Dal Santo: Thomas, Lyon miles apart

[saintly]

Dal Santo: Thomas, Lyon miles apart

http://sportal.com.au/afl-news-display/ ... ffer-69990
07/05/2009 2:19 PM
Andrew Wu
Sportal
Related Links
Hawks' selection poser
Defence key for Dons
Medhurst, Shaw to play
Grant Thomas was not a fan of ruckmen, nor was he a believer in modern football's buzzword 'structure', according to star midfielder Nick Dal Santo.

Dal Santo unwittingly shed light on Thomas' uncomplicated methods at a breakfast in Melbourne on Thursday ahead of the Saints' clash with Collingwood next Monday night at Etihad Stadium.

Asked by a patron during a Q&A session to explain the Saints' improvement in Lyon's third year at the club after replacing Grant Thomas at the end of 2006, Dal Santo said the players had finally come to grips with Lyon's game plan.

"Thommo was my first coach and I absolutely loved it, I loved it when he was there," said Dal Santo, who was secured with pick No.13 in the 2001 draft - Thomas' first as senior coach.

"At 17 you knew no different. We're going to play hard footy. He didn't really have any structures. You tried hard and we'd win, if we lost then we didn't want it bad enough."

"Ross is a lot more structured."

'Structures', pertaining to a team's positioning at set plays and appearance on a whiteboard, has become a part of the football vernacular in recent years.

Dal Santo, sensationally dropped before Round 13 last year when the club hit its lowest point since 2003, said that under Lyon there was 'no definite moment where we sat down and said we're not going well and we need to change something'.

"We played some good games then we'd have a poor game so there was that consistency thing as well," he said.

Dal Santo's comments help illustrate the contrasting coaching styles between Thomas and Lyon.

The Saints' unwavering commitment to around-the-ground defence has been a hallmark of the side's unbeaten start to this season, no doubt contributing to it becoming the third highest scoring team this year.

Under Thomas the Saints were the highest scoring team in 2004-05, when it made back-to-back preliminary finals, but also had the seventh then third best points against totals.

In the past three years, Lyon's side has risen gradually on the defensive ladder from seventh in 2007 to fifth last year and top after six rounds this season.

Dal Santo was confident the Saints could maintain the same defensive pressure for the whole season but was unsure whether it was a 'taxing' game plan.

"Obviously you put a lot more pressure on in the front half and you don't have to chase them all the way through to the opposition's forward line so you don't have to run as far," he said.

"But it's probably more intense when the ball's in your area. It also helps when you turn the ball over and you're running towards your own goal, it makes life a little bit easier."

"I think it works both ways. The game's hard no matter how you play."

"You walk off and you've pretty much had enough."



an interesting read.

[luckysaint]

I find it hard to believe that we had absolutely no structure at all... I'd say it was more the journo was desperate for a story rather than a definative relection on Thomas' coaching style

[Mr Magic]

I find it hard to believe that we had absolutely no structure at all... I'd say it was more the journo was desperate for a story rather than a definative relection on Thomas' coaching style

So should we expect either a retraction by the journalist or a statement from Dal that he has been misquoted?

[Ghost Like]

I find it hard to believe that we had absolutely no structure at all... I'd say it was more the journo was desperate for a story rather than a definative relection on Thomas' coaching style

He's quoted Dal as saying "He didn't really have any structures." Not sure the journo's had to make that big a jump.

[Raven]

We came 4th last year, IIRC.

[ace]

Seems that Dal is telling us that GT knew nothing about management after all.
GT only thought of "work harder" and had never heard of "work smarter".

[karnaby]

2009 and going just fine! Thank you!!!

[Ice Wolf]

Seems that Dal is telling us that GT knew nothing about management after all.
GT only thought of "work harder" and had never heard of "work smarter".

Sounds like if they lost, it was cause they (the players) didn't work hard enough, not cause the opposing coach rang rings around Thomas.

[Superboot]

It has to said that back in 2004 we looked terrific until the intensity dropped. It could drop even during games. We'd have the odd quarter where we seemed to go to sleep and the opposition would kick 3 or 4 in a row. Then we'd wake up again and all would be well.

I think we're better at pacing ourselves now. We slow the play down, kick backwards now and again, etc etc, and it gives everyone a breather.

"Tried hard and you'll win" is a bit simplistic but there is something in it as the converse is certainly true. It's been my view for a long time that North Melbourne, for example, have survived largely on the basis of effort rather than talent (this Shinboner spirit business) and I've come away from many of our games over the years wishing we'd put in as much effort as them. We do it now, but in a smarter way.

[markp]

Game, set and match for mine.... thank god we seem to have finally somehow put it all together now.

