Dal Santo: Thomas, Lyon miles apart

[InkerSaint]

I'll bet it took a lot of time and effort to learn to adhere to those structures.

It must have been a bitter pill to swallow after years of freewheeling and low accountability.

I don't recall seeing an inordinate amount of freewheeling or players leaving their man under Thomas.

The only freewheeler who stands out in my mind was Aussie Jones, but he used that tactic to great advantage and is, in any case, long gone.

I realise that coaches like Roos and Lyon use the term "accountability" quite a lot, but I think they mean something more complex than simply maintaining structure and not doing whatever you feel like.

Funny that you mention Aussie, as I was thinking of him quite a lot when reading the article.

I recall after his early retirement, an interview with him after he's taken up a coaching position in the ammos asking him what the biggest adaptation was.

His comment was that in the AFL, defense pertained largely to looking after an area, and he was adjusting to it being more about looking after a specific player.

That comment made an impression on me then, I found myself thinking of it as I read Nick's comments, and even more as I read the various inferences of those comments.

On one hand, the thread is an example of people finding evidence for what they'd already concluded. The idea that there was no structure is ludicrous. One of the hallmarks of the team was the forward zone - a structure. However, it's absolutely and blindingly obvious that Ross Lyon puts a much higher priority on team structures; how one structure/zone feeds to the next, when and who should be zoning v taking a man... and set plays which flow from those structures and situations.

FWIW, my inference of the quote is that Dal's talking about the match review - for Thomas the defining factor was love of the jumper, he believed in the gameplan. For Ross, winning or losing comes down to many smaller things. IMO the main interest is that where Thomas may have failed in the latter, it's only within the last 12 months the Saints have taken Lyon's message on board and given the former to be able to take advantage of the structures... but Dal was far more concise

I should point out that you have run with a misinterpreted quote.

I was referring to Dal Santo - not the team. His difficulty adjusting is a matter of public record... I don't see where I've jumped to any conclusions or "shaped" the facts.

[meher baba]

On Rix, I never thought he was the answer, I never thought he was a great player or anything......................have you never been in love

Yes, but not with blokes, except of course for GT

Peckett commented after his retirement that we'll never know that if we'd had a coach with some tactics if it would have made a difference or not in 2004 and he liked Thomas!

I have never heard or seen that quote before. I recall Mark Williams saying after the 2004 PF that GT's moves from the coaching box were among the hardest he had ever had to counter. So I guess there are six billion stories (or however that SBS ad goes).

I think Lyon is becoming a better tactician than GT ever was, but I don't agree that GT was a lousy tactician: he just used different tactics.

He was being honest just like Dal, even Blake who had a strong relationship with Thomas commented that tactically the difference between the two is like chalk and cheese!

What he said.

[kaos theory]

I think Lyon is becoming a better tactician than GT ever was, but I don't agree that GT was a lousy tactician: he just used different tactics.

Good one MB. I think the comedy festival is over, but you certaintly are putting together an impressive set of gags....

[markp]

Now let me get this straight.

"Didn't really have any" means something more than "none" but less than "lots".

Are you a lawyer by any chance?

No I'm not, I'm just an old fashioned type who thinks the best indicator of what someone has said is usually what they actually said... you'll also therein sometimes find what they mean too.

If GT was an ''excellent'' coach we'd have a flag by now IMO.

"Didn't really have any" means as good as (and effectively) bugger all.

And Dal aint no dill.

[Winmar7Fan]

I've always thought that we relied on sheer weight of individual talent with poor structure under GT so I'm not at all surprised with reading this.

[saintly]

I've always thought that we relied on sheer weight of individual talent with poor structure under GT so I'm not at all surprised with reading this.

i agree. it has always been said since Lyon becmae coach that there many more structure, meetings, planning then when GT was coach.

that does not make one better over another it was just fact. each have their way of coaching.

Now that Lyon is getting used to the media, and talking more, i really like him. i like what he has to say I enjoy his coaches comments after the game. i now no longer cringe when a coach talks. eg thomas he would open mouth and put foot in. thats how i felt.

dal and all the other young players that thomas molded, they would not have known any differeence,. Thomas was their first coach. had them for 3,4,or 5 years . now they see a difference.

[meher baba]

I think Lyon is becoming a better tactician than GT ever was, but I don't agree that GT was a lousy tactician: he just used different tactics.

Good one MB. I think the comedy festival is over, but you certaintly are putting together an impressive set of gags....

Huh? Why does Lyon being a better tactician using different tactics make GT a lousy tactician?

Any more, say, than Plugger being a better and different sort of full forward to G-Train (contested marks rather than sharp leads) means that G-Train was a "lousy" forward.

But, if you have an obsessive hatred for GT and all he stood for, then I guess you aren't ever going to agree with me.

[Beej]

What that article does is put to bed the thought that Lyon has suddenly changed his philosophy and opted for a more attacking game plan.

Nothing's changed. As Dal Santo says, the players have just become more aware of the game plan and their individual roles within it.

