No need to worry, Emma.

[barks4eva]

Great post Ross, but seriously don't worry about coming here trying to inform and educate clueless flogs like dodgy, shagless and their sympathizers,

just keep up the great work!



THANKS

[Teflon]

The premise behind Quayles "worry" over St Kilda's list in a year or 2 is founded on either:

1. we dont have the number of kids coming through
2. we dont have the quality of kids.

Whichever it is (and the second wont be known for years) it is a nothing, throw away line that on the surface looks reasonable till you actually look at our drafting..

2005 draft- Gilbert
2006 draft- Armitage, Geary, Eddy, Jones
2007 draft- McEvoy, Steven, Miles
2008 draft- Lynch, Stanley, Heyne, Cahill, Smith, Dawson, Gaertner, McGrath, Simpkin
2009 draft- Winmar, Johnson & 4 rookies to come

Now you can argue we have 12 less than 21 others have 16 and someone else can argue that's all good as long as ALL those draftees turn into succesful AFL players - reality is they wont.

Then it gets back to which club has the better development programs in place to ensure a better strike rate.......I am biased....but I also believe we are far better equipped in this area under Lyon than we have been for years.

You also have to overlay the discussion with what we gave up/lost for the recycled players to keep our list in the "premiership zone" - so far Lyon has excelled here......we havent given up a great deal and perhaps Lovett at 16 is line ball,.....in a weak draft some would say a steal (I know quite a few Essendon fans are dirty on this one).

I actually have a view that because we don't have the hype associated with our kids and because under Lyon they simply arent gifted senior games....they tend to be out of the spotlight of mainstream AFL media in comparison to other clubs....its just my opinion......but Lyons "4 year before you are a player" approach can almost make you forget what we drafted some time agao and what you havent really seen yet....

Im rambling I'll stop.

[White Winmar]

Spot on Teflon.....spot on.

[vacuous space]

Anyhow, I don't want this to degenerate into a p**sing contest about Emma Quayle. The robust discussion about our list, its current and future states is what this was meant to be about.

Perhaps in the future it would be better to talk more about what you want to talk about and less about what you don't. Right now the OP looks like an overly verbose temper tantrum in response to her saying less than flattering things about your club. It doesn't make any sense to dismiss her as an average writer and then write a lengthy response to a short paragraph. If she's so unimportant, then why bother? If it's all just a matter of opinion, then why does it bother you so much that she has one?

[plugger66]

I dont see anything wrong in what she has written. Ye we have plenty of young guys from last years draft but what have any done to suggest they will replace our stars. When had ordinary picks because of how high we finished but lets face it none of them stood out last year. We will say it isnt so but we woyuld have said how good our picks were in 2004/05 as well but lets face it 80% of last years picks arent going to make it.

[bergholt]

My spies at The Age told me she got the gig because no one else wanted it and they had to find something for her, as she was nowhere near the class of the other sports and feature writers.

Talk about petty. Emma Quayle writes something vaguely unflattering about the Saints, so you attack her. Like I said in the other thread, she didn't even say that we were doomed. She said she was worried, and I think there's grounds for that. Now we have two threads and countless words poking holes in a single paragraph.

If you actually look at other teams lists, rather than just criticising Quayle for not looking at ours, we have less senior players 21 or younger than any other club. It's not even close. We have 12, the next fewest is three teams on 16. Geelong has 19. Melbourne has 23. If you're talking quality, we have three top-20 picks taken in the last five years. We have two more taken in the next 20 and two more taken in the ten after that. Outside the top-50, elite talent is rare.

The bulk of our list is between 23 and 27. Maybe those guys can hang on for long enough to get some more quality kids in. Maybe we'll have a better success rate with our kids than other teams. We can be optimistic, but there's no real reason that Quayle should share our optimism. If she looks at our list, she'll find fewer kids taken later in drafts with less senior experience than at other clubs.

There's nothing wrong with her opinion except, maybe, that Drain was 'allowed' to take two kids at the ND. Even if, as a junior writer, she was handed a job that no one else wanted, she's done a heck of a job with it.

Excellent post, vacuous. I agree with the whole thing.

