I would suggest that we now put pressure on the ball carrier is a major shift of game plan. Previously we just let the opposition have it without pressure all the way up to wing whilst we flooded back and dont tell me that happened because the players couldnt understand what RL wanted. It happened far to often for that. That is how RL wanted us to play. It was to taxing and we couldnt score enough. We now pressure the ball carrier which causes mistakes thus giving us easy goals and the players do far less running. It is fairly different game style but again whats wrong with that. The sides that win the flag have a different plan to most other sides every year.OLB wrote:Which part of "after three years we have become very aware of [the game plan]" are you failing to understand?plugger66 wrote:Who said they are lying? Did he ever metion it was exactly the same game plan as 3 years ago. Just watch a game and see how we have changed and what is wrong with that. Geelong have changed from 3 years ago and so have we.OLB wrote:I'm still yet to hear anyone associated with the club come out and say something along the lines of, "we've decided to attack more".plugger66 wrote:If we havent changed our game style since RL was appointed then I know even less than I thought I knew about footy. Yes the players may know understand it more but there is clearly a different style of play and so there must be. For a start footy is different to 3 years. And you cannot see it you either watch on TV or didnt go to games 3 years ago.OLB wrote:What that article does is put to bed the thought that Lyon has suddenly changed his philosophy and opted for a more attacking game plan.
Nothing's changed. As Dal Santo says, the players have just become more aware of the game plan and their individual roles within it.
Game plan's been in place since day one. It's taken this long for it to all come together.
If it's taken this long for, as Dal says, the players to become aware of the plan, imagine how long it would take them to come to terms with changes in game style.
Why would you think the coach and all the players are lying? What are they trying to hide? If the game plan has changed, what reason do you think there is for the coach and the players not to mention this?
Now if Dal had said, "It has taken us three years to become very aware of the game plan and all its changes due to the changing state of the game", you may be onto something. Or if anyone had said that for that matter.
The game has changed over the last three years. However, run and carry, forward pressure, numbers in defence and zoning have been around for a while. They are the backbone of all game-plans today. The difference between teams is how well they execute and the level of pressure they are able to apply.
If you think Hawthorn introduced the rolling-zone only last year then I believe you are mistaken. It took a guest footballer on The Footy Show to bring it to light and it became polarised. You either play man-on-man without the ball, or you play a zone.
That zone has been "rolling" for years. Apparently Sheedy implemented the original "rolling zone" after several trips to England and meetings with Ferguson and other football managers. He also has a UEFA (soccer's European governing body) coaching badge and has always maintained that there is a lot we can take out of the other code.
What major changes over the last three years have you noticed that would severely alter Ross' thinking?
Dal Santo: Thomas, Lyon miles apart
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
-
saintsRrising
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 30098
- Joined: Mon 15 Mar 2004 11:07am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 711 times
- Been thanked: 1235 times
Shaggy wrote:Which shows that SR and W7F are blamers when hopes are not fulfilled.saintsRrising wrote:Well summed up.Winmar7Fan wrote:I've always thought that we relied on sheer weight of individual talent with poor structure under GT so I'm not at all surprised with reading this.
We were a very young side and no-one should have expected we should win as often as we did.
GT's biggest problem is that he created expectation. But he did go very close to delivering a flag with a bottom budget and junior team.
People should understand it though. I would much prefer Dal now than 5 years ago if you understand the importance of maturity.
very young side...
junior team...
What absolute rubbish,,,
How about you actually look up the seasons already played...and ages of the players.?????
Most were seasoned players.
Just because there were some yung very high aft picks (which Lyon does not have) does not make the whole team very young....ora junior team
Also by 2004...Roo and Co were not actually VERY young anymore...but were 21/22...only leaving several in the very young category....
So all this talk of a junior team and a very young side is just pure fiction.
Players like Hamill, GTrain, Powell were seasoned veterans even before they had arrived at the Saints. Voss (23) had many games under his belt. Capuaon was 26
In 2001..Hall was 24..
Everitt in his Prime..
Other supposedly very young St Kilda Players (some of whom actually played in the 97 Grand Final!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) included..
Max, Harvey, Jones, Peckett, Thomson, Mathew Young, Burke, Loewe, Moyle (was then 21). Milne (then 21), Blake (then 20), Hayes (then 21), Callaghan (then 25), Crips (25)
So GT did not inherit a very young team....or a junior team.
Yes it had some very young players (what list does not???) but it had a solid core of:
*stars poached from other clubs
*Grand Final experienced Saints players..
*youngsers with several years in the system..
* and then to cap it all off some very young players who were mainly VERY high draft picks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It was not a junior team...or a very young side...and any contention that it was is just utter rubbish.
Flying the World in comfort thanks to FF Points....
-
saintsRrising
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 30098
- Joined: Mon 15 Mar 2004 11:07am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 711 times
- Been thanked: 1235 times
How can that be so when there are currently 6 rookies/ex-rookies in the senior team?Shaggy wrote:
Rookies IMO are irrelevant to our current success but will add to the future.
