Good run with injury in '09 no accident

[joffaboy]

So logically injuries never cost us a flag under Thomas because he never coached St.Kilda to a Grnd Final.

You don't think that it's possible (or probable) that without injuries we would have won the prelim, and won the GF?

You can ask it of the PF we have evidence of that game or games. Maybe we may have won without injuries. In the PF's yes that is possible.

I cannot comment on a hypothetical Grand Final in 2004 or 2005.

I can comment on an ACTUAL Grand Final appearance in 2009.

[rodgerfox]

You are defeated RodgerFox, you have been played.

Just quickly, what do you mean by this?

"defeated"


What do you mean by "played" aswell?


I thought this was a discussion about whether or not injuries cost us a flag?

[SainterK]

I did read the thread. Dogs fans you've spoken to are pretty adamant that certain decisions cost them a flag.

How that at all qualifies your opinion, I will never know.

You are belittling a GF berth, IMO.

Maybe stay out of this one SainterK, cause it seems you're way off track with the discussion.

Sure, I'm going now.

Look forward to coming back later and reading all about how "under GT" we could of, should of, might of won the PF...

Then about how we could of, should of, might of then won the GF.

Have fun

[joffaboy]

.Technically

Yup... in this round of pedantic-semantic-ping-pong, rodge is wrong.

But he knows that, and is just trying to see how long he can draw it out with one arm behind his back.

yeah, well, I am in the midst of an issue at work which is tying up the computer so I am having a bit of fun.

[markp]

Therefore, injuries could not have cost us a flag, only the chance for a flag.

I think they cost us a flag.

Without injuries, we would have brained Sydney then we would have walloped West Coast.

Therefore, injuries and injuries alone, cost us a flag in 05 (and maybe 06 too).

Technically, that's frogsh!t.

[rodgerfox]

So logically injuries never cost us a flag under Thomas because he never coached St.Kilda to a Grnd Final.

You don't think that it's possible (or probable) that without injuries we would have won the prelim, and won the GF?

You can ask it of the PF we have evidence of that game or games. Maybe we may have won without injuries. In the PF's yes that is possible.

I cannot comment on a hypothetical Grand Final in 2004 or 2005.

I can comment on an ACTUAL Grand Final appearance in 2009.

So you don't have a tip for the flag this year? Don't do footy tipping cause you can only comment on actual games you've seen?

Strange. didn't have a tip for any of the finals last year? No opinion or view on what may transpire based on the season that has passed?

That's really strange for a footy fan to think like that.



As I said, I personally believe we would have killed Sydney and killed West Coast in 05 had we not been crippled by injury.

[joffaboy]

I thought this was a discussion about whether or not injuries cost us a flag?

Never cost us a flag because we never played in the grand Final to have an opportunity to win the flag under Thomas. We were beaten in two PF's, so we never played in the Grand Final.

Something cant cost you something you are incapable of having

[rodgerfox]

I thought this was a discussion about whether or not injuries cost us a flag?

Never cost us a flag because we never played in the grand Final to have an opportunity to win the flag under Thomas. We were beaten in two PF's, so we never played in the Grand Final.

Something cant cost you something you are incapable of having

But the question is, and has always been, had we not had injuries could have/would have we won the flag?

Would have/could have we beaten Sydney then could have/would have we beaten West Coast?


Again, no need for a half page weird message about winning, rats, straw men, hooting and stuff....

[meher baba]

I am confused with you bringing up the Dogs...

At this stage, Rodney Eade and Grant Thomas will have both coached their teams as far as a PF?

Are you talking to me?

And if you are, you'll need to much clearer. I have no idea whether you're asking a question, making a statement, or what it's even about.

I am stating that Grant Thomas and Rodney Eade are comparable as coaches, they have both coached as far as a PF.

Maybe you should be clearer, I am asking why you even brought up the dogs?

I thought Eade coached as far as a GF (1996, wasn't it?)

Eade, Thomas and Lyon are IMO all pretty good coaches: none of them have won a flag yet.

If we are only going to judge coaches on whether or not they have coached a team to a premiership, then Dennis Pagan is streets ahead of those three. Yet, quite rightly in my opinion, we chose Lyon when we could easily have had Pagan.

I reckon Mick Malthouse has been the best coach going around for quite some time, despite having never won a flag since leaving the Eagles aeons ago. He took a crap lineup at the Pies to two successive GFs against a vastly superior team and almost pulled off an upset in the first of them. He continues to have a pretty useless and overrated bunch of players to work with IMO and yet his team remains competitive season after season.

There must be a little bit more to judging a coach than GFs and premierships, the obvious one being: looking at the amount of talent they have to hand and how they use it. I would have thought that the team's run with injuries - which affects the amount of talent they have to hand- is a factor that should always be taken into consideration.

Does anyone on here think that we wouldn't have beaten the Swans in the 2005 PF if Sam Fisher, Aaron Hamill and Kosi had been fully fit?

