At end of 2006..a pretty good damn list or???

[rodgerfox]

I think this thread proves you were very wrong.

Why?

What I see if a good list that has been made better...in structure and quality.

What I also see is if you look beyond the 22 that we have a lot more players emerging. That is that the TOTAL list is much better now than back then.

Back then our next wave of players coming through looked very bleek.

Now there is agood wave of players with most positions covered.

McEvoy and others to replace King and Gardiner

Choo Choo and Heyne to replace Milne and Schneider..

Allen, Lynch and others to provide other options to Roo and Kosi..

Zac to replace Max at FB in 2010.

Eljay, Steven, Armo, Geary, Eddy to all provide future options in our midfield.

Now not all of the above will make it...but IMO we now have a much better group of emerging players than we had at the end of 2006.

we have not had the luxury of very low draft picks to work with...but the list is now getter better (in quality and structure) each year....not worse.

What a load of frog's droppings.

The list was very good in 2006, but more importantly was always a potentially brilliant list. Not potential in that some miracle may happen, but in terms of the age of the key players on it and their natural scope for improvement.

The only reason it could be seen to be 'in decline' was that we lost a layer of senior players in a shortish period. This throws the balance out completely, and can only be addressed through time and patience whilst some 'prime' players get older and fill that void - or by recruiting older players from other clubs.

This is the inevitable 'mini-rebuild' I spoke about.

Apart from that, the natural improvement from the guns was halted due to them being hurt. This saw us tread water for a year, instead of improve at the rate we'd seen from the kids under Thomas. They were also hurt in Lyon's first year. This added to the myth of a poor list at Moorabbin.

The list was very good.

Now that Roo, Kosi, Joey, BJ, Sam Fisher, Dal, Bally etc. etc. etc. are 2-3 years older, stronger and better, it is an excellent list.

Time to concede you were very wrong.

The disaster we saw when Lyon took the reigns was not the fault of GT. Time to admit that too.

The sweeping reforms that you harped on about never happened. Time to admit that.

The massive changes that you seem to see happening (or more accurately pretend to believe are happening), aren't happening. Time to admit that.


What is happening, is that Lyon is leveridging off a very, very solid base that he inherited. A base that saw some very, very good footballers all develop a bond with each other and a belief in themselves and the club they represent.

Lyon, this year, has done very well to harness that and nurture it. Lyon has put his spin on things, and added his stamp. But, he was smart enough to realise he was dealt a very, very good hand and he didn't need to overhaul everything.


Time to admit you were, and are wrong.

[kaos theory]

Roger, time to admit you have lost the plot.

What is particularly sad is that you are so blinded by your devotion to "He who cannot be named", that nothing good is possible without the actions of "He who cannot be named", and anything bad that has happened to our club is because we did not listen to, or bow down to "He who cannot be named"

[matrix]

Voldamort?

[rodgerfox]

Roger, time to admit you have lost the plot.

What is particularly sad is that you are so blinded by your devotion to "He who cannot be named", that nothing good is possible without the actions of "He who cannot be named", and anything bad that has happened to our club is because we did not listen to, or bow down to "He who cannot be named"

Facts are facts Kaos Theory.

If you choose to read my post the way in which you described above, well that's a shame.

[meher baba]

I think this thread proves you were very wrong.

Why?

What I see if a good list that has been made better...in structure and quality.

What I also see is if you look beyond the 22 that we have a lot more players emerging. That is that the TOTAL list is much better now than back then.

Back then our next wave of players coming through looked very bleek.

Now there is agood wave of players with most positions covered.

McEvoy and others to replace King and Gardiner

Choo Choo and Heyne to replace Milne and Schneider..

Allen, Lynch and others to provide other options to Roo and Kosi..

Zac to replace Max at FB in 2010.

Eljay, Steven, Armo, Geary, Eddy to all provide future options in our midfield.

Now not all of the above will make it...but IMO we now have a much better group of emerging players than we had at the end of 2006.

we have not had the luxury of very low draft picks to work with...but the list is now getter better (in quality and structure) each year....not worse.

And the contribution of all of these guys other than Zac and Geary to our performance over the first three rounds of the competition has been.........?

