When is Loyalty a Weakness?

[Persevering Saint]

Something I've been wondering about these last few days - I think we've been skirting around this issue with all the toos-and-fros of the last week or so, and indeed, with the whole Maxy/Goose situation as well.

We love the motto, "Strength through Loyalty", and usually see that as being that when we are loyal to players/supporters/coach/club, we are at our strongest (at least that's how I've commonly interpreted it). I wonder if Lyon is shifting it a little.

I think Lyon is indicating in some of his actions that sometimes our sense of loyalty has actually been a weakness.

Let me define strength/weakness here: strength is the ability to win premierships. So, based on that, if Lyon had picked Maxy for the GF, I think he thinks that would have been loyal, but it would have threatened our ability to win a premiership, and thus would have been a weakness rather than a strength.

This represents a shift in the understanding of our motto - a rather unsettling shift, but (I don't know) maybe a necessary one. It's almost becoming "Loyalty so long as it's a Strength (ie, it will win a Premiership)" - Fidelius si Fortuis.

There is something horribly mercenary about this... but, could it be that the StKFC has too much of a history of letting sentimentality get in the way? Is this what cost us in years gone by? Ugh...

 

[SaintsSeptember]

We don't know what would have happened had Max played in the GF.

We can speculate all you like.

I wondered at the time if I had misplaced loyalty, but in the end I concluded that Max was a better player, and was supported by many of his former opponents in the media.

 

[Saintland]

Don't know. But players are often berrated if they 'choose' to leave but if the club does it (as per X) it's business. That said you probably can't or shouldn't be overly sentimental-you have to try and keep getting better. The whys and wherefore's only the inner sanctum will know.

 

[Cuz2Plugger]

Machiavelli would say, when it goes both ways.

 

[underthestars]

Don't think Ross gives a shit about the motto.

 

[Persevering Saint]

Don't think Ross gives a shit about the motto.

If that's the case, should he? We as fans often hold it in a dear place in our hearts. When he acts in a way contrary to that - going for "what gets results" rather than what is the loyal thing to do, what are we meant to do with that?

Take the Xavier situation that has just occured: Ross Lyon promised Xav that there was a place on the list for him next year - that was well publicised. Now it could well be that Xav actually asked for a fresh start, which is fine. But it could just as well be that once Lovett was signed, Lyon figured Xav wasn't worth keeping, and dumped him. If that's going to win us a premiership, is that okay?

Reflecting on it more, what HAVE we meant by strength all these years? For many of them, I think it was the strength to survive, not to win premierships! We stuck close to each other, helped each other out, if you were a player you took only 5% of your pay or whatever, just so that the Red,White & Black could stay alive.

So is then, just maybe, that loyalty is only necessary in the hard times, and is a, um, commodity that we can toss aside when we're going for the big prize? If that's the attitude that Lyon is creating there, how do you feel about that? Or do you think that he's not creating a disloyal culture, despite my description here?

 

[Squizz]

Some interesting thoughts there Percy.

I've often wondered whether Ball was drafted in part becuase he was from a quality family rather than best available (not saying Judd's is not, but I have wondered). The same with Mini and Macca.

Don't have a problem with this, as until this year the list has been a rock solid unit. Maybe we have missed out on the X factor, and I've banged on about our list lacking pace and skill (but Ross has been able to inject Freddo, Seany D, Jack, & Ray and CJ, Eddy and Gears have come on as rookies with a bit of nip).

But then when Fiora was played in front of Birss, and Charlie Gardiner in front of Fergie I think the landscape changed. Rix being played at FF with Casey was just silly (as he had no chance of senior selection in this role).

The situations with X (who had a number of good games with Sandy before doing his knee without being able to get a game of AFL), Goose and Max along with the tough love extended to Armo and Ball this year have clearly put the loyalty issue to the forefront.

Where does "responsibility" for loyalty lie? The player, the club, the fans or a combination?

The comments regarding Luke Ball are puzzling to me. Has the club shown any special loyalty to him, warranting repayment via a change in his game that he is obviously not comfortable with?

And what do the fans (who have been scathing) do if we cannot arrange a trade and Ball stays? If he kicks a goal, do you look the other way in disgust? Clap politely? Or be two-faced enough to roar with the same passion as for a Maverick?

It's been an interesting week.

 

[The Punter]

If he comes back, then he is a St Kilda player and I will support Ball.

And I never said I would appreciate or admire his performance on the field or the way he plays the game.

I was, and am, angry for his apparent reasons for leaving the club, which seems to be some sort of "I ain't getting my props". I thought he was better than that.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Some interesting thoughts there Percy.

I've often wondered whether Ball was drafted in part becuase he was from a quality family rather than best available (not saying Judd's is not, but I have wondered). The same with Mini and Macca.

Don't have a problem with this, as until this year the list has been a rock solid unit. Maybe we have missed out on the X factor, and I've banged on about our list lacking pace and skill (but Ross has been able to inject Freddo, Seany D, Jack, & Ray and CJ, Eddy and Gears have come on as rookies with a bit of nip).

