News 2019 St Kilda Media Thread

[Premium]

I am sorry about what I have said, Saints fans. You are for real and are a premiership threat in 2019.









































*Dan Hannebery tho

He would say to much about us , because he doesn't want to give to much away to Satan

 

[St Pauls]

anyone else utterly tripped out by this comment:


private school educated white boys with good parents. what in the actual ****. is he trying to say that's the bench mark of good character?

I agree with Sunny, I think he is saying the opposite.

 

[George]

So we don't get any press and we are victims.

When we do it's a conspiracy?

Everyone loves a feel good story and the under dog prevailing.

Good for ratings.

I love a good news story as much as anyone. Last year the team I have been supporting in the NFL for the past 20 years lost their best player to injury late in the year, finished first and were the underdogs in every playoff game - the only team in the history of the sport to be in that position. And they ended up winning their first ever championship.

And I'm a Saints supporter - I am a sucker for punishment, haha.

I love seeing us doing well obviously, but even this is too much for me. To use an analogy out of gringo2011 book - the football media are like the guys in the schoolyard that saw the 'new girl' walk in for the first day of class. She was the nasty girl from Frankston that them and their mates used to laugh at for years, but she's done a lot of work over summer and surprised everyone, and now the boys are battling it out to see who can get her attention first.

 

[austinnn]

anyone else utterly tripped out by this comment:


private school educated white boys with good parents. what in the actual ****. is he trying to say that's the bench mark of good character?

think he's discussing the US context where the race thing is a far bigger issue, and saying that recruiters used to assume that private school education + decent domestic situation, good familial education + free of the problems rightly or wrongly associated with being black in the USA = Guarantee of few problems adapting to a professional team-based regime.

 

[StCicatriz]

think he's discussing the US context where the race thing is a far bigger issue, and saying that recruiters used to assume that private school education + decent domestic situation, good familial education + free of the problems rightly or wrongly associated with being black in the USA = Guarantee of few problems adapting to a professional team-based regime.

that certainly would make sense, as i know that is a big issue over there. government schools are seen in a very poor light.

the thing i don't understand is how that is relevant to us or the wider industry here as something to take back? unless he's saying that's a view shared by others within the industry e.g. others clubs or the AFL?

 

[Diehard Saint]

Me too. Way too much on us lately. Not sure if it's genuine or the media just wanting us to get big heads and crumble. They've never been this positive about our club.

We moan when we are so irrelevant that we don’t get a mention...
We moan when we don’t get the credit for our wins...

...and now we moan because we can’t take all the attention...

There’s no pleasing some of you

 

[austinnn]

that certainly would make sense, as i know that is a big issue over there. government schools are seen in a very poor light.

the thing i don't understand is how that is relevant to us or the wider industry here as something to take back? unless he's saying that's a view shared by others within the industry e.g. others clubs or the AFL?

Well maybe.

Cast your mind back to the Trout recruiting patterns: Good Blokes, very little aboriginal talent or if so the urbanised mixed race variety, very samey in terms of background. I think his criteria was more would he be good at a backyard BBQ or fishing trip than would he be good on a football field. I'm being facetious but I think he placed a huge value on what people call having good character, rightly so after all the scandals we endured previously.

Gallagher has done the research and found out what Trout (or Westaway and Finnis who gave him his remit) maybe forgot; that some types might not be great blokes to be mates with - not necessarily that they are campaigners but maybe they are a little quiet (Gehrig) or they made some poor decisions in their past (Parker) or their view of the world is a bit "controversial" (Ablett Jnr) - but their ability to excel in a professional sports league that can sometimes feel like war makes them invaluable to a football club.

I am happy that we've gone from Vanilla to Neapolitan in any case.

EDIT: I think I veered off your original point, was Gallagher equating being white with having good character. Sorry. Answer; not directly, but maybe he did equate being white with more chance of adapting to the AFL landscape, the more precise version of the point that Rendell tried to make a few years back.

 

[VDS66]

that certainly would make sense, as i know that is a big issue over there. government schools are seen in a very poor light.

the thing i don't understand is how that is relevant to us or the wider industry here as something to take back? unless he's saying that's a view shared by others within the industry e.g. others clubs or the AFL?

I think they differentiate between personality and sport personality... Better known as white line fever.

So they weigh up between flog factor and X Factor.