You might as well say that first round draft picks are irrelevant....it would be equally untrue.
Personally IMO opinion rookies have been a key in us not missing a beat with players such as Raph, X, Goose, Dempster and max not being available...and other players such as Armotage not being ready to go Round 1 due to doing his hammy in the pre-season.
Flying the World in comfort thanks to FF Points....
-
Teflon
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 23247
- Joined: Sat 13 Mar 2004 11:44pm
- Has thanked: 741 times
- Been thanked: 1800 times
Well said Barks.barks4eva wrote:On Rix, I never thought he was the answer, I never thought he was a great player or anything......................have you never been in lovemeher baba wrote:Yes, I did call Lyon a dinosaur and I did want him sacked. You thought Rix was the answer to all our problems.barks4eva wrote:InkerSaint wrote:LOL... so while you're at it, what else was Dal "trying" to say?meher baba wrote:Dal was trying to say that he liked the styles of both coaches, but that Lyon focused more on structures than did GT.
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!
We all say things that we wish we hadn't.
I'm sure NDS is wishing that he hadn't said
Are you seriously suggesting that NDS thinks that the team played without any structure under GT?He didn't really have any structures.
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.
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]
Im amazed that a player comes out with a very straightforward statement but those that,lets face it, Lyon is now making a fool of cause they wanted him sacked, are trying to 'interpret' - laughable really.
Mehehbabablots time to pull the head in. You wanted Ross Lyon sacked, you thought Grant was the answer your "demi god" - in short you bought the farm and have no clue.
Back to Nimbin with yiour hippy mates.
“Yeah….nah””
-
Teflon
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 23247
- Joined: Sat 13 Mar 2004 11:44pm
- Has thanked: 741 times
- Been thanked: 1800 times
OMG I couldnt let that go.....this is something from 'yes minister'.....just amazed the lengths a 'Thomas apologist' would go to.kaos theory wrote:I think Lyon is becoming a better tactician than GT ever was, but I don't agree that GT was a lousy tactician: he just used different tactics.
Good one MB. I think the comedy festival is over, but you certaintly are putting together an impressive set of gags....
Time to face some facts and truths many dont like.
Grant came in after Watson years had levelled us - we were rabble.
At that same time some unbelievable footbalers just happen to be springing up as top draft choices (Id still reckon many sides would love to have got Roo/Kosi at once and Goddard as a gift etc).
Our resurgence onfield had much more to do with this influx of inevitable talent than genius of Grant - yet Grant DID provide some stability after the Blight debarcle. When that was done - he should have left OR been true to his words and, along with teh club, sought the best FOOTBALL coach the club could get. He didnt, he wouldnt, he grew comfortable with his "boys" round for BBQ's (he didnt win all of them over I note..).
The upshot of this? - talent got us so far. Ive no doubt Grant got the team to play for the jumper and as a manipulator of young men Id guess hes formidable but there was no plan B when sides got a hold of us (as Geelong most certainly did in Harvs club games record game......we were shot).
Now PLAYERS tell us we had very little structure - not surprised cause to have this you need to understand the games technicalities not just its emotion.
IMHO Lyon still does not have the arsenal of talented youth/tough experienced players Thomas had in 04/05 BUT what I am genuinely impressed with is his ability to clearly identify a deficiency and then FIX IT. I am also of the view good coaches can take lessor footballers to another level - I dont think there is any doubt Lyons getting the greatest amount out of the 'lessor lights' - NOT just top 10 raft choices and that to me spells someone who understands the game.
To win a flag you need more than just "I love the jumper".
“Yeah….nah””
I really cant see the problem.
GT did a very good job for the time he was coaching. Remember 2004 was five years ago and light years away from the zoning/flooding that occurs now.
GT once stated "we dont flood". We were an attacking team where he backed our talent against the opposition - and we had talent to burn.
There was nothing wrong with his tactics or philosophy 5 years back. We all loved the attacking flair of the Saints. In comparision to today's Saints there was no "structure".
But why is that seen as a negative for the coaching of GT? It was a different time and a different type of football.
Even GT has said he could not coach as well as Lyon has this season.
As for our success. Well cant some of that be attributed to the way Grant nurtured the kids who are now hard bodied 25-27 y.o's?
Why the continuous comparision between Lyon and Thomas. They have two different coaching philosophies for two different era's.
If anyone thinks we had no structure at all in the Thomas years is absolute - well I think it shows more about the bias toward one coach over another.
In summary - personally I believe that Lyons style is perfectly suited to today's football and the players he has brought in and the players from the Thomas years have responded to his style and structure.
personally I think that Lyon is better tactically than Thomas as a coach - but to compare both is taking the GT years out of context. We were a rabble after Timmy - we were a complete shambles after Blight.
Yabbie Jeans said we needed a Saints man as coach to get us back on track. GT was that Saints man and he did get us back on track and get the supporters hopes and dreams up - and we started making money - and we started to look more of a top tier club than a middle of the road club.
