The BIGGEST issue with our coach.

[skeptic]

Ross Lyon is pbly the best example of how reasonable coaching/development can make the difference between average players and good ones.

Dawson
Blake
Raph Clarke
Clint Jones

Plus guys on the way out like
Gardiner
Milne
Ray

And other limited players like Kosi

Not exactly the most talented list. Elevated their games and careers under a coach that played to their strengths and reduced exposure to their limitations

Are we suggesting that Acres isn’t as talented as Clint Jones or Farren?

IMO has a higher ceiling then both those guys

This is a complete load of typically distorted bias and misguided BS.

Select the same players for the game this week and tell me how much Ross would extract from them.

The exposure was reduced becuase they were surrounded by a healthy crop of A graders and a couple of once-in-a-generation players.

So with Milne and Blake for example, you don’t think they played better under RL compared to GT.
Blake was a maligned ruck and Milne was trade bait under GT. Ur argument is the list was better in 09. Correct?

[HighettMan]

Ross Lyon is pbly the best example of how reasonable coaching/development can make the difference between average players and good ones.

Dawson
Blake
Raph Clarke
Clint Jones

Plus guys on the way out like
Gardiner
Milne
Ray

And other limited players like Kosi

Not exactly the most talented list. Elevated their games and careers under a coach that played to their strengths and reduced exposure to their limitations

Are we suggesting that Acres isn’t as talented as Clint Jones or Farren?

IMO has a higher ceiling then both those guys

This is a complete load of typically distorted bias and misguided BS.

Select the same players for the game this week and tell me how much Ross would extract from them.

The exposure was reduced becuase they were surrounded by a healthy crop of A graders and a couple of once-in-a-generation players.

So with Milne and Blake for example, you don’t think they played better under RL compared to GT.
Blake was a maligned ruck and Milne was trade bait under GT. Ur argument is the list was better in 09. Correct?

My argument is both of those players were surrounded by absolute A grade genuine bonafide superstars of the comp. You don't have to be a genius to understand they would have played better under most coaches.

Using your example Milne would have played better in China if Clarko was coaching.

[skeptic]

Ross Lyon is pbly the best example of how reasonable coaching/development can make the difference between average players and good ones.

Dawson
Blake
Raph Clarke
Clint Jones

Plus guys on the way out like
Gardiner
Milne
Ray

And other limited players like Kosi

Not exactly the most talented list. Elevated their games and careers under a coach that played to their strengths and reduced exposure to their limitations

Are we suggesting that Acres isn’t as talented as Clint Jones or Farren?

IMO has a higher ceiling then both those guys

This is a complete load of typically distorted bias and misguided BS.

Select the same players for the game this week and tell me how much Ross would extract from them.

The exposure was reduced becuase they were surrounded by a healthy crop of A graders and a couple of once-in-a-generation players.

So with Milne and Blake for example, you don’t think they played better under RL compared to GT.
Blake was a maligned ruck and Milne was trade bait under GT. Ur argument is the list was better in 09. Correct?

My argument is both of those players were surrounded by absolute A grade genuine bonafide superstars of the comp. You don't have to be a genius to understand they would have played better under most coaches.

Using your example Milne would have played better in China if Clarko was coaching.

I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to suggest that playing under a better structure, with a more cohesive game plan that is developed to the strengths of the player or conversely the players selected have the strengths for the role could / would equate to a better performance.

Blake played better under Lyon because he stopped being used as a ruck where he was monstered in the ruck, and his lack of speed/skills were exploited.
He did better playing on the taller, slower, not super strong forwards that ran a lot.

That was good coaching.

With Milne.
Under GT he played as a forward pocket with Roo and Gehrig and a midfield on Hayes, Ball, Dal, Monty
Under RL, he played as a forward pocket with Roo and Kosi and a midfield on Hayes, Ball, Dal, Monty
Various personnel changes but the core was the same team.

Milne was a lot more consistent under RL.

Now answer my question... are you saying that RL had a better list than GT?

[HighettMan]

Ross Lyon is pbly the best example of how reasonable coaching/development can make the difference between average players and good ones.

Dawson
Blake
Raph Clarke
Clint Jones

Plus guys on the way out like
Gardiner
Milne
Ray

And other limited players like Kosi

Not exactly the most talented list. Elevated their games and careers under a coach that played to their strengths and reduced exposure to their limitations

Are we suggesting that Acres isn’t as talented as Clint Jones or Farren?

