List Mgmt. Ross Lyon - Sacked

[Frigate]

My two cents.

I do not care who is coaching what team, but if players make skill errors repeatedly, then you can have the best game plan in the world and it will not change a thing.

All the signs of a young team are there. Inconsistent. When the tail is up we are convincing at times, and good enough to win some matches. When we are down the confidence drops off quickly.
This time last year, this game would have been a 100 point blow out. They stemmed the flow and it really should have been closer to a 40 point margin with some woeful misses. In my opinion it was not a disaster. It was just a solid beating.

So we play Johnson, Ballantyne and throw in Pearce and the margin is probably around 30 points. Then the questions about youth come in. It is very rare that young teams win consistently. So who here honestly believes we are capable of winning consistently when our Peel team cannot win a game. People need to get real and look at the team we are playing. This year is dusted, and all we can do is get games into players.

Any game plan looks crap when you can not hit a target. Cox is in struggle town as McCarthy has been, as any forward has been, apart from when we are winning which is not often. I think the clearance count was 9-1 in the first half. This is simply a lack of an experienced ruck.

Anyway, they made us look silly, but as they always do - they hit target after target.

Finally, would I change some things - yeah I remember us over committing to the player with the ball. They always had an out and they waited perfectly for that option. I think this is definitely inexperience, and really they needed to stick with their player, but I guess that is the learning of AFL.

This season has been a nightmare. From Fyfe to the Hill brothers, to Bennell, to Taberner (who is our main fey forward hope), to Blakely who was perhaps our runner up Doig medalist, to Darcy - it has been a terrible injury ridden year. Most of us hoped for 7 or 8th - that was without the injuries. Bennell was going to play round 1. He is that good. He can even play full forward. But he is now an if and a week to week. Hindsight is great, I wanted to get him, we got him, I am still happy we have him.

I am probably more optimistic about our list than most. I just find it funny that some think a coach would miraculously get young players to make the right decisions and skill under pressure. If it was an old list, I accept that, but that ain't so. We are playing a half WAFL team in the AFL. That is a fact.

Is Beveridge a good coach? He was coach of the century for one year.
Hardwick was about to be fired if there was one more loss, before they went on their incredible run.
Fans were calling for Simpson at the end of last season.
Pyke is getting the axe apparently.
Worsfold was the problem at Essendon, then they start winning again playing exciting footy.
Hinkley - are Port going places?
Buckley??? he was gone numerous times.

I think Ross is our best chance of going to a premiership. I am still on board.

 

[Rion]

For the pro-camp if we are solely blaming youth for our losses right now how do we explain 2016? For that year we consistently sent out the oldest team in the league and got thumped. I mean we had a 10 game losing streak with a team that was nearly 26 on average. That team was pretty much exactly the same as the prelim team the year before.

I just don't get how he's still seen as this 'super-coach' when every sign from the last three years points otherwise. Now maybe we can brandish some excuses here that gets him off the hook a little (and I think there's definitely some valid ones there) but I certainly don't think you can paint his coaching efforts for awhile now in any sort of positive light and that has to have some valid questions that come with it.

 

[Dirty_banchez]

His game plan is too old, too defensive. We need fresh blood.

 

[FreoMonocle]

For the pro-camp if we are solely blaming youth for our losses right now how do we explain 2016? For that year we consistently sent out the oldest team in the league and got thumped. I mean we had a 10 game losing streak with a team that was nearly 26 on average. That team was pretty much exactly the same as the prelim team the year before.

I just don't get how he's still seen as this 'super-coach' when every sign from the last three years points otherwise. Now maybe we can brandish some excuses here that gets him off the hook a little (and I think there's definitely some valid ones there) but I certainly don't think you can paint his coaching efforts for awhile now in any sort of positive light and that has to have some valid questions that come with it.

Clarkson has not had a list capable for the last few years, ipso facto he has spent time out of the 8 - even though he is "Supercoach".

