2 weeks in isolation?
Surely the signs that the team, the gameplan, the coaches were all coming together was apparent in the later part of last season?
There has been a fundamental change to the gameplan again this year. So I am looking at each season in isolation. Not because I think seasons are necessarily unrelated blocks generally but because I believe it to be the case since 2007 at St Kilda. The change to hold a forward structure when not in possesion and to play through the middle of the ground is a massive change from last season.
Mr Magic wrote:As for the 2 practice matches - might I suggest that anybody who is reaching conclusions based on practice match form is not being serious.
I mean why didn't you change your opinion of RL's coaching after last year's pre-season form when we won the NAB/Wizard/Mortgage House whatever it is called competition?
Surely if you can tell after 2 praccy matches the season before you would also be able to tell after 4 winning praccy matches in 2008?
ANd the truth is that praccy match form, whether winning or losing, is not much of a guide to real form. Just look at this season so far.
I didn't see us win the cup. I was overseas. Didn't get back til Round 2.
I reckon a lot on here have forgotten exactly how poor we were for most of 2007.
I said I "had a fairly good idea how that season would turn out." from those practice matches - not that I reached conclusions. Are you just trying to argue every point?
Mr Magic wrote:And whilst I agree with your expression about 'infantile' when used in your example I would humbly suggest that the same adjective could and should be applied to those pushing the 'anti-RL' line to further their own particular agendas?
And I would include 'anti-RL' 'to further their own particular agendas' in that as well. We are all (I assume) St Kilda supporters who want the club to perform to the full extent of the talent available to it.
Saints43 wrote:I reckon a lot on here have forgotten exactly how poor we were for most of 2007.
2007 was a terribly disappointing year, both on the field and in the coaches box. Leigh Fisher and Jason Blake as onballers was baffling given the quality mids we had then and still have now. Credit to Lyon though for eventually realising the error of his ways and going with a more attacking setup rather than just sticking to his guns. AFAICT there were only two hard tags on the ground on Friday night - Doughty for them and Jones for us.
We're only two games into this year, but a lot of the signs are good. Our tackling is the obvious one, but I personally have been more encouraged by the way we've moved the ball. Our back six looks sturdy even without our best defender. Our forward line has kicked winning scores without our best forward playing his best. If we keep playing this way we'll be hard for anyone to beat. I'm excited and I think there's good reason to be.
Also, credit to Lyon for the extra media work he's done. This club needs more members. If we don't see a massive increase in numbers over the next two weeks, it won't be through any fault of Lyon's.
meher baba wrote:What I notice about this thread is how those who, like me, continue to believe that the decision to sack GT in 2006 was a mistake, are prepared to give credit where credit is due to the way the team is now playing under Lyon
BUT
the blinkered GT haters just go on and on with their usual nonsense about "GT ruined the list", "RL was always a genius and it was all the fault of the list and the players that we played such a crap brand of football until mid-2008", etc.
While I am now a staunch supporter of Lyon, I still consider the following facts to be indisputable.
1. The St Kilda Board sacked GT in 2006 without any firm dea of who they wanted to replace him with: the idea of getting Lyon emerged very late in the process and was - presumably - not a likely name in the minds of any members of the Board when they made the decision to sack GT.
2. Given that they did not have a premiership-winning coach like Matthews or Malthouse lined up to replace him, the decision to sack GT remains hard to fathom on football-related grounds alone. Despite serious injury problems, we made the top 4 after the home and away season for two seasons and then just missed the top 4 (arguably unfairly) in the third season. Has any coach ever been previously been sacked in the history of the game after three such seasons (I have asked this question many times on this forum, without anyone coming up with a name)?
3. The reasons given by Butterss for sacking GT did not include blaming him for our injury problems or for "ruining our list". These ideas are just fantasies in the minds of some biased posters on here.