[plugger66]

What that article does is put to bed the thought that Lyon has suddenly changed his philosophy and opted for a more attacking game plan.

Nothing's changed. As Dal Santo says, the players have just become more aware of the game plan and their individual roles within it.

If we havent changed our game style since RL was appointed then I know even less than I thought I knew about footy. Yes the players may know understand it more but there is clearly a different style of play and so there must be. For a start footy is different to 3 years. And you cannot see it you either watch on TV or didnt go to games 3 years ago.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

I should point out that you have run with a misinterpreted quote.

I was referring to Dal Santo - not the team. His difficulty adjusting is a matter of public record... I don't see where I've jumped to any conclusions or "shaped" the facts.

Apologies - what I was really responding to was MB's post, and that mainly because it flowed towards what I was thinking.

I see what you were saying.

[Beej]

What that article does is put to bed the thought that Lyon has suddenly changed his philosophy and opted for a more attacking game plan.

Nothing's changed. As Dal Santo says, the players have just become more aware of the game plan and their individual roles within it.

If we havent changed our game style since RL was appointed then I know even less than I thought I knew about footy. Yes the players may know understand it more but there is clearly a different style of play and so there must be. For a start footy is different to 3 years. And you cannot see it you either watch on TV or didnt go to games 3 years ago.

I'm still yet to hear anyone associated with the club come out and say something along the lines of, "we've decided to attack more".

Game plan's been in place since day one. It's taken this long for it to all come together.

If it's taken this long for, as Dal says, the players to become aware of the plan, imagine how long it would take them to come to terms with changes in game style.

Why would you think the coach and all the players are lying? What are they trying to hide? If the game plan has changed, what reason do you think there is for the coach and the players not to mention this?

[BAM! (shhhh)]

What that article does is put to bed the thought that Lyon has suddenly changed his philosophy and opted for a more attacking game plan.

Nothing's changed. As Dal Santo says, the players have just become more aware of the game plan and their individual roles within it.

Where does it say that nothing's changed? The closest I saw was when Dal commented that there was no single moment where everyone sat down and said they weren't traveling that well...

[Beej]

What that article does is put to bed the thought that Lyon has suddenly changed his philosophy and opted for a more attacking game plan.

Nothing's changed. As Dal Santo says, the players have just become more aware of the game plan and their individual roles within it.

Where does it say that nothing's changed? The closest I saw was when Dal commented that there was no single moment where everyone sat down and said they weren't traveling that well...

No major changes to the game plan is what I meant by that.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

What that article does is put to bed the thought that Lyon has suddenly changed his philosophy and opted for a more attacking game plan.

Nothing's changed. As Dal Santo says, the players have just become more aware of the game plan and their individual roles within it.

Where does it say that nothing's changed? The closest I saw was when Dal commented that there was no single moment where everyone sat down and said they weren't traveling that well...

No major changes to the game plan is what I meant by that.

I'm still missing it. I know that's one school of thought, I don't see how the article supports it.

[Beej]

Ah, I assumed it was the same article I read. Apologies.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/ ... 42,00.html

Under Lyon, Dal Santo said the team was more structured.

"We have more idea of our game plan," he said.

"After three years we have now become very aware of it."

[saintsRrising]

I've always thought that we relied on sheer weight of individual talent with poor structure under GT so I'm not at all surprised with reading this.

Well summed up.

[kaos theory]

Huh? Why does Lyon being a better tactician using different tactics make GT a lousy tactician?

Any more, say, than Plugger being a better and different sort of full forward to G-Train (contested marks rather than sharp leads) means that G-Train was a "lousy" forward.

But, if you have an obsessive hatred for GT and all he stood for, then I guess you aren't ever going to agree with me.

So if someone doesn't agree wth you, they are a GT hater? Is that right? Are your words so transcendent that only irrational people will disagree with you?

Firstly, I don't hate Him. Do you love Him? I don't assume you do....Why do you assume I hate Him?

For the 100th time, I was a strong supporter for a number of yrs.

He lost my support about mid way through 2006. IMO His limitations were becoming more evident, not just coaching on the field, but also His unhealthy control of the whole footy department, which was suppressing the development of our team.

[plugger66]

What that article does is put to bed the thought that Lyon has suddenly changed his philosophy and opted for a more attacking game plan.

Nothing's changed. As Dal Santo says, the players have just become more aware of the game plan and their individual roles within it.

If we havent changed our game style since RL was appointed then I know even less than I thought I knew about footy. Yes the players may know understand it more but there is clearly a different style of play and so there must be. For a start footy is different to 3 years. And you cannot see it you either watch on TV or didnt go to games 3 years ago.

I'm still yet to hear anyone associated with the club come out and say something along the lines of, "we've decided to attack more".

Game plan's been in place since day one. It's taken this long for it to all come together.

If it's taken this long for, as Dal says, the players to become aware of the plan, imagine how long it would take them to come to terms with changes in game style.