As far as the school thing goes, there's a fair bit of merit in that. Pretty sure any kid who can play but comes from the wrong side of the tracks would mist likely be offered a scholarship over there.

In terms of take away, I guess it's about turning over every stone to try and improve and get better.

 

[VDS66]

Well maybe.

Cast your mind back to the Trout recruiting patterns: Good Blokes, very little aboriginal talent or if so the urbanised mixed race variety, very samey in terms of background. I think his criteria was more would he be good at a backyard BBQ or fishing trip than would he be good on a football field. I'm being facetious but I think he placed a huge value on what people call having good character, rightly so after all the scandals we endured previously.

Gallagher has done the research and found out what Trout (or Westaway and Finnis who gave him his remit) maybe forgot; that some types might not be great blokes to be mates with - not necessarily that they are campaigners but maybe they are a little quiet (Gehrig) or they made some poor decisions in their past (Parker) or their view of the world is a bit "controversial" (Ablett Jnr) - but their ability to excel in a professional sports league that can sometimes feel like war makes them invaluable to a football club.

I am happy that we've gone from Vanilla to Neapolitan in any case.

EDIT: I think I veered off your original point, was Gallagher equating being white with having good character. Sorry. Answer; not directly, but maybe he did equate being white with more chance of adapting to the AFL landscape, the more precise version of the point that Rendell tried to make a few years back.

Good post.

And fwiw I agree with Bundy.

It's a cultural thing and nothing to do with skin colour.

 

[Tommy Wigs]

see i got that from his 2nd part of it, after the OR but that first part i genuinely do not understand it.

i really don't want to think this because it feels horrible but it implies its a benchmark somewhere or a stereotype. is it what he was told in the states or was that what was being discussed over here. that if the kid is white, private school educated and comes from a good family he will require less work and is more likely to make it. it's a throw back to the bundy comments a while back. i've never heard of a private school education as being some kind of hall mark or aspiration either.

strange! very strange!

why even bring race or class into it for crying out loud. feels very Tony Abbott foot in mouth type of comment, where even if the meaning behind the comment is very innocent it just comes out sounding so friggin bad and makes you wonder wtf he means

It’s a throw away line or a concocted / theoretical marker to tell a story.

 

[sammm]

https://www.saints.com.au/news/2019-04-23/nga-youngsters-on-the-rise

 

[ScrappyDo]

that certainly would make sense, as i know that is a big issue over there. government schools are seen in a very poor light.

the thing i don't understand is how that is relevant to us or the wider industry here as something to take back? unless he's saying that's a view shared by others within the industry e.g. others clubs or the AFL?

I thought it was a swipe at Trout. Just my read of it.

 

[MOLTEN GANGLANDS]

agree gallagher was just using the analogies he learnt on his trip. Also the words white and black are much less sacred over there, i.e. 'blacks and hispanics turn out in record numbers to vote for Obama.. ' etc. Those divides are discussed differently here.

 

[sammm]

Not sure if this article belongs here

https://www.saints.com.au/news/2019-04-23/saints-partner-with-wilson-storage-southern-saints

 

[sunny3193]

Not sure if this article belongs here

https://www.saints.com.au/news/2019-04-23/saints-partner-with-wilson-storage-southern-saints

Some synergy happening here.
Wilson Storage also partner Sandringham, got signage all over TBO.
Seems we’re intent on locking away bayside.

 

[RWBlyf]

Nathan Brown says St Kilda's blistering start to the season can be put down to simply having a bit of fun
http://m.afl.com.au/news/2019-04-24/team-meetings-in-the-middle-of-the-g-why-not-say-saints

 

[puppy_dog7]

In 2016, NM won their first 9 games, but then slumped to 3-10 in their last 13. Scraped into the 8 ahead of us, immediately destroyed in QF. So form can be a wonderful or devastating thing

Let’s not forget tho that North in 2016 had the oldest playing list in the comp. which could explain why their 2nd half of the season wasn’t as good as they couldn’t sustain their run as the older players became worn out.

To quote an article at the end of the 2016 season

“WHAT WENT WRONG

NORTH’S ageing list topped out in eighth position and a first-round finals exit. Heading into the season they ranked second for average age and first for average games played in the league. North didn’t blood much youth until halfway through the season when their hand was forced with injuries to some key role players.”

I’m not saying that the same can’t happen to us but we are one of the youngest lists, with not much experience in terms of games compared with other teams.

