Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
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
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
"
you attempting to moderate now stinger?
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.
i don't have an issue with mods....the mod's staement speaks for itself...
for the record...i haven't altered anyones nicks for yonks....i agree it's childish
.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.
All this arguing about numbers behind the ball should surely be confined to the history books.
I reckon all 16 clubs now put everyone behind the ball for significant periods when they aren't in possession. Even Geelong and the Bombers who, along with us, are playing the most direct (and attractive) football in 2009 so far, do plenty of this.
I have been looking at quite a few old tapes lately and have revised some of my past views. I now reckon that the evolution of our styles in recent years has gone like this.
1. In 2004 and, to a lesser extent, 2005, we generally played a direct, up the middle style of attack (like we do now) and a hard-tackling, ball-winning style of defence all over the ground (like we do now). The main difference between then and now is that, in 2009 we (and 15 other clubs, as I have said), now quite frequently leave no players in our forward half when we haven't got the ball.
2. As our injury problems got worse in 2005 and 2006 (particularly the injuries to hard players like Ball, Hamill, Powell, Hayes, etc) we began to lose some of our forward thrust when we didn't have the ball and started to play chipalotto. Contrary to what many on here believe, this approach started under GT (but got significantly worse under Lyon).
3. Under Lyon, we lost even more of our hardness: Hamill, Thommo, Powell, Voss gone. So (after a promising start to 2007) we steadily lost more of our thrust up the middle and our ability to contest the ball and tackle.
4. Lyon initially made the situation worse by over-emphasising the need for players to get back and discouraging them from attacking the ball and tackling in favour of a defensive approach based on coralling our opponents out wide and trying to get them to kick to contests within their forward 50.
5. Perhaps under pressure from the new Board (especially Burkey and Thommo, who must have almost spewed at watching our players retreating back from possible contests), our style began to harden during the second half of 2008. And this change in style was reinforced by improved availability of some key personnel: Ball, Lenny and BJ slowly returning to something like their best form, Raph (who provides a lot of thrust from the back) starting to get it together.
6. This season, we have seen Nick, Joey, Gardi and Gilbert recover the plot, Kosi seemingly over most of his chronic injury problems, Jones, Geary and McQualter step up big time, Baker back from long-term injury, etc.
So, not only do we have a coach who now seems to be more prepared to ask his team to fight for control of the centre corridor, but we also have the personnel up and down the ground who can win the fight. Kosi taking grabs up front in packs; Gardi winning hitouts all around the ground; Geary and McQualter making kick-ins a more risky proposition for our opponents; Ball, Lenny, Joey and Dal performing as my preferred "fab four" to the Carlton pretenders; CJ confounding my negative predictions about his future; etc.
What I think all this indicates is that we should never make the mistake of overrating the importance of a coach or his style on the way a team performs. Under both Lyon and GT, we have tended to go much better when we have our key players fit and in-form. When we don't, we understandably tend to play a bit more tentatively and defensively.
The one thing that I believe has happened in the past year or so is that Lyon - now that he is more confident (and, as I have discussed, possibly under some pressure from the Board) has learnt the lesson that the Saints aren't going to win a premiership by turning themselves into a carbon copy of the Swans circa 2005.
The Swans were very lucky to win in 2005. They deserved to beat us (we clearly had an off night, and were also - as always - hampered by injuries), but should already have lost to a very unlucky Geelong. And then they were fortunate enough to come up against the only sort of team they were ever likely to beat in a Grand Final: ie, a team that was totally incapable of taking its chances in front of the big sticks. (If you watch a replay of the 2005 GF, you will see that the Eagles wasted about a dozen highly gettable shots at goal, and they only needed to convert one of them to have won).
The name of the game in 2009 is to control the central corridor. With every team flooding, going down the wings is no longer the percentage option. As Geelong have shown, it doesn't matter how many times you chip the ball around in defence, and even go backwards, as long as you end up with the ball in the hands of somebody with a bit of pace on their own in the middle of the field. And the best way to counter a team doing this is to try to get the ball off them while they are trying to bring it out of defence.
Once they have gotten the ball into that zone between the centre square and the centre of the 50 metre line, you are in serious trouble. So you need to stop them first.
Did anyone see Geelong vs the Swans on the weekend? The Swans players did all the right things that they had always done: zoning back, filling space, trying to force the Cats to kick to contests in which they were outnumbered. But the Cats didn't care about this: they moved the ball quickly into the forward 50 and looked for the ball to spill to unexpected spots from contests.
Of course, it helps when you have a burglar of the ability of Steve Johnson playing up front.......!!
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."
- Jonathan Swift
Seeing as you're watching old tapes, have a look at our first quarter against the Eagles in 07.
As I mentioned on the previous page you'll see clear similarities to the way we're playing now in terms of our movement of the footy, our pressure on the ball-carrier and our suffocating of the opposition within their 50.
The problem was those periods when we played like that were too few and far between.
