Probable Saints scenario 2003

[saintsrule]

I think there will be a slow start, but the team will gather momentum as the season progresses and the younger players gain more experience. Top eight would be great, but, IMO a bonus. All I am looking for at this stage, is a significant and measureable improvement to build on, an acceptable win / loss ratio and to keep the carping critics at bay. What do others think?

 

[MarkT]

Top 8 is a must. Not expecting a top 8 is wasiting your own time. Time to demand and expect excellence. IMO if you do not finish top 8 you have to sack your coach and a number of players. No more excuses.

 

[understudy]

I'm a tough critic.

In summary u would want to win around 11 or 12.

In reality I thinking u will win around 8.

 

[Savatage]

You're asking for a flogging here.

 

[Falchoon]

Originally posted by MarkT
Top 8 is a must. Not expecting a top 8 is wasiting your own time. Time to demand and expect excellence. IMO if you do not finish top 8 you have to sack your coach and a number of players. No more excuses.

10 wins in 3 years
50% of teams miss the eight

let's have some sense of realism in our expectations, (actually we do)

1. Which players? and who would you replace them with?
2. Are St Kilda better served chasing a 3-5 year goal or a 1 year goal?

 

[saintsrule]

I'm not asking for a flogging, no hysterics, no saints bashing, we've had a glut of that already, just reasoned opinions based on present circumstances.

 

[Fred]

I think if they don't make the 8, they wouldn't have to sack Thomas - he'd do a Gilly and walk.
Not that many players that sacking would achieve much. There would probably be some retirements as usual and any sacked players wouldn't be regulars anyway. With so many youngsters on the list, they deserve some time.
I can only come up with 5 that could go - Callaghan, Capuano, Peckett and perhaps Voss and Wulf. All are worth their spot on their day but equally, all need a good year.
I find it strange that the Saints are lambasted for appointing an untried coach, but not the Dogs or Roos.

Interesting times ahead.

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by Falchoon
10 wins in 3 years
50% of teams miss the eight

let's have some sense of realism in our expectations, (actually we do)

1. Which players? and who would you replace them with?
2. Are St Kilda better served chasing a 3-5 year goal or a 1 year goal?

Just my opinion but time for the Saints to demand excellence and accept no excuses.

1. Capuano, Burke, Harvey depending on fitness, Gerhig, Black a few 24 - 27 year olds that have been there for a while. Replace them with kids and/or trade them for whatever you can get. In realitty if these players can't get you into the 8 this year with the talent young kids you have they are NEVER going to win you a flag. Like no other side you need a flag sooner rather than later.
2. Both. You already have your list for 2003 and this year you need to set and reach a realistic but challanging goal. If you can't reach it then a 5 year plan is worth jack if your senior player over that period are not good enough. If you "fail" in 2003 then you should get rid of every player that is not going to win you a premiership.

 

[morgoth]

huh

Fred

Why are you surprised? Laidley did an apprenticeship under MM and was a key member of our panel. Likewise with Rhode. The also played a lot more games at the highest level. They also had to go through a selection process.

Thomas did no apprenticeship at AFl coaching level, played 60 odd games (maybe more not sure) and did not have to be interviewed. They are enough differences to give him a hard time.

At the end of the day the Aints have to show marked improvement this year in terms of maturity in the younger players and also game tactics/plan. If these are in evidence it should make no difference where they finish as at the moment these are the clubs onfield weakness.

One other thing Fred if Thomas does walk what happens to Butthead, I believe he would have to go to.

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by Fred
I can only come up with 5 that could go - Callaghan, Capuano, Peckett and perhaps Voss and Wulf. All are worth their spot on their day but equally, all need a good year.

IMO these guys are not good enough to play in a very good side. Unless you tyry and become a very good side you'll be lucky to be mediocre. I look at these guys like the Wildes, Goddens, Rasso's Hastle's etc at Collingwood. There is simply no point.

