Ross Lyon: One on One

[joffaboy]

Most of our list hadn't been around for 4 years back then.

Thompson
Powell
Gehrig
Harvey
Max
Lenny
Hamill
Roo
Kosi
Aussie Jones
Guerra

all off the top of my head had been around since 2001 - probably two or three more.

[Milton66]

Most of our list hadn't been around for 4 years back then.

Thompson
Powell
Gehrig
Harvey
Max
Lenny
Hamill
Roo
Kosi
Aussie Jones
Guerra

all off the top of my head had been around since 2001 - probably two or three more.

Firstly, why has this thread become a comparison?

Secondly...
from the list above, Roo Kosi and possibly Guerra had less than 4 years experience.


RL's philosophy is that it takes up to 4 years. He uses the term "apprenticship", but he's also encouraged players to step up (Dal, Joey. McQualter). So what's the problem.

seems like another excuse to bait posters, and then feign a "sigh"...

I'm still waiting on the alternatives RF believes are better.

From what I've seen this year... whatever RL subscribes to has work pretty well.

[joffaboy]

Roo, Kosi, and I think Guerra had their first season in 2001, so 2004 would have been their fourth.

[yipper]

Most of our list hadn't been around for 4 years back then.

Thompson
Powell
Gehrig
Harvey
Max
Lenny
Hamill
Roo
Kosi
Aussie Jones
Guerra

all off the top of my head had been around since 2001 - probably two or three more.

Firstly, why has this thread become a comparison?

Secondly...
from the list above, Roo Kosi and possibly Guerra had less than 4 years experience.


RL's philosophy is that it takes up to 4 years. He uses the term "apprenticship", but he's also encouraged players to step up (Dal, Joey. McQualter). So what's the problem.

seems like another excuse to bait posters, and then feign a "sigh"...

I'm still waiting on the alternatives RF believes are better.

From what I've seen this year... whatever RL subscribes to has work pretty well.

Exactly. What Lyon has said is "on average, it takes 4 years to develop into an AFL player - UNLESS YOU ARE SOMEONE SPECIAL!!" Can't see how much clearer that needs to be, unless there is an agenda to try and nitpick every little thing or quote this particular coach does or utters.

[rodgerfox]

Exactly. What Lyon has said is "on average, it takes 4 years to develop into an AFL player - UNLESS YOU ARE SOMEONE SPECIAL!!" Can't see how much clearer that needs to be, unless there is an agenda to try and nitpick every little thing or quote this particular coach does or utters.

Nice Ross Coloured Glasses you're wearing there.

What he said was (and if you're going to quotation marks, you're actually meant to quote what they say, not make it up or lie about it)....

"To become a good AFL player you’ve got to do a strong apprenticeship, unless you’re absolutely special. "

I disagree with this. I think it's nonsense. Hundreds of players have been good without playing for 4 years.

It's a silly theory. In all honesty, the only logic behind saying this would be to protect young guys from criticism early on in their careers. To buy them some time.
It's a good ploy in that regard, but in essence what he's actually saying is nonsense.

[SainterK]

Is Clint Jones a good example though, he had been playing in the WAFL for years hadn't he....and wasn't exactly young when picked up by the Saints?

[Milton66]

Nice Ross Coloured Glasses you're wearing there.

What he said was (and if you're going to quotation marks, you're actually meant to quote what they say, not make it up or lie about it)....

"To become a good AFL player you’ve got to do a strong apprenticeship, unless you’re absolutely special. "

I disagree with this. I think it's nonsense. Hundreds of players have been good without playing for 4 years.

It's a silly theory. In all honesty, the only logic behind saying this would be to protect young guys from criticism early on in their careers. To buy them some time.
It's a good ploy in that regard, but in essence what he's actually saying is nonsense.

ok, so you quote RL correctly, then you say that 4 years is nonsense. So what's the issue. According to your quote, RL didn't say 4 years.

I just think you like being anti-Ross just so you can stir up a few people.