Now, due to a number of reasons, mostly fitness, we're relentless in our attack on the ball and are able to maintain it for four quarters.
This is where Misson has been absolutely crucial. This from him -
"Because we are working really hard during games, the guys need to be fresh going into games," he said. "I think you're better off being a little bit underdone going into a game rather than overdone.
"The days of having big sessions during the week to improve fitness, I think, are gone.
"The coach (Ross Lyon) is obviously doing what he needs to do in regards to structures and game plan, but there is a bit of a de-emphasis on volume during the week.
"We are doing a bit more in the weights room and off-legs conditioning, which doesn't tax the legs.
"What it is about is knowing where your players are at day to day . . . monitoring muscle soreness and health."
Misson has overseen two pre-seasons at the Saints after seven years at Sydney, where he turned the Swans into the most durable team in the competition.
OLB wrote:Seeing as you're watching old tapes, have a look at our first quarter against the Eagles in 07.
As I mentioned on the previous page you'll see clear similarities to the way we're playing now in terms of our movement of the footy, our pressure on the ball-carrier and our suffocating of the opposition within their 50.
The problem was those periods when we played like that were too few and far between.
Now, due to a number of reasons, mostly fitness, we're relentless in our attack on the ball and are able to maintain it for four quarters.
This is where Misson has been absolutely crucial. This from him -
"Because we are working really hard during games, the guys need to be fresh going into games," he said. "I think you're better off being a little bit underdone going into a game rather than overdone.
"The days of having big sessions during the week to improve fitness, I think, are gone.
"The coach (Ross Lyon) is obviously doing what he needs to do in regards to structures and game plan, but there is a bit of a de-emphasis on volume during the week.
"We are doing a bit more in the weights room and off-legs conditioning, which doesn't tax the legs.
"What it is about is knowing where your players are at day to day . . . monitoring muscle soreness and health."
Misson has overseen two pre-seasons at the Saints after seven years at Sydney, where he turned the Swans into the most durable team in the competition.
Well, maybe, but I reckon (despite the howls of protest this comment will no doubt create), that Larcom and Starcevich were ok at their jobs too.
If I look at our team this season, I see a big group of players - Kosi, Lenny, Ball, BJ, Baker, Gardi plus Goose and Raph on the sidelines - who have all had major injuries (or, in the case of Raph, illnesses) that have hampered them in the past few seasons and which can't really be blamed on problems with conditioning.
It's not as if these problems have gone away since the advent of Misson and the exorcism of Larcom, Starcevich, GT and anyone else we want to demonise. Think Dempster, Allen, King, BJ in 2007, Baker in 2008, Max, X, etc.
A lot of it is luck. And, don't forget, the Swans play lots of games on the lush surface of the SCG, while the Saints have played the majority of their games in recent seasons on the slippery cement of the Dome.
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."
- Jonathan Swift
meher baba wrote:What I think all this indicates is that we should never make the mistake of overrating the importance of a coach or his style on the way a team performs. Under both Lyon and GT, we have tended to go much better when we have our key players fit and in-form. When we don't, we understandably tend to play a bit more tentatively and defensively.
You're abstracting the role of the coach and the game style from the fitness and health of the players. It's disingenuous.
The one thing that I believe has happened in the past year or so is that Lyon - now that he is more confident (and, as I have discussed, possibly under some pressure from the Board) has learnt the lesson that the Saints aren't going to win a premiership by turning themselves into a carbon copy of the Swans circa 2005.
Pure conjecture. For someone who is so quick to call out prejudice, you need to back this up with something more than just your opinion.
The name of the game in 2009 is to control the central corridor. With every team flooding, going down the wings is no longer the percentage option. As Geelong have shown, it doesn't matter how many times you chip the ball around in defence, and even go backwards, as long as you end up with the ball in the hands of somebody with a bit of pace on their own in the middle of the field. And the best way to counter a team doing this is to try to get the ball off them while they are trying to bring it out of defence.
Once they have gotten the ball into that zone between the centre square and the centre of the 50 metre line, you are in serious trouble. So you need to stop them first.
Good analysis, I like this.
I do wonder how much "daylight" the Cats have, to paraphrase Paul Roos. What actually happens when they meet the Saints might be a bit like the Irresistible Force meeting the Immovable Object.
OLB wrote:Seeing as you're watching old tapes, have a look at our first quarter against the Eagles in 07.
As I mentioned on the previous page you'll see clear similarities to the way we're playing now in terms of our movement of the footy, our pressure on the ball-carrier and our suffocating of the opposition within their 50.
The problem was those periods when we played like that were too few and far between.
Now, due to a number of reasons, mostly fitness, we're relentless in our attack on the ball and are able to maintain it for four quarters.
This is where Misson has been absolutely crucial. This from him -
"Because we are working really hard during games, the guys need to be fresh going into games," he said. "I think you're better off being a little bit underdone going into a game rather than overdone.