Originally posted by Fred
I find it strange that the Saints are lambasted for appointing an untried coach, but not the Dogs or Roos.

To be blunt they don't have the Saints history and GT is not criticised for being untried but displaying little evidence to date of competance. It remains to be seen whether that is because of the team or it is his problem. This is the year when a judgement has to be made.

 

[hurricane]

Originally posted by Fred
I find it strange that the Saints are lambasted for appointing an untried coach, but not the Dogs or Roos.

I don't think it's the fact that Thomas was untried... it's the fact that he was on the board already, was not regarded as a senior coaching candidate, was best mates with the president and then appeared to lobby himself into the job without any formal processes.

All coaches have had to start somewhere... but most have had to get the job on their merits rather than sneaking in through the back door and then talking themselves up through the media as if they were Barassi.

 

[Falchoon]

Originally posted by MarkT
Just my opinion but time for the Saints to demand excellence and accept no excuses.

1. Capuano, Burke, Harvey depending on fitness, Gerhig, Black a few 24 - 27 year olds that have been there for a while.

Gehrig Black without Gehrig we get slaughtered by the likes of Neitz, Wilson, Rocca etc. It is essential Gehrig remain, no. 3 or 4 in importance in my humble opinion. Black had a slow start in his first season with the club but came home well and I can't imagine him being turfed at the end of year 2 barring exceptional circumstances, especially considering general skill level is a weakness. Harvey is still our best player, Capuano will go barring a straight 15 game stretch and Burkie is 50/50, lacks pace but is a great example to those around him. Probably needs a good year but is on peanuts at half price anyway.

Originally posted by MarkT

2. Both. You already have your list for 2003 and this year you need to set and reach a realistic but challanging goal. If you can't reach it then a 5 year plan is worth jack if your senior player over that period are not good enough. If you "fail" in 2003 then you should get rid of every player that is not going to win you a premiership.

Twice as many wins as last year, as many as the last 3 years might be a place to start. We have a very weak ruck division and a poor looking forward line.

Hamill-Riewoldt-Goddard/Ball
Milne-Koschitztke-Burke

Hamill is 2 goals a game, Riewoldt will be hammered and need to spend time further up the ground, Goddard/Ball are untested class, Milne is good for 2 a game, Kosi is untested and Burke is good for 1 a game. Penny and Brooks are the two other options both untested.

Backline looks decent barring Hudghton/Jones hammies and Gehrigs groin and the midfield looks more than competitive but without the freeride fron a decent ruckman.

Unrealistic goals serve no purpose. Minimum 8 wins, 10 the expectation, 12 at best.

The midfield will need to dominate for a final eight spot to occur.

Originally posted by MarkT
IMO these guys are not good enough to play in a very good side.

Peckett was 3rd B&F in a grand final side. Is good enough, but at is best leaving his opponent providing the drive with good skills, probably not good enough to play in a poor side rather than a good one

 

[MarkT]

Falchoon, I'll accept your call on individual players ahead of my judgements but in total if you can't achieve something significant with your senior players and second string players then how will you get better without making changes?. The problem is (IMO) that you don't have the luxury of time. How long can you string the supporters and sponsors along?

Originally posted by Falchoon
Gehrig Black without Gehrig we get slaughtered by the likes of Neitz, Wilson, Rocca etc. It is essential Gehrig remain, no. 3 or 4 in importance in my humble opinion. Black had a slow start in his first season with the club but came home well and I can't imagine him being turfed at the end of year 2 barring exceptional circumstances, especially considering general skill level is a weakness. Harvey is still our best player, Capuano will go barring a straight 15 game stretch and Burkie is 50/50, lacks pace but is a great example to those around him. Probably needs a good year but is on peanuts at half price anyway.

