YOU belong- WE believe in you.

[rodgerfox]

There isn't a current Saints player going around that I don't genuinely believe in can get the job done come the finals.

FORTIUS QUO FIDELIUS

Wow.

There's about 6 or so that I'm confident won't get the job done come finals.

The positive is, that there are about 8 that I'm confident will. And that's the important part.

It's the top 6 that are going to win it for us.

I'm not saying that all of them are capable of being guns. But honestly I feel that Lyon with his tactical and man-management skills has the ability to turn every player on our list into a useful cog in the wheel of a premiership team.

That we made a Grand Final with Blake, Eddy, Jones, McQualter, Dawson, King, Baker, Raph in the team fills me with great confidence that Ross Lyon coached teams have the ability to consistently bat above their weight.

Not wanting to sound like a broken record, but dare I say without Roo we wouldn't have beaten Collingwood, wouldn't have beaten the Bulldogs, and obviously couldn't beat Geelong without his input.

So as I've been arguing, these guys you've listed (open for debate as to where they sit in the list) were part of a GF team because of our stars.

Take out the stars (or one star in our case last year) and all the over-complicated theories and cliched reasons for our relative success go out the window.


Even without Roo this year, until Goddard, Joey and Lenny etc. really stepped up a notch - our 'bottom 6' were pathetic.

These guys step up a notch and fill the Roo void, and suddenly we start winning again.

[SainterK]

Do the top and bottom 6 know who they are, so they can react accordingly?

So you too, think that the whole 'bottom 6' argument is nonsense?

I just think players will have good and bad games, and to put a cap on a certain number of players only being capable of so much (good or bad) is all just a little inflexible for mine...

[rodgerfox]

Do the top and bottom 6 know who they are, so they can react accordingly?

So you too, think that the whole 'bottom 6' argument is nonsense?

I just think players will have good and bad games, and to put a cap on a certain number of players only being capable of so much (good or bad) is all just a little inflexible for mine...

I agree.

The concept of 'bottom 6' is nonsense.

It's yet another lapped up popular footy cliche. Hence me using the term in inverted commas.

Your best players win you games and flags. The rest just tag along for the ride.

[dcstkfc]

There isn't a current Saints player going around that I don't genuinely believe in can get the job done come the finals.

FORTIUS QUO FIDELIUS

Wow.

There's about 6 or so that I'm confident won't get the job done come finals.

The positive is, that there are about 8 that I'm confident will. And that's the important part.

It's the top 6 that are going to win it for us.

I'm not saying that all of them are capable of being guns. But honestly I feel that Lyon with his tactical and man-management skills has the ability to turn every player on our list into a useful cog in the wheel of a premiership team.

That we made a Grand Final with Blake, Eddy, Jones, McQualter, Dawson, King, Baker, Raph in the team fills me with great confidence that Ross Lyon coached teams have the ability to consistently bat above their weight.

Not wanting to sound like a broken record, but dare I say without Roo we wouldn't have beaten Collingwood, wouldn't have beaten the Bulldogs, and obviously couldn't beat Geelong without his input.

So as I've been arguing, these guys you've listed (open for debate as to where they sit in the list) were part of a GF team because of our stars.

Take out the stars (or one star in our case last year) and all the over-complicated theories and cliched reasons for our relative success go out the window.


Even without Roo this year, until Goddard, Joey and Lenny etc. really stepped up a notch - our 'bottom 6' were pathetic.

These guys step up a notch and fill the Roo void, and suddenly we start winning again.

Of course we are a much worse team without the stars, I agree with you.

But I think that Ross's faith in the system allows us to cope much better without them than most other teams would.

If ever we need proof of that it's the Hawthorn game in Tassie last year.

We won comfortably without Roo, Lenny, Dal, Joey, BJ, Chips, Gilbo and Bakes.

That is phenomenal.

[plugger66]

Do the top and bottom 6 know who they are, so they can react accordingly?

So you too, think that the whole 'bottom 6' argument is nonsense?

I just think players will have good and bad games, and to put a cap on a certain number of players only being capable of so much (good or bad) is all just a little inflexible for mine...

I agree.

The concept of 'bottom 6' is nonsense.

It's yet another lapped up popular footy cliche. Hence me using the term in inverted commas.

Your best players win you games and flags. The rest just tag along for the ride.

That is just crap. The best players if they play to potential will always be in the top 6-10 but if your bottom, before the game not in hindsight, have shockers you cannot win against the best sides. They need to play as well as they can and hopefully a couple of them sneak into the top 10 in the side on the day.