I mean, we all know that Heyne (48) and Cahill (74) and Ali Smith (62) and Winmar (32) are going to be superstars, but those outside the club should be forgiven for having some doubts.

[saintsRrising]

I mean, we all know that Heyne (48) and Cahill (74) and Ali Smith (62) and Winmar (32) are going to be superstars, but those outside the club should be forgiven for having some doubts.

Though to be fare Lovett swapped for (16) in a weak draft is the lowest pick swapped for by the current regime....so we have not actually swapped any picks where you would think you have a high chance of gaining a future superstars.

Picks in the top 10 that we have had have been retained.

Youth has not been ignored as:
*rookies have been maximised
*NSW Scholarship players have been churned through

Other avenues such as International Players are being actively looked at while Walsh is not a kid, he is not old either.

The Saints have been more succesful on field lately and that means our picks have been later with subsequent reduction in access to quality kids.

We havea tilt at the flag and so this quite rightly influences the Saints trading/recruiting. However the future is not being completely scarificed either. McEvoy for example was clearlya pick aimed at the future rather than an immediate tilt at the flag. A pick aimed at"growing one's own No1 ruck".


Now certainly Lovet and Peake both being 27-ish is a clear upgrading toa "win the flag" now recruiting, but prior to this the older players taken were all extremely cheap or free (ie King = free, Clarke = PSD pick as a back-up ruckman, Gardi for half of pick 43).

Yes this year there will be less youth (but more than 2), but over the 3 years of Lyon's reign their has beena goodly number of "kids", but yes there have beenalot more players "ready to play" recruited.

[White Winmar]

Gee vacuous, if you read my posts, I think 95 % of them are about the list. Only a few lines are devoted to EQ. Why so upset about some criticism of her? I thought I'd articulated my reasons for my criticism, and as it is only an opinion, I respect your right to accept or reject it. But, "Verbose temper tantrum"? I think you need to actually read my posts again. In fairness to me, I think there was a bit of analysis going on, mainly in rebuttal of the original comments.

Like many posts on here, I don't want this to degenerate into a personal slanging match which has nothing to do with the original topic. Happy to agree to disagree on the salient points. To sum up without a hint of verbosity, I think the list is in very good shape and I still think she is a very average writer. There! 25 words or less!

[BAM! (shhhh)]

I don't think Emma Quayle really believes we're in a bad place. But insofar as highlighting a risk, she's not incorrect.

Emma is normally thorough.

This article was lightweight and sloppy and not up to her normal standard.
Factually she is incorrect too as she basically stated that Peake would only get choose 2 kids, whereas it will be 4 or 5.

Srr, normally in critiquing journalists, you're pretty evenhanded, trying to weigh both sides.

In this case, I think you're not looking deep enough; you're applying years of Saintsational inference and depth to a single paragraph, and dismissing the opinion when the two don't align.

To expound: You're pointing out the rookies as kids. This has been an apparent shift in development by the Saints... which is well outside the norm. Rather than trying to draft the guns straight up (which we haven't had the picks for anyway), we've largely - appeared to - try to develop them. Get talented kids, work them through 4 years, and get out the other end a 22 year old ready to compete hard. With only 3 Lyon years on the job, I say apparent as my only evidence is Geary, McQualter, and Lyon's comments about 4 year apprenticeships.

Nobody else is doing this.

EQ's comments, while perhaps glib, were referring to the National Draft, and would reflect well what I suspect many are thinking about us.

Again, I really like what we're doing, think it's going to work well, and that it will keep us well placed going forward - and we should be setting ourselves to try and buck the draft cyclical system rather than feed it through regression. However, if you want to look at past examples... there's plenty to weight Emma's view, and not much for yours and mine.

[White Winmar]

Good post BAM! My problem with the assumption that we're in danger of falling because of a lack of adequate replacements for our core group is this. The assumption is based on conventional thinking and conventional techniques. My take on it, and you have alluded to it, is that we are taking an unconventional approach to an age old problem.