So people would be disingenuous to think that Fremantle's current team could possibly have a crack at a flag right now if only it had another coach, the list is too inexperienced and not capable of it at this point in time. Supercoach - whoever it is, can only use the cattle at hand.

Right now, we are paying the price for not having developed quality players from 2006 and on - Where are those 24 to 30 years olds that should be in the prime of their careers and the backbone of this list? We have young fellows and vintage fellows and not enough in between, even the mighty Clarkson could do stuff all with this list as it stands, it is not a balanced list.

So, methinks Ross is doing well enough with the list we have right now - I'm fine with his part in the list degrading, in that, we did well and had poor picks as a consequence. He was handed a list with lot's of missing pieces and we still suffer from that legacy. It's a list managers issue that is missing basically, everyone in our drafting that is older than Apeness/APearce, with only a handful of players right up until you get to the "ancient" players (slightly fixed by recent trading).

 

[Dormammu]

For the pro-camp if we are solely blaming youth for our losses right now how do we explain 2016?

That was the year the AFL set its sights on smashing congestion-based game plans, of which Fremantle was the leading proponent. For example, the 10 metre "no-go" zone rule introduced that year rewarded teams such as Footscray (eventual premiers) that chose to quickly play-on had lots of leg speed and highly skilled ball users.

In contrast, Fremantle had the strongest, but slowest team in the competition (Barlow, Mzungu, Dawson, Griffin, Mundy, 211, Pav, Fishpub, Ibbo, etc) with hardly any players with consistently high disposal efficiency (Mundy, Walters and Shill are all I can think of).

 

[eastfreo75]

Ross only plays defenders so how can anyone kick goals, weve averaged 10 goals a season under Ross the Toss, most Premiership teams are averaging 14+ goals per game so make of that what you will

Totally agree. We need 4 goals more per game and at the same time reduce goals against by another 4 goals.

That's a total of 8 goals per game turnaround. We are a very long way of top 4. By the way, we need to replace the influence of Mundy and Sandilands at the same time.

On the current rate of improvement with Mundy and Sandilands we still don't make the finals next year and without them we most likely be in the bottom 6.

If we aren't in the finals for 4 straight years, surely Ross should be under pressure to keep his job.

 

[Square Peg]

Clarkson has not had a list capable for the last few years, ipso facto he has spent time out of the 8 - even though he is "Supercoach".

So people would be disingenuous to think that Fremantle's current team could possibly have a crack at a flag right now if only it had another coach, the list is too inexperienced and not capable of it at this point in time. Supercoach - whoever it is, can only use the cattle at hand.

Right now, we are paying the price for not having developed quality players from 2006 and on - Where are those 24 to 30 years olds that should be in the prime of their careers and the backbone of this list? We have young fellows and vintage fellows and not enough in between, even the mighty Clarkson could do stuff all with this list as it stands, it is not a balanced list.

So, methinks Ross is doing well enough with the list we have right now - I'm fine with his part in the list degrading, in that, we did well and had poor picks as a consequence. He was handed a list with lot's of missing pieces and we still suffer from that legacy. It's a list managers issue that is missing basically, everyone in our drafting that is older than Apeness/APearce, with only a handful of players right up until you get to the "ancient" players (slightly fixed by recent trading).

This is pretty much all true and a good summary of why we arent contenders for a flag. Which is fine, but I don't see anyone saying we should be. There is plenty of legit criticism of the coach that has nothing to do with not being contenders in 2018

Sent from my TA-1024 using Tapatalk

 

[Rion]

Clarkson has not had a list capable for the last few years, ipso facto he has spent time out of the 8 - even though he is "Supercoach".

So people would be disingenuous to think that Fremantle's current team could possibly have a crack at a flag right now if only it had another coach, the list is too inexperienced and not capable of it at this point in time. Supercoach - whoever it is, can only use the cattle at hand.