 

[StCicatriz]

Well maybe.

Cast your mind back to the Trout recruiting patterns: Good Blokes, very little aboriginal talent or if so the urbanised mixed race variety, very samey in terms of background. I think his criteria was more would he be good at a backyard BBQ or fishing trip than would he be good on a football field. I'm being facetious but I think he placed a huge value on what people call having good character, rightly so after all the scandals we endured previously.

Gallagher has done the research and found out what Trout (or Westaway and Finnis who gave him his remit) maybe forgot; that some types might not be great blokes to be mates with - not necessarily that they are campaigners but maybe they are a little quiet (Gehrig) or they made some poor decisions in their past (Parker) or their view of the world is a bit "controversial" (Ablett Jnr) - but their ability to excel in a professional sports league that can sometimes feel like war makes them invaluable to a football club.

I am happy that we've gone from Vanilla to Neapolitan in any case.

EDIT: I think I veered off your original point, was Gallagher equating being white with having good character. Sorry. Answer; not directly, but maybe he did equate being white with more chance of adapting to the AFL landscape, the more precise version of the point that Rendell tried to make a few years back.

yeah your edit nailed it, that's the point i'm intrigued with and don't get. is he saying its an issue over there or is it in an issue in club land/AFL HQ that needs to be addressed.

 

[StCicatriz]

I thought it was a swipe at Trout. Just my read of it.

i hope we weren't like that, where we saw white private school kids from "good" families as being the measure of good character. that's horrendous.

 

[StCicatriz]

I think they differentiate between personality and sport personality... Better known as white line fever.

So they weigh up between flog factor and X Factor.

As far as the school thing goes, there's a fair bit of merit in that. Pretty sure any kid who can play but comes from the wrong side of the tracks would mist likely be offered a scholarship over there.

In terms of take away, I guess it's about turning over every stone to try and improve and get better.

you're right about the private school influence over there, but its on steroids there, they then end up in the private college system. so its like two levels of filtering talent. both levels have a lot more attention on anything we have.

but look at their talent pool, its predominantly black, so the white comment wouldn't apply to them. which makes me think it's somewhat of a perceived issue over here that his comments were trying to address. i don't feel good about that at all.

 

[ScrappyDo]

i hope we weren't like that, where we saw white private school kids from "good" families as being the measure of good character. that's horrendous.

Who knows what the internal perception was, it's a subject too touchy for this place anyway. But the banker made a small gaff when he joined and would be (l hope) too smart to say something like that as a throwaway line. With the US being so race sensitive l also wouldn't think it was a quote from pro NFL personal.
First casualty of Satan's was Trout. It fits nicely.

 

[FQFjt]

i hope we weren't like that, where we saw white private school kids from "good" families as being the measure of good character. that's horrendous.

Which part is horrendous? Stereotyping is deeply ingrained in human cognitive processes. We do it all the time in all sorts of ways. In a perfect world, every person is judged entirely as an individual without any preconceptions of any sort, but no one has the time or resources for that. In recruiting it is probably even more prevalent than usual, and in this context, the only question that really matters is whether it is getting you accurate results. Our recruiters have learned what we all knew, getting boys from well off families with expensive educations does not accurately predict who will become successful football players.

 

[sammm]

Some synergy happening here.
Wilson Storage also partner Sandringham, got signage all over TBO.
Seems we’re intent on locking away bayside.

and so we need to with Hawthorn not far away in Dingley in a few years.

 

[VDS66]

I think people are reading too much into it TBH.

As an example, the accepted norm in AFL has been to draft kids that have come through the TAC system.

That's slowly changing.

The other accepted norm is drafting kids from.stable backgrounds. Is he a good kid, does he display a sound work ethic etc...

I'd say a lot of recruiters except the boldest have been gun shy in terms of character.

What I got from the article is that a good wholesome background doesn't always translate to peak performance and development, as a selection criteria.

So what they are doing is saying OK unless they are basically crims or drug addicts, does their competitive ability and hunger to succeed outweighs any doubts on their character? IMO.

So how negligible is the risk when drafting a rough diamond from the burbs as opposed to a nice kid from private schools?

It's ultimately about gaining an edge from being better able to identify untapped potential and not following the herd in your methods.

 

[VDS66]

https://www.realcommercial.com.au/n...council-land-buy?rsf=ps:facebook:rcanews:melb