4. The key players used by Lyon week in and week out were almost all established as key players under GT. Sure, Lyon might have played a dozen or so new players in the past 2 years. So might GT: perhaps some of you didn't notice, but we have lost Gehrig, Hamill, Thommo, Peckitt, Powell and Harvey through injury over that period. The fact is that only 4-5 of them have threated to become permanent fixtures (Schneider, King, Dempster, Jones, Gardiner). This hardly represents a major reworking of the list by any measure. Yes, we have gotten rid of a lot of players under Lyon, but relatively few of them had been first team players under GT.
5. According to News Limited, best on ground in our Rd 1 win over Sydney were "B Goddard S Gilbert S Fisher N Dal Santo J Koschitzke L Montagna F Ray". Best on ground in our Rd 2 win over Adelaide were "Dal Santo, Montagna, Koschitzke, S. Fisher, Ball, Gram, Schneider". That's a 12 out of 14 score for the St Kilda list as of September 2006!!
6. So why did we start to go better as 2008 wore on and are already looking even better this season. Two main reasons: (a) some of our key players look to be finally getting over their major injury problems (Ball, Kosi, Raph until Rd 1) and (b) as you would expect from any sort of leader who has been newly promoted to the top job at an organisation at which he or she has never previously worked, Lyon took a while to get the hang of the job.
7. To sum up, the decision to sack GT was an idiotic one that was taken by Board which - when the members got the opportunity - was rewarded by being resoundingly voted out of office. The fact that Lyon was a surprise choice to almost everyone in the AFL world means that he was a bit of a gamble, to say the least. (On the other hand, he was nowhere near as big a gamble as GT when he was appointed and yet, at least in my opinion, GT turned out really well.) Fortunately, the gamble appears to have paid off and, now that he has had sufficient time to develop into the role, Lyon now looks set to perform as least as well as GT had done and - presuming that the current Board is not going to make a similarly ridiculous decision to get rid of him while he is performing well - could perhaps take us all the way.
I know it's difficult for some of you to understand that it is possible for someone simultaneously to think that Lyon is a great coach and also that the decision to sack GT was totally wrong. Not only do I think this, but I also think that the decision to appoint GT in the first place was wrong as well. You can't always judge a decision by the eventual results: you can make a low percentage choice and, more by luck than good management, end up better off than if you had made the high percentage choice. All this means is that you were lucky, not sensible.
Thank you MB. I have been trying to articulate in my own mind, for a number of years, the issues you so clearly outlined above . The point you are so clearly making is this: It is possible and OK to hold in ones mind and reconcile with ideas that seem so opposite and contradictory....and yet when you clear your mind of stubborn preconceptions and predijuces the ideas can be perfectly compatible with each other!!!!
Mr Magic wrote:Saints43
I didn't realize questioning how you reached your cocnlusions was arguing every point?
I honestly thought we were engaged in a healthy discussion?
Obviously by your response I was mistaken.
I didn't mean it to sound like I was having a go. But I didn't say I reached any conclusions. I said that I got a fair idea of how the season was going to go from those two practice matches (and you must be aware that I realise how much abuse I am opening up for after how many times RF's 'three months' has been mentioned).
In both those practice matches I watched (with other Saints supporters) in absolute bewilderment as Gehrig (especially - but all forwards) sprinted time and time again down to the half back flank to fill space. Yet was never available to make a lead when we were in possesion.
The whole of both matches was a shambles. You expect sloppy skills at that time of the year. You expect dodgy decisions. But this was something else.
It was commented on this forum (not just by me) that it looked like a gameplan/philosophy had been implemented without consideration for the personnel at the club. I believe this turned out to be true - and was picked up before a ball had been kicked in anger. The preperation was poor. And I remember RL being unhappy with fitness levels as well. I don't think we got much right during that season.
We stood behind the interchange on both occasions and there was a general confusion with players coming off/going on and receiving instructions from (I think) Elshaugh (that may be wrong).
When I think back to that season the image of 4-5 midfielders standing in the centre square not knowing who should be there for the bounce and 1 or 2 who having to sprint out to avoid a free kick being paid against us over and over and over. It got embarrasing when it was still happening deep into the season.
Yet some see that season as the building block of anything good that has happened since. I don't. It was a complete waste of everyone (especially the players precious) time.
) 