Right now, we are paying the price for not having developed quality players from 2006 and on - Where are those 24 to 30 years olds that should be in the prime of their careers and the backbone of this list? We have young fellows and vintage fellows and not enough in between, even the mighty Clarkson could do stuff all with this list as it stands, it is not a balanced list.

So, methinks Ross is doing well enough with the list we have right now - I'm fine with his part in the list degrading, in that, we did well and had poor picks as a consequence. He was handed a list with lot's of missing pieces and we still suffer from that legacy. It's a list managers issue that is missing basically, everyone in our drafting that is older than Apeness/APearce, with only a handful of players right up until you get to the "ancient" players (slightly fixed by recent trading).

You might be missing my point there. I also agree the current list isn't going to be challenging regardless of the coach. I disagree on giving him an out about his massive part in the degradation but that's just my opinion.

I just believe that there's been massive flaws to his coaching for the last 3 years (and as far back as 2013 really) and yet there's a view on here that we don't need to think about replacing him or bringing in experienced assistants that'll challenge him because he's at the top of his game and very few are better.

That was the year the AFL set its sights on smashing congestion-based game plans, of which Fremantle was the leading proponent. For example, the 10 metre "no-go" zone rule introduced that year rewarded teams such as Footscray (eventual premiers) that chose to quickly play-on had lots of leg speed and highly skilled ball users.

In contrast, Fremantle had the strongest, but slowest team in the competition (Barlow, Mzungu, Dawson, Griffin, Mundy, 211, Pav, Fishpub, Ibbo, etc) with hardly any players with consistently high disposal efficiency (Mundy, Walters and Shill are all I can think of).

I think the rule change's were highly overblown personally but like I said they'd be excuses for his performance. But nevertheless surely you've got to question a coach that is completely unable to deal with changes he knew were coming. The league is only going to continue to push changes that reduce congestion and increase attacking and Ross has shown (so far at least) that he's got no clue how to deal with them.

 

[salim malik]

Clarkson has one of , if not the oldest and most experienced lists in the comp and the Hawks are struggling to make the eight. Is the Hawks season a fail with their squad and has Clarkson reached his use by date. This spin that the Hawks are rebuilding is bulltish.

 

[Dormammu]

I think the rule change's were highly overblown personally but like I said they'd be excuses for his performance. But nevertheless surely you've got to question a coach that is completely unable to deal with changes he knew were coming. The league is only going to continue to push changes that reduce congestion and increase attacking and Ross has shown (so far at least) that he's got no clue how to deal with them.

Important to note that there were other changes made, such as quicker re-starts at stoppages and harsher interpretation of holding the man at stoppages. And, ironically, Lyon was called in by the AFL to help create the "no-go zone" rule.

Yes, the club was unable to deal with these changes because they were so far-reaching. Sydney had a similar game-plan but were saved by their academy (e.g., Heeney and Mills) and having the best forward of the modern era. For us, adapting to such fundamental rule changes (driven by the unholy cabal of the AFL and Channel Slime's desire for higher ratings/profits) can only be achieved by turning over the list and that takes years.

 

[ShockersBoy11]

Keep Lyon until the end of his contract and see where we are then

 

[StingBitten]

Outside of coaching, look at each section of the field.

Personnel wise in defence we’ve got A. Pearce, Hamling, Ryan and Wilson plus rotating half-backs in Hill, Blakely etc.
Logue, Nyhuis, Hughes, Kersten, Duman as handy back ups.

There’s a lot of potential there.

In the ruck we’ve found our LTR in Darcy, and have Strnadica, Apeness, Jones and Meek developing. That’s not our issue either.

Fyfe, Mundy, Neale, B. Hill, S. Hill, Langdon, Blakely, as prime midfielders

Cerra, Brayshaw, Bennell, Giro, Banfield with huge potential. There’s holes there but that’s probably not the issue either.