IMO has a higher ceiling then both those guys

This is a complete load of typically distorted bias and misguided BS.

Select the same players for the game this week and tell me how much Ross would extract from them.

The exposure was reduced becuase they were surrounded by a healthy crop of A graders and a couple of once-in-a-generation players.

So with Milne and Blake for example, you don’t think they played better under RL compared to GT.
Blake was a maligned ruck and Milne was trade bait under GT. Ur argument is the list was better in 09. Correct?

My argument is both of those players were surrounded by absolute A grade genuine bonafide superstars of the comp. You don't have to be a genius to understand they would have played better under most coaches.

Using your example Milne would have played better in China if Clarko was coaching.

I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to suggest that playing under a better structure, with a more cohesive game plan that is developed to the strengths of the player or conversely the players selected have the strengths for the role could / would equate to a better performance.

Blake played better under Lyon because he stopped being used as a ruck where he was monstered in the ruck, and his lack of speed/skills were exploited.
He did better playing on the taller, slower, not super strong forwards that ran a lot.

That was good coaching.

With Milne.
Under GT he played as a forward pocket with Roo and Gehrig and a midfield on Hayes, Ball, Dal, Monty
Under RL, he played as a forward pocket with Roo and Kosi and a midfield on Hayes, Ball, Dal, Monty
Various personnel changes but the core was the same team.

Milne was a lot more consistent under RL.

Now answer my question... are you saying that RL had a better list than GT?

Not a stretch at all, recruiting some bloke who was a No.1 DP ruckman might of helped the coach and Blake as much as structures and game plan.

I know you believe in these coaches who have magic fairy dust that can be sprinkled over players to turn them into coaches dreams or cure injuries or sickness at the selection table but the reality of it all is it comes down to the sum of all parts.

Tell Blakey Gards says hi.

[skeptic]

Ross Lyon is pbly the best example of how reasonable coaching/development can make the difference between average players and good ones.

Dawson
Blake
Raph Clarke
Clint Jones

Plus guys on the way out like
Gardiner
Milne
Ray

And other limited players like Kosi

Not exactly the most talented list. Elevated their games and careers under a coach that played to their strengths and reduced exposure to their limitations

Are we suggesting that Acres isn’t as talented as Clint Jones or Farren?

IMO has a higher ceiling then both those guys

This is a complete load of typically distorted bias and misguided BS.

Select the same players for the game this week and tell me how much Ross would extract from them.

The exposure was reduced becuase they were surrounded by a healthy crop of A graders and a couple of once-in-a-generation players.

So with Milne and Blake for example, you don’t think they played better under RL compared to GT.
Blake was a maligned ruck and Milne was trade bait under GT. Ur argument is the list was better in 09. Correct?

My argument is both of those players were surrounded by absolute A grade genuine bonafide superstars of the comp. You don't have to be a genius to understand they would have played better under most coaches.

Using your example Milne would have played better in China if Clarko was coaching.

I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to suggest that playing under a better structure, with a more cohesive game plan that is developed to the strengths of the player or conversely the players selected have the strengths for the role could / would equate to a better performance.

Blake played better under Lyon because he stopped being used as a ruck where he was monstered in the ruck, and his lack of speed/skills were exploited.
He did better playing on the taller, slower, not super strong forwards that ran a lot.

That was good coaching.

With Milne.
Under GT he played as a forward pocket with Roo and Gehrig and a midfield on Hayes, Ball, Dal, Monty
Under RL, he played as a forward pocket with Roo and Kosi and a midfield on Hayes, Ball, Dal, Monty
Various personnel changes but the core was the same team.

Milne was a lot more consistent under RL.

Now answer my question... are you saying that RL had a better list than GT?

Not a stretch at all, recruiting some bloke who was a No.1 DP ruckman might of helped the coach and Blake as much as structures and game plan.

I know you believe in these coaches who have magic fairy dust that can be sprinkled over players to turn them into coaches dreams or cure injuries or sickness at the selection table but the reality of it all is it comes down to the sum of all parts.

Tell Blakey Gards says hi.

So the coach recruiting a player more suited to playing the ruck that resulted in a poorly equipped ruck playing in a more suitable position for him and subsequently performing better sounds like good coaching to me

Good to see you still don’t answer questions... hard to put yourself out there isn’t it

[HighettMan]

Ross Lyon is pbly the best example of how reasonable coaching/development can make the difference between average players and good ones.