If you take a shallow or cursory look at our list, you could fall for the trap of the conventional conclusion that proposes teams can only remain at the top for a limited time, in that the lack of early draft picks will eventually catch up with them. There is evidence to suggest this is a fallacy and I believe we are in the midst of proving it wrong. If we took the conventional route, after years of high ladder finishes, we would be doomed to a period of relative failure. The club has recognised this and is trying new approaches to replenish the list and keep it in a "competitive profile".

Of course there will be individual failures with certain players. But we can minimise these and maximise the talent at our disposal to much greater effect than other clubs are doing at the moment. ATM, only 10% of players reach 200 games, and the average career remains around 3.5 years in duration. We can, and will, do better! I guess only time will tell!

[plugger66]

We have recruited plenty of young kids over the last 3 years as well as many ready made players but who are the 18-23 year olds that are now regular senior players. Not many at all and in 5 years time that will be our problem. There will be a gap when Rooy and co are 30 years old and there will be hardly any 23-28 years old coming through. Yes we have high hopes for Armo, Steven, Heyne, Lynch and co but none have done anything yet. I suppose that is the price of success and going for ready made players.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

No BAM!, there's no sensitivity to her criticism. Just rebuttal. There's no raw nerve there because I believe deeper examination of the facts show she is mistaken. I think your arguments are sound, with one exception. That is to describe as "garbage" the argument of throwing up the names of McEvoy, Steven, Armitage, et. al. as evidence of a lack of quality talent coming on is a bit rich.

... <very insightful analysis of recent years draftees snipped, and not just because I might not have been able to resist pointing out that Grant Thomas was pumping up Sammy Fisher's tires from the moment he walked through the door >...

Don't get me wrong, I'm as high on Ben McEvoy as the next supporter, and think Armitage will carve out an AFL career, and think Geary's going to be a gem.

However, in the context of replacing guys at the top end of our talent pool, none of the names we can throw around are heirs apparent.

While that in itself is not necessarily a concern, the rule of thumb in generating quality is that beyond the quasi-sciences of identification and development (neither of which is proven under this regime, though the philosophies certainly resonate with me) is that if you throw enough mud at the wall, some of it's bound to stick. Talent doesn't assure, hard work doesn't assure, size and speed don't assure - and if you've got all of those, you're probably going top 5 - but weight of numbers will eventually tell out.

And the Saints lack numbers for touted young players coming through.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

Good post BAM! My problem with the assumption that we're in danger of falling because of a lack of adequate replacements for our core group is this. The assumption is based on conventional thinking and conventional techniques. My take on it, and you have alluded to it, is that we are taking an unconventional approach to an age old problem.

If I only alluded, then I apologise. That's exactly what I think we're doing.

My issue with your OP is that it's main issue with the journo is that the paragraph review on our performance at the ND didn't account for this whole unconventional system we're putting in place.

If staying neutral, the journo's should be highlighting the risk until they see anything that says otherwise. It's the seeming intense negative reaction to criticism of the Saints by a journo doing what a journo's supposed to do that had me shaking my head - we get enough bad footy writing without jumping on the stuff that, while not spectacular, doesn't deserve the weight of hate it's received (understandably here).

Happy to take on board your intent being otherwise, apologise again, and admit half of my reason for joining this thread is just to be difficult to those wearing rose tinted-glasses ATM

[White Winmar]

Gee BAM! you're a brave man for mentioning GT in your post, especially in a positive way! Watch this thread now expand to 50 pages of pro-GT, anti-GT rhetoric. What have you done? Noooooooooooo!
P.S. FWIW JB was fairly certain Fisher was something special as well, although he didn't realise how special at the time. There were doubters though.

P66 you make a very valid point about the "replacement group". We have taken some risks and are moving against the conventional wisdom. We also have another 2-3 years to try and rectify any gaps, if it eventuates that we have some holes. We are trying a different tack and as I said earlier, only time will tell!

[joffaboy]

We have recruited plenty of young kids over the last 3 years as well as many ready made players but who are the 18-23 year olds that are now regular senior players. Not many at all and in 5 years time that will be our problem. There will be a gap when Rooy and co are 30 years old and there will be hardly any 23-28 years old coming through. Yes we have high hopes for Armo, Steven, Heyne, Lynch and co but none have done anything yet. I suppose that is the price of success and going for ready made players.