According to the reports in the Herald Sun so far, around 80 per cent of our adjudged best on grounds in the first three rounds have been players who were key members of our list in 2006 and still are.

Of the 23 players who have played for us so far this season, 16 were already at the club when Lyon took over. Of the 16, 6 (S Fisher, Raph, Gram, McQualter, Gwilt and Gilbert) played their first game for the club during our much-maligned 2004-06 period when the list was supposed to have gone backwards. The average age of the players recruited under RL is significantly higher than that of the players recruited under GT: even though those recruited in the GT era have been at the club anything from 5-7 years longer.

In other words, what we actually see on the field each week (as opposed to those names we see on our playing list on saints.com.au) is the same basic list that we had a few years ago: missing a few retired players, and - as you would expect - with a few younger players coming through plus a few "top up" experienced players of whom only King has so far shown himself to be a durable and consistent performer for the club (although of course we all have hopes for Gardi, Ray, Schneider et al)!!

As if most of this wouldn't have happened if GT had remained in charge!? Powell, Peckett, Thommo, Hamill, Gehrig, Harves, Voss et al would have retired just the same and would have to have been replaced. There would have been at least 9 new young draftees on our list by now if GT had remained as coach.

Who is to say that they would have been any worse than the ones we've got now? Armo has been something of a disappointment (although I know not everyone agrees with me about this) and likewise Brad Howard. Allen has been injured for most of his time at the club, putting even the much-maligned Clarke brothers in the shade.

McEvoy, Steven, Connors, Lynch, Heyne and the rest are unknown quantities for me, and I would guess you as well.

If you think these guys are so much better than we got in the past, I would like you to endorse the following (and put some of your own money on it).

"I am certain that McEvoy (Pick 9) will turn out to be better than Brooks (traded for picks 7 and 31).
I am certain that Armitage (Pick 9) will turn out to be better than McQualter (pick 17).
I am certain that Jack Steven (Pick 42) will turn out to be better than James Gwilt (pick 63)
I am certain that Tom Lynch (Pick 13) will turn out to be better than Fergus Watts (traded for pick 17).
I am certain that Ross Tungatulum (rookie) will turn out to be better than Allan Murray (rookie)"

And so on and so forth down the line.

Will you do this? Will you put some hard-earned $$$$ on it? If not (and you'd be mad to do so IMO), then how can I take you at all seriously?

So, what exactly are you going on about? Can't you see that what you are arguing has no basis in fact?

The sad thing is that I don't think you, or many others on here, can see just how ridiculous all this carry on about our list actually is!!

[saintly]

Voldamort?

that was good

[saintsRrising]

I think this thread proves you were very wrong.

Why?

What I see if a good list that has been made better...in structure and quality.

What I also see is if you look beyond the 22 that we have a lot more players emerging. That is that the TOTAL list is much better now than back then.

Back then our next wave of players coming through looked very bleek.

Now there is a good wave of players with most positions covered.

McEvoy and others to replace King and Gardiner

Choo Choo and Heyne to replace Milne and Schneider..

Allen, Lynch and others to provide other options to Roo and Kosi..

Zac to replace Max at FB in 2010.

Eljay, Steven, Armo, Geary, Eddy to all provide future options in our midfield.

Now not all of the above will make it...but IMO we now have a much better group of emerging players than we had at the end of 2006.

we have not had the luxury of very low draft picks to work with...but the list is now getter better (in quality and structure) each year....not worse.

And the contribution of all of these guys other than Zac and Geary to our performance over the first three rounds of the competition has been.........?

err MB...

Look at the start of post...

It says if you look beyond the 22 ...

So as you have not understood..by looking beyond the 22 my post is talking about the the future...and NOT the first 3 rounds.

Do you understand the context now?

MB...you seem to makea habit of completely ignoring what has been written...and then going off on some wild tangent.

[saintsRrising]

What a load of frog's droppings.


The sweeping reforms that you harped on about never happened. Time to admit that.


Time to admit you were, and are wrong.

Err...so I am just imagining that Drain, Elshaugh etc are all at the club.

I am imagining that RL is just a head coach...and nothing else..

I am imagining that the football department has been completely re-structured..