What is the trade value of gerhig and Black and what are you paying them v what is their input week in, week out. I am a huge Harvey fan but if you are going to pay him plenty and he can't play what is the point? Will you be a flag contender during the remainder of his career? I am also a Burke fan FWIW but again what will he really do for you from 2004 on? I am definately not a Capuano fan. If you just someone to work for peanuts, get another monkey.

Originally posted by Falchoon
Peckett was 3rd B&F in a grand final side. Is good enough, but at is best leaving his opponent providing the drive with good skills, probably not good enough to play in a poor side rather than a good one

IMO it would be a mistake to measure anything by 1996. Collingwood made that mistake with players who were cronically injurred or unable to recapture their best post 1990. It matters little what a bloke did 7 years ago. what will he do for the next season or importantly in your case, will he contribute when you are good enough to be a serious contender. Personally I'd take the buthcher's approach and chop everyone that won't win you falg and try guys that might until you get a list that will.

 

[Falchoon]

Originally posted by MarkT
Falchoon, I'll accept your call on individual players ahead of my judgements but in total if you can't achieve something significant with your senior players and second string players then how will you get better without making changes?. The problem is (IMO) that you don't have the luxury of time. How long can you string the supporters and sponsors along?

Minimum 3-5 years, there is zero chance the Saints will go under within 3 years, zero. No luxury ot time my arse, all our drafting and recruiting is based on time rather than the Monkhorst, Francis rout to instant success which has put us back where we are today. Why draft Goddard, Brooks? why give Ball a year? You have to think longer term. I'd rather have Hodge than Croad. We could have got plenty for No.1 Kane Johnson +??? would take us further this year, but that thinking is short term and irrelevant. I hope we're setting up for a period of sustained success rather than a flirt with the bottom reaches of the 8.

I can be stringed along for a couple of more years minimum on that thinking.

Originally posted by MarkT

What is the trade value of gerhig and Black and what are you paying them v what is their input week in, week out. I am a huge Harvey fan but if you are going to pay him plenty and he can't play what is the point? Will you be a flag contender during the remainder of his career? I am also a Burke fan FWIW but again what will he really do for you from 2004 on? I am definately not a Capuano fan. If you just someone to work for peanuts, get another monkey.

Capuano is poor, I'll grant you that, 1 good game in 2 years, but what happens if you take Gherig out? Riewoldt on Rocca? Gehrig is a hugely underrated player who has played at least the last 2 years with the turning circle of the Titanic, he is vital for presence alone. Black is class, we don't have much class. Harvey is a veteran so pay is half in salary cap terms but how much would a Ball learn playing and training beside Harvey? Invaluable I would have thought and a great foundation for his future. His last injury was an impact injury, unavoidable, the guy has a calf problem that is now better managed. Burke might not play with a flag contender but having Goddard alongside him rather than alongside Houlihan has to be better for Goddards development, I can't see how it wouldn't be?

Originally posted by MarkT

IMO it would be a mistake to measure anything by 1996. Collingwood made that mistake with players who were cronically injurred or unable to recapture their best post 1990. It matters little what a bloke did 7 years ago. what will he do for the next season or importantly in your case, will he contribute when you are good enough to be a serious contender. Personally I'd take the buthcher's approach and chop everyone that won't win you falg and try guys that might until you get a list that will.

Peckett has hung around because he is good in the good games, there is no loss of form, he needs guys to win the ball to be able to break the lines, different scenario entirely but anothr player with classy foot disposal.

Contributing to a flag contender is what Harvey, Burke et al are doing. Ball, Goddard et al will be all the better for the experience.

 

[Cyclops]

I think the Saints have acheived a critical mass of talent which will overcome the complete absence of coaching. They should win 8+ games, damning them to another year of Thomas.

Originally posted by Fred
I find it strange that the Saints are lambasted for appointing an untried coach, but not the Dogs or Roos.

Sorry fred, I have to join the queue. The only strange thing is that Thomas still has any job at any footy club.