Hopefully this crazy journey will have a fitting climax.

[perfectionist]

Nick Dal Santo is still a bit naive about the media. He still has to learn that if you try to say anything that is remotely interesting or relevant to a question that is asked then those, who are still laughingly referred to as journalists, will dissect every word and will portray the remark as conflicting with something someone else has said or done in the last 1000 years.

The only surprising thing would be if Grant Thomas and Ross Lyon had identical coaching styles - but that wouldn't represent conflict and would not, therefore, be newsworthy.

The Saints are playing a more accountable style of football right across the ground and tackling harder. Whether this has to do with "structure" or fitness or personnel or the man in the moon, I don't care too much. It is there for all to see and "I'm loving it!"

[InkerSaint]

I'll bet it took a lot of time and effort to learn to adhere to those structures.

It must have been a bitter pill to swallow after years of freewheeling and low accountability.

[meher baba]

WTF are some posters on here going on about?

Dal was trying to say that he liked the styles of both coaches, but that Lyon focused more on structures than did GT.

This doesn't mean that our team played with NO structure in the 2001-06 period. I defy anyone, even the GT- haters like toysRus and margarine (the inferior butter(ss)), try to make a convincing argument in favour of this proposition. If we had had no onfield structure, we would have finished last over that period, as did Carlton (which, for reasons I don't entirely understand, consistently played like an unstructured rabble under Pagan).

What Dal clearly meant to say was that GT liked to give the players a simple, uncomplicated structure to play under, whereas Ross is into more complex, intellectual game plans that require long discussions in front of the whiteboard, etc.

I remember that GT consistently said that he was trying to drill a relatively simple game plan into his players that they would absorb unconsciously and then just get on with it. He then focused on individual and group motivation, game day matchups and other such basic stuff.

I have always thought there was room in football (and, all sports for that matter) for both styles of coaching.

Over time, the teams with more talent and more motivation tend to beat those with less of these qualities.

However, an elaborate coaching strategy can help a slightly less-talented team steal a march over its rivals for a season or two: eg, the Swans when Eade pulled out the flood and again in 2005-06, or Hawthorn last season. But then the opposing coaches work out how to deal with the innovation and this advantage is lost and a Brisbane Lions or Geelong comes to the fore and wins lots of games largely on having overwhelming ability around the ground.

This season, Lyon seems to have got us playing a new style of footy that is a step further in evolution from what he has learnt from the Swans, Geelong and Hawks.

What I really like about Lyon's current style is that it is strategic and clever, but it isn't quite as artificial as the approach adopted by Eade at the Swans or Clarkson at the Hawks. Our strong emphasis on attacking the ball and the ball carrier has an element of old fashioned, GT/Leigh Matthews-style footy about it.

To that extent, even if the opposing coaches find away of outsmarting our "structure", we still win lots of games on talent and guts.

It will be interesting to see how the Hawks continue to fare this season. Tonight's game will be an interesting test for them. Given that Essendon are missing several key, experienced players, it should be an easy win for them. If they go down, or struggle (as they did against the Blues), the bubble will go much closer to bursting.

[meher baba]

I'll bet it took a lot of time and effort to learn to adhere to those structures.

It must have been a bitter pill to swallow after years of freewheeling and low accountability.

I don't recall seeing an inordinate amount of freewheeling or players leaving their man under Thomas.

The only freewheeler who stands out in my mind was Aussie Jones, but he used that tactic to great advantage and is, in any case, long gone.

I realise that coaches like Roos and Lyon use the term "accountability" quite a lot, but I think they mean something more complex than simply maintaining structure and not doing whatever you feel like.

It's got more to do with concentrating on mucking up the opposition's game plan, cutting off their options, getting them to kick to contests where they are outnumbered, not going for the ball and then - if you miss - letting your opponent get away, etc.

In my view, Lyon concentrated overly much on this negative style for his first 18 months as a coach, and has now brought a better balance to his game plan.

[markp]

"At 17 you knew no different. We're going to play hard footy. He didn't really have any structures. You tried hard and we'd win, if we lost then we didn't want it bad enough."

"Ross is a lot more structured."

It's not complicated... forget what he maybe meant to say, was trying to say, or should have said... this is what he said.

And thank god for it.

[meher baba]

"At 17 you knew no different. We're going to play hard footy. He didn't really have any structures. You tried hard and we'd win, if we lost then we didn't want it bad enough."

"Ross is a lot more structured."

It's not complicated... forget what he maybe meant to say, was trying to say, or should have said... this is what he said.

And thank god for it.

So you reckon Nick is saying that we had no on-field structure under GT. Players just ran anywhere they liked and did whatever they felt like doing.

