It Doesn't Add Up

[BarryGrogan]

So we're 4th right. 3-2 and very easily could/should have been 4-1.

We're playing well, and have the 5th highest % in the comp.

But....

The only individual stats that we have anyone in the top 10 for are Tackles (Steele of course), Intercepts (Long) and Tackles Inside 50 (Butler and Kent).

That's unusual for a top 4 team.

So is it just that we're really well coached? It's the system?

Or is it a sign that we still lack that star power? Will the lack of a standout individual season be a problem?


To be honest, i think it's somewhere in the middle. The really good teams have always had a real top shelf mid that has a huge season. We still don't have that.

Clearly our game style and strategy is working at the moment. But I feel that unless someone really breaks out (which is unlikely this year) we'll be left behind when the whips are cracking. Our midfield isn't great. It's a real weakness.


Hopefully we show enough to lure a gun mid next year.

[The_Dud]

I think we've had very even performances.

Or blokes that star one week are quiet the next and someone else stands up.

As long as we're winning, I'm happy!

[BarryGrogan]

Edit: Jake and Coffield are equal 10th for Marks.

[Trev from the Bush]

Stats don't reflect efficiency.

[stkfc1]

A champion team will always beat a team of champions. We've had a very even spread of contributors and I'd rather that than having to rely on a Cripps or Fyfe to have to win games for us. What's happened is we've cleaned up our disposal and improved goal accuracy. What we've all been whining about for the last 10 years. The gameplay suits our players. The coach is switched on enough to know what his cattle are capable of and has adjusted our style to suit and we've recruited to address some of out glaring weaknesses. I feel like our club is finally in good hands.

[Nick_BlueNRG]

So we're 4th right. 3-2 and very easily could/should have been 4-1.

We're playing well, and have the 5th highest % in the comp.

But....

The only individual stats that we have anyone in the top 10 for are Tackles (Steele of course), Intercepts (Long) and Tackles Inside 50 (Butler and Kent).

That's unusual for a top 4 team.

So is it just that we're really well coached? It's the system?

Or is it a sign that we still lack that star power? Will the lack of a standout individual season be a problem?


To be honest, i think it's somewhere in the middle. The really good teams have always had a real top shelf mid that has a huge season. We still don't have that.

Clearly our game style and strategy is working at the moment. But I feel that unless someone really breaks out (which is unlikely this year) we'll be left behind when the whips are cracking. Our midfield isn't great. It's a real weakness.


Hopefully we show enough to lure a gun mid next year.

We are not in the top 4 by the way. And if you do not know why then I can't help you.

[bigcarl]

Stats don't reflect efficiency.

Or synergy. It could be simply that the team has clicked

[shanegrambeau]

..and quality is not reflected in stats. Jake Carlisle - one of our best last night and how many stats? 7? 8?

[Ghost Like]

A champion team will always beat a team of champions. We've had a very even spread of contributors and I'd rather that than having to rely on a Cripps or Fyfe to have to win games for us. What's happened is we've cleaned up our disposal and improved goal accuracy. What we've all been whining about for the last 10 years. The gameplay suits our players. The coach is switched on enough to know what his cattle are capable of and has adjusted our style to suit and we've recruited to address some of out glaring weaknesses. I feel like our club is finally in good hands.

Very true, something that brought us undone in 97, 2004, 2009, 2010...all years we should have won because we literally had more champions. It's all about the bottom 6, not the top 6.

[The Fireman]

I had the feeling that if the game had gone another 10 mins last night we would have lost.

[BarryGrogan]

A champion team will always beat a team of champions. We've had a very even spread of contributors and I'd rather that than having to rely on a Cripps or Fyfe to have to win games for us. What's happened is we've cleaned up our disposal and improved goal accuracy. What we've all been whining about for the last 10 years. The gameplay suits our players. The coach is switched on enough to know what his cattle are capable of and has adjusted our style to suit and we've recruited to address some of out glaring weaknesses. I feel like our club is finally in good hands.

Very true, something that brought us undone in 97, 2004, 2009, 2010...all years we should have won because we literally had more champions. It's all about the bottom 6, not the top 6.

Completely disagree.

The reason we lost all those games was because the opposition had their superstars deliver on the day.

Ours didn't.

The bottom 6 thing is the biggest myth in football. It's only relevant if your top 6 is no good.

But if your top 6 is no good - forget it.


I can't recall a Grand Finalist, probably ever, that didn't have an elite top 6. I can remember plenty of spuds that are premiership players though.