Then we went through the usual Saints shambles where first GT was sacked and then Butterss was flicked. More instability.
No we have a stable footy team with a coach for the times. Why keep harking back to a time vastly different to 2009 football wise? What purpose does it serve? GT is gone. His style is over - finished.
We now have Lyon and he is going well.
A bit sick of the pissing contest about coaches.
GT did a very good job for the time he was coaching. Remember 2004 was five years ago and light years away from the zoning/flooding that occurs now.
GT once stated "we dont flood". We were an attacking team where he backed our talent against the opposition - and we had talent to burn.
There was nothing wrong with his tactics or philosophy 5 years back. We all loved the attacking flair of the Saints. In comparision to today's Saints there was no "structure".
But why is that seen as a negative for the coaching of GT? It was a different time and a different type of football.
Even GT has said he could not coach as well as Lyon has this season.
As for our success. Well cant some of that be attributed to the way Grant nurtured the kids who are now hard bodied 25-27 y.o's?
Why the continuous comparision between Lyon and Thomas. They have two different coaching philosophies for two different era's.
If anyone thinks we had no structure at all in the Thomas years is absolute - well I think it shows more about the bias toward one coach over another.
In summary - personally I believe that Lyons style is perfectly suited to today's football and the players he has brought in and the players from the Thomas years have responded to his style and structure.
personally I think that Lyon is better tactically than Thomas as a coach - but to compare both is taking the GT years out of context. We were a rabble after Timmy - we were a complete shambles after Blight.
Yabbie Jeans said we needed a Saints man as coach to get us back on track. GT was that Saints man and he did get us back on track and get the supporters hopes and dreams up - and we started making money - and we started to look more of a top tier club than a middle of the road club.
Then we went through the usual Saints shambles where first GT was sacked and then Butterss was flicked. More instability.
No we have a stable footy team with a coach for the times. Why keep harking back to a time vastly different to 2009 football wise? What purpose does it serve? GT is gone. His style is over - finished.
We now have Lyon and he is going well.
A bit sick of the pissing contest about coaches.
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>)
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>)
About time someone wrote a sensible poat without bias one way or another.joffaboy wrote:I really cant see the problem.
GT did a very good job for the time he was coaching. Remember 2004 was five years ago and light years away from the zoning/flooding that occurs now.
GT once stated "we dont flood". We were an attacking team where he backed our talent against the opposition - and we had talent to burn.
There was nothing wrong with his tactics or philosophy 5 years back. We all loved the attacking flair of the Saints. In comparision to today's Saints there was no "structure".
But why is that seen as a negative for the coaching of GT? It was a different time and a different type of football.
Even GT has said he could not coach as well as Lyon has this season.
As for our success. Well cant some of that be attributed to the way Grant nurtured the kids who are now hard bodied 25-27 y.o's?
Why the continuous comparision between Lyon and Thomas. They have two different coaching philosophies for two different era's.
If anyone thinks we had no structure at all in the Thomas years is absolute - well I think it shows more about the bias toward one coach over another.
In summary - personally I believe that Lyons style is perfectly suited to today's football and the players he has brought in and the players from the Thomas years have responded to his style and structure.
personally I think that Lyon is better tactically than Thomas as a coach - but to compare both is taking the GT years out of context. We were a rabble after Timmy - we were a complete shambles after Blight.
Yabbie Jeans said we needed a Saints man as coach to get us back on track. GT was that Saints man and he did get us back on track and get the supporters hopes and dreams up - and we started making money - and we started to look more of a top tier club than a middle of the road club.
Then we went through the usual Saints shambles where first GT was sacked and then Butterss was flicked. More instability.
No we have a stable footy team with a coach for the times. Why keep harking back to a time vastly different to 2009 football wise? What purpose does it serve? GT is gone. His style is over - finished.
We now have Lyon and he is going well.
A bit sick of the pissing contest about coaches.
-
BAM! (shhhh)
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: Thu 24 May 2007 5:23pm
- Location: The little voice inside your head
Best post I've read on Thomas and Lyon in the time I've been on Saintsational.joffaboy wrote:I really cant see the problem.
GT did a very good job for the time he was coaching. Remember 2004 was five years ago and light years away from the zoning/flooding that occurs now.
GT once stated "we dont flood". We were an attacking team where he backed our talent against the opposition - and we had talent to burn.
There was nothing wrong with his tactics or philosophy 5 years back. We all loved the attacking flair of the Saints. In comparision to today's Saints there was no "structure".
But why is that seen as a negative for the coaching of GT? It was a different time and a different type of football.
Even GT has said he could not coach as well as Lyon has this season.
As for our success. Well cant some of that be attributed to the way Grant nurtured the kids who are now hard bodied 25-27 y.o's?
Why the continuous comparision between Lyon and Thomas. They have two different coaching philosophies for two different era's.
If anyone thinks we had no structure at all in the Thomas years is absolute - well I think it shows more about the bias toward one coach over another.
