Ross Lyon needs to go NOW !!!

[aussiejones]

Some people are never happy .Ross has done an amazing job...still unfinished business .

[rodgerfox]

Credit must go to John Barker too.

We couldn't score when he was with us, now Hawthorn can't score with him there.

[rodgerfox]

Some people are never happy .Ross has done an amazing job...still unfinished business .

Amazing would mean we have a flag.

Good job is what he's done. Nothing more, nothing less.


However, this being his 4th year he runs the risk of going from doing a good job to being a massive failure if we don't win a flag soon.

[bozza1980]

Credit must go to John Barker too.

We couldn't score when he was with us, now Hawthorn can't score with him there.

What is the opposite of the Midas Touch??

[bigred]

mean what were these specific instructions and directions?
How did they step in that made the cliamed change?

Yes I am curious also....

[markp]

Credit must go to John Barker too.

We couldn't score when he was with us, now Hawthorn can't score with him there.

What is the opposite of the Midas Touch??

The Kiss of Death?

[saintsRrising]

Still waiting on all these Board Directions to Lyon?

[rodgerfox]

My mail is that the Board 'strongly suggested' to Ross Lyon that the game plan needed to be altered.

It needed to be more attacking. They felt it was too defensive, and not marketable and more importantly wasn't going to win games.


They were right too.


Another pivotal moment was the recruitment of Leigh Tudor from Geelong. As I've said for years, all game plans rely on every player giving 110% intensity. And, the players on the park being capable of carrying it out for 100 minutes.

This is where Tudor's brainchild of 'Saints Footy' became very important. Getting the players to buy in to that level of commitment is the key - because for whatever reason they weren't getting it from above.

[Dr Spaceman]

There are certainly some similarities between Ross Lyon's AFL coaching career and Clint Jones' AFL playing career.

Many wrote both off a couple of years ago and now most, if not all, of those people love having RL in charge and CJ in the 22.

The story here is not so much who is right and who is wrong but rather that we shouldn't be too quick to write people off.

Everyone deserves a chance (which is why I will not make a call on the likes of Adam Pattison at this early stage of his Saints career )

[saintsRrising]

My mail is that the Board 'strongly suggested' to Ross Lyon that the game plan needed to be altered.

It needed to be more attacking. They felt it was too defensive, and not marketable and more importantly wasn't going to win games

They were right too...

So your "mai"l is just what was in the press then...though I strongly doubt that Board told Lyon that his gameplan was not going to win games.

And you have no actual knowledge about exactly what was said, or in any real direction being given? I doubt that you would, for I strongly doybt that any specific instructions would have been given.

The Board saying that more goals etc would be nice, is not really giving any direction. It is just expressing what some fans wanted.

Face it Rodge the Board has not given Lyon any specific instructions on how the team should actually play the game.

One of the biggest myths in football is that Lyon does not want to score goals. He does, and he has said it all along. He is just not willing to sacrifice his overall gameplan to achieve it. Players have had to adapt, and he has tinkered with it...but the bedrock of the St Kilda gameplan is still very much built on executing a very strong team defence.

With skill levels down in recent weeks this has lookeedmore defensive than it should though, even allowing for the loss of Roo and Gram.

Another pivotal moment was the recruitment of Leigh Tudor from Geelong. As I've said for years, all game plans rely on every player giving 110% intensity. And, the players on the park being capable of carrying it out for 100 minutes.

This is where Tudor's brainchild of 'Saints Footy' became very important. Getting the players to buy in to that level of commitment is the key - because for whatever reason they weren't getting it from above.

Tudors branchild was "Saints Footy"???

If Tudor was not contributing I would be very worried. He was not brought in to twiddle his thumbs.

You really really really have trouble giving any credit to Lyon at all don't you.


Tudor was not at the Club when Dal was dropped.. It was after that that the whole team became engaged. Others like Blake Roo etc bought in earlier to Saints Footy. Some took longer..others like Fiora and Ball never did completely.

You do know that Lyon wanted Tudor don't you?

You do know that Lyon has stated that they specifically targetted him.

You do know that Lyon confronted the Board about rectifying the player conditioning problem at St Kilda?

[meher baba]

There are certainly some similarities between Ross Lyon's AFL coaching career and Clint Jones' AFL playing career.

Many wrote both off a couple of years ago and now most, if not all, of those people love having RL in charge and CJ in the 22.

The story here is not so much who is right and who is wrong but rather that we shouldn't be too quick to write people off.

Everyone deserves a chance (which is why I will not make a call on the likes of Adam Pattison at this early stage of his Saints career )

Having been one of those whose face has been egged by both Mr Jones and Mr Lyon, I agree with you 100%.

[rodgerfox]

My mail is that the Board 'strongly suggested' to Ross Lyon that the game plan needed to be altered.