Why would you think the coach and all the players are lying? What are they trying to hide? If the game plan has changed, what reason do you think there is for the coach and the players not to mention this?

Who said they are lying? Did he ever metion it was exactly the same game plan as 3 years ago. Just watch a game and see how we have changed and what is wrong with that. Geelong have changed from 3 years ago and so have we.

[stinger]

Consistency due to structure: Saints

Martin Boulton | May 8, 2009

ST KILDA star Nick Dal Santo said yesterday that the Saints have more structure under Ross Lyon than they did under ex-coach Grant Thomas, which goes some way to explaining the team's greater consistency this season.

Under Thomas, whose reign at Moorabbin ended in 2006, Dal Santo said the team "didn't really have a great deal of structure" despite playing finals three years in a row between 2004 and 2006.'




...that actually distorts what dal really said ffs.....

[Shaggy]

I've always thought that we relied on sheer weight of individual talent with poor structure under GT so I'm not at all surprised with reading this.

Well summed up.

Which shows that SR and W7F are blamers when hopes are not fulfilled.

We were a very young side and no-one should have expected we should win as often as we did.

GT's biggest problem is that he created expectation. But he did go very close to delivering a flag with a bottom budget and junior team.

People should understand it though. I would much prefer Dal now than 5 years ago if you understand the importance of maturity .

[The OtherThommo]

This is so simple it's laughable - Grant Thomas could manipulate, Ross Lyon can coach. End of.

[Shaggy]

This is so simple it's laughable - Grant Thomas could manipulate, Ross Lyon can coach. End of.

Is that right?

GT inherited the following list of top 27 players in 2001:


1 18 Jason Cripps
2 Robert Harvey
3 Peter Everitt
4 Nathan Burke
5 Stewart Loewe
6 Andrew Thompson
7 Craig Callaghan
8 Aaron Hamill
9 Brett Moyle
10 Barry Hall
11 Austinn Jones
12 Lenny Hayes
13 Tony Delaney
14 Justin Plapp
15 Fraser Gehrig
16 Caydn Beetham
17 Justin Peckett
18 Matthew Capuano
19 James Begley
20 Steven Baker
21 Stephen Milne
22 Damien Ryan
23 Mark Gale
24 Justin Koschitzke 25 Brett Voss
26 Robert Powell
27 Jason Traianidis

Within 3 years supporters are disappointed we did not win the flag in 2004

[The OtherThommo]

2 questions; who says they were the top 27 (i.e what happened to the other 15 odd) and how did Grant Thomas get to claim "inheritance"?

And you're still dodging my rookie question, Shagster.

[Shaggy]

2 questions; who says they were the top 27 (i.e what happened to the other 15 odd) and how did Grant Thomas get to claim "inheritance"?

And you're still dodging my rookie question, Shagster.

The top 27 came from Finalsiren.com (I am not a lunatic who keeps figures ).

Rookies IMO are irrelevant to our current success but will add to the future.

[Beej]

What that article does is put to bed the thought that Lyon has suddenly changed his philosophy and opted for a more attacking game plan.

Nothing's changed. As Dal Santo says, the players have just become more aware of the game plan and their individual roles within it.

If we havent changed our game style since RL was appointed then I know even less than I thought I knew about footy. Yes the players may know understand it more but there is clearly a different style of play and so there must be. For a start footy is different to 3 years. And you cannot see it you either watch on TV or didnt go to games 3 years ago.

I'm still yet to hear anyone associated with the club come out and say something along the lines of, "we've decided to attack more".

Game plan's been in place since day one. It's taken this long for it to all come together.

If it's taken this long for, as Dal says, the players to become aware of the plan, imagine how long it would take them to come to terms with changes in game style.

Why would you think the coach and all the players are lying? What are they trying to hide? If the game plan has changed, what reason do you think there is for the coach and the players not to mention this?

Who said they are lying? Did he ever metion it was exactly the same game plan as 3 years ago. Just watch a game and see how we have changed and what is wrong with that. Geelong have changed from 3 years ago and so have we.

Which part of "after three years we have become very aware of [the game plan]" are you failing to understand?

Now if Dal had said, "It has taken us three years to become very aware of the game plan and all its changes due to the changing state of the game", you may be onto something. Or if anyone had said that for that matter.

The game has changed over the last three years. However, run and carry, forward pressure, numbers in defence and zoning have been around for a while. They are the backbone of all game-plans today. The difference between teams is how well they execute and the level of pressure they are able to apply.

If you think Hawthorn introduced the rolling-zone only last year then I believe you are mistaken. It took a guest footballer on The Footy Show to bring it to light and it became polarised. You either play man-on-man without the ball, or you play a zone.

That zone has been "rolling" for years. Apparently Sheedy implemented the original "rolling zone" after several trips to England and meetings with Ferguson and other football managers. He also has a UEFA (soccer's European governing body) coaching badge and has always maintained that there is a lot we can take out of the other code.

What major changes over the last three years have you noticed that would severely alter Ross' thinking?