In summary - personally I believe that Lyons style is perfectly suited to today's football and the players he has brought in and the players from the Thomas years have responded to his style and structure.
personally I think that Lyon is better tactically than Thomas as a coach - but to compare both is taking the GT years out of context. We were a rabble after Timmy - we were a complete shambles after Blight.
Yabbie Jeans said we needed a Saints man as coach to get us back on track. GT was that Saints man and he did get us back on track and get the supporters hopes and dreams up - and we started making money - and we started to look more of a top tier club than a middle of the road club.
Then we went through the usual Saints shambles where first GT was sacked and then Butterss was flicked. More instability.
No we have a stable footy team with a coach for the times. Why keep harking back to a time vastly different to 2009 football wise? What purpose does it serve? GT is gone. His style is over - finished.
We now have Lyon and he is going well.
A bit sick of the pissing contest about coaches.
"Everything comes to he who hustles while he waits"
- Henry Ford
- Henry Ford
Brillaint post JB..also heartily sick of the pyssing contests, not to mention the dragging up of ancient threads for a bit of ego-stroking
Comparisons between coaches are always going to be made, but the ridiculous level that it goes to on here shows a lot more about the ego and agendas and pig-headedness of some people far more than any rational footy debate
Comparisons between coaches are always going to be made, but the ridiculous level that it goes to on here shows a lot more about the ego and agendas and pig-headedness of some people far more than any rational footy debate
THE BUBBLE HAS BURST
2011 player sponsor
-
Teflon
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 23247
- Joined: Sat 13 Mar 2004 11:44pm
- Has thanked: 741 times
- Been thanked: 1800 times
Dont have a problem with any of that except to suggest that it infers in GT's 'era' structure wasnt as much of a focus as it is now because of the rolling zones etc - that I dont believe.joffaboy wrote:I really cant see the problem.
GT did a very good job for the time he was coaching. Remember 2004 was five years ago and light years away from the zoning/flooding that occurs now.
GT once stated "we dont flood". We were an attacking team where he backed our talent against the opposition - and we had talent to burn.
There was nothing wrong with his tactics or philosophy 5 years back. We all loved the attacking flair of the Saints. In comparision to today's Saints there was no "structure".
But why is that seen as a negative for the coaching of GT? It was a different time and a different type of football.
Even GT has said he could not coach as well as Lyon has this season.
As for our success. Well cant some of that be attributed to the way Grant nurtured the kids who are now hard bodied 25-27 y.o's?
Why the continuous comparision between Lyon and Thomas. They have two different coaching philosophies for two different era's.
If anyone thinks we had no structure at all in the Thomas years is absolute - well I think it shows more about the bias toward one coach over another.
In summary - personally I believe that Lyons style is perfectly suited to today's football and the players he has brought in and the players from the Thomas years have responded to his style and structure.
personally I think that Lyon is better tactically than Thomas as a coach - but to compare both is taking the GT years out of context. We were a rabble after Timmy - we were a complete shambles after Blight.
Yabbie Jeans said we needed a Saints man as coach to get us back on track. GT was that Saints man and he did get us back on track and get the supporters hopes and dreams up - and we started making money - and we started to look more of a top tier club than a middle of the road club.
Then we went through the usual Saints shambles where first GT was sacked and then Butterss was flicked. More instability.
No we have a stable footy team with a coach for the times. Why keep harking back to a time vastly different to 2009 football wise? What purpose does it serve? GT is gone. His style is over - finished.
We now have Lyon and he is going well.
A bit sick of the pissing contest about coaches.
IMHO (and I believe what Dal Santo has said over anyone on this site...as he has played under both, likes both and has no reason to lie) we fell down in GT's era for two main reasons:
1. Injury, lack of focus/understanding by both coach and Board.
2. Tactical inability when sides simply wouldnt come and play "saints shoot out" - we did not have a plan B.
Ironically, in GT's era - where flooding reigned surpreme from opposition - it was that ability to have a dsiciplined team structure, to play as a team WITH a plan B that we needed most when sides would not simply let us dictate play. We are NOW seeing both sides of the equation - attack/defence.
I have said for some time (and the usual will paint me as just anti Thomas - I dont really care) - GT did not/does not have a technical grasp of the game - hence we lacked in the area of structure/tactics IMHO. We played for the love of the jumper, on emotion, on talent and with a 'one size fits all' game plan that fell down when the heat was on.
That aside - and again - I will say GT did some good things, primarily galvanising (with Butters) a young list and a club that had been a rabble.
Is it fair to compare Thomas/Lyon? - IMHO absolutely IF the issues your comparing them on have been a concern for some time. Sure, the apllication of the tactics required for the differing eras will change - the fact we needed more of a focus on them still makes them a relevant talking point.