"The days of having big sessions during the week to improve fitness, I think, are gone.
"The coach (Ross Lyon) is obviously doing what he needs to do in regards to structures and game plan, but there is a bit of a de-emphasis on volume during the week.
"We are doing a bit more in the weights room and off-legs conditioning, which doesn't tax the legs.
"What it is about is knowing where your players are at day to day . . . monitoring muscle soreness and health."
Misson has overseen two pre-seasons at the Saints after seven years at Sydney, where he turned the Swans into the most durable team in the competition.
Well, maybe, but I reckon (despite the howls of protest this comment will no doubt create), that Larcom and Starcevich were ok at their jobs too.
If I look at our team this season, I see a big group of players - Kosi, Lenny, Ball, BJ, Baker, Gardi plus Goose and Raph on the sidelines - who have all had major injuries (or, in the case of Raph, illnesses) that have hampered them in the past few seasons and which can't really be blamed on problems with conditioning.
It's not as if these problems have gone away since the advent of Misson and the exorcism of Larcom, Starcevich, GT and anyone else we want to demonise. Think Dempster, Allen, King, BJ in 2007, Baker in 2008, Max, X, etc.
A lot of it is luck. And, don't forget, the Swans play lots of games on the lush surface of the SCG, while the Saints have played the majority of their games in recent seasons on the slippery cement of the Dome.
A lot of it is definitely luck but we also have a lot of players who you could say are injury prone.
In regards to recovery though, it seems as though he's doing a great job. Since he's had control of the fitness department we've finished 4th and are now sitting on top of the ladder. Coincidence? Possibly.
Misson's challenge will be to keep getting the boys up from game to game as it's obvious ours is a taxing style of footy and we'll need to be supremely fit to execute it in September.
Last edited by Beej on Mon 11 May 2009 1:42pm, edited 2 times in total.
Hugh Drod wrote:just a thought but if it took Rossy 2 years to teach us to get numbers back then why do people think that Grant could have switched it on overnight?
also I don't think witht he injurys we had that we would have been fit enough to do it anyway.
anyway its 2009 and were winning
A few numbers/midfielders behind the ball, with Blake in the ruck does not require much thinking or expertise to initiate and in no way does this compare in real terms to the overall team structure and systems that Lyon has implemented all over the ground!
meher baba wrote:
Well, maybe, but I reckon (despite the howls of protest this comment will no doubt create), that Larcom and Starcevich were ok at their jobs too.
.
Starcevich would have been great yes.
But fact is he never moved to Melbourne....his wife put her foot down ...and so after flirting with us he stayed in Brisbane.
At least that was better than Cox....for Starc actually spent some time with us.
But while we did have him wiggling on the line we never actually landed him.
Flying the World in comfort thanks to FF Points....
meher baba wrote:
Well, maybe, but I reckon (despite the howls of protest this comment will no doubt create), that Larcom and Starcevich were ok at their jobs too.
.
Starcevich would have been great yes.
But fact is he never moved to Melbourne....his wife put her foot down ...and so after flirting with us he stayed in Brisbane.
At least that was better than Cox....for Starc actually spent some time with us.
But while we did have him wiggling on the line we never actually landed him.
I dont think bomber Thompson lives in geelong so it shouldnt matter where the fitness guy lives.
meher baba wrote:
Well, maybe, but I reckon (despite the howls of protest this comment will no doubt create), that Larcom and Starcevich were ok at their jobs too.
.
Starcevich would have been great yes.
But fact is he never moved to Melbourne....his wife put her foot down ...and so after flirting with us he stayed in Brisbane.
At least that was better than Cox....for Starc actually spent some time with us.
But while we did have him wiggling on the line we never actually landed him.
I dont think bomber Thompson lives in geelong so it shouldnt matter where the fitness guy lives.
Gee, I don't know about this!! I think sRr is right in suggesting that Starch needed to make up his mind which State he wanted to live in. Which he did, and we are therefore better off without him.
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."
- Jonathan Swift
Hugh Drod wrote:just a thought but if it took Rossy 2 years to teach us to get numbers back then why do people think that Grant could have switched it on overnight?
also I don't think witht he injurys we had that we would have been fit enough to do it anyway.
anyway its 2009 and were winning
A few numbers/midfielders behind the ball, with Blake in the ruck does not require much thinking or expertise to initiate and in no way does this compare in real terms to the overall team structure and systems that Lyon has implemented all over the ground!
Which ones, who's okay to leave their man to zone off? What game situations should we implement this? What's the breakout strategy with the ball?
Thomas flirted with flooding near the end of his tenure, and with tempo football. The Saints were not great at the former and woeful at the latter. At the time I strongly would have agreed these were two things we needed to be better at. Given two years of seeing us learn them, there's no point trying to say that we'd have won more if we'd started doing them in mid-05/mid-06... we can't have our cake and eat it too.
"Everything comes to he who hustles while he waits"
- Henry Ford