[Scollop]

A champion team will always beat a team of champions. We've had a very even spread of contributors and I'd rather that than having to rely on a Cripps or Fyfe ( or Riewoldt ) to have to win games for us. What's happened is we've cleaned up our disposal and improved goal accuracy. What we've all been whining about for the last 10 years. The gameplay suits our players. The coach is switched on enough to know what his cattle are capable of and has adjusted our style to suit and we've recruited to address some of out glaring weaknesses. I feel like our club is finally in good hands.

Very true, something that brought us undone in 97, 2004, 2009, 2010...all years we should have won because we literally had more champions. It's all about the bottom 6, not the top 6.

I think it’s ok to have champions, but everyone has to be valued for what they bring to the team. There shouldn’t be cliques and favourites and you have to have a coach that keeps in check the big egos...even if they are on big coin

It’s all about the coach and right now Ratts hasn’t got favourites and he doesn’t treat anyone like a star in the team. Roughy is a great addition to our coaching panel because together with Ratts they will create a culture where young players don’t feel out of place.

He’s got a guy captaining who is on much less coin than Hannas and Hill but the captain is valued just as much as the so called stars in the team. Last night Gears was worthy of getting among the best players, but on the stat sheet he had under 10 possessions. The tackles, the spoils, the bumps and the effort isn’t reflected on the stat sheet. The impact of those goals and the fact that he got them playing against one of their leaders and most important playmakers was also not reflected on the stat sheet.

It’s the same with our youngsters like Long and Clark and Coff and Maxy. They are valued.

Ratts identified that there was good young talent in the team and he told them that preseason. If Ratts doesn’t let any of them get big heads or let them grow their egos, then ALL players will be free to shine.

[Ghost Like]

A champion team will always beat a team of champions. We've had a very even spread of contributors and I'd rather that than having to rely on a Cripps or Fyfe to have to win games for us. What's happened is we've cleaned up our disposal and improved goal accuracy. What we've all been whining about for the last 10 years. The gameplay suits our players. The coach is switched on enough to know what his cattle are capable of and has adjusted our style to suit and we've recruited to address some of out glaring weaknesses. I feel like our club is finally in good hands.

Very true, something that brought us undone in 97, 2004, 2009, 2010...all years we should have won because we literally had more champions. It's all about the bottom 6, not the top 6.

Completely disagree.

The reason we lost all those games was because the opposition had their superstars deliver on the day.

Ours didn't.



But if your top 6 is no good - forget it.


I can't recall a Grand Finalist, probably ever, that didn't have an elite top 6. I can remember plenty of spuds that are premiership players though.

Baz, please entertain me and go through the Top 6 of each team who won the flag in those years & rate them against our Top 6. Then look at the bottom 6 for each. I'm not talking about that game but their standing at that time in their careers.

Your myth may not be fact. That said, it is subjective. I suggest our Top 6 were elite. Your belief

The bottom 6 thing is the biggest myth in football. It's only relevant if your top 6 is no good.

actually agrees with me in a bizarre way.

[BarryGrogan]

Baz, please entertain me and go through the Top 6 of each team who won the flag in those years & rate them against our Top 6. Then look at the bottom 6 for each. I'm not talking about that game but their standing at that time in their careers.

Your myth may not be fact. That said, it is subjective. I suggest our Top 6 were elite. Your belief

The bottom 6 thing is the biggest myth in football. It's only relevant if your top 6 is no good.

actually agrees with me in a bizarre way.

But if your top 6 is no good - it doesn't matter cause you won't be in the top 8 anyway. You could have an awesome bottom 6 - but you'll still be a bottom 8 team unless you have the cream.

Our top 6 in all our GFs were very good, that's how we got there in the first place.

But our top 6 didn't perform on the day. Our opposition did.

A bottom 6 has never, ever won a flag. It's always the cream that delivers the goods.

[freely]

A champion team will always beat a team of champions. We've had a very even spread of contributors and I'd rather that than having to rely on a Cripps or Fyfe to have to win games for us. What's happened is we've cleaned up our disposal and improved goal accuracy. What we've all been whining about for the last 10 years. The gameplay suits our players. The coach is switched on enough to know what his cattle are capable of and has adjusted our style to suit and we've recruited to address some of out glaring weaknesses. I feel like our club is finally in good hands.

Very true, something that brought us undone in 97, 2004, 2009, 2010...all years we should have won because we literally had more champions. It's all about the bottom 6, not the top 6.

Completely disagree.

The reason we lost all those games was because the opposition had their superstars deliver on the day.

Ours didn't.