If you look at the negative side of things - yes you may well be correct, however look at the players we have in the system and how they perform when they get the chance to step up.

Season 2009 was incredible for our lack of players into the seniors. A very settled team.

We had youngsters like eddy and Geary in and out. We had McEvoy get about 10 games mid season because of injuries/suspensions to king and Gardiner. All three improved throughout the season.

While this was going on, we had players like Armo, Steven, Heyne, Lynch and other young players, learning their game and honing their skills at the Zebra's in the VFL, a very high standard competition.

Instead of being thrown into the seniors to get smashed (and why would we winning the first 19 in a row?), they get to play against men, but in a comp slightly less demanding.

The fruits of this was how they performed in Hobart against the 2008 premiers, desperate to win and keep their finals hopes alive. I remember Armo and Steven having stellar games (and so did McEvoy).

If we continue to go down this road, and continue to draft 5 youngsters each year, why will we have a gap in 18-23 y.o.s in 5 years? And even if we do, does it matter? I would have thought it be better to keep the core going and introduce bigger bodied players of 21-22 into the seniors every year (as they did with Eddy, Geary and McEvoy this year).

[BAM! (shhhh)]

Gee BAM! you're a brave man for mentioning GT in your post, especially in a positive way! Watch this thread now expand to 50 pages of pro-GT, anti-GT rhetoric. What have you done? Noooooooooooo!

No no no!

I specifically didn't mention GT in the positive light that would have been necessary if we further pursued the snipped area of conversation! You'll also note that it was included in the quote, not my post.

Therefore, if such a hypothetical 50 page flamewar erupts between hypothetical posters with names such as RogerWolf, Jollyboy, SaintsRAscending, MeherAliBaba and Barks4AWhile on some hypothetical messageboard, it'll be all YOUR fault! Hypothetically anyway.

[vacuous space]

I think you need to actually read my posts again.

Why? Did I miss something? I'm pretty sure I responded to the entirety of your post, not just the Quayle-bashing. You responded with a paragraph of why you dislike Emma Quayle.

The question remains, when we start to shed our A-grade players, who is going to replace them? If McEvoy and Stanley run the ruck, who's to say they'll be any better than the likes of Kreuzer and Hampson at Carlton, Leuenberger and Clark at Brisbane or Cordy and Roughead at the Bulldogs. I see nothing in your posts that suggests anything other than we'll be fine because we're St Kilda and we're awesome.

Maybe our older players hang on long enough for us to restock on young talent. Maybe we bring in more mature players to fill the gaps. We'll undoubtedly do something. Whether she turns out to be right or wrong, I think Quayle's comments were understandable.

[saintsRrising]

Srr, normally in critiquing journalists, you're pretty evenhanded, trying to weigh both sides.

In this case, I think you're not looking deep enough; you're applying years of Saintsational inference and depth to a single paragraph, and dismissing the opinion when the two don't align.

.

I don't follow.

Personally I think Emma is the one that has not looked deep enough.

Her infererence was that Peake's time and effort had been wasted because we only took in her words two "fresh" players.

To me this is shallow and incorrect.

Peake's time and effort will have been crucial in deciding who was drafted and traded for.

Indeed Lyon has spelled out that he has all those involved their opinions on securing Smith and/or Pattison vs drafting "fresh" players.

Peake would have been central in this and if he had argued to go "fresh" we may well not now have the two players we drafted.
Peakes time was well spent and not wasted.


Lastly you cannot look at the ND in isolation.

Managing your list and considering your current list trades, the ND, rookie draft and PSD are all intimately interwined.

Peake's evaluation was that value was not their deep in the draft...and quite possibly not shallow in the draft either.

This then influenced the draft and trading of St Kilda in many ways including being firm on trading for Ball to get Everitt, promoting Miles rather than going again, going for Smith and Pattison.

Emma regularly writes good articles (so I am not a Quayle basher), but with respect to the Saints in this article her brief statement is flawed and wrong.

[Teflon]

I too am puzzled by the over zealous, almsot fanatical defence of........ Emma Quayle...