Under your theory how did we beat the Hawks last year. I dont think any of our top 6 played.

Case closed. You are wrong.

[rodgerfox]

There isn't a current Saints player going around that I don't genuinely believe in can get the job done come the finals.

FORTIUS QUO FIDELIUS

Wow.

There's about 6 or so that I'm confident won't get the job done come finals.

The positive is, that there are about 8 that I'm confident will. And that's the important part.

It's the top 6 that are going to win it for us.

I'm not saying that all of them are capable of being guns. But honestly I feel that Lyon with his tactical and man-management skills has the ability to turn every player on our list into a useful cog in the wheel of a premiership team.

That we made a Grand Final with Blake, Eddy, Jones, McQualter, Dawson, King, Baker, Raph in the team fills me with great confidence that Ross Lyon coached teams have the ability to consistently bat above their weight.

Not wanting to sound like a broken record, but dare I say without Roo we wouldn't have beaten Collingwood, wouldn't have beaten the Bulldogs, and obviously couldn't beat Geelong without his input.

So as I've been arguing, these guys you've listed (open for debate as to where they sit in the list) were part of a GF team because of our stars.

Take out the stars (or one star in our case last year) and all the over-complicated theories and cliched reasons for our relative success go out the window.


Even without Roo this year, until Goddard, Joey and Lenny etc. really stepped up a notch - our 'bottom 6' were pathetic.

These guys step up a notch and fill the Roo void, and suddenly we start winning again.

Of course we are a much worse team without the stars, I agree with you.

But I think that Ross's faith in the system allows us to cope much better without them than most other teams would.

If ever we need proof of that it's the Hawthorn game in Tassie last year.

We won comfortably without Roo, Lenny, Dal, Joey, BJ, Chips, Gilbo and Bakes.

That is phenomenal.

I've got to disagree.

Granted the Hawthorn game was a goodie, but really apart from that since 2007 we've performed very poorly when undermanned.

This goes against yet another popular footy opinion, but I think our structures rely incredibly heavy on the same person carrying out the role.
Lyon seems incredibly reluctant to bring in new players, and sticks with the same guys time after time in the same roles time after time.

I have no issue with this as continuity is the key. However it makes us vulnerable when we miss players. Moreso I believe, than most other teams.

When we made a small adjustment such as moving Sam Fisher away from defence, we struggled.

We went through a really bad slump, triggered by the loss of only 2 players.

It wasn't just the loss of 2 good players that rocked us, it was the fact that it meant we had to play people in different roles.

We as a team, didn't cope.

[rodgerfox]

Under your theory how did we beat the Hawks last year. I dont think any of our top 6 played.

Case closed. You are wrong.

I'm not prepared to close the case based on 1 game.

That's just silly.

[SainterK]

There isn't a current Saints player going around that I don't genuinely believe in can get the job done come the finals.

FORTIUS QUO FIDELIUS

Wow.

There's about 6 or so that I'm confident won't get the job done come finals.

The positive is, that there are about 8 that I'm confident will. And that's the important part.

It's the top 6 that are going to win it for us.

I'm not saying that all of them are capable of being guns. But honestly I feel that Lyon with his tactical and man-management skills has the ability to turn every player on our list into a useful cog in the wheel of a premiership team.

That we made a Grand Final with Blake, Eddy, Jones, McQualter, Dawson, King, Baker, Raph in the team fills me with great confidence that Ross Lyon coached teams have the ability to consistently bat above their weight.

Not wanting to sound like a broken record, but dare I say without Roo we wouldn't have beaten Collingwood, wouldn't have beaten the Bulldogs, and obviously couldn't beat Geelong without his input.

So as I've been arguing, these guys you've listed (open for debate as to where they sit in the list) were part of a GF team because of our stars.

Take out the stars (or one star in our case last year) and all the over-complicated theories and cliched reasons for our relative success go out the window.


Even without Roo this year, until Goddard, Joey and Lenny etc. really stepped up a notch - our 'bottom 6' were pathetic.

These guys step up a notch and fill the Roo void, and suddenly we start winning again.

Of course we are a much worse team without the stars, I agree with you.

But I think that Ross's faith in the system allows us to cope much better without them than most other teams would.

If ever we need proof of that it's the Hawthorn game in Tassie last year.

We won comfortably without Roo, Lenny, Dal, Joey, BJ, Chips, Gilbo and Bakes.

That is phenomenal.

I've got to disagree.

Granted the Hawthorn game was a goodie, but really apart from that since 2007 we've performed very poorly when undermanned.