There is a difference between untried and never sighted. Both Rhode and Laidley have experiece as senior players (not sufficient as a coaching qualification, but I would have thought neccesary) and experience as an assistant (where they earned their stripes). They talk about footy rather than culture, they have clearly expressed tactical notions, and in the one meeting between North and the Saints so far, there was a decidely lopsided result.

GT is an administrator with coaching experience in the bush and a history of "white-antism". He has nothing to dispel the peception that he is an ego-tripping amateur who keeps his job because it would be too embarrassing for Butterrs to sack him.

The appointment process is rumoured to have been a little different. I can't name my source (although I can reveal it was not Suzi's cousin), but I hear that Connolly and the other fella who applied at the Saints were disgusted by the farcical interview process there as it was made clear GT would be kept on. Just a rumour, but to my anti-Thomas ear, it rings true.

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by Falchoon
Minimum 3-5 years, there is zero chance the Saints will go under within 3 years, zero. No luxury ot time my arse, all our drafting and recruiting is based on time rather than the Monkhorst, Francis rout to instant success which has put us back where we are today. Why draft Goddard, Brooks? why give Ball a year? You have to think longer term. I'd rather have Hodge than Croad. We could have got plenty for No.1 Kane Johnson +??? would take us further this year, but that thinking is short term and irrelevant. I hope we're setting up for a period of sustained success rather than a flirt with the bottom reaches of the 8.

I honestly think it is not zero but the issue is more than whether you go under IMO. Endless struggle for survival is what you have to avoid as well. You have to put yourself in the position whereby you can be more than that and forever. You need to stop losing supporters and sponsors confidence or you will start from such a low base that you will find it that much harder to permanently rise as a club.

I absolutely applaud the approach the club has taken. I am not saying for one moment that the youth drive is flawed. What I am saying is that your 3-5 years on top of the last 3-5 years is just too long and therefore risky. IMO you don;t have to wait another 3-5 years - so why would you? Keep the bits that are working but FFS fix the bits that aren't and do it yesterday not tomorrow.

Originally posted by Falchoon
I can be stringed along for a couple of more years minimum on that thinking.

No offense, but you are irelevant. When the die hards drop off the whole club is dead. When the large mass of ambivilent supporters stop taking thier kids to the footy you are Fitzroy/South Melbourne. It's a downward spiral while other clubs are spiralling upward.

I look at my club and thank Christ (well actually not) that Eddie came along. Collingwood were in danger of being very bad for long enough to start the bandwagoners giving up completely. That is where the end begins IMO.

Originally posted by Falchoon
Capuano is poor, I'll grant you that, 1 good game in 2 years, but what happens if you take Gherig out? Riewoldt on Rocca?

Gee, I could think of worse matchups and worse way for a kid to learn how to play AFL quality footy. Ask yourself, though, what kid you'd pick up for the draft choice you'de get from a club that might want Gerhig? Maybe I am wrong with the guy. As I said, I accept your call ahead of mine because you would see much more of him. He's just an example I though appropriate. Ditto Black. Somewhere along the line, though, some players on a list that has performed to the level of the Saint's are not up to scratch. Chronic injury is not an excuse either. It is a reason to trade someone not to keep them.

Originally posted by Falchoon
Contributing to a flag contender is what Harvey, Burke et al are doing. Ball, Goddard et al will be all the better for the experience.

When Collingwood axed Monkhurst I was ropeable. We had no established ruckman and had just drafted Fraser. Why wouldn't you keep him to teach Fraser? In hindsight the answer was probably because he'll learn from playing footy and being coached by the relevant coaches. Maybe it's a bad example because Fraser in not a ruckman IMO but at the time I though keeping Monkhurst would be the wise thing. MM thought otherwise and now I think he was right. It was part of an overall culling process. 1/3 of the list was culled for 3 or 4 consecutive years. Along the way we let go players like Sanderson, Schauble and Williams who all won B&F's. All can play but the truth is we don't miss them. Also along the way we let go players like Godden, Wilde, Orchid, Armat etc etc. In all of that we picked up some exceptional young players and some made to order senior players like Clement and Molloy. Thank Christ!