It needed to be more attacking. They felt it was too defensive, and not marketable and more importantly wasn't going to win games

They were right too...

So your "mai"l is just what was in the press then...though I strongly doubt that Board told Lyon that his gameplan was not going to win games.

And you have no actual knowledge about exactly what was said, or in any real direction being given? I doubt that you would, for I strongly doybt that any specific instructions would have been given.

The Board saying that more goals etc would be nice, is not really giving any direction. It is just expressing what some fans wanted.

Face it Rodge the Board has not given Lyon any specific instructions on how the team should actually play the game.

One of the biggest myths in football is that Lyon does not want to score goals. He does, and he has said it all along. He is just not willing to sacrifice his overall gameplan to achieve it. Players have had to adapt, and he has tinkered with it...but the bedrock of the St Kilda gameplan is still very much built on executing a very strong team defence.

With skill levels down in recent weeks this has lookeedmore defensive than it should though, even allowing for the loss of Roo and Gram.

Another pivotal moment was the recruitment of Leigh Tudor from Geelong. As I've said for years, all game plans rely on every player giving 110% intensity. And, the players on the park being capable of carrying it out for 100 minutes.

This is where Tudor's brainchild of 'Saints Footy' became very important. Getting the players to buy in to that level of commitment is the key - because for whatever reason they weren't getting it from above.

Tudors branchild was "Saints Footy"???

If Tudor was not contributing I would be very worried. He was not brought in to twiddle his thumbs.

You really really really have trouble giving any credit to Lyon at all don't you.


Tudor was not at the Club when Dal was dropped.. It was after that that the whole team became engaged. Others like Blake Roo etc bought in earlier to Saints Footy. Some took longer..others like Fiora and Ball never did completely.

You do know that Lyon wanted Tudor don't you?

You do know that Lyon has stated that they specifically targetted him.

You do know that Lyon confronted the Board about rectifying the player conditioning problem at St Kilda?

I'm not sure why you directed 90% of that at me.

I received mail from a source, that the Board 'officially' nudged Lyon to alter the game plan that he bought to the club.

This happened just before the 09 pre-season.

The 'Dal dropping' didn't trigger anything - except for Dal cracking the shiits.
Getting players back is what helped the latter part of the 08 season.

It was the 09 pre-season when the club got fair dinkum internally.




Why you bothered with the rest of that post is a mystery to me.

[plugger66]

Well my mail is the board did speak to RL but it has nothing to do with game plan or style of game or anything on the field at all. It was to do with the lack of players and support staff available to the TV stations and radio.

[saintsRrising]

I received mail from a source, that the Board 'officially' nudged Lyon to alter the game plan that he bought to the club.
.

A gameplan that has been evolving throughout his tenure...

Boards interact with the coaches from time to time and sometimes in more animated ways...Just look at the vision of Kennet and Clarkson last week...

Lyon is still the one pulling the levers football wise. The Board is just doing what Boards do. Boards and coaches interacting is what should be happening at a healthy club. Unlike what was occurring not long ago.


I wonder how many of those bagging Lyon for not being attacking enough, or the team not kicking enough goals are also unhappy about Lyon tring to have Lovett make the team.....

[saintsRrising]

Well my mail is the board did speak to RL but it has nothing to do with game plan or style of game or anything on the field at all. It was to do with the lack of players and support staff available to the TV stations and radio.

They have certainly been more available since then.


From the previous years AGM (ie 2 back) (source Enricco Misso)

Question from Ken
You spoke of being under the radar, but one journalist described us as the equal worst club in terms of media access.

Archie Fraser
Hawthorn was equal worst and Geelong the year before so it is not all bad.
Seriously Ross has spoken with us after the season and recognised we need to do more to market the club. We met with Ch 7 and Ch 10 and newspapers.
Some journos can now call Ross direct.
Other examples are the recent double page spreads on Ross and the Nick tattoo piece.

[Quixote]

Credit must go to John Barker too.

We couldn't score when he was with us, now Hawthorn can't score with him there.

Ahh John Barker.

Was quite happy to see him depart - there was a funny thread on here about it too I recall which if pulled up would contain plenty of eggings - how have the Hawks been tracking since JB's arrival?

[SainterK]

Personally for me, I saw the attacking footy under GT like a water tap turned fully on. Ross Lyon came along and he turned it off really tightly.

Some may argue he almost broke the washer, however I think he did this purposefully so that when he got around to turning the tap back on, it didn't gush.

[rodgerfox]

Personally for me, I saw the attacking footy under GT like a water tap turned fully on. Ross Lyon came along and he turned it off really tightly.

Some may argue he almost broke the washer, however I think he did this purposefully so that when he got around to turning the tap back on, it didn't gush.