I am imagining that the Playing Conditioning and Fitness Department has been completely overhauled...and is no longer overseen by the head coach.

I am imagining that we are NOW developing our rookies...and that apart from Milne (who was to be exit-ed out)..I am imagining that CJ, Geary, Zac who all came through the rookie system all played last week....with other rookies such as Eddy being of sufficient quality to play if required. I am imagining the extra depth and flexibity that this has given us..


I am imagining that we have a harmonious relationship between St Kilda and our VFL affiliate....and I am imagining that this is now well used to DEVELOP our players..

I am imagining that our Board and Coach are all pulling in the same direction..


I am imagining that we are going through the year with a FULL list...rather than playing short because the the supposed "Wolds Best Player Contracts Manager" stuffed up by overpaying players so that we had to play out the year with LESS players on the main list and LESS players on the rookie list...= LESS depth in years where injuries were out of control.


Evidently I have a very good imagination............for I could have sworn that sweeping reform has indeed happened.

[kaos theory]

I am imagining that the Playing Conditioning and Fitness Department has been completely overhauled...and is no longer overseen by the head coach.

You also forgot to add that you, and the rest of us (except for the great roger), have been imagining that we went from the worst managed player conditioning department headed by "He who cannot be named", where we had 6 to 10 players out regularly due to soft tissue injuries, to one of the the best injury lists in one yr, once the new admin took over.

[Shaggy]

16 of our 23 were GT years.

Max & X are also in our best 22 to come.

The side has IMO always been planned for 2008-10 when the core would be at its peak.

But RL deserves credit because in 3 drafts he has filled holes.

More importantly he now has the players playing to their best ability and showing the improvement they should be showing.

Thats all anyone really should ask from a coach.

As for the future who cares.

I doubt our kids now will win us a flag ... our time is now.

[Teflon]

The first month of this season has shown quite clearly how good the list was that Lyon took over.

As I said at the time, and it's in this thread I think somewhere, the core was so talented that although we'd go through a mini-rebuild, we'd still be good enough to play finals.

The only thing that was out of balance, was the blend of young, prime and senior players.

In 03-06, I felt we had few 'prime' players. Certainly very few that were on the park. We had a good layer of senior players.
Our core group were kids. Bally, Dal, Roo, Kosi, BJ etc.
You don't win flags when your core are kids.

You win flags when your core are 'prime' (ie. 22-26 with 100-150 games under your belt).

Now, our core is prime, and we have a very good layer of senior players. We still lack in the kids, but our core is deep.

I felt that during the transition period while our kids became our prime, and our prime players became our senior players, we wouldn't threaten for a flag.

It would be 3-4 years before the balance was there when our core was prime, guys like Max, Lenny, Milne and Bakes made up our senior players, and we had a few good kids on the list too.

That's where we are now. We still don't have the kids, but our core group of players are in their prime, and our senior players are very good.


If Thomas was still coach, the same thing would have applied. What worried me about changing coach at the time the club did, was that a new coach implementing new ideas and strategies, would potentially extend this transitional period of our list beyond that 3-4 year mark, meaning we may miss the boat when our list would be ideally balanced. I believe 2007 was the last chance we had to win a flag, before the inevitible mini-rebuild happened. That's why I felt changing coach at that time was foolish.

I may be wrong, because this year we're fit and healthy and the core of the list is prime and playing well.
The senior guys on the list are fit and playing well. Lyon has added to the senior side of the list also. It's pretty deep with King and Gardiner aswell.

I was right about the 3-4 years before we'd be contenders again, but I may have been wrong about the timeframe for the new coach to get things settled again.

One thing that has eased the pain of a mini-rebuild, and prevented us going into a full rebuild (which have written us off for another 10 years) is that Lyon held his nerve with our star players.

He didn't panic that we were too slow. He didn't panic that we had holes everywhere, he didn't panic about much to do with our core players.

He kept them, and built around them. He needs credit for that. He knew the list he got was very, very good. He stuck to it and it's paying dividends.

A better post Dodg but you ignore one vital element to do with lists and coach changes - that is: what the NEW coach wants in terms of players to be able to carry our HIS NEW game plan.