This goes against yet another popular footy opinion, but I think our structures rely incredibly heavy on the same person carrying out the role.
Lyon seems incredibly reluctant to bring in new players, and sticks with the same guys time after time in the same roles time after time.

I have no issue with this as continuity is the key. However it makes us vulnerable when we miss players. Moreso I believe, than most other teams.

When we made a small adjustment such as moving Sam Fisher away from defence, we struggled.

We went through a really bad slump, triggered by the loss of only 2 players.

It wasn't just the loss of 2 good players that rocked us, it was the fact that it meant we had to play people in different roles.

We as a team, didn't cope.

I disagree, we went through a tough time....because in hindsight, re-shuffling and playing guys in all different positions, was not the best idea for a team so built on knowing your role.

[plugger66]

Under your theory how did we beat the Hawks last year. I dont think any of our top 6 played.

Case closed. You are wrong.

I'm not prepared to close the case based on 1 game.

That's just silly.

Pretty good eample to wreck your theoy. None of the top 6 even playing There are hundreds of examples. Alright last year GF. Give me your bottom 6 before the GF and try as hard as you can not to use hindsight.

[rodgerfox]

Do the top and bottom 6 know who they are, so they can react accordingly?

So you too, think that the whole 'bottom 6' argument is nonsense?

I just think players will have good and bad games, and to put a cap on a certain number of players only being capable of so much (good or bad) is all just a little inflexible for mine...

I agree.

The concept of 'bottom 6' is nonsense.

It's yet another lapped up popular footy cliche. Hence me using the term in inverted commas.

Your best players win you games and flags. The rest just tag along for the ride.

That is just crap. The best players if they play to potential will always be in the top 6-10 but if your bottom, before the game not in hindsight, have shockers you cannot win against the best sides. They need to play as well as they can and hopefully a couple of them sneak into the top 10 in the side on the day.

Under your theory how did we beat the Hawks last year. I dont think any of our top 6 played.

Case closed. You are wrong.

My 'argument' is that if your top 6 play to their potential, your bottom 6 won't have shockers.

I have never, in my life, ever seen a game of football lost by a team with a very good top 6 who have all played to their potential.


If Lenny, Roo, Fisher, Dal, Joey and BJ (or whoever you have in your 'top 6') all played to their potential, guys like Zac, Eddy etc. (or whoever you have in your 'bottom 6' would not possibly put in shockers.

They would have no attention due to the opposition focussing on stopping the above, they wouldn't be under pressure in the backline due to our mids being hugely on top, and our forwards would be getting great delivery and plenty of ball.


That's 'my argument'.


If the 'top 6' struggle, suddenly the opposite occurs and the 'bottom 6' won't cope.

[rodgerfox]

Under your theory how did we beat the Hawks last year. I dont think any of our top 6 played.

Case closed. You are wrong.

I'm not prepared to close the case based on 1 game.

That's just silly.

Pretty good eample to wreck your theoy. None of the top 6 even playing There are hundreds of examples. Alright last year GF. Give me your bottom 6 before the GF and try as hard as you can not to use hindsight.

The 'bottom 6' in the GF is now irrelevant.

We lost. We lost because our 'top 6' didn't play to their potential.

If they had have, we would have won. Pretty comfortably too.

[plugger66]

Do the top and bottom 6 know who they are, so they can react accordingly?

So you too, think that the whole 'bottom 6' argument is nonsense?

I just think players will have good and bad games, and to put a cap on a certain number of players only being capable of so much (good or bad) is all just a little inflexible for mine...

I agree.

The concept of 'bottom 6' is nonsense.

It's yet another lapped up popular footy cliche. Hence me using the term in inverted commas.

Your best players win you games and flags. The rest just tag along for the ride.

That is just crap. The best players if they play to potential will always be in the top 6-10 but if your bottom, before the game not in hindsight, have shockers you cannot win against the best sides. They need to play as well as they can and hopefully a couple of them sneak into the top 10 in the side on the day.

Under your theory how did we beat the Hawks last year. I dont think any of our top 6 played.

Case closed. You are wrong.

My 'argument' is that if your top 6 play to their potential, your bottom 6 won't have shockers.

I have never, in my life, ever seen a game of football lost by a team with a very good top 6 who have all played to their potential.


If Lenny, Roo, Fisher, Dal, Joey and BJ (or whoever you have in your 'top 6') all played to their potential, guys like Zac, Eddy etc. (or whoever you have in your 'bottom 6' would not possibly put in shockers.

They would have no attention due to the opposition focussing on stopping the above, they wouldn't be under pressure in the backline due to our mids being hugely on top, and our forwards would be getting great delivery and plenty of ball.