Just so the record books don't get re-written as usual - we were 11th for 'Least Points Against' in 2004. Not very good.

We improved to 3rd in 2005 (which included 2 finals).

Then in 2006 we improved to 2nd (including 1 final).

Then, in 2007 we fell to 5th.

In 2008 we fell to 9th.


By 2009 we were first in this stat. But were beaten in the GF by the team that finished 1st in the 'Most Points For' stat.

[SainterK]

Personally for me, I saw the attacking footy under GT like a water tap turned fully on. Ross Lyon came along and he turned it off really tightly.

Some may argue he almost broke the washer, however I think he did this purposefully so that when he got around to turning the tap back on, it didn't gush.

Just so the record books don't get re-written as usual - we were 11th for 'Least Points Against' in 2004. Not very good.

We improved to 3rd in 2005 (which included 2 finals).

Then in 2006 we improved to 2nd (including 1 final).

Then, in 2007 we fell to 5th.

In 2008 we fell to 9th.


By 2009 we were first in this stat. But were beaten in the GF by the team that finished 1st in the 'Most Points For' stat.

I didn't say that the boys embraced it fully, just that I think that it was the approach.

[rodgerfox]

Personally for me, I saw the attacking footy under GT like a water tap turned fully on. Ross Lyon came along and he turned it off really tightly.

Some may argue he almost broke the washer, however I think he did this purposefully so that when he got around to turning the tap back on, it didn't gush.

Just so the record books don't get re-written as usual - we were 11th for 'Least Points Against' in 2004. Not very good.

We improved to 3rd in 2005 (which included 2 finals).

Then in 2006 we improved to 2nd (including 1 final).

Then, in 2007 we fell to 5th.

In 2008 we fell to 9th.


By 2009 we were first in this stat. But were beaten in the GF by the team that finished 1st in the 'Most Points For' stat.

I didn't say that the boys embraced it fully, just that I think that it was the approach.

I was merely pointing out the myth that we were some sort of all out attack team with no defensive side. That's all.

As I said, history has a habit of being re-written around here.

[SainterK]

Personally for me, I saw the attacking footy under GT like a water tap turned fully on. Ross Lyon came along and he turned it off really tightly.

Some may argue he almost broke the washer, however I think he did this purposefully so that when he got around to turning the tap back on, it didn't gush.

Just so the record books don't get re-written as usual - we were 11th for 'Least Points Against' in 2004. Not very good.

We improved to 3rd in 2005 (which included 2 finals).

Then in 2006 we improved to 2nd (including 1 final).

Then, in 2007 we fell to 5th.

In 2008 we fell to 9th.


By 2009 we were first in this stat. But were beaten in the GF by the team that finished 1st in the 'Most Points For' stat.

I didn't say that the boys embraced it fully, just that I think that it was the approach.

I was merely pointing out the myth that we were some sort of all out attack team with no defensive side. That's all.

As I said, history has a habit of being re-written around here.

No probs, I have read that opinion on here often so I understand where you're coming from.

[bigcarl]

With Riewoldt and Gram injured, we are drifting back to playing the way we did in 2007 and early 2008. I think this indicates a bit of a problem with the Lyon game plan: it's fantastic at getting the most possible out of our list with all of our top players available, but some of the second stringers reallly struggle to get the hang of it.

i was a rather harsh lyon critic early on, but i did always say i'd judge him on our performance. an outstanding 2009 won me over.

on your point above mb, going on the interview in the "lyon on walsh" thread, ross is very aware that there is work to do on the offensive side of our game.

[saintsRrising]

Interesting.... this was meant to be a thread taking the p*ss...


But at least for some the "Sack Lyon" call obviously still beats strong....

The "blog" I posted I thought quite amusing. But for some it is more it would seem a call to arms...

[saintsRrising]

As I've posted on here before, the tactics Lyon used in 2007 and 2008 are what I would call "SCG" tactics. That ground is so small and wide that you can crowd 18 players back, win a turnover, and then have some players spread out as receivers and simultaneously have others run quickly up the guts to the attacking 50.

.

The Saints were nothing like the Swans then.

Don't believe me...well here is some other posters that compared the Saints and Swans in a recent BigFooty thread on the issue..

Thats why u think they're similar ?

For christ sake they're absolutely nothing like each other.

Sydney's was based almost purely on one on one contested footy for starters, plus controlling the speed of the game. Getting numbers to a contest to even out the effect of a lack of stars then relying on an all round team game.

In case u missed it the aints dont do anything remotely similar..essentially a zone stand off defensive game with lines across the paddock wing to wing.


Just because u want to denegrate their performances and want to claim a weak moral high ground by pretending to be more "exciting" doesnt make them similar in the slightest.


Every single team in the game floods...


Never been any point having stars if u cant play as a team.