You say you're 31, yet carry on like a 6 year old, on apublic forum. Now if you want some cred and proer discussion, back up your views with facts.

I notice that you selectively ignore any posts that expose your stupifity. So how about you get some balls andback up your criticisms with fact?

[Milton66]

Nice Ross Coloured Glasses you're wearing there.

What he said was (and if you're going to quotation marks, you're actually meant to quote what they say, not make it up or lie about it)....

"To become a good AFL player you’ve got to do a strong apprenticeship, unless you’re absolutely special. "

I disagree with this. I think it's nonsense. Hundreds of players have been good without playing for 4 years.

It's a silly theory. In all honesty, the only logic behind saying this would be to protect young guys from criticism early on in their careers. To buy them some time.
It's a good ploy in that regard, but in essence what he's actually saying is nonsense.

ok, so you quote RL correctly, then you say that 4 years is nonsense. So what's the issue. According to your quote, RL didn't say 4 years.

I just think you like being anti-Ross just so you can stir up a few people.

You say you're 31, yet carry on like a 6 year old, on apublic forum. Now if you want some cred and proer discussion, back up your views with facts.

I notice that you selectively ignore any posts that expose your stupifity. So how about you get some balls andback up your criticisms with fact?

It's like that stupid post where you listed players who won the rising star. Got shot down and flames, then cowered off as is your want... only to resurface when someone makes a post that is an easier target.

[SydneySainter]

Yes I would've thought that Lyon's meaning was more than obvious.

I nkow what his comments are.

He's stuck with this line the entire time he's been in charge.

I just don't happen to agree with it.


Doesn't mean I hate him, doesn't mean anything other than I don't agree with him. I think it's nonsense.

Although as is clearly apparent, disagreeing with Ross Lyon is a federal crime on here.

Roger, don't beat around the bush, we all know you're not a Lyon fan and nor will you ever be. You labeled him as a dud very early on in the piece and nothing will change your point of view. Even if he were to become St Kilda's second premiership coach, you would still argue that it was the players that won the flag and his influence was incidental. You've made your opinion known many times this year, a lot of your posts suggesting that the players are practically self-coached and that we over-rate Lyon's influence, but when we lose, you can't comment on his flaws as a coach quickly enough. But when a similar suggestion was raised that the playing group under Thomas was self-coached, you immediately dismissed it as rubbish.

Be honest Roger, it's obvious that you don't like him and frankly, it's your opinion and your entitled it. It's a forum where the freedom to voice your opinion is encouraged and you do so, nothing wrong with that and while it's obvious that other's share your view, there are those that don't and they're simply voicing their opinions as well.

No one is saying that you have to agree with Lyon, you speak your mind and others speak theirs. That's the whole point of a forum.

[saintsRrising]

"To become a good AFL player you’ve got to do a strong apprenticeship, unless you’re absolutely special. "

I disagree with this. I think it's nonsense. Hundreds of players have been good without playing for 4 years.

.

But the vast of majority of players are not at AFL standard when they first play.

One of the truisms of football is that most players need 50 AFL games (more than 2 years just there) before they know what they are on about at the top level.

Add to that a year or two to find your feet prior and you are thereabouts in the 4 year range.


Anyway this whole distortion of what Lyon said and why he said it is just a silly attack on Lyon.


Lyon was to put in context justifying why some players are kept on the list a while to develop them even if they are not getting senior games.

Fact is also that we now have a pretty good first 22....so only an exceptional kid would now crack it for a game...

Whatever kid we take with our first pick this year is not likely to be in the team in Round playing most of the year.

Despite this Lyon and our other coaches will have the faith in that player to give him an EXTENDED crack at becoming an AFL footballer and will develop him as much a they can skill-wise and workrate-wise.

Someone like Geary is a case in point. Selected as a rookie..developed..given some games..sent back...more games..and after another pre-season will be having a crack at playing more senior football as a better and more mature player.

RF's supposed argument is farcial.