That's 'my argument'.


If the 'top 6' struggle, suddenly the opposite occurs and the 'bottom 6' won't cope.

I disagree but I probably aint the first to disagree with you. I think a few of our top 6 struggled against Freo but to support your arguement you said they didnt even though the likes of Lenny and Joey were way down on output.

[rodgerfox]

Do the top and bottom 6 know who they are, so they can react accordingly?

So you too, think that the whole 'bottom 6' argument is nonsense?

I just think players will have good and bad games, and to put a cap on a certain number of players only being capable of so much (good or bad) is all just a little inflexible for mine...

I agree.

The concept of 'bottom 6' is nonsense.

It's yet another lapped up popular footy cliche. Hence me using the term in inverted commas.

Your best players win you games and flags. The rest just tag along for the ride.

That is just crap. The best players if they play to potential will always be in the top 6-10 but if your bottom, before the game not in hindsight, have shockers you cannot win against the best sides. They need to play as well as they can and hopefully a couple of them sneak into the top 10 in the side on the day.

Under your theory how did we beat the Hawks last year. I dont think any of our top 6 played.

Case closed. You are wrong.

My 'argument' is that if your top 6 play to their potential, your bottom 6 won't have shockers.

I have never, in my life, ever seen a game of football lost by a team with a very good top 6 who have all played to their potential.


If Lenny, Roo, Fisher, Dal, Joey and BJ (or whoever you have in your 'top 6') all played to their potential, guys like Zac, Eddy etc. (or whoever you have in your 'bottom 6' would not possibly put in shockers.

They would have no attention due to the opposition focussing on stopping the above, they wouldn't be under pressure in the backline due to our mids being hugely on top, and our forwards would be getting great delivery and plenty of ball.


That's 'my argument'.


If the 'top 6' struggle, suddenly the opposite occurs and the 'bottom 6' won't cope.

I disagree but I probably aint the first to disagree with you. I think a few of our top 6 struggled against Freo but to support your arguement you said they didnt even though the likes of Lenny and Joey were way down on output.

The 'top 6' don't have to all play well for you to win.

[plugger66]

Under your theory how did we beat the Hawks last year. I dont think any of our top 6 played.

Case closed. You are wrong.

I'm not prepared to close the case based on 1 game.

That's just silly.

Pretty good eample to wreck your theoy. None of the top 6 even playing There are hundreds of examples. Alright last year GF. Give me your bottom 6 before the GF and try as hard as you can not to use hindsight.

The 'bottom 6' in the GF is now irrelevant.

We lost. We lost because our 'top 6' didn't play to their potential.

If they had have, we would have won. Pretty comfortably too.

Expected answer. No answer.

[plugger66]

Do the top and bottom 6 know who they are, so they can react accordingly?

So you too, think that the whole 'bottom 6' argument is nonsense?

I just think players will have good and bad games, and to put a cap on a certain number of players only being capable of so much (good or bad) is all just a little inflexible for mine...

I agree.

The concept of 'bottom 6' is nonsense.

It's yet another lapped up popular footy cliche. Hence me using the term in inverted commas.

Your best players win you games and flags. The rest just tag along for the ride.

That is just crap. The best players if they play to potential will always be in the top 6-10 but if your bottom, before the game not in hindsight, have shockers you cannot win against the best sides. They need to play as well as they can and hopefully a couple of them sneak into the top 10 in the side on the day.

Under your theory how did we beat the Hawks last year. I dont think any of our top 6 played.

Case closed. You are wrong.

My 'argument' is that if your top 6 play to their potential, your bottom 6 won't have shockers.

I have never, in my life, ever seen a game of football lost by a team with a very good top 6 who have all played to their potential.


If Lenny, Roo, Fisher, Dal, Joey and BJ (or whoever you have in your 'top 6') all played to their potential, guys like Zac, Eddy etc. (or whoever you have in your 'bottom 6' would not possibly put in shockers.

They would have no attention due to the opposition focussing on stopping the above, they wouldn't be under pressure in the backline due to our mids being hugely on top, and our forwards would be getting great delivery and plenty of ball.


That's 'my argument'.


If the 'top 6' struggle, suddenly the opposite occurs and the 'bottom 6' won't cope.

I disagree but I probably aint the first to disagree with you. I think a few of our top 6 struggled against Freo but to support your arguement you said they didnt even though the likes of Lenny and Joey were way down on output.

The 'top 6' don't have to all play well for you to win.

How many then. 1 or it 2 maybe 3 or does it depend on how many of them play well and if we win or lose before you decide how many of the top 6 need to play well.