Dawson
Blake
Raph Clarke
Clint Jones

Plus guys on the way out like
Gardiner
Milne
Ray

And other limited players like Kosi

Not exactly the most talented list. Elevated their games and careers under a coach that played to their strengths and reduced exposure to their limitations

Are we suggesting that Acres isn’t as talented as Clint Jones or Farren?

IMO has a higher ceiling then both those guys

This is a complete load of typically distorted bias and misguided BS.

Select the same players for the game this week and tell me how much Ross would extract from them.

The exposure was reduced becuase they were surrounded by a healthy crop of A graders and a couple of once-in-a-generation players.

So with Milne and Blake for example, you don’t think they played better under RL compared to GT.
Blake was a maligned ruck and Milne was trade bait under GT. Ur argument is the list was better in 09. Correct?

My argument is both of those players were surrounded by absolute A grade genuine bonafide superstars of the comp. You don't have to be a genius to understand they would have played better under most coaches.

Using your example Milne would have played better in China if Clarko was coaching.

I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to suggest that playing under a better structure, with a more cohesive game plan that is developed to the strengths of the player or conversely the players selected have the strengths for the role could / would equate to a better performance.

Blake played better under Lyon because he stopped being used as a ruck where he was monstered in the ruck, and his lack of speed/skills were exploited.
He did better playing on the taller, slower, not super strong forwards that ran a lot.

That was good coaching.

With Milne.
Under GT he played as a forward pocket with Roo and Gehrig and a midfield on Hayes, Ball, Dal, Monty
Under RL, he played as a forward pocket with Roo and Kosi and a midfield on Hayes, Ball, Dal, Monty
Various personnel changes but the core was the same team.

Milne was a lot more consistent under RL.

Now answer my question... are you saying that RL had a better list than GT?

Not a stretch at all, recruiting some bloke who was a No.1 DP ruckman might of helped the coach and Blake as much as structures and game plan.

I know you believe in these coaches who have magic fairy dust that can be sprinkled over players to turn them into coaches dreams or cure injuries or sickness at the selection table but the reality of it all is it comes down to the sum of all parts.

Tell Blakey Gards says hi.

So the coach recruiting a player more suited to playing the ruck that resulted in a poorly equipped ruck playing in a more suitable position for him and subsequently performing better sounds like good coaching to me

Good to see you still don’t answer questions.

I've heard that Alan and 17 other coaches constantly yearn to recruit A grade ruckman but are constantly denied, turns out they don't grow on trees and are just as hard to develop.

[skeptic]

If I recall correctly we recruited Gardiner, King, Clarke... and we had Knobel +Acland in GT’s time.

Nonetheless Blake played his best football when played in a position that suited him most

Hardly magic.

Dawson went from delisted player to primary key back... guess that had nothing to do with him either. The 08 Hawks were a crap team

[HighettMan]

If I recall correctly we recruited Gardiner, King, Clarke... and we had Knobel +Acland in GT’s time.

Nonetheless Blake played his best football when played in a position that suited him most

Hardly magic.

Dawson went from delisted player to primary key back... guess that had nothing to do with him either. The 08 Hawks were a crap team

Blake played best when he had a critical mass of exceptionally good players and a good coach around him, so did Dawson once he was given a second chance though. More than likely wouldn't have made it if he was recruited to a crap club and team.

You struggle with the concept of the sum of all parts dont you. There has to be an individual at fault for you to be happy. You need someone to run the knives into. I get it with you but it's not how modern sporting clubs are run. You will get your man. Just be patient.

[skeptic]

The Saints of 03-06 were an exceptional team... the Hawks in 08 were too.

Your argument that coaching has no influence on performance is laughable... it’s hard to believe it’s a rational thought.

[skeptic]

Stewart Loewe was one of the worst set shots I’d seen for a while.

In 1996 or so, he worked on his goal kicking with Hudson IIRC... put a lot of work in and got better. Not a deadeye dick by any means but got better.

Are you saying that’s all talent and has nothing to do with coaching

[HighettMan]

Stewart Loewe was one of the worst set shots I’d seen for a while.

In 1996 or so, he worked on his goal kicking with Hudson IIRC... put a lot of work in and got better. Not a deadeye dick by any means but got better.

Are you saying that’s all talent and has nothing to do with coaching

THE SUM OF ALL PARTS.

What part of that don't you get.

I think Malcom Blight gave Stewie some tips on goal kicking too.

[skeptic]

Stewart Loewe was one of the worst set shots I’d seen for a while.