No one questions we are playing greater defensive footy than under Thomas - GT himself ascknowldged this (along with the fact he wouldnt have taken King/Gardiner) so Lyons not only kept a core group together....hes added depth and fringe players (playing in positions) that suit and can carry out his game plan.

Jones as a run with player - super move. Uses his ball finding ability/speed.

Blake as a constant down back - gawn are the ridiculous "Blake starting as ruck"which DID NOT get the best from him imo but how good does he look now down there......he looks settled now.

Attard, Dempster,King, Gardiner - even Gwilt looks to have found a place in Lyons style and what about Raph Clarke.....clearly becoming accomplished under Lyon imo...late last year really started to respond (and this is even though hes not had that continuity to his game).

So yeah, Lyons kept a core together but to me hes added players that can carry out his game plan. added depth and hes having an impact in developing the existing players that IMO had stagnated under Thomas.

[saintsRrising]

16 of our 23 were GT years.

Max & X are also in our best 22 to come.

The side has IMO always been planned for 2008-10 when the core would be at its peak.

But RL deserves credit because in 3 drafts he has filled holes.

More importantly he now has the players playing to their best ability and showing the improvement they should be showing.

Thats all anyone really should ask from a coach.

As for the future who cares.

I doubt our kids now will win us a flag ... our time is now.

I agree with much of that...but I am not sure what you mean by your first line?

Of our current 22

St KILDA
B: Ray, Blake, Dawson
HB: Geary, S Fisher, Goddard
C: Gram, Ball, Dal Santo
HF: Milne, Riewoldt, Schneider
F: Hayes, Koschitzke, Gilbert
FOLL: Gardiner, Jones, Montagna
INT: Baker, McQualter, Gwilt, King

EMG: Begley, McEvoy, Eddy

6 are pre-GT
7 are post- GT
9 are from the GT years...though one in Mini has been recycled

Now raph..is GT years..but Max is pre-GT....and Dempster post.

[Shaggy]

- even Gwilt looks to have found a place in Lyons style and what about Raph Clarke.....clearly becoming accomplished under Lyon imo...late last year really started to respond (and this is even though hes not had that continuity to his game).

Lol.

And yet 2 years ago you wrote both Gwilt and Raph off.

Players need time even if supporters want them to be guns from the start.

[Teflon]

I think this thread proves you were very wrong.

Why?

What I see if a good list that has been made better...in structure and quality.

What I also see is if you look beyond the 22 that we have a lot more players emerging. That is that the TOTAL list is much better now than back then.

Back then our next wave of players coming through looked very bleek.

Now there is agood wave of players with most positions covered.

McEvoy and others to replace King and Gardiner

Choo Choo and Heyne to replace Milne and Schneider..

Allen, Lynch and others to provide other options to Roo and Kosi..

Zac to replace Max at FB in 2010.

Eljay, Steven, Armo, Geary, Eddy to all provide future options in our midfield.

Now not all of the above will make it...but IMO we now have a much better group of emerging players than we had at the end of 2006.

we have not had the luxury of very low draft picks to work with...but the list is now getter better (in quality and structure) each year....not worse.

And the contribution of all of these guys other than Zac and Geary to our performance over the first three rounds of the competition has been.........?

According to the reports in the Herald Sun so far, around 80 per cent of our adjudged best on grounds in the first three rounds have been players who were key members of our list in 2006 and still are.

Of the 23 players who have played for us so far this season, 16 were already at the club when Lyon took over. Of the 16, 6 (S Fisher, Raph, Gram, McQualter, Gwilt and Gilbert) played their first game for the club during our much-maligned 2004-06 period when the list was supposed to have gone backwards. The average age of the players recruited under RL is significantly higher than that of the players recruited under GT: even though those recruited in the GT era have been at the club anything from 5-7 years longer.

In other words, what we actually see on the field each week (as opposed to those names we see on our playing list on saints.com.au) is the same basic list that we had a few years ago: missing a few retired players, and - as you would expect - with a few younger players coming through plus a few "top up" experienced players of whom only King has so far shown himself to be a durable and consistent performer for the club (although of course we all have hopes for Gardi, Ray, Schneider et al)!!

