YOU belong- WE believe in you.

[bob__71]

True ok.

Well my thoughts are.

1 Of course your top players are very important. That is why if we had of managed to win the grandfinal with Roo and Goddard injured it would have been a highly regarded victory.

2 I think it makes it very difficult for the top players to be their best if the bottom six dont do their job. If the top players have to constantly cover for others in the team it reduces their ability to create.

3 The discussion is of interest because it is a key point of difference between the previous coaching regieme and the current one. I think a culture which values all contributors makes for a more robust model. But I dont have a MBA.

[rodgerfox]

True ok.

Well my thoughts are.

1 Of course your top players are very important. That is why if we had of managed to win the grandfinal with Roo and Goddard injured it would have been a highly regarded victory.

2 I think it makes it very difficult for the top players to be their best if the bottom six dont do their job. If the top players have to constantly cover for others in the team it reduces their ability to create.

3 The discussion is of interest because it is a key point of difference between the previous coaching regieme and the current one. I think a culture which values all contributors makes for a more robust model. But I dont have a MBA.

All fair points - albeit points that I don't really agree with. And I guess that's where the debate lies. It's a bit of a 'chicken or egg' argument really.
Is it the guns making the 'bottom 6' look good, or the 'bottom 6' making the guns look good?

As for the last point, GT was notorious for going on about the whole 'bottom 6' thing which I disagree with.
He was all over the whole 'it's the bottom 6 that wins games for you' thing.

So I'm not sure it's a difference between GT and Lyon. I think every coach in the comp wants the best out of their 'bottom 6' - because in a perfect world if your 'bottom 6' are guns then you'll be unbeatable.

That can't be denied.

What I see though as a supporter and not as a coach seeking the perfect world, is that it's impossible to have a great 'bottom 6'. Even a good 'bottom 6' is almost impossible.

No team goes without injuries throughout a season, so suddenly the 'bottom 6' starts getting topped up with reserves players. Now if a club has reserves players capable of playing good, consistent AFL footy they just won't be able to keep them.

No one sits in the 2s knowing they can play in an AFL team and be a genuinely contributor. It just doesn't happen.

[rodgerfox]

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.

Yes, I do. To a degree, of course.

The whole 'premiership window' thing is something that relates (in my opinion) to the best and most influential players in the team peaking together.

Teams don't make the GF without their 'top 6' being very, very good. And they certainly don't make it without their 'top 6' playing to that potential.

We, regardless of all the cool and popular theories being bandied around regarding our relative success, are a genuine contender because our 'top 6' is peaking together and are in very good form.

When they weren't in form - we were getting beaten by average teams.

They find form, and hey presto! We start winning again!

So, if our top 6 dominate on GF day we'd win whether you, me or GT were in the team as a 'bottom 6' player.


Here's a question for you....

Why do I read here very regularly things such as 'if we stop Ablett and Chapman we'll win'?

[SainterK]

Mark Thompson has admitted since, that it was Jason Gram that caused him the most headaches on GF day, would you rate him in our top 6?

[rodgerfox]

Mark Thompson has admitted since, that it was Jason Gram that caused him the most headaches on GF day, would you rate him in our top 6?

I'm not sure of the relevance, but anyway.....

Gram, in form, would probably be in our 'top 6'.

[SainterK]

Mark Thompson has admitted since, that it was Jason Gram that caused him the most headaches on GF day, would you rate him in our top 6?

I'm not sure of the relevance, but anyway.....

Gram, in form, would probably be in our 'top 6'.

I wouldn't mind hearing who your 'top 6' are, if you would like to share...

[rodgerfox]

Mark Thompson has admitted since, that it was Jason Gram that caused him the most headaches on GF day, would you rate him in our top 6?

I'm not sure of the relevance, but anyway.....

Gram, in form, would probably be in our 'top 6'.

I wouldn't mind hearing who your 'top 6' are, if you would like to share...

If you'd read the thread, you'd know that I've already explained that I don't buy into the whole 'bottom 6' thing.

I've explained very clearly that I believe the stars win you games, and the duds tag along for the ride.