In 1996 or so, he worked on his goal kicking with Hudson IIRC... put a lot of work in and got better. Not a deadeye dick by any means but got better.

Are you saying that’s all talent and has nothing to do with coaching

THE SUM OF ALL PARTS.

What part of that don't you get.

I think Malcom Blight gave Stewie some tips on goal kicking too.

Curiously...

A lot of ppl here say that the 04 Saints squad was way more talented than 09 squad. Where do you fall on that?

[skeptic]

Stewart Loewe was one of the worst set shots I’d seen for a while.

In 1996 or so, he worked on his goal kicking with Hudson IIRC... put a lot of work in and got better. Not a deadeye dick by any means but got better.

Are you saying that’s all talent and has nothing to do with coaching

THE SUM OF ALL PARTS.

What part of that don't you get.

I think Malcom Blight gave Stewie some tips on goal kicking too.

You’re using the sum of all parts as though that somehow discredits what I’m saying... it doesn’t. I’m not the one arguing that just one thing would fix our onfield performance. In this topic, the hypothesis is recruitment.

The argument being made is that if we solely improve our recruitment that and only that will result in improved results. I’m arguing otherwise and you are too whilst trying to be all contrarian about it. Do you even understand what you’re arguing?

[BarryGrogan]

Again ..
We all know it's a result driven industry.

So it's a results driven industry, but you're crying and spamming the forum because people dare to want a coach sacked that has been unable to get any results for 6 years??

Just as you'd judge the coach on w/l, not on "trying to win", and just as you're being brutal and demanding with our present coach

What's brutal and demanding about giving a guy 6 years to produce results??!

Besides, I personally don't believe that results are the measure of a good coach.

Improvement. Signs of cohesion. Examples of high performance. Individuals excelling. Evidence of the direction - and evidence that that direction is sound. Young guys delivering.

I can't see any of that with Cho. None of it.

Hardwick and Buckley showed all of it. No real results to speak of, but there was evidence to suggest they had potential.

Cho? No.

.. I ask you -
1. how many A grade big fish have we landed since and including the Lyon years?
This covers 3 coaches - Lyon, Watters and Richo.
I'm not just referring to Richo.
So how many A grade big fish have our recruiters landed over those 12 or so years?

Now contrast this with Hawthorn (or Geelong or Collingwood, etc..) and their recruiters over this same period.

Carlisle. Got him over Essendon snd Hawthorn.

Can't for the life of me understand why you're posing/spamming this question in a thread about the coach's ability and performance with the current list though? Aside from blatant spam of course.

How many 'A-Grade big fish' have there actually even been?

Fyfe.
Kelly.
Carlisle.
Dangerfield.
Ablett.
Shiel.
Treloar.
Martin.
Lynch.
McGovern.
Gaff.
Beams.
Who else?

Kelly, Fyfe, Gaff, McGovern and Martin stayed put despite offers from most clubs.

Dangerfield, Beams and Ablett only left their clubs to go home.

We got Carlisle despite Essendon wanting to keep him and Hawthorn throwing everything at him.

Shiel, Treloar and Lynch chose Collingwood and Essendon respectively for ANZAC Day, ANZAC Day Eve, Dreamtime at the G etc.


Your lies about us not targetting A-Grade midfielders have already been debunked.
Your alternate argument when called on your lies is that merely trying isn't good enough.

Again though, the relevance as to how poorly Richo has coached the current list over the past 6 years is beyond me.

However, who actually lured 'A-Grade big fish midfielders'?

Collingwood, Essendon.

Funny that.

To suggest that the inability of a minnow club to pry superstars out of their clubs, and/or land them ahead of big clubs when do tbey come on the market, is some sort of failure by the recruiting department is just so idiotic it's beyond words.

Clarkson has been the one to meet and get recruits to Hawthorn. The coach.

So given we can't pay much more than other clubs, don't play in big games, don't have the 'go home' lure - the last thing left is really the hope of success - or the coach.

I think that probably explains the lack of big fish more than anything to be honest.


But as I said, what does the recruiting even have to do with how Cho has coached the current group for the past 6 seasons?

nd 2.
How is it that other successful clubs select coaches that have 10 year or 20 year stints while 12 of our coaches since Alan Jeans have been sacked/replaced and one jumped ship?
How do we continually get it wrong, coach after coach?
Why haven't we been able to produce a coach like that (since Alan Jeans)- if the coach is the be all and end all.
It tells me our record for sacking coaches and finding a successful replacement really sucks - and that we should be looking at what else might be going wrong - but it might be telling you something else.