Nothing similar.
ALL teams flood like a bitch or lose.
ALL teams try to get numbers around a contest unless comfortably in front.
MANY teams are trying to play a similar gameplan to the aints but they just dont have the discipline.
MOST teams who people think are more "exciting" to watch would love to have a mature list able to execute the gameplan...the games that seem more open style and exciting to the kiddies are generally speaking between bottom 8 clubs.
To be a good team capable of winning a flag u must be able to combine gameplans these days ..Geelong flood like a bitch and try to get numbers to the contest like anyone else but rarely NEED to. If they continue to travel maybe 60/40 this season they will NEED to and will.

It takes an amazingly fit team to play tidal wave footy these days...doggies play it they all play it...u watch it from the stands its as though entire lists from both clubs just travel one side to the other...in other era's they called it flooding or the modern euphemism when u dont like that term applied to your mob is "getting numbers behind the ball"

So much utter rubbish written about Sydney around the 2004/7 era..the game evolves amazingly fast fromk yr to yr right now and the aints arnt even close to playing a similar style...not in the least bit like it.

You want to link the two simply because they are terrific at applying pressure to the ball carrier and next receiver then better group all teams in it.

Guys, why do you find it so hard to understand the Swans game style from circa 05/06? It didn't involve flooding the backline nor did it involve any type of mass zoning as we are seeing today.

It was simply man on man contested football all over the ground

Football and gameplans continue to evolve.

However Lyon never rolled out the Swans former gameplan at the Saints.

Since arriving Lyon has continued to evolve the St Kilda Gameplan and again this year we have seen changes.

Sometimes just week to week such as the structures put in place to counter Hall, and the Dogs counter-tactics which ultimately cost them dearly.

Have the Saints gotten better and better at it? Yes with practice and committment they have and in mid 08 it all really started to gel.
Though for some they would rather believe it was all due to the Board telling Lyon how to play.

Have you ever sung in a Choir MB?

If you have you will know that early on that it all sounds pretty ordinary. Often with huge clashes here and then.

But slowly everyone gets it...and then all ofa sudden it all just clicks and the Choir starts sounding like a Choir. More practice again as everyone masters their role and beautiful music is the result.

Team football under Lyon was no different. It just took a while for all the players sing off the same hymn sheet.

[rodgerfox]

As I've posted on here before, the tactics Lyon used in 2007 and 2008 are what I would call "SCG" tactics. That ground is so small and wide that you can crowd 18 players back, win a turnover, and then have some players spread out as receivers and simultaneously have others run quickly up the guts to the attacking 50.

.

The Saints were nothing like the Swans then.

Don't believe me...well here is some other posters that compared the Saints and Swans in a recent BigFooty thread on the issue..

Thats why u think they're similar ?

For christ sake they're absolutely nothing like each other.

Sydney's was based almost purely on one on one contested footy for starters, plus controlling the speed of the game. Getting numbers to a contest to even out the effect of a lack of stars then relying on an all round team game.

In case u missed it the aints dont do anything remotely similar..essentially a zone stand off defensive game with lines across the paddock wing to wing.


Just because u want to denegrate their performances and want to claim a weak moral high ground by pretending to be more "exciting" doesnt make them similar in the slightest.


Every single team in the game floods...


Never been any point having stars if u cant play as a team.

Nothing similar.
ALL teams flood like a bitch or lose.
ALL teams try to get numbers around a contest unless comfortably in front.
MANY teams are trying to play a similar gameplan to the aints but they just dont have the discipline.
MOST teams who people think are more "exciting" to watch would love to have a mature list able to execute the gameplan...the games that seem more open style and exciting to the kiddies are generally speaking between bottom 8 clubs.
To be a good team capable of winning a flag u must be able to combine gameplans these days ..Geelong flood like a bitch and try to get numbers to the contest like anyone else but rarely NEED to. If they continue to travel maybe 60/40 this season they will NEED to and will.

It takes an amazingly fit team to play tidal wave footy these days...doggies play it they all play it...u watch it from the stands its as though entire lists from both clubs just travel one side to the other...in other era's they called it flooding or the modern euphemism when u dont like that term applied to your mob is "getting numbers behind the ball"

So much utter rubbish written about Sydney around the 2004/7 era..the game evolves amazingly fast fromk yr to yr right now and the aints arnt even close to playing a similar style...not in the least bit like it.

You want to link the two simply because they are terrific at applying pressure to the ball carrier and next receiver then better group all teams in it.

Guys, why do you find it so hard to understand the Swans game style from circa 05/06? It didn't involve flooding the backline nor did it involve any type of mass zoning as we are seeing today.

It was simply man on man contested football all over the ground

Close the case.

Three deadbeats from BigFooty agree with SrR. The evidence is overwhelming.