Forward line:

McCarthy (failed to fire)
Kersten (Failed as a fwd and sent to defence)
Ballantyne (completely past it)
Cox (still young and developing)
Taberner (still developing)
Apeness (will be ever strong games together?)
Matera (failed to fire)

Walters is our only proven performer and he’s out of form.

That’s a disastrous forward line. Three recent recruits who so far have failed to deliver, injury setbacks to two key forwards, a small forward who’s completely past it and a 19 year old still trying to find his feet.

Fix the forward issues you fix the team. Move Ballantyne on and draft a small forward like Ian Hill, given Cox and Taberner more exposure, move Apeness on if he can’t stay fit and move Kersten on regardless. Need to invest more time in Cam Mac to help him reach his potential

 

[malpaso]

Also a fair assertion - we had a very successful period from 2012 - 2015. And I think we are reloading quite quickly.

Totally agree. Such a fickle bunch AFL fans, ourselves as a club were starved for some form of success which we did achieve in that period. Our latest drafts are looking good after picks that didn't pan out and/or unlucky injury curses.
Very important off-season this one both for incoming players and in particular our current crop of tall forwards.

 

[Moo]

Outside of coaching, look at each section of the field.

Personnel wise in defence we’ve got A. Pearce, Hamling, Ryan and Wilson plus rotating half-backs in Hill, Blakely etc.
Logue, Nyhuis, Hughes, Kersten, Duman as handy back ups.

There’s a lot of potential there.

In the ruck we’ve found our LTR in Darcy, and have Strnadica, Apeness, Jones and Meek developing. That’s not our issue either.

Fyfe, Mundy, Neale, B. Hill, S. Hill, Langdon, Blakely, as prime midfielders

Cerra, Brayshaw, Bennell, Giro, Banfield with huge potential. There’s holes there but that’s probably not the issue either.

Forward line:

McCarthy (failed to fire)
Kersten (Failed as a fwd and sent to defence)
Ballantyne (completely past it)
Cox (still young and developing)
Taberner (still developing)
Apeness (will be ever strong games together?)
Matera (failed to fire)

Walters is our only proven performer and he’s out of form.

That’s a disastrous forward line. Three recent recruits who so far have failed to deliver, injury setbacks to two key forwards, a small forward who’s completely past it and a 19 year old still trying to find his feet.

Fix the forward issues you fix the team. Move Ballantyne on and draft a small forward like Ian Hill, given Cox and Taberner more exposure, move Apeness on if he can’t stay fit and move Kersten on regardless. Need to invest more time in Cam Mac to help him reach his potential

Ross's game plan requires a legendary forward capable of multiple re-leads, strong enough to out mark or bring to the ground the ball against 2 players and still give you 2 goals a game.

Ross either puts Fyfe forward, keeps him there and strengthens the midfield or otherwise we get a King wait & hope.

The Eagles will play 1 back and kill us ...McGov & Hurn will switch & rebound. Our 1 back will end up bombing it down the line (hello McGovern & Hurn) or we will try and switch and our skills will result in a turn over.

 

[Nodgey]

Totally agree. Such a fickle bunch AFL fans, ourselves as a club were starved for some form of success which we did achieve in that period. Our latest drafts are looking good after picks that didn't pan out and/or unlucky injury curses.
Very important off-season this one both for incoming players and in particular our current crop of tall forwards.

The club did bang on about 'sustained success' though. That period, whilst enjoyable for a success-starved Freo fan, does not match my definition nor expectation of 'sustained'.

 

[blue shark]

Keep Lyon until the end of his contract and see where we are then

Even if he does get us close to the eight by then, is he our first premiership coach, I don't think so not on his own accord.
We need better systems now, especially with the talent at the club, and less injuries something that has plagued the club
for too long.
I don't think we lead the AFL in anything even with spending millions at Cockburn.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Outside of coaching, look at each section of the field.

Personnel wise in defence we’ve got A. Pearce, Hamling, Ryan and Wilson plus rotating half-backs in Hill, Blakely etc.
Logue, Nyhuis, Hughes, Kersten, Duman as handy back ups.