WTF does that have to do with anything that anyone is actually discussing? That's completely irrelevant to the debate as to whether or not, Cho is getting the best out of the list, and if he's the best person to coach them moving forward.

After 6 years, it's pretty f****** reasonable for the club and supporters to have an opinion on that.

[BarryGrogan]

Select the same players for the game this week and tell me how much Ross would extract from them.

Select the same players for the game in 6 years, and I'd bet my life he'd extract more from them than Cho has in 6.

[Scollop]

I think some of our senior players including, Roo, Dempster, Joey, Schneider and Sam Fisher filled the glaringly massive gaps in Richo's leadership and skills in motivating his charges. The board and CEO were perhaps incompetent if it took Lethlean AND five years before they realised that Cho needed some help and needed to do courses in the USA.

We were fooled because we NEARLY made finals in 2016 and 2017, but let's rewind and try to work out why the board decided it was prudent to extend Richo's contract beoyond 2018. Has anyone ever assessed who we may have missed out on when you consider the timing and the situations of some of the other coaches who were nearing the end of their contracts?

The talk after 2016 was that St Kilda had all the players and all the assets equal to the Bulldogs and we could emulate their success in 2017. Not sure how much of their gameplan and style we copied for 2017 but we looked like we may have found our next finals bound team after we smashed Richmond and we were momentarily sitting in the top 4 at the half way mark which was after the bye in 2017.

It looked like Richo was good enough to the man driving the climb back up the ladder, however we failed miserably and it was clear to most neutral observers (and some of us) that we were still a fair way off being genuine contenders for a flag tilt. The board of St Kilda felt otherwise and the CEO went about extending Richo's contract at the end of 2017.

What opportunity cost and which possible coaches might have been available to St Kilda, had we waited and had we been more cunning and had we just done whatever was best for the footy club? In early 2018 and through most of the the year last year there was speculation regarding the best coach of the last 20 years.

The managers of guys like Clarkson might have perhaps been busy talking to St Kilda officials if we were smart enough to leave the door open.

https://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-02-20/ ... n-new-deal

All teams go through periods of poor form, but the Saints brand through consistent poor coaching, poor team selection decisions, poor list management and poor development of players culminated in what we saw on the field throughout 2018.

The way that we played and the results of 2018 would have meant that the board could have made an easy decision and a timely decision, but we were denied the opportunity of possibly gaining the services of Clarkson due to the incompetency of the officials in charge of trying to get St Kilda to be consistently playing finals

Not saying that we would have definitlely got him, but I would rather leave the door open rather than close it and ruin any chance at all. Clarko didn't sign for a number of reasons and he finally put pen to paper in October 2018

https://www.sportingnews.com/au/afl/new ... 229cluyzy9

[BarryGrogan]

Has anyone who posts on this forum ever said it made sense at the time?

Although it was an unmitigated f*** up, to be fair, I at least understand why they did it.

Stability.

That's something we have not had, ever. And it's something that was clearly the flavour of the month at the time.

There had been no disasters under the Summers, Finnis, Cho reign, so why rock the boat? Mediocrity is better than scandal right?


So I at least get why they did it.


The problem was, that whomever was critically assessing Cho, was asleep at the wheel. Major concerns with his coaching ability and his impact on the team were being raised in here regularly.

Finnis and co. put club stability ahead of football. At the time it didn't smell right, and in hindsight it was a borderline disastrous decision. They chose a boring, mediocre club on and off the field, over risk. So be it.



The only positive...is that even the biggest deadshit on the planet cannot accuse the club of a knee jerk reaction when they finally let him go.

[Scollop]

Has anyone who posts on this forum ever said it made sense at the time?

Although it was an unmitigated disaster, to be fair, I at least understand why they did it.

Stability.

It's something we have not had, ever. And it's something that was clearly the flavour of the month at the time.

Thrre had been no disasters under the Summers, Finnis, Cho reign, so why rock the boat?


So I at least get why they did it.


The problem was, that whomever was critically assessing Cho, was asleep at the wheel. Major concerns wuth his coaching and his impact on the team were being raised in here regularly.

Finnis and co. put ckub stability ahead of football. At the time it didn't smell right right, and in hindsight it was a borderline disastrous decision.

The only positive...is that even the biggest deadshit on the planet cannot accuse the club of a knee jerk reaction when they finally let him go.

Good response. I reread that sentence and then modified and deleted it because that wasn't what I wanted to be the focus.