Going to write throw away lines or make big assumptions with big calls (whether they are understandable or not...) you got to expect some strong response.

The OP wasnt a drunken tirade with little point - sure it directly criticises her....but it also states a valid alternative view of our current list situation and strategy.

Maybe "draft expert" journos in this time of compromised drafts need to get with the times and understand that differing approaches to list management are emmerging.

I also find it odd that no ones "worried" bout the Lions.......surely they have taken a huge leap down this path?

Either way its fair discussion.

[To the top]

Given the side I have posted and which I would like to see in the feld, perorming in 2010, the remainder are:-

Baker Johnson Dempster
Blake Simpkin J. Smith
Eddy Geary Winmar
Heyne Cahill Gwilt
Milne Stanley Pattinson
McEvoy Walsh McQualter

A Smith McGrath Gaetner

In the senior side, I have included Armitage, Lynch, Miles and Steven to inject more line carrying capacity.

Plus Lovett and Peake.

They replace Ball, Baker, Dempster, Blake, Milne and McQualter.

I am not the wrap in Eddy and Geary that some are because, from what I have seen, they do not have that something 'special' and are workmen like mid sized footballers who give what they have got.

But you need this type on your list - and they will get games.

From the team listed there are many we will watch with interest and who carry our hopes.

Of interest is that most are fair sized footballers.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

I too am puzzled by the over zealous, almsot fanatical defence of........ Emma Quayle...

Going to write throw away lines or make big assumptions with big calls (whether they are understandable or not...) you got to expect some strong response.

The OP wasnt a drunken tirade with little point - sure it directly criticises her....but it also states a valid alternative view of our current list situation and strategy.

Maybe "draft expert" journos in this time of compromised drafts need to get with the times and understand that differing approaches to list management are emmerging.

I also find it odd that no ones "worried" bout the Lions.......surely they have taken a huge leap down this path?

Either way its fair discussion.

I don't think anyone's questioning the validity of the discussion. Simply just as any regular reader of saintsational is going to expect that any negative reference to the Saints - valid or otherwise - is going to be raked of the coals here, those doing the raking will surely expect to be disagreed with.

Where I think the disagreement comes is not that the Saints are taking a different approach to recruitment, but what the fair expectation is. As you put it "differing approaches to list management are emerging", there have been differing approaches since the inception of the draft. As much as journos need to be open to that, in fairness, we need to recognise that by and large, the premierships have gone to teams which have stocked up on large amounts young talent which have come through as a group at some point to build their premiership core. Geelong, Hawthorn, West Coast, Brisbane. Hence the current viewpoint from Journos like Quayle. If we win in 2010, you can bet that the talking heads will point to Reiwoldt, Dal, Joey et al rather than saying we bucked the trend.

The exception right now is Sydney... which is one exception in a decade.

What will bring the journos on board is if sustained success can be generated outside this model. If Reiwoldt retired in 2014 and the Saints won the 2015 flag, that's going to attract notice. If Brisbane contest a grand final (or probably even make top 4) in 2010, it probably attracts similar notice. A surge from Adelaide (how long has their demise been forecast?).

For now, we're just the latest attempt to buck the trend. If the subtext to a draft review is that they believe that by 2015, Melbourne will be better than St Kilda, that's probably fair enough - until we prove our method.

[saintsRrising]

What will bring the journos on board is if sustained success can be generated outside this model. If Reiwoldt retired in 2014 and the Saints won the 2015 flag, that's going to attract notice. .

I would not focus on Riewoldt....or use him as part of any argument. He will be a loss when he goes for sure.

But even if Lyon had not obtained one recycled player since he had arrived and we had only picked "kids" or "fresh" player we would not now have another Roo on our books as we simply would not have finished low enough in any year to have obtained such a player.


Lyon's policy has not had us missing another potential Roo, or Judd...

It may have cost another Joey, Sam Fisher or Gilbert though......or another Brad Howard!!!! But equally it has delivered talent that is good enough for our first 22 now...and has also delivered much greater depth. Greater use of rookies is delivering as well.

Short term value is definately there. Long-term value will be ascertained if Ray and others go on to play lengthy careers for us.