I actually think it was an impressive performance by the team and the coach for us to remain competitive in that game for as long as we did given the injuries: indeed, even to get as far as the PF given the run we'd had through the season: basically never having both Kosi and Riewoldt fit at the same time, Hamill struggling for much of the year, Ball starting along his downward path.

Perhaps the injury problems were GT's responsibility: many posters on here believe so and this is indeed the point of the thread. But, in terms of getting his team up to win big matches, GT (or someone else in the box, perhaps the now despised Bundy) was actually a bloody good coach. Our unlucky loss to Port in 2004 was a great coaching performance IMO, and was surpassed by our win against the Crows the next year.

Under Lyon, we have played 3 PFs and 1 GF. The first 2 PFs were insipid performances. In the third PF, Eade pulled out a highly impressive coaching performance and we were extremely lucky to win. Judged purely on these three performances, you would have to say that Lyon still has a fair bit to learn as a coach in big games.

I thought that Lyon's coaching performance in the GF was first rate and far more attacking than against the Dogs (as had been the case in the game against the Cats earlier in the season). I am really hoping that that game will prove to be the making of Lyon as a coach and that he will now go from strength to strength.

Notice that I am trying to judge Lyon, and GT and Eade's coaching performances which, in my mind, takes a bit more work than saying "x is a better coach than y because x's team beat y's team". To my mind, that would be like saying that Tom Hawkins is a better full forward than Nick Riewoldt because Tom has a premiership and Nick doesn't.

But now I'm straying into the danger zone of the kerfuffle I created last year on this forum when I made the (to my mind) inocuous statement that "Eade outcoached Lyon in the PF".

[Milton66]

Does anyone on here think that we wouldn't have beaten the Swans in the 2005 PF if Sam Fisher, Aaron Hamill and Kosi had been fully fit?

We quite possibly would have. But that's not to say we would have won the flag.

Who's to say that the injuries may not have occured in the prelim if they did play?

If we didn't injuries during the year, would we have finished top 2 and therefore have totally different finals series.

This is why it's a dumb argument.

Too many subjective variables at play.

[joffaboy]

This is why it's a dumb argument.

Too many subjective variables at play.

Sure is dumb.

[joffaboy]

Therefore, injuries could not have cost us a flag, only the chance for a flag.

I think they cost us a flag.

Without injuries, we would have brained Sydney then we would have walloped West Coast.

Therefore, injuries and injuries alone, cost us a flag in 05 (and maybe 06 too).

Technically, that's frogsh!t.

lol - in RF bizarro world it is true.

Of course it is frogsh!t.

We did not play in either grand Finals so we had no oportunity to win them.

It can never be argued it cost us something we could not have after being eliminated in a PF or EF.

Really it is very amusing

[rodgerfox]

This is why it's a dumb argument.

The 'argument' was if we didn't have horror injuries.

So that pretty obviously means that they didn't get injured during the game, and were available for the GF.

Very, very simple.


Not much different from the 'if we had have kicked straight in the GF we would have won' argument.

[rodgerfox]

Therefore, injuries could not have cost us a flag, only the chance for a flag.

I think they cost us a flag.

Without injuries, we would have brained Sydney then we would have walloped West Coast.

Therefore, injuries and injuries alone, cost us a flag in 05 (and maybe 06 too).

Technically, that's frogsh!t.

lol - in RF bizarro world it is true.

It's not true.

It's a hypothetical.

[Milton66]

This is why it's a dumb argument.

Too many subjective variables at play.

Sure is dumb.

It is. Really.

Every moment in time is influenced by the actions taken in the preceding moments.

Technically, had we nailed one of our missed goals, we could well have lost the GF because the ball would have gone back to the middle, triggering a totally different sequence of play.

Had Luke Ball stayed on the field, what might his opponent have done?

Same with 05. who's to say that certain players may not have been injured during the game.. or even at training the next week?

All I can say is that RL gave us a better shot at winning a flag than GT on the basis that we made the GF under RL.

If you want to judge things in B&W.

I can't wait for 2010 to get started.

[Milton66]

This is why it's a dumb argument.

The 'argument' was if we didn't have horror injuries.

So that pretty obviously means that they didn't get injured during the game, and were available for the GF.

Very, very simple.


Not much different from the 'if we had have kicked straight in the GF we would have won' argument.

See my post above.

You cannot categorically state that they did or did not. If people believe they did, then good for them.

The end result is the culmination of the many concious decisions made throughout the season, and frankly I have no idea what they were.

[rodgerfox]

All I can say is that RL gave us a better shot at winning a flag than GT on the basis that we made the GF under RL.

Glad you brought that up again, because I'm yet to get an answer on a question I posed in relation to that very point....

Why did Lyon give us a better shot at it?


We've confirmed that GT controlled everything which made him a monster.

And that Lyon is a hero because he can just focus on coaching.

We've confirmed that he doesn't do the recruiting - just briefs his recruiters as to the type of player he wants.

He doesn't have anything to do with their fitness cause a coach isn't qualified to get involved in this area (although it seems Joffaboy thinks GT should have been keeping records on players' fitness).