As if most of this wouldn't have happened if GT had remained in charge!? Powell, Peckett, Thommo, Hamill, Gehrig, Harves, Voss et al would have retired just the same and would have to have been replaced. There would have been at least 9 new young draftees on our list by now if GT had remained as coach.

Who is to say that they would have been any worse than the ones we've got now? Armo has been something of a disappointment (although I know not everyone agrees with me about this) and likewise Brad Howard. Allen has been injured for most of his time at the club, putting even the much-maligned Clarke brothers in the shade.

McEvoy, Steven, Connors, Lynch, Heyne and the rest are unknown quantities for me, and I would guess you as well.

If you think these guys are so much better than we got in the past, I would like you to endorse the following (and put some of your own money on it).

"I am certain that McEvoy (Pick 9) will turn out to be better than Brooks (traded for picks 7 and 31).
I am certain that Armitage (Pick 9) will turn out to be better than McQualter (pick 17).
I am certain that Jack Steven (Pick 42) will turn out to be better than James Gwilt (pick 63)
I am certain that Tom Lynch (Pick 13) will turn out to be better than Fergus Watts (traded for pick 17).
I am certain that Ross Tungatulum (rookie) will turn out to be better than Allan Murray (rookie)"

And so on and so forth down the line.

Will you do this? Will you put some hard-earned $$$$ on it? If not (and you'd be mad to do so IMO), then how can I take you at all seriously?

So, what exactly are you going on about? Can't you see that what you are arguing has no basis in fact?

The sad thing is that I don't think you, or many others on here, can see just how ridiculous all this carry on about our list actually is!!

what a ridiculous post.

I mean startling revelations all round..."of the 22 players who have played for us ...16 were at the club when Lyon took over"

So sorry Ross has been at the club and not delisted 34....its just a tad hard to do that even IF you wanted to. How old are you?

I love the next bit - "according to the Herald Sun our best players..."blah blah blah.......I note Sneider had 9 goal assists the previous week...didnt get in the bests (Aron Hamill often didnt either...)...so hes not added to our line up/list according to you? - can I suggest you save the HS reviews for Sundays....and do actually try and get down to a LIVE game?

As for King being the only noteworthy Lyon addition....Id argue, Eddy, King, Geary, Dempster, Attard, Jones, Sneider and now Gardiner are and have added to our list in Lyons current tenure .....sure Gardiners been injured but to me IF we get a dozen or more games from him (for what we paid) we are in front cause his impacts on games are obvious.

As for your bizarre bet suggestion....I'll take some of that.....I never rated Allan Murray .....what was he....GT's 4-year project player...

I accept you a Thomas fan...heck I can even accept you didnt want Alves/Sheldon sacked......(not sure how wed play them all...) but seriously add a smidge of logic next time.

[Shaggy]

16 of our 23 were GT years.

Max & X are also in our best 22 to come.

The side has IMO always been planned for 2008-10 when the core would be at its peak.

But RL deserves credit because in 3 drafts he has filled holes.

More importantly he now has the players playing to their best ability and showing the improvement they should be showing.

Thats all anyone really should ask from a coach.

As for the future who cares.

I doubt our kids now will win us a flag ... our time is now.

I agree with much of that...but I am not sure what you mean by your first line?

Of our current 22

St KILDA
B: Ray, Blake, Dawson
HB: Geary, S Fisher, Goddard
C: Gram, Ball, Dal Santo
HF: Milne, Riewoldt, Schneider
F: Hayes, Koschitzke, Gilbert
FOLL: Gardiner, Jones, Montagna
INT: Baker, McQualter, Gwilt, King

EMG: Begley, McEvoy, Eddy

6 are pre-GT
7 are post- GT
9 are from the GT years...though one in Mini has been recycled

Fair enough. But Fish, Chips, BJ, Monty, Gram, Ball, Dal, Roo, Kosi, Gilbert, Mini, Gwilt, Raph and X were not mature footballers under GT.

Now 3 years later they are.

If you do not understand what diff that makes

Its the core of our success.

[saintsRrising]

I agree..we are primed to peak with the list at our disposal.

But I also think we are primed to stay amongst the better teams for a few years yet.