There’s a lot of potential there.

In the ruck we’ve found our LTR in Darcy, and have Strnadica, Apeness, Jones and Meek developing. That’s not our issue either.

Fyfe, Mundy, Neale, B. Hill, S. Hill, Langdon, Blakely, as prime midfielders

Cerra, Brayshaw, Bennell, Giro, Banfield with huge potential. There’s holes there but that’s probably not the issue either.

Forward line:

McCarthy (failed to fire)
Kersten (Failed as a fwd and sent to defence)
Ballantyne (completely past it)
Cox (still young and developing)
Taberner (still developing)
Apeness (will be ever strong games together?)
Matera (failed to fire)

Walters is our only proven performer and he’s out of form.

That’s a disastrous forward line. Three recent recruits who so far have failed to deliver, injury setbacks to two key forwards, a small forward who’s completely past it and a 19 year old still trying to find his feet.

Fix the forward issues you fix the team. Move Ballantyne on and draft a small forward like Ian Hill, given Cox and Taberner more exposure, move Apeness on if he can’t stay fit and move Kersten on regardless. Need to invest more time in Cam Mac to help him reach his potential

You're dreaming if you think our forward problems are down to personnel.

We have two forward strategies. First is push everyone back and hope the mids or defenders can create a turnover - if they do - try and get a man loose out the back and beat the opposition back to goal.

Failing that our second strategy is to bring the ball to ground deep inside forward 50, concede possession to the defenders through unequal numbers but then try to win a HTB free kick as they attempt to transition the ball out of defence.

The second tactic is by far the least effective possible strategy there is, but that is really what Ross Lyon football boils down to. Nothing is going to change much regardless of who we play there. It is not the forwards we have recruited that have failed, it is the way we make them play. McCarthy, Matera ad Kersten would be much more effective in a traditional forward set-up.

Plus the umps hate us and never pay us free kicks in front of goal anyway.

 

[Rion]

Important to note that there were other changes made, such as quicker re-starts at stoppages and harsher interpretation of holding the man at stoppages. And, ironically, Lyon was called in by the AFL to help create the "no-go zone" rule.

Yes, the club was unable to deal with these changes because they were so far-reaching. Sydney had a similar game-plan but were saved by their academy (e.g., Heeney and Mills) and having the best forward of the modern era. For us, adapting to such fundamental rule changes (driven by the unholy cabal of the AFL and Channel Slime's desire for higher ratings/profits) can only be achieved by turning over the list and that takes years.

I don't buy that the game really changed much between 2015 and 2016. There were certainly no fundamental changes (or we wouldn't be having the 'ugly football' discussion now). Congestion was still a major factor. Sydney came first and WB won the premiership based off a game-plan that focused on contested football and generating pressure around the contest.

I think you skirt over the Sydney example too easily. Mills and Heeney are quality talents but they were just first year and second year players playing half-back and half-forward in that year. I don't think Blakely and Weller at the time for example were that far off them. Buddy of course is a factor but do you really think that one guy is the difference between the team that finished first and the team that finished 3rd last...

 

[poshman]

The club did bang on about 'sustained success' though. That period, whilst enjoyable for a success-starved Freo fan, does not match my definition nor expectation of 'sustained'.

I haven't found many willing to look into my posts on here and argue with well-founded reason.

The question that has to be asked to your statement is: What is your definition of sustained success?

Not many clubs have managed to be in the finals, play prelims, minor premier and grand final appearance. I would also argue that had RTB been here earlier we would have played finals for longer.

Do you think with the current rebuild we are positioning ourselves for sustained success?

 

[Rion]

I haven't found many willing to look into my posts on here and argue with well-founded reason.

The question that has to be asked to your statement is: What is your definition of sustained success?

Not many clubs have managed to be in the finals, play prelims, minor premier and grand final appearance. I would also argue that had RTB been here earlier we would have played finals for longer.