Just because a kid is given AFL games does not mean that he is playing football at the level required to be a competent AFL footballer.

The Dees played Jack Watts this year..and his games were poor. Is Jack Watts a poor footballer? Most likely not...he is just on his path to becoming an AFL footballer..maybe even a very good one.


In addition there is the small matter of actually trying to wina flag. Team such as the saints who are genuine contenders are going to mainly play players who are ready here and now. this does not mean that they are not developing footballers that are playing in their seconds.

Whereas teams with no chance may try and accelerate their juniors with senior games that they are not really ready for, or are deserving of. Players like Robbo get squeezed out...not because they are not good enough for next year...but because the will not be there in several years time when the Dees are looking to be a finals threat.


Expecting most players to be taken as kids in the main draft and wheeled out in the seniors in a professional competition like the AFL is simply just a silly and naive concept...or perhaps more simply just a poster out fora Troll.

[Milton66]

^^ there endeth the argument IMO ^^

[rodgerfox]

RF's supposed argument is farcial.

Just because a kid is given AFL games does not mean that he is playing football at the level required to be a competent AFL footballer.

WTF??

Who's this RF you refer to?

Who the hell has ever argued that??

[rodgerfox]

^^ there endeth the argument IMO ^^

Endeth what argument??

It has nothing to do with anything that I've said, or any opinions I've put forward.

[asiu]

fair **** dinkum

i dont see u as a lyon hater mr fox ... but maybe i just appreciate reading others opinions ....**** if i know

keep goin ffs .... dont leave me here by myself whatever ya do

[Milton66]

Nice Ross Coloured Glasses you're wearing there.

What he said was (and if you're going to quotation marks, you're actually meant to quote what they say, not make it up or lie about it)....

"To become a good AFL player you’ve got to do a strong apprenticeship, unless you’re absolutely special. "

I disagree with this. I think it's nonsense. Hundreds of players have been good without playing for 4 years.

It's a silly theory. In all honesty, the only logic behind saying this would be to protect young guys from criticism early on in their careers. To buy them some time.
It's a good ploy in that regard, but in essence what he's actually saying is nonsense.

FFS, can you not read your own posts man?

You correct another poster and tell them to quote correctly.

You then post the exact quote by RL.

Then you contradict yourself by saying that RL said it was 4 years... which according to your "exact" quote does not mention 4 years.

Feel free to disagree by all means, but your argument has been blon apart by SR's argument. Simple.

So perhaps explain why you believe what RL says is nonsense, and then back it up with an alternative.

Your failure to do so despite numerous requests simply exposes you for the imbecile that you are.

[rodgerfox]

Nice Ross Coloured Glasses you're wearing there.

What he said was (and if you're going to quotation marks, you're actually meant to quote what they say, not make it up or lie about it)....

"To become a good AFL player you’ve got to do a strong apprenticeship, unless you’re absolutely special. "

I disagree with this. I think it's nonsense. Hundreds of players have been good without playing for 4 years.

It's a silly theory. In all honesty, the only logic behind saying this would be to protect young guys from criticism early on in their careers. To buy them some time.
It's a good ploy in that regard, but in essence what he's actually saying is nonsense.

FFS, can you not read your own posts man?

You correct another poster and tell them to quote correctly.

You then post the exact quote by RL.

Then you contradict yourself by saying that RL said it was 4 years... which according to your "exact" quote does not mention 4 years.

I quoted Lyon's exact words to highlight the inaccuracy in that particular post.

My reference to '4 years' isn't aimed at Lyon's recent comment. It's in relation to his theory on the '4 year apprenticeship' that he has spoken about many times since he's taken over as coach.

Clear? Make sense? Get it?

Feel free to disagree by all means, but your argument has been blon apart by SR's argument. Simple.

I don't see how it does. It doesn't address my 'argument' one iota. It makes no reference to anything I've said on the matter at all. It makes reference to some mythical entity called RF who apparently said somewhere that 'just because a kid is given AFL games means that he is playing football at the level required to be a competent AFL footballer.'