The bottom 6 thing is the biggest myth in football. It's only relevant if your top 6 is no good.

But if your top 6 is no good - forget it.


I can't recall a Grand Finalist, probably ever, that didn't have an elite top 6. I can remember plenty of spuds that are premiership players though.

Surely the bulldogs in their premiership year were such a team.

[Scollop]

Tom Boyd was a number 1 draft pick. He certainly had the potential and he delivered when it mattered most

Although Bob Murphy was injured at the pointy end he is an AA and helped set up the year
Stringer, Matt Boyd and the Bont are also All Australians

Libba and Hunter and JJ are elite as well.
Morris and Eastern Wood are elite defenders at their best and have each had All Australian honours in their own right

[BarryGrogan]

Tom Boyd was a number 1 draft pick. He certainly had the potential and he delivered when it mattered most

Although Bob Murphy was injured at the pointy end he is an AA and helped set up the year
Stringer, Matt Boyd and the Bont are also All Australians

Libba and Hunter and JJ are elite as well.
Morris and Eastern Wood are elite defenders at their best and have each had All Australian honours in their own right

And conversely, Franklin and Hannebury both got injured.

2 of the opposition's top 6 go down ..... doesn't matter who their bottom 6 is.

[ace]

So we're 4th right. 3-2 and very easily could/should have been 4-1.

We're playing well, and have the 5th highest % in the comp.

But....

The only individual stats that we have anyone in the top 10 for are Tackles (Steele of course), Intercepts (Long) and Tackles Inside 50 (Butler and Kent).

That's unusual for a top 4 team.

So is it just that we're really well coached? It's the system?

Or is it a sign that we still lack that star power? Will the lack of a standout individual season be a problem?


To be honest, i think it's somewhere in the middle. The really good teams have always had a real top shelf mid that has a huge season. We still don't have that.

Clearly our game style and strategy is working at the moment. But I feel that unless someone really breaks out (which is unlikely this year) we'll be left behind when the whips are cracking. Our midfield isn't great. It's a real weakness.


Hopefully we show enough to lure a gun mid next year.

I just witnessed former GWS now Essendon's Dylan Shiel rip Collingwood's mids apart.
We tried real hard to get him but Essendon offered him a better team.

First you need to be a top team before you can attract young top players.
We can attract former top players with big coin like Hannebery but they are already on the decline.
You have to achieve top team status with lesser players.
That desired outcome can only be achieved if you have a superior coach.

[Ghost Like]

But if your top 6 is no good - it doesn't matter cause you won't be in the top 8 anyway. You could have an awesome bottom 6 - but you'll still be a bottom 8 team unless you have the cream.

Our top 6 in all our GFs were very good, that's how we got there in the first place.

But our top 6 didn't perform on the day. Our opposition did.

A bottom 6 has never, ever won a flag. It's always the cream that delivers the goods.

Of course your bottom 6 is going to look better than what they are if your top 6 is no good. If you are not in the finals then the whole theory is moot.

Simple examples: Shane Ellen & Robert Neill were both bottom 6 players in 97.
In 2010, 2 of our Top 6 were worthy Norm Smith medallists, 33% of that Top 6 & we couldn't get the job done.

The team that has the most players playing closest to their absolute best will win every Grand Final. This theory explains why Plugger could kick 12 goals for us and we still lost by close to 10 goals because we had far and away the majority of crap players.

[BarryGrogan]

But if your top 6 is no good - it doesn't matter cause you won't be in the top 8 anyway. You could have an awesome bottom 6 - but you'll still be a bottom 8 team unless you have the cream.

Our top 6 in all our GFs were very good, that's how we got there in the first place.

But our top 6 didn't perform on the day. Our opposition did.

A bottom 6 has never, ever won a flag. It's always the cream that delivers the goods.

Of course your bottom 6 is going to look better than what they are if your top 6 is no good. If you are not in the finals then the whole theory is moot.

Simple examples: Shane Ellen & Robert Neill were both bottom 6 players in 97.
In 2010, 2 of our Top 6 were worthy Norm Smith medallists, 33% of that Top 6 & we couldn't get the job done.

The team that has the most players playing closest to their absolute best will win every Grand Final. This theory explains why Plugger could kick 12 goals for us and we still lost by close to 10 goals because we had far and away the majority of crap players.

Jarman kicked 6. MacLeod was BoG.
Loewe and Winmar went missing.

Milne, Riewoldt, Dal Santo, Fisher all very quiet in 09 - whilst Bartel, Chapman, Ablett, Corey and Taylor were excellent.