As I've already stated, this is why I've used inverted commas when using the terms 'top 6' and 'bottom 6'.

The term 'top 6' is used to describe the stars. The term 'bottom 6' is used to describe the dregs.


So who are our stars?

I'd say Roo, Lenny, Dal, BJ, Joey, Milne, Gram (when fit), Baker (yes, Steven Baker), Sam Fisher and maybe even Michael Gardiner.

Gilbert could also be included. When in form, I'd consider him a star.

[SainterK]

So start calling them 'the stars' rather than capping it at a number...

Rodger, surely you can come up with something a little more respectful than dregs? Not everybody on the list is going to be an a-grade player, unless you want Ken Wood knocking on your door with regularity.

[rodgerfox]

So start calling them 'the stars' rather than capping it at a number...

Sigh.

Throughout the whole thread I've been very clear that that's one of the reasons I don't buy into the theory.

The reason I've been using the terms 'top 6' and 'bottom 6' is because that's the term used by the wider football community.

I didn't create the term 'bottom 6'.


If you bothered to read the thread before jumping in, you'd have known that.

[SainterK]

So start calling them 'the stars' rather than capping it at a number...

Sigh.

Throughout the whole thread I've been very clear that that's one of the reasons I don't buy into the theory.

The reason I've been using the terms 'top 6' and 'bottom 6' is because that's the term used by the wider football community.

I didn't create the term 'bottom 6'.


If you bothered to read the thread before jumping in, you'd have known that.

Hey, don't you try to make me out to be some kind of trouble maker. I contributed to thread from the beginning, so I've hardly jumped in.

Why would you worry about what the wider football community calls them, if you call them 'the stars' well let's call them 'the stars' then.

Not sure why your sighing.

[bob__71]

True ok.

Well my thoughts are.

1 Of course your top players are very important. That is why if we had of managed to win the grandfinal with Roo and Goddard injured it would have been a highly regarded victory.

2 I think it makes it very difficult for the top players to be their best if the bottom six dont do their job. If the top players have to constantly cover for others in the team it reduces their ability to create.

3 The discussion is of interest because it is a key point of difference between the previous coaching regieme and the current one. I think a culture which values all contributors makes for a more robust model. But I dont have a MBA.

All fair points - albeit points that I don't really agree with. And I guess that's where the debate lies. It's a bit of a 'chicken or egg' argument really.
Is it the guns making the 'bottom 6' look good, or the 'bottom 6' making the guns look good?

As for the last point, GT was notorious for going on about the whole 'bottom 6' thing which I disagree with.
He was all over the whole 'it's the bottom 6 that wins games for you' thing.

So I'm not sure it's a difference between GT and Lyon. I think every coach in the comp wants the best out of their 'bottom 6' - because in a perfect world if your 'bottom 6' are guns then you'll be unbeatable.

That can't be denied.

What I see though as a supporter and not as a coach seeking the perfect world, is that it's impossible to have a great 'bottom 6'. Even a good 'bottom 6' is almost impossible.

No team goes without injuries throughout a season, so suddenly the 'bottom 6' starts getting topped up with reserves players. Now if a club has reserves players capable of playing good, consistent AFL footy they just won't be able to keep them.

No one sits in the 2s knowing they can play in an AFL team and be a genuinely contributor. It just doesn't happen.

I think maybe I should explain my point three better. As you said GT was alway on about bottom six...how injury never happened to the 'crabs' i think he called them. While you would never hear Ross saying such things. So I think that GT had a much more us and them attitude about it. I think it didnt help inspire greater performances from our less senior members of the team.

[saintsRrising]

Teams do not exist in a vaccuum.

Geelong's Top 6 is awesome.... so relying on out Top 6 to win it for us is a low % play.

You need 22 players to beat the Cats. No one is saying that our Bottom 6 need to be guns. Sure we want our stars to be stars. But against a team as good as the Cats we have no room for 6 "duds".

Against a team like the Cats the efforts of all 22 players are important.

Moreso with a team like the Saints whose gameplan is very dependent on team efforts. Our zone can be cracked wide open if every player is not doing their bit.