If that was my argument, then perhaps it had been blown away. The problem is that isn't my argument at all. Never has been, never will be. I've never said anythying remotely close to that.


How on earth you feel it blows my argument apart is beyond me. It has nothing to do with that I've written anywhere on the subject.

So perhaps explain why you believe what RL says is nonsense, and then back it up with an alternative.

I have.

If you bothered to read any posts, you'd be able to see that I've been very clear on why I disagree with it.

Your failure to do so despite numerous requests simply exposes you for the imbecile that you are.

The irony is rich. See my above response.


Seriously Wayne, you're getting worse by the day. You're barely coherant at all these days.

[rodgerfox]

Then you contradict yourself by saying that RL said it was 4 years...

Would you mind pointing out where I said that, you liar.

[Mr Magic]

Still waiting for the link(s) to where the people rodger/stool claims support his view on this topic actually publicly stated just that.
Then we'd know if his assertions (dressed up as facts as usual) were anything other than his normal attempt to hijack perfectly reasonable threads into fully fledged anti/pro RL arguments.

As usual rodger/stool just seems to post his 'baited hooks' without any factual backup.

Maybe just once he would deign to humour us all with facts rather than his myopic opinion of things masquerading as fact?

But then he wouldn't be able to push his trolling agenda then if he actually provided direct answers to direct questions, would he?

What's really perverse to me is his 'feigned indignation' when poster after poster recognizes his m.o. and 'calls' him on it.

'Who me' says this master baiter.

'Not I' says this sad little passionless internet personna.

'Sigh'
'You misread my posts'
'You're a liar'
'I knew after 3 months......'
'Sad'

There is something really sickening about an adult who derives pleasure from trying to manipulate others, no matter their intellectual level or age.
What kind of person has such a pathological need as this internet personna seems to have?
WHat kind of person creates an internet personna with this 'need'?

What a shallow unfullfilled life this internet hero must live if he spends his days trying to be the 'saintsational puppeteer'?
The Ron Blaskett of Saintsational to all of you old enough to remember Gerry Gee.

[Finna]

You all have way too much time on your hands! What sucker is paying you all to play these immature games with each other??

[Milton66]

Then you contradict yourself by saying that RL said it was 4 years...

Would you mind pointing out where I said that, you liar.

"To become a good AFL player you’ve got to do a strong apprenticeship, unless you’re absolutely special. "

I disagree with this. I think it's nonsense. Hundreds of players have been good without playing for 4 years.

[Milton66]

You all have way too much time on your hands! What sucker is paying you all to play these immature games with each other??

My customers pay me. Who pays you?

[rodgerfox]

Then you contradict yourself by saying that RL said it was 4 years...

Would you mind pointing out where I said that, you liar.

"To become a good AFL player you’ve got to do a strong apprenticeship, unless you’re absolutely special. "

I disagree with this. I think it's nonsense. Hundreds of players have been good without playing for 4 years.

I repeat, would you mind pointing where I said that?

Otherwise, come back and apologise for being a liar.

[yipper]

It's nonsense.

Obviously you'll be a better, more prepared player after 4 years in the system.
But to suggest that there is a clear 4 year apprenticeship before you can play AFL is laughable.

[Milton66]

Then you contradict yourself by saying that RL said it was 4 years...

Would you mind pointing out where I said that, you liar.

"To become a good AFL player you’ve got to do a strong apprenticeship, unless you’re absolutely special. "

I disagree with this. I think it's nonsense. Hundreds of players have been good without playing for 4 years.

I repeat, would you mind pointing where I said that?

Otherwise, come back and apologise for being a liar.

see above comment posted by you.

RL was not quoted as saying 4 years in this quote. But you are clearly saying that he did... and that you disagree.

Soory, but I do not apologise to mental midgets such as yourself.

nice try.

[SainterK]

Round and round and round we go, spinning in circles!