Is that what you think NDS was saying? Is that what how you believe we actually played?

[markp]

"At 17 you knew no different. We're going to play hard footy. He didn't really have any structures. You tried hard and we'd win, if we lost then we didn't want it bad enough."

"Ross is a lot more structured."

It's not complicated... forget what he maybe meant to say, was trying to say, or should have said... this is what he said.

And thank god for it.

So you reckon Nick is saying that we had no on-field structure under GT. Players just ran anywhere they liked and did whatever they felt like doing.

Is that what you think NDS was saying? Is that what how you believe we actually played?

Did he say none?

He said "didn't really have any"...

And "Ross is a lot more structured".

I believe GT was way out of his depth, and RL is a godsend.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

I'll bet it took a lot of time and effort to learn to adhere to those structures.

It must have been a bitter pill to swallow after years of freewheeling and low accountability.

I don't recall seeing an inordinate amount of freewheeling or players leaving their man under Thomas.

The only freewheeler who stands out in my mind was Aussie Jones, but he used that tactic to great advantage and is, in any case, long gone.

I realise that coaches like Roos and Lyon use the term "accountability" quite a lot, but I think they mean something more complex than simply maintaining structure and not doing whatever you feel like.

Funny that you mention Aussie, as I was thinking of him quite a lot when reading the article.

I recall after his early retirement, an interview with him after he's taken up a coaching position in the ammos asking him what the biggest adaptation was.

His comment was that in the AFL, defense pertained largely to looking after an area, and he was adjusting to it being more about looking after a specific player.

That comment made an impression on me then, I found myself thinking of it as I read Nick's comments, and even more as I read the various inferences of those comments.

On one hand, the thread is an example of people finding evidence for what they'd already concluded. The idea that there was no structure is ludicrous. One of the hallmarks of the team was the forward zone - a structure. However, it's absolutely and blindingly obvious that Ross Lyon puts a much higher priority on team structures; how one structure/zone feeds to the next, when and who should be zoning v taking a man... and set plays which flow from those structures and situations.

FWIW, my inference of the quote is that Dal's talking about the match review - for Thomas the defining factor was love of the jumper, he believed in the gameplan. For Ross, winning or losing comes down to many smaller things. IMO the main interest is that where Thomas may have failed in the latter, it's only within the last 12 months the Saints have taken Lyon's message on board and given the former to be able to take advantage of the structures... but Dal was far more concise

[InkerSaint]

Dal was trying to say that he liked the styles of both coaches, but that Lyon focused more on structures than did GT.

LOL... so while you're at it, what else was Dal "trying" to say?

And I suppose you predicted Dal and Milne getting dropped the week before it happened.

Gimme a break.

[Hugh Drod]

I guess we're still a long way away from finding out which approach is better.

And realisitcally only 3 injuries away from finding out also.

[barks4eva]

Dal was trying to say that he liked the styles of both coaches, but that Lyon focused more on structures than did GT.

LOL... so while you're at it, what else was Dal "trying" to say?

And I suppose you predicted Dal and Milne getting dropped the week before it happened.

Gimme a break.

I suppose we should all bow down to mebabbles infinite wisdom, afterall he was the genius who tagged Lyon as a dinosaur and clown and wanted him sacked this time last year, OH DEAR!

So when mebabble states that he knows what Dal really meant and not what he actually said, who are we to bring this into question!

[meher baba]

I'll bet it took a lot of time and effort to learn to adhere to those structures.

It must have been a bitter pill to swallow after years of freewheeling and low accountability.

I don't recall seeing an inordinate amount of freewheeling or players leaving their man under Thomas.

The only freewheeler who stands out in my mind was Aussie Jones, but he used that tactic to great advantage and is, in any case, long gone.

I realise that coaches like Roos and Lyon use the term "accountability" quite a lot, but I think they mean something more complex than simply maintaining structure and not doing whatever you feel like.

Funny that you mention Aussie, as I was thinking of him quite a lot when reading the article.

I recall after his early retirement, an interview with him after he's taken up a coaching position in the ammos asking him what the biggest adaptation was.

His comment was that in the AFL, defense pertained largely to looking after an area, and he was adjusting to it being more about looking after a specific player.

That comment made an impression on me then, I found myself thinking of it as I read Nick's comments, and even more as I read the various inferences of those comments.

On one hand, the thread is an example of people finding evidence for what they'd already concluded. The idea that there was no structure is ludicrous. One of the hallmarks of the team was the forward zone - a structure. However, it's absolutely and blindingly obvious that Ross Lyon puts a much higher priority on team structures; how one structure/zone feeds to the next, when and who should be zoning v taking a man... and set plays which flow from those structures and situations.