But then when Fiora was played in front of Birss, and Charlie Gardiner in front of Fergie I think the landscape changed. Rix being played at FF with Casey was just silly (as he had no chance of senior selection in this role).

The situations with X (who had a number of good games with Sandy before doing his knee without being able to get a game of AFL), Goose and Max along with the tough love extended to Armo and Ball this year have clearly put the loyalty issue to the forefront.

Where does "responsibility" for loyalty lie? The player, the club, the fans or a combination?

The comments regarding Luke Ball are puzzling to me. Has the club shown any special loyalty to him, warranting repayment via a change in his game that he is obviously not comfortable with?

And what do the fans (who have been scathing) do if we cannot arrange a trade and Ball stays? If he kicks a goal, do you look the other way in disgust? Clap politely? Or be two-faced enough to roar with the same passion as for a Maverick?

It's been an interesting week.

Some interesting thought there Squizzy. Selecting a player for character rather than talent ( in hindsight the Kangaroo's were lucky they got so much out of Wayne Carey before he self destructed ).
As far as improvement goes. There are some very talented players who don't work hard enough in the AFL. These are the players who can potentially improve enormously. Then there are others who may not be as talented but put everything they can into it. Both these types of players may be good at a given time, but can you really demand that the latter group "work harder" to improve.

Its only my opinion, but I tend to think Grant Thomas played around the strengths and weaknesses of the players. The down side to this is that players don't tend to try to get outside their comfort zone and become more than what they are.

Ross Lyon seems to try to create universal players, who can do everything he demands. The down side to this is that some players can't do it and the Ross dosn't want to use them, even though they may still have some unique talents that would make them useful to a coach using the GT method.

 

[Look2Me4Guidance]

Some interesting thought there Squizzy. Selecting a player for character rather than talent ( in hindsight the Kangaroo's were lucky they got so much out of Wayne Carey before he self destructed ).
As far as improvement goes. There are some very talented players who don't work hard enough in the AFL. These are the players who can potentially improve enormously. Then there are others who may not be as talented but put everything they can into it. Both these types of players may be good at a given time, but can you really demand that the latter group "work harder" to improve.

Its only my opinion, but I tend to think Grant Thomas played around the strengths and weaknesses of the players. The down side to this is that players don't tend to try to get outside their comfort zone and become more than what they are.

Ross Lyon seems to try to create universal players, who can do everything he demands. The down side to this is that some players can't do it and the Ross dosn't want to use them, even though they may still have some unique talents that would make them useful to a coach using the GT method.

Lyon is a far better coach than Thomas. He has been able to evolve the gameplan as the landscape of the game has changed. Thomas could never achieve this.

 

[Squizz]

Don't get me wrong - I agree with the Ross Lyon approach (I think SS would agree with you too Guide). But we should accept that if other clubs don't need a player to change their game, and Ross does, that it is fair for that player to seek greener pastures without a revolt.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Lyon is a far better coach than Thomas. He has been able to evolve the gameplan as the landscape of the game has changed. Thomas could never achieve this.

I agree. However my earlier comment was only referring to the way they viewed the strengths and weaknesses of the players.
IMO you can go to far with either approach.

 

[Look2Me4Guidance]

Don't get me wrong - I agree with the Ross Lyon approach (I think SS would agree with you too Guide). But we should accept that if other clubs don't need a player to change their game, and Ross does, that it is fair for that player to seek greener pastures without a revolt.

So if that's the case, should players who have changed their game and stuck with the club be held in higher regard?

 

[underthestars]

It's a tricky one
For me our motto is part of who we are - it's on our emblem - and if we don't live by it then we are no different to any other club that sees footy as a race for the flag and nothing else.
To me footy is a part of us, and a club's culture is a big part of what attracts us to a certain club.
Strength through loyalty goes both ways - look at our past and the sacrifices players have made for us - that must be recognised and repayed.
Is it worth it if it may hinder a flag chance?

imo - within reason - yes. For example, if we had 2% lesser chance of beating the cats with max in i would say it's worth it - our culture should demand this! If you asked the longer term sainters - are you willing to risk that 2% by playing max? No doubt they would say yes - he deserves the chance! It may also add that extra edge of endeavor, knowing the club will stand by it's loyal stalwarts.

bBut ross, as i said before, has different values - he's after a flag, and other concerns are secondary. For most clubs this is fine - for us it is losing a bit of our culture - whether that is a good or bad thing depends on your view.
Mind you, if you want a flag that badly you could always follow another club?
I want a saints flag on saints terms - fortius quo fidelius

 

[Squizz]

So if that's the case, should players who have changed their game and stuck with the club be held in higher regard?

You'd like to think so - any player who can reinvent himself successfully deserves some extra praise?