“Yeah….nah””
-
barks4eva
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10748
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:39pm
- Has thanked: 190 times
- Been thanked: 92 times
I spoke directly with Mick McGuane before Round 10 2006 and asked why we ( and more specifically our midfielders ) do not get numbers behind the ball after it had cost us yet another game,
his response word for word
"We prefer to back our own players"
I replied "not getting numbers behind the ball has cost us 3 or 4 games already" ( note after 9 rounds )
he responded " we only lost by 4 points and 1 point etc... when I used Port and Freo as examples
I replied, " Precisely my point"
"Playing Blake in the ruck and not getting numbers behind the ball, are you serious?"
he looked as if he knew there was no comeback to justify that last point.
That was in essence the gist of the conversation!
There were no structures, it was based on a gamble to back your own players against the opposition and if you have a decent list which is what we had, even though it had started to decline due to poor list management and development under Thomas, you will win more often than not.
Players have made comments that there were almost no structures,
Blake who had a strong relationship with Thomas has said that the difference between the two tactically, is like chalk and cheese,
Peckett another player who has a good relationship with Thomas was quoted along the lines of "we will never know what might have been if we'd had a more tactically astute coach in 2004,
Dal Santo yet another player who was part of Thomas's "In Crowd" has now stated under Thomas "WE DIDN'T HAVE A REAL STRUCTURE"
The longer Thomas remained as coach, the further south we were heading,
Lyon inherited a list that had many deficiencies due to poor recruiting, wasted picks on recycled duds, slow players, next to no rookies or development of the younger players and an amateurish approach to the fitness and conditioning of the entire list,
Even Thomas admitted in hindsight after his exiting, that he could have done a better job in developing the younger players on our list,
Thomas played favourites and had his "in crowd" to the detriment of many players on the list,
Lyon along with his support staff and a football department that he himself does not run, has recruited brilliantly to address many issues, we now have a professional football department that Butters had already started to deliver on,
precisely one of the reasons why Thomas was sacked to begin with, because Butterss asserted that we needed a professionally run football department and Thomas's total control over it was to the detriment of the club,
Butters was already getting this in order before he was exited out
AND while Butters was responsible for Thomas being appointed to begin with, he at least can be thanked for sacking Thomas and not a moment to soon, to allow Lyon the opportunity to turn the list around, teach the players some tactics, provide some structures and at last have a professionally run football department with proper fitness and conditioning staff> HALLELUJAH, about time
Thomas has already commented a few weeks ago that in his opinion "fitness and conditioning staff are overrated"
OMG, if that isn't damning enough,
FAIR DINKUM, how easy is it to see that Thomas was just an overpaid buffoon, probably wrote his own salary and co-appointed himself, with zero experience in AFL coaching, no tactics, no structures, no emphasis on fitness and conditioning, poor development of the entire list, no rookies aside from Milne who Thomas was about to trade anyway and some still don't get it
With the list we had in 2004 Mr Bean, Forrest Gump, Gomer Pyle, Laurel & Hardy, Abbott & Costello, The Two Ronnies, The Three Stooges and Monty Python's Flying Circus could have coached us to a Preliminary Final,
there were not many clubs with decent lists that year, only a handful of which we were one,
and really if we have anyone to thank it is Plympton for appointing Watson, which allowed us to clean up at the draft three years running,
Hawthorn won a flag three years after they started getting gun recruits through the draft with early draft selections and they did so because they had a coach who delivered structures and tactics,
Pound for pound our 2004 and 2005 teams were far and above the talent that Hawthorn put on the park in 2008,
but due to our "training services" being not what they should have and a coach with no tactics and no structures, it all came crashing down,
It is all so obvious, yet on here we get a plethora of laterally challenged numbnuts and apologists who wouldn't get the drum even if they had a brass band up them, FAIR DINKUM!
his response word for word
"We prefer to back our own players"
I replied "not getting numbers behind the ball has cost us 3 or 4 games already" ( note after 9 rounds )
he responded " we only lost by 4 points and 1 point etc... when I used Port and Freo as examples
I replied, " Precisely my point"
"Playing Blake in the ruck and not getting numbers behind the ball, are you serious?"
he looked as if he knew there was no comeback to justify that last point.
That was in essence the gist of the conversation!
There were no structures, it was based on a gamble to back your own players against the opposition and if you have a decent list which is what we had, even though it had started to decline due to poor list management and development under Thomas, you will win more often than not.