[Teflon]

- even Gwilt looks to have found a place in Lyons style and what about Raph Clarke.....clearly becoming accomplished under Lyon imo...late last year really started to respond (and this is even though hes not had that continuity to his game).

Lol.

And yet 2 years ago you wrote both Gwilt and Raph off.

Players need time even if supporters want them to be guns from the start.

Please produce the post where I "wrote" off either player (especially Raph)????????

Lies are the domain of depserate people...dont let thme become you.

[Shaggy]

I agree..we are primed to peak with the list at our disposal.

We agree on this at least.

And as far as RL is concerned I cannot ask more from a coach but to get the best of the list ... which RL is now doing so lets all enjoy this year and hopefully a few after.

[Shaggy]

- even Gwilt looks to have found a place in Lyons style and what about Raph Clarke.....clearly becoming accomplished under Lyon imo...late last year really started to respond (and this is even though hes not had that continuity to his game).

Lol.

And yet 2 years ago you wrote both Gwilt and Raph off.

Players need time even if supporters want them to be guns from the start.

Please produce the post where I "wrote" off either player (especially Raph)????????

Lies are the domain of depserate people...dont let thme become you.

Actually Tef you did. Can I prove it ... no because there is no search function . But I do have a memory.

But it was less a go by you against Gwilt and Raph compared to your nonsense proving a case against GT because GT had not developed guns from the classes of 2004-2005.

Its ironic because the kids of 2006-2008 have done no more than Gwilt and Raph at same age .

[saintsRrising]

- even Gwilt looks to have found a place in Lyons style and what about Raph Clarke.....clearly becoming accomplished under Lyon imo...late last year really started to respond (and this is even though hes not had that continuity to his game).

Lol.

And yet 2 years ago you wrote both Gwilt and Raph off.

Players need time even if supporters want them to be guns from the start.

If the both includes me...then in the OP my rating was I believe the players to be when RL took over... a rating I stand by as it refers to a point in time.

However I certainly agree that I would have written posts after this one started wondering if Gwilt would ever make it...and most likely that he may well have been considered for delisting.

With Raph...I always felt that he had a lot of talent...but not the concentration....that he was not making the most of his ability. I do not recall ever calling for him to be delisted or traded for however....but rather perservered with....however certainly that woud have included playing for Casey to improve.

[saintsRrising]

I agree..we are primed to peak with the list at our disposal.

We agree on this at least.

And as far as RL is concerned I cannot ask more from a coach but to get the best of the list ... which RL is now doing so lets all enjoy this year and hopefully a few after.

Yes agree.

[Shaggy]

- even Gwilt looks to have found a place in Lyons style and what about Raph Clarke.....clearly becoming accomplished under Lyon imo...late last year really started to respond (and this is even though hes not had that continuity to his game).

Lol.

And yet 2 years ago you wrote both Gwilt and Raph off.

Players need time even if supporters want them to be guns from the start.

If the both includes me...then in the OP my rating was I believe the players to be when RL took over... a rating I stand by as it referes to a point in time.

However I certainly agree that I would have written posts after this one started wondering if Gwilt would ever make it...and most likely that he may well have been considered for delisting.

With Raph...I always felt that he had a lot of talent...but not the concentration....that he was not making the most of his ability. I do not recall ever calling for him to be delisted or traded for however....but rather perservered with....however certainly that woud have included playing for Casey to improve.

No ... I remember my battles with you but not on Gwilt and Raph. I do however remember our spats about mids ... you would never include Gram and BJ ... times have changed.

[Mr Magic]

16 of our 23 were GT years.

Max & X are also in our best 22 to come.

The side has IMO always been planned for 2008-10 when the core would be at its peak.

But RL deserves credit because in 3 drafts he has filled holes.

More importantly he now has the players playing to their best ability and showing the improvement they should be showing.

Thats all anyone really should ask from a coach.

As for the future who cares.

I doubt our kids now will win us a flag ... our time is now.

I agree with much of that...but I am not sure what you mean by your first line?

