YOU belong- WE believe in you.

[starsign]

interesting argument and my jury's still out over top 6, middle bottom

I like the idea that if your top6 don't perform to the max then the bottom 6 have no hope, but equally the reverse can occur

I still recon that you need the best 22 on the day , sounds too simple?
But the old adage rings true especially in GFs
"a champion team will always beat a team of champions

and I recon thats what RL holds formost in all his deliberations too

anyway its all good stuff and we sure have the makings ....if the Hawks can do it over them with that elusive element DESIRE on the day , surely our blokes can!!

[desertsaint]

No RF is right re bottom 6 - me and five drunk mates could have played in last years GF and we still would have lost!

[GoTheTorp]

To me its just the best 22 on the park, top 6, bottom 6 blah blah blah, its whoever cuts the opposition a new one on the day, and that can be anyone and everyone.

[rodgerfox]

No RF is right re bottom 6 - me and five drunk mates could have played in last years GF and we still would have lost!

Correct.

[plugger66]

No RF is right re bottom 6 - me and five drunk mates could have played in last years GF and we still would have lost!

Correct.

But would have Geelong?

[rodgerfox]

To me its just the best 22 on the park, top 6, bottom 6 blah blah blah, its whoever cuts the opposition a new one on the day, and that can be anyone and everyone.

And that's why I think the 'bottom 6' myth is just that. What I do believe though, is that the ones who cut up the opposition and win the flags for clubs over the course of a season, are the stars. Or the 'top 6'.

The premiership team and the GF team nearly always have a large AA representation.
It's because they get to that position because they have standout season from their guns.

[rodgerfox]

No RF is right re bottom 6 - me and five drunk mates could have played in last years GF and we still would have lost!

Correct.

But would have Geelong?

Yep.

What got Geelong over the line was the games of Ablett, Chapman, Bartel, Selwood, Mooney and Corey.

The kept them in the game, and got them over the line.


It's always the stars.

[plugger66]

To me its just the best 22 on the park, top 6, bottom 6 blah blah blah, its whoever cuts the opposition a new one on the day, and that can be anyone and everyone.

And that's why I think the 'bottom 6' myth is just that. What I do believe though, is that the ones who cut up the opposition and win the flags for clubs over the course of a season, are the stars. Or the 'top 6'.

The premiership team and the GF team nearly always have a large AA representation.
It's because they get to that position because they have standout season from their guns.

You still dont get it. If you agree the 22 on the park help win the game then are agreeing that the bottom 6 are very important. It is obvious that if the top 6 play badly in a big game you will struggle to win but to me it is just as obvious that if the top 6 play to their potential and you get nothing out of your bottom 6 then you cant win big games.

[bob__71]

I wish we had an adults only version of SS.

[rodgerfox]

To me its just the best 22 on the park, top 6, bottom 6 blah blah blah, its whoever cuts the opposition a new one on the day, and that can be anyone and everyone.

And that's why I think the 'bottom 6' myth is just that. What I do believe though, is that the ones who cut up the opposition and win the flags for clubs over the course of a season, are the stars. Or the 'top 6'.

The premiership team and the GF team nearly always have a large AA representation.
It's because they get to that position because they have standout season from their guns.

You still dont get it. If you agree the 22 on the park help win the game then are agreeing that the bottom 6 are very important.

I get it.

I just don't agree with you.

We're not talking about the 'bottom 6 helping you win games'. I'm disagreeing with the theory/myth that the 'it's the bottom 6 that is the difference between winning and losing' (or however people want to word it).

The drinks boys help you win games. The boot studder helps you win games. Everyone plays a part.

But the difference between winning and losing flags, is the stars - not the duds making up the numbers.

It is obvious that if the top 6 play badly in a big game you will struggle to win but to me it is just as obvious that if the top 6 play to their potential and you get nothing out of your bottom 6 then you cant win big games.

Well that's clearly what we disagree on.

If your top 6 play to their potential, the roles of the 'bottom 6' become gimmes. And therefore achievable for players of their ability.

So it's rare to get 'nothing' out of your bottom 6 if the top 6 dominate.


You will not win a flag if your top 6 either aren't that good, or don't have standout years and perform in the big games - regardless of what the 'bottom 6' do.

And, you'll find that teams who's 'top 6' aren't that good or don't perform, appear to have a woeful 'bottom 6'. That's because the 'bottom 6' are being asked to perform roles beyond their means.

[rodgerfox]

I wish we had an adults only version of SS.

So do I, it'd keep morons from chiming in to decent discussions with what they believe to be witty one liners shouted from the behind the bushes.

[Mr Magic]

To me its just the best 22 on the park, top 6, bottom 6 blah blah blah, its whoever cuts the opposition a new one on the day, and that can be anyone and everyone.

And that's why I think the 'bottom 6' myth is just that. What I do believe though, is that the ones who cut up the opposition and win the flags for clubs over the course of a season, are the stars. Or the 'top 6'.

The premiership team and the GF team nearly always have a large AA representation.
It's because they get to that position because they have standout season from their guns.