 

[Falchoon]

Originally posted by Cyclops


There is a difference between untried and never sighted. Both Rhode and Laidley have experiece as senior players (not sufficient as a coaching qualification, but I would have thought neccesary)

Thomas played for 3 clubs

Originally posted by Cyclops

and in the one meeting between North and the Saints so far, there was a decidely lopsided result.

hahaha, are you serious. Can Thomas claim to have beaten Sheedy?

 

[McAlmanac]

Originally posted by Falchoon
Thomas played for 3 clubs

Was a fringe player for quite a while at the Saints - had a good spell for a while - before being a dud at North and Fitzroy. His main talent appears to be as a psychologist.

 

[Savatage]

Originally posted by saintsrule
I'm not asking for a flogging, no hysterics, no saints bashing, we've had a glut of that already, just reasoned opinions based on present circumstances.

In an ideal world that would transpire. This is not an ideal world however.

 

[Cyclops]

Originally posted by Falchoon
Thomas played for 3 clubs

Which is, as I said, insufficient in itself. Where's Thomas' apprenticeship? Most likely at William Angliss from the way he wields the knife.

Originally posted by Falchoon
hahaha, are you serious. Can Thomas claim to have beaten Sheedy?

Errr, no? The only side Thomas has consistently taken the four points off is St Kilda.

 

[Port01]

The same quick fix strategy that picked up Monkhorst also picked up Gehrig, Hamill, Capuano, Black, Voss etc.

You can't come out and blindly say it was the wrong thing to do. Not all these quick fix trades come off, but you won't win anything without a couple of them. Once you can see the base in youth, you have no choice but to top up your deficient areas with experienced and solid players. Collingwood, Brisbane, Port and Adelaide (top 4 from last year), all stop gapped their deficiencies with older recruits or traded players.

 

[Fred]

Originally posted by Port01
The same quick fix strategy that picked up Monkhorst also picked up Gehrig, Hamill, Capuano, Black, Voss etc.

You can't come out and blindly say it was the wrong thing to do. Not all these quick fix trades come off, but you won't win anything without a couple of them. Once you can see the base in youth, you have no choice but to top up your deficient areas with experienced and solid players. Collingwood, Brisbane, Port and Adelaide (top 4 from last year), all stop gapped their deficiencies with older recruits or traded players.

You'll really feel isolated if you talk sense like that.

 

[Falchoon]

Originally posted by Port01
The same quick fix strategy that picked up Monkhorst also picked up Gehrig, Hamill, Capuano, Black, Voss etc.

You can't come out and blindly say it was the wrong thing to do. Not all these quick fix trades come off, but you won't win anything without a couple of them. .

Monkhorst was 30, Francis similar their best well and truly behind them.

Hamill 23, Gehrig 24, Capuano 25, Black 22, Voss 23
all decent players theoretically yet to peak.


Apples with apples. It was the wrong thing to do as said at the time and not blindly either

 

[Watcher]

I have no doubt the Saint playing list is very, very good , They can make the final 8. The only thing that is holding back the Saint’s is - GRANT THOMAS:

Imagine what a Sheedy, Pagan or Malthouse would do with that list.

 

[GoalSneak]

For the past few years, there has always been this topic. Are the saints good enough to make the finals this year? Every year it's the same. Of course they are good enough. Any team with players like Hamill, Riewoldt, Harvey, Milne and a tonne of other promising players, will always look good on paper. The thing is each year they always find new ways to dissapoint. I'll agree that injuries have come thick and fast to Morrabbin, but you can't keep using that excuse. The culture there is that of losing. The simple fact is that they have done poorly when they shouldn't. And I can't see why this year will be any different. With Thomas in charge the Saints will always be mediocre at best.

To cut this short .... bottom 4 .... again.