Of our current 22

St KILDA
B: Ray, Blake, Dawson
HB: Geary, S Fisher, Goddard
C: Gram, Ball, Dal Santo
HF: Milne, Riewoldt, Schneider
F: Hayes, Koschitzke, Gilbert
FOLL: Gardiner, Jones, Montagna
INT: Baker, McQualter, Gwilt, King

EMG: Begley, McEvoy, Eddy

6 are pre-GT
7 are post- GT
9 are from the GT years...though one in Mini has been recycled

Fair enough. But Fish, Chips, BJ, Monty, Gram, Ball, Dal, Roo, Kosi, Gilbert, Mini, Gwilt, Raph and X were not mature footballers under GT.

Now 3 years later they are.

If you do not understand what diff that makes

Its the core of our success.

So we come back to the question I raised in another thread on this topic:-
What constitutes a good/great/bad list?

Shaggy you've just stated that 14 players listed above were not mature footballers under Gt and 3 years later under RL they are.
So are you now saying that your definition of a good list includes 'developing and/or maturing players?

If so who gets credit for their development or increasing maturity? The Coach who originally picked them or the Coach under whose 'reign' they actually developed and/or maturesd?

You see this is the problem I have with the boring GT/RL argument.

Those that support RL seem to have a problem crediting GT with any kudos for his role as coach (notwithstanding that he may have had faults too)

and

Those that support GT seem to have a problem crediting RL with any kudos for his role as coach (notwithstanding that he may have faults too)

It is that 'blind defense of their respective heores' that, IMO, causes these threads to turn into slanging matches.

IMO again, it is nonsensical to try and put the proposition that the 2006 List was good/bad until you define exactly what you mean by good/bad?

All those heaping scorn on RL by claiming he inherited a 'great list' conveniently ignore that prior to the Hodge/Ball/Judd draft, all those players were 'gifted' to GT.
That includes
Roo
Kosi
Bakes
Milne
Max
and all those champions who have since retired.
RL never had the benefit of Burke, Loewe, Thompson, Peckett, Powell, Voss, Jones, Gehrig and even Robert Harvey that GT enjoyed.
In fact, one could mount an argument that GT had a much better list in 2004/2005 than what he had himself in 2006, let alone the list in 2007.

How 'good' was the list GT got himself when he was appointed coach?

And what differnece does it make?

If it helps the anti-RL people sleep at night knowing that they can rationalize our current success (2009) by attributing as much of the success to GT then quite frankly, good luck to them.
As long as they don't go around trying to 'white-ant' the team because RL is the coach then I don't give a sh1t. But when they denigrate the team's achievements in a stupid attempt to rationalize their own belief that the current coach is no good, then I reserve the right to enter the debate.

Unfortunately if too many follow my example (of entering the debate) we end up with these endless circular slanging matches.

[Teflon]

- even Gwilt looks to have found a place in Lyons style and what about Raph Clarke.....clearly becoming accomplished under Lyon imo...late last year really started to respond (and this is even though hes not had that continuity to his game).

Lol.

And yet 2 years ago you wrote both Gwilt and Raph off.

Players need time even if supporters want them to be guns from the start.

Please produce the post where I "wrote" off either player (especially Raph)????????

Lies are the domain of depserate people...dont let thme become you.

Actually Tef you did. Can I prove it ... no because there is no search function . But I do have a memory.

But it was less a go by you against Gwilt and Raph compared to your nonsense proving a case against GT because GT had not developed guns from the classes of 2004-2005.

Its ironic because the kids of 2006-2008 have done no more than Gwilt and Raph at same age .

Thanks Shag (I always find it much more believable to lie when being informal) your wrong, making it up and you know it.

I will say this for Raph/Gwilts recent performances - they are far ahead than they ever were previously under your favorite man....Gwilt up till recent times was hanging his hat on 1 good finals game eons ago......funny how hes starting to excel in a Lyon game plan where hes clearly given direction and a job to do. That happens when you have a good technical grasp of the game.

Id happily argue btw that Eddy/Geary have most certainly shown more than Gwilt at the same age - how long has Gwilt been on the list now 4years? 5 years?..regardless I think Eddy/Geary have at least shown they may make it......in 2006 (2 years after he was drafted) I wouldnt have said the same about Gwilt.

Perception/lies....its all funny stuff when you have an agenda. Good luck wih that.

[Teflon]

16 of our 23 were GT years.