Do you think with the current rebuild we are positioning ourselves for sustained success?

A 4 year period where we make finals before a 4-5 year (we hope) complete rebuild certainly isn't sustained success... In the current AFL it simply isn't good enough when you compare it to the better teams.

I agree that eventually Hawthorn, WC, Geelong, Sydney etc will have to dip down but it will without a doubt not be to the same length of time we've already spent down here, let alone the time we may still have to go before we're back. Hawthorn did one rebuild and have sustained over 10 years of consistent competitiveness out of it and who knows if they have the capacity to do a Collingwood esque soft rebuild (where the team hangs around mid-table) and challenge again without falling too hard down the ditch like us.

WC have only had 4 seasons below 10 wins in 17 years and haven't dropped below 9 wins in 8 years. In Ross' 7 year tenure we'll already have 3 after this year.

I don't think building for sustained success has got anything to do with how you rebuild. The challenge comes every single year you're contending to continue to refresh and rejuvenate the team which despite promises otherwise we completely and utterly failed at.

 

[eastfreo75]

A 4 year period where we make finals before a 4-5 year (we hope) complete rebuild certainly isn't sustained success... In the current AFL it simply isn't good enough when you compare it to the better teams.

I agree that eventually Hawthorn, WC, Geelong, Sydney etc will have to dip down but it will without a doubt not be to the same length of time we've already spent down here, let alone the time we may still have to go before we're back. Hawthorn did one rebuild and have sustained over 10 years of consistent competitiveness out of it and who knows if they have the capacity to do a Collingwood esque soft rebuild (where the team hangs around mid-table) and challenge again without falling too hard down the ditch like us.

WC have only had 4 seasons below 10 wins in 17 years and haven't dropped below 9 wins in 8 years. In Ross' 7 year tenure we'll already have 3 after this year.

I don't think building for sustained success has got anything to do with how you rebuild. The challenge comes every single year you're contending to continue to refresh and rejuvenate the team which despite promises otherwise we completely and utterly failed at.

It comes down to some of our recruiting decisions that has killed us in the old term and the Eagles making better decisions.

Look at the some of the stuff ups.
1. Selecting Brown over Glass
2. Trading our first round pick and instead picking up Judd or Hodge
3. Selecting Pitt over Darling
4. Selecting Simpson over Grundy
5. Not rooking J McGovern
6. Playing overs for Headland (not doing the resource on his knees)
7. Not getting Yeo
Etc

You take Yeo and McGovern out the eagles and place him in our team, you have a huge turn around.

 

[Nodgey]

I haven't found many willing to look into my posts on here and argue with well-founded reason.

The question that has to be asked to your statement is: What is your definition of sustained success?

Not many clubs have managed to be in the finals, play prelims, minor premier and grand final appearance. I would also argue that had RTB been here earlier we would have played finals for longer.

Do you think with the current rebuild we are positioning ourselves for sustained success?

Well my definition of sustained is certainly longer than 4 years. And the fact that we are 'rebuilding' kind of suggests we failed at the 'sustained success' model, doesn't it.

But how about we settle for the Harris/Rosich definition of 'sustained success' which IIRC was along the lines of consistently finishing top 4 which gives yourself the best chance of making the GF and thus winning one. We managed this for three years in a row - 2013-2015. Then we fell off a cliff. If we don't make the 8 next year (more likely than not), then that's 4 consecutive years missing finals. Which would mean four years good, four years bad. 2020 would be the tie-breaker.

My definition of sustained is probably 8-10 years. Maybe more. Lets say the length of a 200+game career. Which, given injuries, could be anywhere from 10 years to 13. Success? I'll be conservative and define that as making the finals. Not always, but certainly more often than not. So by this definition, I propose Hawthorn, Geelong, Sydney, and the Slime can say they have enjoyed 'sustained success' since 2012 (when Ross took over.) A acknowledge this is 'only' a 7 year period, but these teams have made the finals 5+ times in that timeframe. If North make the 8, they will join the slime on 5.