Players have made comments that there were almost no structures,
Blake who had a strong relationship with Thomas has said that the difference between the two tactically, is like chalk and cheese,
Peckett another player who has a good relationship with Thomas was quoted along the lines of "we will never know what might have been if we'd had a more tactically astute coach in 2004,
Dal Santo yet another player who was part of Thomas's "In Crowd" has now stated under Thomas "WE DIDN'T HAVE A REAL STRUCTURE"
The longer Thomas remained as coach, the further south we were heading,
Lyon inherited a list that had many deficiencies due to poor recruiting, wasted picks on recycled duds, slow players, next to no rookies or development of the younger players and an amateurish approach to the fitness and conditioning of the entire list,
Even Thomas admitted in hindsight after his exiting, that he could have done a better job in developing the younger players on our list,
Thomas played favourites and had his "in crowd" to the detriment of many players on the list,
Lyon along with his support staff and a football department that he himself does not run, has recruited brilliantly to address many issues, we now have a professional football department that Butters had already started to deliver on,
precisely one of the reasons why Thomas was sacked to begin with, because Butterss asserted that we needed a professionally run football department and Thomas's total control over it was to the detriment of the club,
Butters was already getting this in order before he was exited out
AND while Butters was responsible for Thomas being appointed to begin with, he at least can be thanked for sacking Thomas and not a moment to soon, to allow Lyon the opportunity to turn the list around, teach the players some tactics, provide some structures and at last have a professionally run football department with proper fitness and conditioning staff> HALLELUJAH, about time
Thomas has already commented a few weeks ago that in his opinion "fitness and conditioning staff are overrated"
OMG, if that isn't damning enough,FAIR DINKUM, how easy is it to see that Thomas was just an overpaid buffoon, probably wrote his own salary and co-appointed himself, with zero experience in AFL coaching, no tactics, no structures, no emphasis on fitness and conditioning, poor development of the entire list, no rookies aside from Milne who Thomas was about to trade anyway and some still don't get it
With the list we had in 2004 Mr Bean, Forrest Gump, Gomer Pyle, Laurel & Hardy, Abbott & Costello, The Two Ronnies, The Three Stooges and Monty Python's Flying Circus could have coached us to a Preliminary Final,
there were not many clubs with decent lists that year, only a handful of which we were one,
and really if we have anyone to thank it is Plympton for appointing Watson, which allowed us to clean up at the draft three years running,
Hawthorn won a flag three years after they started getting gun recruits through the draft with early draft selections and they did so because they had a coach who delivered structures and tactics,
Pound for pound our 2004 and 2005 teams were far and above the talent that Hawthorn put on the park in 2008,
but due to our "training services"
being not what they should have and a coach with no tactics and no structures, it all came crashing down,It is all so obvious, yet on here we get a plethora of laterally challenged numbnuts and apologists who wouldn't get the drum even if they had a brass band up them, FAIR DINKUM!
DO THE MATHS AND THE SQUARES ARE ALL ROOTED.
-
kaos theory
- Club Player
- Posts: 1521
- Joined: Sun 14 Mar 2004 8:38pm
- Been thanked: 25 times
That's not a major change in a game plan. That is a tactical tweak. You will still see us allow the opposition the ball on the wing as we flood numbers back, particularly late in games when players begin to tire.plugger66 wrote:I would suggest that we now put pressure on the ball carrier is a major shift of game plan. Previously we just let the opposition have it without pressure all the way up to wing whilst we flooded back and dont tell me that happened because the players couldnt understand what RL wanted.
A major change in a game plan is turning a kicking side into one that run and carries, directing play through the corridor or using the boundary line, playing man-on-man or zoning up.
Cast your mind back to round 21 in 2007 v West Coast at the Dome.
Here's an extract from an article I found on WOM http://www.saints.com.au/07/News/NewsAr ... wsId=49742
To me this game sums up the difference between now and then. We were brilliant in that first quarter, probably the best quarter of footy we played that season. That quarter must have taken so much out of the players because after that we looked tired and lacked intensity.The Saints roared out of the gate with their fierce tackling and constant pressure on the ball carrier clearly rattling the Eagles who turned the ball over frequently in the face of the fearsome opening onslaught.
When you begin to flood numbers back and allow the opposition ball on the wing without pressure, that can be attributed to a lack of fitness. We were unfit and therefore not capable to execute the plan for an entire game.
Watch games from 07 again and you will see what you see now. Difference was we did it in small patches. Nowadays we're doing it for four quarters.
-
Teflon
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 23247
- Joined: Sat 13 Mar 2004 11:44pm
- Has thanked: 741 times
- Been thanked: 1800 times
super post Barks.
You'll get the usual abuse from professional Grant apologists like babellots and shagless but fear not.....each and everytime Grant opens his mouth nowadays I feel like he makes the case for all those who knew early enough he just wasnt up to it.
Unbelievable that a coach who FAILED to deliver the ultimate - largely because of injuries in a "dept" he oversaw recruitment for - STILL reckons fitness and conditioning staff are overrated. What a dill.
Geelong have largely kept their side on the park for 2 yrs now and been rewarded. Sydney before that...its not coincidence.
You'll get the usual abuse from professional Grant apologists like babellots and shagless but fear not.....each and everytime Grant opens his mouth nowadays I feel like he makes the case for all those who knew early enough he just wasnt up to it.
Unbelievable that a coach who FAILED to deliver the ultimate - largely because of injuries in a "dept" he oversaw recruitment for - STILL reckons fitness and conditioning staff are overrated. What a dill.
Geelong have largely kept their side on the park for 2 yrs now and been rewarded. Sydney before that...its not coincidence.