Max & X are also in our best 22 to come.

The side has IMO always been planned for 2008-10 when the core would be at its peak.

But RL deserves credit because in 3 drafts he has filled holes.

More importantly he now has the players playing to their best ability and showing the improvement they should be showing.

Thats all anyone really should ask from a coach.

As for the future who cares.

I doubt our kids now will win us a flag ... our time is now.

I agree with much of that...but I am not sure what you mean by your first line?

Of our current 22

St KILDA
B: Ray, Blake, Dawson
HB: Geary, S Fisher, Goddard
C: Gram, Ball, Dal Santo
HF: Milne, Riewoldt, Schneider
F: Hayes, Koschitzke, Gilbert
FOLL: Gardiner, Jones, Montagna
INT: Baker, McQualter, Gwilt, King

EMG: Begley, McEvoy, Eddy

6 are pre-GT
7 are post- GT
9 are from the GT years...though one in Mini has been recycled

Fair enough. But Fish, Chips, BJ, Monty, Gram, Ball, Dal, Roo, Kosi, Gilbert, Mini, Gwilt, Raph and X were not mature footballers under GT.

Now 3 years later they are.

If you do not understand what diff that makes

Its the core of our success.

So we come back to the question I raised in another thread on this topic:-
What constitutes a good/great/bad list?

Shaggy you've just stated that 14 players listed above were not mature footballers under Gt and 3 years later under RL they are.
So are you now saying that your definition of a good list includes 'developing and/or maturing players?

If so who gets credit for their development or increasing maturity? The Coach who originally picked them or the Coach under whose 'reign' they actually developed and/or maturesd?

You see this is the problem I have with the boring GT/RL argument.

Those that support RL seem to have a problem crediting GT with any kudos for his role as coach (notwithstanding that he may have had faults too)

and

Those that support GT seem to have a problem crediting RL with any kudos for his role as coach (notwithstanding that he may have faults too)

It is that 'blind defense of their respective heores' that, IMO, causes these threads to turn into slanging matches.

IMO again, it is nonsensical to try and put the proposition that the 2006 List was good/bad until you define exactly what you mean by good/bad?

All those heaping scorn on RL by claiming he inherited a 'great list' conveniently ignore that prior to the Hodge/Ball/Judd draft, all those players were 'gifted' to GT.
That includes
Roo
Kosi
Bakes
Milne
Max
and all those champions who have since retired.
RL never had the benefit of Burke, Loewe, Thompson, Peckett, Powell, Voss, Jones, Gehrig and even Robert Harvey that GT enjoyed.
In fact, one could mount an argument that GT had a much better list in 2004/2005 than what he had himself in 2006, let alone the list in 2007.

How 'good' was the list GT got himself when he was appointed coach?

And what differnece does it make?

If it helps the anti-RL people sleep at night knowing that they can rationalize our current success (2009) by attributing as much of the success to GT then quite frankly, good luck to them.
As long as they don't go around trying to 'white-ant' the team because RL is the coach then I don't give a sh1t. But when they denigrate the team's achievements in a stupid attempt to rationalize their own belief that the current coach is no good, then I reserve the right to enter the debate.

Unfortunately if too many follow my example (of entering the debate) we end up with these endless circular slanging matches.

superb post Magic.

Actually you raise a new, very valid point IMHO the list Thomas had in 2004 was far better and balanced than what he had in 06....people look at how we are playing now and when comparing lists forget the often intangible aspect of balance between maturity/youth/players in their prime.

Ive often said GT did some good things for the club. No doubt he steadied a ship that was rabble (along with Rod Butters)...they both went on to un-steady us.....but thats another story. On field there is no question Thonmas was gifted some very capable talent...not to mention Carlton gifting him Goddard...

I read Jason Ackermanis in todays paper say Leigh Matthews was finished as a coach cause he couldnt "evolve". IMHO as a coach that was the end for Grant Thomas - he simply didnt have the ability to adapt a changeable game plan against teams who wouldnt allow us to play "Lions style".

RL already has made changes to his -look at how we are sudenly using the corridor, no linger corraling.........its a positive sign for me from someone who clearly understands the nuances of footy.