So basically he is a match day coach. He has no input into the fitness of players (because this is clearly an area where the coach should butt out of) and he has no influence over the availability of the list.

He just coaches them.


So based on that, why are we saying 'Lyon got us to the GF'?

Why was it so important to hire a boss for him (Drain) if Lyon is responsible for 'getting us to a GF'?


So back to the core of the discussion, please can someone answer these questions for me?

Start with you Joffaboy, you were quite vocal but then managed to sidetrack the discussion just as you were going to answer the above questions that I'd previously asked of you......

[meher baba]

Personally, I reckon the reason we haven't won any flags in the 2000s because a Neanderthal family travelling through the Rhineland in 100,000 BC chose to camp at a particular site and was trampled to death by a mammoth, starting a chain of events that led inexorably to the appointment of Larcom, the GT-Butterss feud, Jeld-Wen's refusal to continuing to sponsor us if we recruited Ben Cousins and, most importantly, to the untimely birth of the goal umpire who failed to detect Hawkins's poster and brought Geelong back into the game at a critical moment.

But I'm probably being a bit too simplistic here.

[Milton66]

All I can say is that RL gave us a better shot at winning a flag than GT on the basis that we made the GF under RL.

Glad you brought that up again, because I'm yet to get an answer on a question I posed in relation to that very point....

Why did Lyon give us a better shot at it?


We've confirmed that GT controlled everything which made him a monster.

And that Lyon is a hero because he can just focus on coaching.

We've confirmed that he doesn't do the recruiting - just briefs his recruiters as to the type of player he wants.

He doesn't have anything to do with their fitness cause a coach isn't qualified to get involved in this area (although it seems Joffaboy thinks GT should have been keeping records on players' fitness).

So basically he is a match day coach. He has no input into the fitness of players (because this is clearly an area where the coach should butt out of) and he has no influence over the availability of the list.

He just coaches them.


So based on that, why are we saying 'Lyon got us to the GF'?

Why was it so important to hire a boss for him (Drain) if Lyon is responsible for 'getting us to a GF'?


So back to the core of the discussion, please can someone answer these questions for me?

Start with you Joffaboy, you were quite vocal but then managed to sidetrack the discussion just as you were going to answer the above questions that I'd previously asked of you......

No I didn't say all those things.

I see it as RL getting us closer becaus he coached us into a GF, where for the most part we were a strong chance of winning.

And before you say it, yes he has to take responsibility for the result.

Others can suit themselves.

[rodgerfox]

I see it as RL getting us closer becaus he coached us into a GF, where for the most part we were a strong chance of winning.

So the people who recruit the list, the people who get the players fit, the people who deal Ross Lyon's hand aren't the one's getting us closer?

You think Lyon got us closer, but all the people mentioned above, and on top of that - the players, don't play a far more crucial role?

[matrix]

could have would have might of in 2005?

hang on ill find out
back in a jiffy

[White Winmar]

So, now we've had 12 pages of debate, who thinks our good run with soft tissue injuries will continue? Who thinks we've just been plain lucky over the past season and a half? Contrary to what MB thinks, I did not start this thread with the intention of discussing the merits or faults of the previous coach. I just wanted to point out the the incumbent fitness team seems to be getting things right and I wondered what others might think. I should've known better. The mere mention of GT and the previous administration is a guarantee that a post will go off on a predictable tangent. For that, I apologise.

[Milton66]

I see it as RL getting us closer becaus he coached us into a GF, where for the most part we were a strong chance of winning.

So the people who recruit the list, the people who get the players fit, the people who deal Ross Lyon's hand aren't the one's getting us closer?

You think Lyon got us closer, but all the people mentioned above, and on top of that - the players, don't play a far more crucial role?

As stated... RL coached us to a GF. In the end, it is the sum total of all parts that get us there.

If we follow your logic, then...

Injuries cost us in 05, ok?

Who made the decisions to play certain players and recruit certain medical staff?

As you can see, it cannot be answered, which is why it's a dumb argument IMO.

[rodgerfox]

I see it as RL getting us closer becaus he coached us into a GF, where for the most part we were a strong chance of winning.

So the people who recruit the list, the people who get the players fit, the people who deal Ross Lyon's hand aren't the one's getting us closer?

You think Lyon got us closer, but all the people mentioned above, and on top of that - the players, don't play a far more crucial role?

As stated... RL coached us to a GF. In the end, it is the sum total of all parts that get us there.

Yeah, he coached us to a GF. He did not get us there.

If we follow your logic, then...

Injuries cost us in 05, ok?

Who made the decisions to play certain players and recruit certain medical staff?

It's not my 'logic'. It's my opinion.

Secondly, GT recruited the fitness dudes, and prior to each selection meeting was given a list of players that the doctors said were available.

[asiu]

12 already !!!

well done ww

I did not start this thread with the intention of discussing the merits or faults of the previous coach.

we all understand that

its andrews fault , as usual , everyone knows that ! ....he started it