You still dont get it. If you agree the 22 on the park help win the game then are agreeing that the bottom 6 are very important. It is obvious that if the top 6 play badly in a big game you will struggle to win but to me it is just as obvious that if the top 6 play to their potential and you get nothing out of your bottom 6 then you cant win big games.

A couple of injured players on the bench, limiting your possible rotations, can cause a team to lose a game. Therefore being 1-2 players (out of 22) down, impacts on the team performance.

Therefore the premise that the bottom 6 have little effect on the positive outcome of a game is nonsense. Surely it is plain to anybody watching that if your 'bottom 6' play badly then you are certainly going to get beaten by good teams (and one could assume that the opposition in a GF are a good team).
To argue that they have lirttle/zero effect on the game's outcome is nonsensical.
If both teams' stars (top 6) negate each other, then the winner will come from the other 16 players - including the 'bottom 6'.

[rodgerfox]

A couple of injured players on the bench, limiting your possible rotations, can cause a team to lose a game. Therefore being 1-2 players (out of 22) down, impacts on the team performance.

Of course it will - cause the stars won't get a rest and won't be able to play out a game.

Everyone at the club has an effect on the game. See my post above if you could be bothered reading before chiming in.

It's the theory that 'the bottom 6 are who wins you the flag' that I disagree with.

It's not. It's the stars.

[plugger66]

To me its just the best 22 on the park, top 6, bottom 6 blah blah blah, its whoever cuts the opposition a new one on the day, and that can be anyone and everyone.

And that's why I think the 'bottom 6' myth is just that. What I do believe though, is that the ones who cut up the opposition and win the flags for clubs over the course of a season, are the stars. Or the 'top 6'.

The premiership team and the GF team nearly always have a large AA representation.
It's because they get to that position because they have standout season from their guns.

You still dont get it. If you agree the 22 on the park help win the game then are agreeing that the bottom 6 are very important.

I get it.

I just don't agree with you.

We're not talking about the 'bottom 6 helping you win games'. I'm disagreeing with the theory/myth that the 'it's the bottom 6 that is the difference between winning and losing' (or however people want to word it).

The drinks boys help you win games. The boot studder helps you win games. Everyone plays a part.

But the difference between winning and losing flags, is the stars - not the duds making up the numbers.

It is obvious that if the top 6 play badly in a big game you will struggle to win but to me it is just as obvious that if the top 6 play to their potential and you get nothing out of your bottom 6 then you cant win big games.

Well that's clearly what we disagree on.

If your top 6 play to their potential, the roles of the 'bottom 6' become gimmes. And therefore achievable for players of their ability.

So it's rare to get 'nothing' out of your bottom 6 if the top 6 dominate.


You will not win a flag if your top 6 either aren't that good, or don't have standout years and perform in the big games - regardless of what the 'bottom 6' do.

And, you'll find that teams who's 'top 6' aren't that good or don't perform, appear to have a woeful 'bottom 6'. That's because the 'bottom 6' are being asked to perform roles beyond their means.

You are now agueing differently to earlier in the thread. You are now saying if the top 6 play well the bottom 6 follow where as previously you have said you basically dont need the bottom 6 or if you do anyone could play those positions. Below is a quote from you on this thread.

The 'bottom 6' are irrelevant though. You and I could be the bottom 6, and it wouldn't make any difference at all."

So which is it or does it depend on what where and who you are discussing this topic with?

[Mr Magic]

A couple of injured players on the bench, limiting your possible rotations, can cause a team to lose a game. Therefore being 1-2 players (out of 22) down, impacts on the team performance.

Of course it will - cause the stars won't get a rest and won't be able to play out a game.

Everyone at the club has an effect on the game. See my post above if you could be bothered reading before chiming in.

It's the theory that 'the bottom 6 are who wins you the flag' that I disagree with.

It's not. It's the stars.

I posted in response to plugger's post, whilst you were compiling your 'move the goalposts' response, so take your smarmy post and stick it where the sun don't shine (or is that already full with your alter-ego Violent Stool?)

If you can really be bothered debating legitimately, then I'm sure others (including me) will oblige.
But if you want to continue throwing personal abuse then I'm sure others (including me) will also oblige.
Your choice entirely.

[rodgerfox]

You are now agueing differently to earlier in the thread. You are now saying if the top 6 play well the bottom 6 follow where as previously you have said you basically dont need the bottom 6 or if you do anyone could play those positions. Below is a quote from you on this thread.

The 'bottom 6' are irrelevant though. You and I could be the bottom 6, and it wouldn't make any difference at all."

So which is it or does it depend on what where and who you are discussing this topic with?

I'm not arguing differently at all.

Any dud can be a 'bottom 6' player. I could play full back on a forward if Lenny Hayes, Joey, Dal and BJ are dominating. The ball wouldn't be coming down my end, and if it did the delivery would be under pressure.
I'd also have Sam Fisher coming in 3rd man up, and know that should the ball hit the ground he'll most likely get it.