“Yeah….nah””
Teflon wrote:super post Barks.
You'll get the usual abuse from professional Grant apologists like babellots and shagless but fear not.....each and everytime Grant opens his mouth nowadays I feel like he makes the case for all those who knew early enough he just wasnt up to it.
Unbelievable that a coach who FAILED to deliver the ultimate - largely because of injuries in a "dept" he oversaw recruitment for - STILL reckons fitness and conditioning staff are overrated. What a dill.
Geelong have largely kept their side on the park for 2 yrs now and been rewarded. Sydney before that...its not coincidence.
copied and posted without comment......because it's unnecessary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"
saint66au
Saintsational Legend
Joined: 09 Mar 2004
Posts: 12277
PostPosted: Sun 10 May 8:44 pm
.
Have you the slighest idea how puerile, childish and silly you (and others I grant you) look when mocking other peoples nicknames??
Its kindergarten sandpit stuff and, in my eyes anyway, considerably devalues anything else you have to say, no matter how mature and well thought-out it is Rolling Eyes
"
.everybody still loves lenny....and we always will
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
-
Teflon
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 23247
- Joined: Sat 13 Mar 2004 11:44pm
- Has thanked: 741 times
- Been thanked: 1800 times
you attempting to moderate now stinger?stinger wrote:Teflon wrote:super post Barks.
You'll get the usual abuse from professional Grant apologists like babellots and shagless but fear not.....each and everytime Grant opens his mouth nowadays I feel like he makes the case for all those who knew early enough he just wasnt up to it.
Unbelievable that a coach who FAILED to deliver the ultimate - largely because of injuries in a "dept" he oversaw recruitment for - STILL reckons fitness and conditioning staff are overrated. What a dill.
Geelong have largely kept their side on the park for 2 yrs now and been rewarded. Sydney before that...its not coincidence.
copied and posted without comment......because it's unnecessary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"
saint66au
Saintsational Legend
Joined: 09 Mar 2004
Posts: 12277
PostPosted: Sun 10 May 8:44 pm
.
Have you the slighest idea how puerile, childish and silly you (and others I grant you) look when mocking other peoples nicknames??
Its kindergarten sandpit stuff and, in my eyes anyway, considerably devalues anything else you have to say, no matter how mature and well thought-out it is Rolling Eyes
"
what on earth are you on about?
IF its about altering peoples nicks - the BIG difference between you and I would be your constantly doing it in a pure negative manner.
I think Id like to stay our of any issues with mods you have thanks.
“Yeah….nah””
-
Teflon
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 23247
- Joined: Sat 13 Mar 2004 11:44pm
- Has thanked: 741 times
- Been thanked: 1800 times
SO TRUE.OLB wrote:That's not a major change in a game plan. That is a tactical tweak. You will still see us allow the opposition the ball on the wing as we flood numbers back, particularly late in games when players begin to tire.plugger66 wrote:I would suggest that we now put pressure on the ball carrier is a major shift of game plan. Previously we just let the opposition have it without pressure all the way up to wing whilst we flooded back and dont tell me that happened because the players couldnt understand what RL wanted.
A major change in a game plan is turning a kicking side into one that run and carries, directing play through the corridor or using the boundary line, playing man-on-man or zoning up.
Cast your mind back to round 21 in 2007 v West Coast at the Dome.
Here's an extract from an article I found on WOM http://www.saints.com.au/07/News/NewsAr ... wsId=49742
To me this game sums up the difference between now and then. We were brilliant in that first quarter, probably the best quarter of footy we played that season. That quarter must have taken so much out of the players because after that we looked tired and lacked intensity.The Saints roared out of the gate with their fierce tackling and constant pressure on the ball carrier clearly rattling the Eagles who turned the ball over frequently in the face of the fearsome opening onslaught.
When you begin to flood numbers back and allow the opposition ball on the wing without pressure, that can be attributed to a lack of fitness. We were unfit and therefore not capable to execute the plan for an entire game.
Watch games from 07 again and you will see what you see now. Difference was we did it in small patches. Nowadays we're doing it for four quarters.
I also noted this current style in 07 - and recall us against Melb? really turning the screws with all out defensive pressure that had David Parkin saying hed not seen a saints side do this and apply this much pressure before. Fast forward and what are we hearing weekly from oppo coaches??? same stuff.
It took time no question and undoubtedly some peronell changes (along with attitude) but this has been Lyons game plan/philosophy from day 1 and that hasnt changed. Themajor difference is we are now much better at it consistently.
Great post OLB.
“Yeah….nah””
-
saintly
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5412
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 10:29am
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 47 times
i remember that quote "We prefer to back our own players"barks4eva wrote:I spoke directly with Mick McGuane before Round 10 2006 and asked why we ( and more specifically our midfielders ) do not get numbers behind the ball after it had cost us yet another game,
his response word for word
"We prefer to back our own players"
I replied "not getting numbers behind the ball has cost us 3 or 4 games already" ( note after 9 rounds )
he responded " we only lost by 4 points and 1 point etc... when I used Port and Freo as examples
I replied, " Precisely my point"
"Playing Blake in the ruck and not getting numbers behind the ball, are you serious?"
he looked as if he knew there was no comeback to justify that last point.