[dcstkfc]

Forget Top 6 and Bottom 6, I say that in 2009 we came so bloody close because half of our team had their best years or very close to it:

Roo
BJ
Lenny
Dal
Joey
Gilbo
Zac
Blake
CJ
Mini
Kosi
Ray
Gardi

[rodgerfox]

The 'top 6' don't have to all play well for you to win.

How many then. 1 or it 2 maybe 3 or does it depend on how many of them play well and if we win or lose before you decide how many of the top 6 need to play well.

Of course it does.


The whole 'bottom 6' nonsense is ridiculous for this exact reason (among others).

Why 6? Why is your 'bottom 6' anyway?

[rodgerfox]

Forget Top 6 and Bottom 6, I say that in 2009 we came so bloody close because half of our team had their best years or very close to it:

Roo
BJ
Lenny
Dal
Joey
Gilbo
Zac
Blake
CJ
Mini
Kosi
Ray
Gardi

My thoughts are that the stars in that list (perhaps even the 'top 6'), had their best years ever which meant the rest in that list were able to have their best years.

If those guys didn't have great years, then I highly doubt the rest would have too.
The question marks that were raised this year over guys like Zac and Mini, who were heralded last year, happened to coincide with the lull in form and/or availability of our stars.

[dcstkfc]

Forget Top 6 and Bottom 6, I say that in 2009 we came so bloody close because half of our team had their best years or very close to it:

Roo
BJ
Lenny
Dal
Joey
Gilbo
Zac
Blake
CJ
Mini
Kosi
Ray
Gardi

My thoughts are that the stars in that list (perhaps even the 'top 6'), had their best years ever which meant the rest in that list were able to have their best years.

If those guys didn't have great years, then I highly doubt the rest would have too.
The question marks that were raised this year over guys like Zac and Mini, who were heralded last year, happened to coincide with the lull in form and/or availability of our stars.

Perhaps, we will only be able to tell if Roo returns those sorts start playing better.

I must say though that the last month has been much better from Mini, Schneids and Raph- 3 of the most maligned between rounds 5 to 8, and it has co-incided with victories. Perhaps this is a result of a soft draw, perhaps not.

[markp]

Meh... I liken it to chess.

Your pawns are much less likely to win the game for you, but they can certainly help strengthen your chances if utilised well, just as they can absolutely help you lose a game if they are not.

But if your higher value pieces dont perform, then your pawns are more likely to be exposed and decimated.

[dcstkfc]

Meh... I liken it to chess.

Your pawns are much less likely to win the game for you, but they can certainly help strengthen your chances if utilised well, just as they can absolutely help you lose a game if they are not.

But if your higher value pieces dont perform, then your pawns are more likely to be exposed and decimated.

I like it.

[saintbrat]

Meh... I liken it to chess.

Your pawns are much less likely to win the game for you, but they can certainly help strengthen your chances if utilised well, just as they can absolutely help you lose a game if they are not.

But if your higher value pieces dont perform, then your pawns are more likely to be exposed and decimated.

I like it.

some one on radio the other day mentioned Mick or Rodney saying a game was like chess- and this guy was involved in the Victorian chess association and wondered if there would ever be a place for someone with a high degree of chess ability to be involved in the coaches box..

[dcstkfc]

Meh... I liken it to chess.

Your pawns are much less likely to win the game for you, but they can certainly help strengthen your chances if utilised well, just as they can absolutely help you lose a game if they are not.

But if your higher value pieces dont perform, then your pawns are more likely to be exposed and decimated.

I like it.

some one on radio the other day mentioned Mick or Rodney saying a game was like chess- and this guy was involved in the Victorian chess association and wondered if there would ever be a place for someone with a high degree of chess ability to be involved in the coaches box..

Soon you'll see all these Russian blokes barking orders to players

[saintbrat]

personally I see all 22 on any one day as being MOST valuable- they need to be out there for whichever 6 you like to be able to complete their role

You belong- we believe.......

anyone else hear the coach who mentioned the phrase last night

he also felt that Milney should have had 'Grant' on the back of one hand and 'Thomas' on the back of the other before last weeks game.. .

[dcstkfc]

personally I see all 22 on any one day as being MOST valuable- they need to be out there for whichever 6 you like to be able to complete their role

You belong- we believe.......

anyone else hear the coach who mentioned the phrase last night

he also felt that Milney should have had 'Grant' on the back of one hand and 'Thomas' on the back of the other before last weeks game.. .

I knew Milney was freak but 11 fingers???