If the stars are playing, the role of a 'bottom 6' player will become an easy one.

My 'argument' is as clear as day, and has been for the past 5 years on this topic.

Your problem here Plugger66, is that you're trying to 'win' an argument, as opposed to discuss a topic. Your falling for the same trp that most losers on here fall for.
When you start doing that, you lose sight of what you're doing and start clutching.


We clearly disagree on this. Which is fine.

Where this place goes up the shiit, is when people (Mr Magic, SrR to name a couple) get all flustered and start trying to 'win' arguments. You don't 'win' discussions over opinions.

[markp]

He doesn't believe this shyte either, and he knows it is makes absolutely no sense.

[rodgerfox]

A couple of injured players on the bench, limiting your possible rotations, can cause a team to lose a game. Therefore being 1-2 players (out of 22) down, impacts on the team performance.

Of course it will - cause the stars won't get a rest and won't be able to play out a game.

Everyone at the club has an effect on the game. See my post above if you could be bothered reading before chiming in.

It's the theory that 'the bottom 6 are who wins you the flag' that I disagree with.

It's not. It's the stars.

I posted in response to plugger's post, whilst you were compiling your 'move the goalposts' response, so take your smarmy post and stick it where the sun don't shine (or is that already full with your alter-ego Violent Stool?)

If you can really be bothered debating legitimately, then I'm sure others (including me) will oblige.
But if you want to continue throwing personal abuse then I'm sure others (including me) will also oblige.
Your choice entirely.

Debating legitimately?

Nice one.

To use words such as 'nonsensical' when referring to someone's differing opinion, is hardly legitimate debate.

I know it gets a bit heated in the old folk's homes these days, but in the outside world that sort of condescending language isn't considered 'legitimate debate'.

[Mr Magic]

He doesn't believe this shyte either, and he knows it is makes absolutely no sense.

Yep,
Just back to his normal trolling, as ususal.

At least this time he hasn't made up a fictional post of mine (so far) in this thread.

[rodgerfox]

He doesn't believe this shyte either, and he knows it is makes absolutely no sense.

Yep,
Just back to his normal trolling, as ususal.

At least this time he hasn't made up a fictional post of mine (so far) in this thread.

If you two are going to talk amongst yourselves, any chance of doing it via PM?

[bob__71]

I wish we had an adults only version of SS.

So do I, it'd keep morons from chiming in to decent discussions with what they believe to be witty one liners shouted from the behind the bushes.

Your funny Roder...behind the bushes...we are all behind firewalls...its the internet.

And I have abused less people than you in this thread champ.

[markp]

The 'bottom 6' are irrelevant though. You and I could be the bottom 6, and it wouldn't make any difference at all.

That is what people are being sucked in to debating.

[rodgerfox]

I wish we had an adults only version of SS.

So do I, it'd keep morons from chiming in to decent discussions with what they believe to be witty one liners shouted from the behind the bushes.

Your funny Roder...behind the bushes...we are all behind firewalls...its the internet.

And I have abused less people than you in this thread champ.

And, as usual added absolutely zero to the discussion.

[plugger66]

You are now agueing differently to earlier in the thread. You are now saying if the top 6 play well the bottom 6 follow where as previously you have said you basically dont need the bottom 6 or if you do anyone could play those positions. Below is a quote from you on this thread.

The 'bottom 6' are irrelevant though. You and I could be the bottom 6, and it wouldn't make any difference at all."

So which is it or does it depend on what where and who you are discussing this topic with?

I'm not arguing differently at all.

Any dud can be a 'bottom 6' player. I could play full back on a forward if Lenny Hayes, Joey, Dal and BJ are dominating. The ball wouldn't be coming down my end, and if it did the delivery would be under pressure.
I'd also have Sam Fisher coming in 3rd man up, and know that should the ball hit the ground he'll most likely get it.

If the stars are playing, the role of a 'bottom 6' player will become an easy one.

My 'argument' is as clear as day, and has been for the past 5 years on this topic.

Your problem here Plugger66, is that you're trying to 'win' an argument, as opposed to discuss a topic. Your falling for the same trp that most losers on here fall for.
When you start doing that, you lose sight of what you're doing and start clutching.


We clearly disagree on this. Which is fine.

Where this place goes up the shiit, is when people (Mr Magic, SrR to name a couple) get all flustered and start trying to 'win' arguments. You don't 'win' discussions over opinions.

I am not trying to win the discussion. I have already won it when you state something as stupid as you could play full back.

So lets get this straight. Come GF day if we make it you wouldnt mind if McGrath, Simpkin, Archer, Hutchins, Rudd and Tiny tim are picked for us because you think we could still win the GF if our top 6 dominate. I never struck you as a comedian but you are funny.

[Mr Magic]

He doesn't believe this shyte either, and he knows it is makes absolutely no sense.

Yep,
Just back to his normal trolling, as ususal.

At least this time he hasn't made up a fictional post of mine (so far) in this thread.

If you two are going to talk amongst yourselves, any chance of doing it via PM?

You want to debate or just give instructions?