FWIW, my inference of the quote is that Dal's talking about the match review - for Thomas the defining factor was love of the jumper, he believed in the gameplan. For Ross, winning or losing comes down to many smaller things. IMO the main interest is that where Thomas may have failed in the latter, it's only within the last 12 months the Saints have taken Lyon's message on board and given the former to be able to take advantage of the structures... but Dal was far more concise

Thanks for this, it's nice to read a post from someone who wants to talk seriously about football instead of just banging on about their prejudices.

[meher baba]

Dal was trying to say that he liked the styles of both coaches, but that Lyon focused more on structures than did GT.

LOL... so while you're at it, what else was Dal "trying" to say?

And I suppose you predicted Dal and Milne getting dropped the week before it happened.

Gimme a break.

I suppose we should all bow down to mebabbles infinite wisdom, afterall he was the genius who tagged Lyon as a dinosaur and clown and wanted him sacked this time last year, OH DEAR!

So when mebabble states that he knows what Dal really meant and not what he actually said, who are we to bring this into question!

Yes, I did call Lyon a dinosaur and I did want him sacked. You thought Rix was the answer to all our problems.

We all say things that we wish we hadn't.

I'm sure NDS is wishing that he hadn't said

He didn't really have any structures.

Are you seriously suggesting that NDS thinks that the team played without any structure under GT?

We clearly had a structure (get out the old tapes and watch), so if NDS was suggesting that we didn't, then NDS is an idiot who doesn't know anything about football.

But I don't think he is, so I think he didn't mean it to come out quite the way he did.

[meher baba]

"At 17 you knew no different. We're going to play hard footy. He didn't really have any structures. You tried hard and we'd win, if we lost then we didn't want it bad enough."

"Ross is a lot more structured."

It's not complicated... forget what he maybe meant to say, was trying to say, or should have said... this is what he said.

And thank god for it.

So you reckon Nick is saying that we had no on-field structure under GT. Players just ran anywhere they liked and did whatever they felt like doing.

Is that what you think NDS was saying? Is that what how you believe we actually played?

Did he say none?

He said "didn't really have any"...

And "Ross is a lot more structured".

I believe GT was way out of his depth, and RL is a godsend.

Now let me get this straight.

"Didn't really have any" means something more than "none" but less than "lots".

Are you a lawyer by any chance?

As for GT being "way out of his depth", he took a team which had finished bottom in 2000 and 2001 to the finals in 2004, 2005 and 2006.

I think GT was an excellent coach and that Lyon is almost certainly (we'll know for sure by the end of the season) an even better one?

If Lyon is a good coach, why does this automatically prove that GT was a bad coach? I have never been able to understand why some Sainters fans feel that they have to think this way.

[barks4eva]

Dal was trying to say that he liked the styles of both coaches, but that Lyon focused more on structures than did GT.

LOL... so while you're at it, what else was Dal "trying" to say?

And I suppose you predicted Dal and Milne getting dropped the week before it happened.

Gimme a break.

I suppose we should all bow down to mebabbles infinite wisdom, afterall he was the genius who tagged Lyon as a dinosaur and clown and wanted him sacked this time last year, OH DEAR!

So when mebabble states that he knows what Dal really meant and not what he actually said, who are we to bring this into question!

Yes, I did call Lyon a dinosaur and I did want him sacked. You thought Rix was the answer to all our problems.

We all say things that we wish we hadn't.

I'm sure NDS is wishing that he hadn't said

He didn't really have any structures.

Are you seriously suggesting that NDS thinks that the team played without any structure under GT?

We clearly had a structure (get out the old tapes and watch), so if NDS was suggesting that we didn't, then NDS is an idiot who doesn't know anything about football.

But I don't think he is, so I think he didn't mean it to come out quite the way he did.

On Rix, I never thought he was the answer, I never thought he was a great player or anything......................have you never been in love

We did not have structures under Thomas, that is just a fact!

It was all about sending them out and backing each guy to beat his opponent and when you have the best list or one of the best lists at that time, you're a reasonable chance to win more often than not even without tactics.

Peckett commented after his retirement that we'll never know that if we'd had a coach with some tactics if it would have made a difference or not in 2004 and he liked Thomas!

He was being honest just like Dal, even Blake who had a strong relationship with Thomas commented that tactically the difference between the two is like chalk and cheese!

But seriously what would they know, they're just footballers who have played under both coaches, obviously mebabble the font of all wisdom on all matters about coaching is the one we should turn to to get the real story, even if he thinks that Lyon is a clown who should have been sacked this time last year!


[/img]