Do I think with the current 'rebuild' we are positioning ouselves for sustained success? I don't know and I can't predict the future. But the history of this club, and that of the current administration, says probably not.

 

[Tbonefreo]

Well my definition of sustained is certainly longer than 4 years. And the fact that we are 'rebuilding' kind of suggests we failed at the 'sustained success' model, doesn't it.

But how about we settle for the Harris/Rosich definition of 'sustained success' which IIRC was along the lines of consistently finishing top 4 which gives yourself the best chance of making the GF and thus winning one. We managed this for three years in a row - 2013-2015. Then we fell off a cliff. If we don't make the 8 next year (more likely than not), then that's 4 consecutive years missing finals. Which would mean four years good, four years bad. 2020 would be the tie-breaker.

My definition of sustained is probably 8-10 years. Maybe more. Lets say the length of a 200+game career. Which, given injuries, could be anywhere from 10 years to 13. Success? I'll be conservative and define that as making the finals. Not always, but certainly more often than not. So by this definition, I propose Hawthorn, Geelong, Sydney, and the Slime can say they have enjoyed 'sustained success' since 2012 (when Ross took over.) A acknowledge this is 'only' a 7 year period, but these teams have made the finals 5+ times in that timeframe. If North make the 8, they will join the slime on 5.


Do I think with the current 'rebuild' we are positioning ouselves for sustained success? I don't know and I can't predict the future. But the history of this club, and that of the current administration, says probably not.

Yep. Probably not.

 

[Dormammu]

I don't buy that the game really changed much between 2015 and 2016. There were certainly no fundamental changes (or we wouldn't be having the 'ugly football' discussion now). Congestion was still a major factor. Sydney came first and WB won the premiership based off a game-plan that focused on contested football and generating pressure around the contest.

Back in 2016 on Footy Classified, episode 9 (iirc), Matthew Lloyd analysed this in depth. The results were staggering. We were bracketed in with Collingwood as the two teams most adversely affected by the reduction in stoppages (my memory is shaky but I'm pretty sure Richmond were also impacted). I've sent requests to Ch9 (Melbourne and Sydney) in the past for a copy of this episode but they were extremely unhelpful to say the least. I just put another SOS into the Bigfooty Statistics forum to see if they can help, so fingers crossed. But Lloyd's (or, more correctly, Champion Data's) stats nailed the issue perfectly.

Your point about Footscray generating pressure around the contest supports this - faster players get to more contests, and quickly outnumber their opposition and win more ball, leaving the likes of Barlow and Fishpub trailing in their wake.

I think you skirt over the Sydney example too easily. Mills and Heeney are quality talents but they were just first year and second year players playing half-back and half-forward in that year. I don't think Blakely and Weller at the time for example were that far off them. Buddy of course is a factor but do you really think that one guy is the difference between the team that finished first and the team that finished 3rd last...

Looking at the stats Blakely did have a good 2016 (15 games), while Weller had a better start and posted the results you'd hope for from a quick, skinny first round pick (12 goals, 22 games, lots of turnovers). But Heeney (28 goals) and particularly Mills had scary good debuts, playing 24 games each. As for Franklin it was his second best ever year in front of goals (81) and whilst he's more a naughty boy than a messiah he could be relied upon to produce enough miracles that year to halt any from grace.

But ignoring the players above the Swans, overall, had more leg-speed than us (Rohan, Towers, Papley, Rampe etc) to help shield them from the changes.

 

[Oldman Docker]

You simply can't continue to employ a drill sergeant who will not alter from his core mantra.

The players only listen to barking for so long, then it simply becomes white noise, there needs to be elements of teaching, empathy, hardness and discipline.

Clarkson is a rare breed, but it's often why Senior coaches have a limited shelf life, we need to stop deluding ourselves that Ross has a holistic skill set.