Dal & Milne would get some browny points for going back to the VFL and getting the defensive side in their game right? Montagna has become elite in terms of tackling which surprised me.

When Kosi becomes a gun CHB again I will be impressed.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

You'd like to think so - any player who can reinvent himself successfully deserves some extra praise?

Dal & Milne would get some browny points for going back to the VFL and getting the defensive side in their game right? Montagna has become elite in terms of tackling which surprised me.

When Kosi becomes a gun CHB again I will be impressed.

Agreed, even players like McQualter are to be admired for working their way into the team. But does a player like Lenny Hayes ( who really hasn't had to change his game play much at all )have to be any less admired, because he was doing the right thing all along.

 

[Squizz]

Agreed, even players like McQualter are to be admired for working their way into the team. But does a player like Lenny Hayes ( who really hasn't had to change his game play much at all )have to be any less admired, because he was doing the right thing all along.

Mini is probably a better example - knew I'd missed someone obvious.

If you have the utmost admiration for someone, can it go higher?

 

[Shinbones]

Something I've been wondering about these last few days - I think we've been skirting around this issue with all the toos-and-fros of the last week or so, and indeed, with the whole Maxy/Goose situation as well.

We love the motto, "Strength through Loyalty", and usually see that as being that when we are loyal to players/supporters/coach/club, we are at our strongest (at least that's how I've commonly interpreted it). I wonder if Lyon is shifting it a little.

I think Lyon is indicating in some of his actions that sometimes our sense of loyalty has actually been a weakness.

Let me define strength/weakness here: strength is the ability to win premierships. So, based on that, if Lyon had picked Maxy for the GF, I think he thinks that would have been loyal, but it would have threatened our ability to win a premiership, and thus would have been a weakness rather than a strength.

This represents a shift in the understanding of our motto - a rather unsettling shift, but (I don't know) maybe a necessary one. It's almost becoming "Loyalty so long as it's a Strength (ie, it will win a Premiership)" - Fidelius si Fortuis.

There is something horribly mercenary about this... but, could it be that the StKFC has too much of a history of letting sentimentality get in the way? Is this what cost us in years gone by? Ugh...

I think it's a common theme for all clubs . You couldnt name a club that hasnt put up a club favorite for sale or retirement for the sake of winning/business . Unfortunatly it's a massive business now and although there is still the tribal support for clubs that fanaticism is surely tested in the name of Business/success/winning.
It's like a mothers love for a soldier.... love them while you can... they wont be around for ever!!
Every supporter I suggest is tested at some stage .

 

[Monika72]

In business loyalty is a weakness,
on the footy field you fight till the end of the match.
At a football club you give your all. It's ok when everything goes well, but the nature of a person is what he does when his down.
You can do two things,
1- get up and take it on or
2- it's a bit too hard I think that I will get out of here.
You my friend choose. Do you want to win a premiership or is it a little too hard and leave.:spade:

 

[olmate]

Lyon is a far better coach than Thomas. He has been able to evolve the gameplan as the landscape of the game has changed. Thomas could never achieve this.

Thomas never had a backup game plan

 

[drama5]

Just popping in and thought it was an interesting discusion

good theory but it works both ways, maybe your biggest downfall this year was by not being loyal and therefore not having strength (i.e strength through loyalty). Maybe by being loyal and having faith in a veteren of the club you might have had a different result?? maybe he might have been that .5% difference that you needed and by not being loyal you werent strong enough to beat geelong?

either way ross lyon is a very good coach and you guys will surely be one of the teams to beat next year .

 

[Sergian]

Being team focussed is fine and at most times preferable, but in some cases things change. Look at Hawthorn and Shane Crawford last year. He was nursed through the entire year with knee tendonitis and then primed to play his last ever game, the GF. Even with dodge knees, there was no way the club wouldn't have played him in that game. Crawf was no where near the player of years gone by, but the club acknowledged his achievements, his loyalty, and his contribution by allowing him the opportunity to win a flag. I think there are similarities with Hudghton's situation here. I'm not saying we won because Crawf played, or because we played for Crawf, but did it hurt to play him? No. Hell, no. I like Hudghton, and would of loved to see him win a premiership. Given a choice between stoic pragmatism and sentimentalism I'd lean to the latter, especially if a player can still play a role, as Max could. Having said that, we just traded a bloke whose grandfather is cast in bronze on our grandstand steps.

 

[Persevering Saint]

And see, if you contrast that with where we were loyal to some players who seemed to have questionable rights to be playing, like Raph, well, that's another interesting discussion!

 

[John Bonney]

Dawson made the mistake that turned the game with 2 goals in 20 seconds (even though every umpire on the ground was temporarily blind to the ball hitting the goal post) Maxy would not have done that under pressure, Lyon's lack of loyalty has cost us a flag and now it has cost us a decent trade for Ball.

A luke Ball thread,ho hum....yawn....

 

[John Bonney]

Ahh the kids that use ho hum yawn.. so original

No worries Mrs B.