Also I think that Lyon's "churn" of our list is quite large as he searcjhes for the best players and team, and that youth has still beena large part of this whether in the ND or rookie drafts...NSW Scholarship program etc..

The number of names on various St Kilda lists flowing through since Ross has arrived has been large and mainly maximised. "Recyclables" are just part of this.

PS..Harvey one of our greatest ever players wasa loss...but overall team improvement meant that he was not missed when he did go.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

What will bring the journos on board is if sustained success can be generated outside this model. If Reiwoldt retired in 2014 and the Saints won the 2015 flag, that's going to attract notice. .

I would not focus on Riewoldt....or use him as part of any argument. He will be a loss when he goes for sure.

But even if Lyon had not obtained one recycled player since he had arrived and we had only picked "kids" or "fresh" player we would not now have another Roo on our books as we simply would not have finished low enough in any year to have obtained such a player.

I know you wouldn't. I wouldn't either - I don't think it any sort of problem that we haven't got another touted top 5 player.

Any journo offering a balanced opinion on our recruiting is going to have to observe that we've got no succession plan for the current core, led by Reiwoldt.

My point is that whether you like or dislike our current method, as you yourself point out, it's not the typical method. While there's reason to believe it will work, until there's proof, calling out journ's as not having looked deep enough is a bit one-eyed.

[White Winmar]

I know I'm labouring the point now, but it is the job of "experts", be they self-proclaimed or given their titles by their outlet, to look deeper. You're right about the one-eyed bit BAM!, but there are plenty of other examples of lazy journalism and lack of analysis about other clubs.

The one that readily springs to mind is the annual prediction that the Adelaide Crows will go tumbling down the ladder. Year after year, under Neil Craig, they make the finals. I know Victorian journos are about as interested in the Crows as S.A journos are interested in non S.A clubs, but my point is this. Doesn't the Crows' continued competitiveness warrant a slightly deeper inspection than it currently gets? They have remained competitive and look to be churning over a new batch of players who should ensure they remain so, eg. Vince (Who they stole out from under our noses), Tippett, Dangerfield, Hentschel, Obst et al. How do they keep doing it? How have they remained competitive without top ten draft picks in all but 2 years since they've been in the competition? The conventional wisdom would say they should've "bottomed out" a couple of times, but still they keep challenging.

I had the privilege of inspecting their facilities way back in 1999, whilst on a study tour. Even then, they had better facilities than many clubs boast now. Their recent upgrade should keep them ahead of the pack. A decade ago they had sports scientists and developmental coaches and staff from SASI (South Australian Sports Institute) on tap. That's created a culture of innovation and continued improvement. That's why they continue to be competitive. I know they've choked a couple of times in finals under Craig, but I fear them as much as Geelong when it comes to teams challenging us for a flag. If our journos did a bit of homework on them they could come up with some fascinating material, relating to recruitment, development and preparation. As much as I hate to admit it, I think they'll be up there again this year.

Here endeth the rant!

[saintsRrising]

Any journo offering a balanced opinion on our recruiting is going to have to observe that we've got no succession plan for the current core, led by Reiwoldt.

.

Well as we have agreed I think that Roo should virtually be excluded as we have not had any top 5 picks I am not sure why you are stating that there is no succession plan for our "core".

Max > Zac > Johnson (= succession plan for a succession that had already occurred for Max who was most definately a core player.


Old rucks in Gardi & King > Ben & Stanley with Pattison for back-up (age -wise for a ruckman Pattison is not yet at his peak)

Midfield:
Now here I get a tad nervous as Lenny is true elite...

Lenny > Armo, Steven, Geary

Baker > Miles (possinly even Peake)


Roo & Kosi as Key forwards > Lynch, Walsh, Cahill
* note we had Allen but injury cut him down.

Now back on Roo...I would be surprised if he did not play more than 2 more seasons. Whether he will exceed 4 more is unknown..but yes his knee is a worry. How long he can play at the elite level is also unknown.

So for the 2 more season period the main players under question would be King, Gardi, Milne, Baker...and then Blake who is year younger.

All of this group have replacements at the club already.