That was in essence the gist of the conversation!
There were no structures, it was based on a gamble to back your own players against the opposition and if you have a decent list which is what we had, even though it had started to decline due to poor list management and development under Thomas, you will win more often than not.
Players have made comments that there were almost no structures,
Blake who had a strong relationship with Thomas has said that the difference between the two tactically, is like chalk and cheese,
Peckett another player who has a good relationship with Thomas was quoted along the lines of "we will never know what might have been if we'd had a more tactically astute coach in 2004,
Dal Santo yet another player who was part of Thomas's "In Crowd" has now stated under Thomas "WE DIDN'T HAVE A REAL STRUCTURE"
The longer Thomas remained as coach, the further south we were heading,
Lyon inherited a list that had many deficiencies due to poor recruiting, wasted picks on recycled duds, slow players, next to no rookies or development of the younger players and an amateurish approach to the fitness and conditioning of the entire list,
Even Thomas admitted in hindsight after his exiting, that he could have done a better job in developing the younger players on our list,
Thomas played favourites and had his "in crowd" to the detriment of many players on the list,
Lyon along with his support staff and a football department that he himself does not run, has recruited brilliantly to address many issues, we now have a professional football department that Butters had already started to deliver on,
precisely one of the reasons why Thomas was sacked to begin with, because Butterss asserted that we needed a professionally run football department and Thomas's total control over it was to the detriment of the club,
Butters was already getting this in order before he was exited out
AND while Butters was responsible for Thomas being appointed to begin with, he at least can be thanked for sacking Thomas and not a moment to soon, to allow Lyon the opportunity to turn the list around, teach the players some tactics, provide some structures and at last have a professionally run football department with proper fitness and conditioning staff> HALLELUJAH, about time
Thomas has already commented a few weeks ago that in his opinion "fitness and conditioning staff are overrated"
FAIR DINKUM, how easy is it to see that Thomas was just an overpaid buffoon, probably wrote his own salary and co-appointed himself, with zero experience in AFL coaching, no tactics, no structures, no emphasis on fitness and conditioning, poor development of the entire list, no rookies aside from Milne who Thomas was about to trade anyway and some still don't get it
With the list we had in 2004 Mr Bean, Forrest Gump, Gomer Pyle, Laurel & Hardy, Abbott & Costello, The Two Ronnies, The Three Stooges and Monty Python's Flying Circus could have coached us to a Preliminary Final,
there were not many clubs with decent lists that year, only a handful of which we were one,
and really if we have anyone to thank it is Plympton for appointing Watson, which allowed us to clean up at the draft three years running,
Hawthorn won a flag three years after they started getting gun recruits through the draft with early draft selections and they did so because they had a coach who delivered structures and tactics,
Pound for pound our 2004 and 2005 teams were far and above the talent that Hawthorn put on the park in 2008,
but due to our "training services"
It is all so obvious, yet on here we get a plethora of laterally challenged numbnuts and apologists who wouldn't get the drum even if they had a brass band up them, FAIR DINKUM!
it was alos made by thomas at various stages.
My belief is thomas did very well in the first 3 years. galvanised the group, and the club. it was after that, that he began to annoy me, and i became critical of him.
-
BAM! (shhhh)
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: Thu 24 May 2007 5:23pm
- Location: The little voice inside your head
This is as far as I got.barks4eva wrote:I spoke directly with Mick McGuane before Round 10 2006 and asked why we ( and more specifically our midfielders ) do not get numbers behind the ball after it had cost us yet another game,
his response word for word
"We prefer to back our own players"
I replied "not getting numbers behind the ball has cost us 3 or 4 games already" ( note after 9 rounds )
he responded " we only lost by 4 points and 1 point etc... when I used Port and Freo as examples
I replied, " Precisely my point"
"Playing Blake in the ruck and not getting numbers behind the ball, are you serious?"
he looked as if he knew there was no comeback to justify that last point.
McGuane had actually justified himself (and the Saints coaching staff) perfectly. No point continuing to argue with a zealot.
While a tactical move may be worth a goal here or there, and I think most would back Lyon as a tactician over Thomas, you're talking about a full strategic shift, which changes the entire game, not just 6-10 points. When you lose by under a goal, you really can't worry too much about over-arching things like gameplans, because a single turn of fortune would have won. Similarly, you can't pat yourself on the back to much for the small wins - sure they're exciting, but that single turn of fortune...
Make the case if you like that numbers behind the ball would have guaranteed bigger wins, but I think the learning curve of '07 and '08 demonstrates it's really not that simple.
"Everything comes to he who hustles while he waits"
- Henry Ford
- Henry Ford
-
InkerSaint
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2132
- Joined: Wed 07 Jan 2009 3:06pm