2010 again the same, although because Hayes and Goddard were so good we nearly pinched it.


It's always the best players that are the difference. Always. It's a total myth that the bottom 6 are the key. It's just not true.

[CQ SAINT]

It doesn't add up because we've presented the 2nd youngest and most inexperienced teams in the comp over the last 2 weeks.
Look at the list in terms of 20 - 120 game players and you will find the ledger a little more equitable.
I agree we could, and will, add an elite accumulator, goal kicking mid but there is a strong nucleus to work from.
Billings, Steele, Gresham, Jones, Membrey, Marshall, Butler, Howard, Wilkie, Long, Clark, Coffield and King are all pedigreed and primed to achieve 'A' grade status on their development individually so far, but as a whole, the spread of talent in that list leans toward the development of an elite playing group.
Six of these guys, and I'm tipping Billings, Steele, Marshall, King, Coffield, Clark, Wilkie, and Butler, as the most likely, will be identified as elite within the next 15 to 60 matches. The other 5 A/B grade performers will present as a deep running pool of genuine talent.
There is skill, speed, strength, professionalism determination and X factor throughout the whole 13.
Currently, we add Geary, Hannerbery, Hill, Ross and Carlisle as experienced, solid performers and Paton, Marsh, Battle, Lonie and Kent are our bottom 5.
Now how you rate those isn't important until you realise, that the currently untapped experience of Roberton, Dunstan, Sinclair, Webster, Ryder and Brown are, our depth.
Yet, in regards to our need for another genuine A grade mid, I'm confident we will see Byrnes and Bytel feature regularly on the emergency list for the remainder of the year.

If Ratten came to the club with a 5 year plan and our current administration, recruiting team, coaches, supporters, sponsors and players bought in, I'd say 6th after 5 rounds in the Corona Cup is a prime place to be sitting and that the edges of the puzzle are all in place for a finals birth and dip at a flag within 3 years.

These things rarely add up until the story is told in retrospect. Then it all makes perfect sense.

[saynta]

Patton bottom 5 ? Doubt it and I would think Ratten would be horrified at that suggestion.

Otherwise excellent post.

[CQ SAINT]

Patton bottom 5 ? Doubt it and I would think Ratten would be horrified at that suggestion.

Otherwise excellent post.

I'm on record as being a huge Paton fan. I'm glad you are too. I tempered adding him to the list of 13 because of possible bias on my behalf and his humble workman like qualities that I admire greatly.

I'm happy to be corrected and only have a bottom 4.

[Sanctorum]

It doesn't add up because we've presented the 2nd youngest and most inexperienced teams in the comp over the last 2 weeks.
Look at the list in terms of 20 - 120 game players and you will find the ledger a little more equitable.
I agree we could, and will, add an elite accumulator, goal kicking mid but there is a strong nucleus to work from.
Billings, Steele, Gresham, Jones, Membrey, Marshall, Butler, Howard, Wilkie, Long, Clark, Coffield and King are all pedigreed and primed to achieve 'A' grade status on their development individually so far, but as a whole, the spread of talent in that list leans toward the development of an elite playing group.
Six of these guys, and I'm tipping Billings, Steele, Marshall, King, Coffield, Clark, Wilkie, and Butler, as the most likely, will be identified as elite within the next 15 to 60 matches. The other 5 A/B grade performers will present as a deep running pool of genuine talent.
There is skill, speed, strength, professionalism determination and X factor throughout the whole 13.
Currently, we add Geary, Hannerbery, Hill, Ross and Carlisle as experienced, solid performers and Paton, Marsh, Battle, Lonie and Kent are our bottom 5.
Now how you rate those isn't important until you realise, that the currently untapped experience of Roberton, Dunstan, Sinclair, Webster, Ryder and Brown are, our depth.
Yet, in regards to our need for another genuine A grade mid, I'm confident we will see Byrnes and Bytel feature regularly on the emergency list for the remainder of the year.

If Ratten came to the club with a 5 year plan and our current administration, recruiting team, coaches, supporters, sponsors and players bought in, I'd say 6th after 5 rounds in the Corona Cup is a prime place to be sitting and that the edges of the puzzle are all in place for a finals birth and dip at a flag within 3 years.

These things rarely add up until the story is told in retrospect. Then it all makes perfect sense.

Really well put CQ Saint, exactly my feelings about the 2020 St Kilda list, the depth is as good if not better than the club has enjoyed for decades.

Testimony to player development under Brett Ratten is the growth of Ben Paton, who would have thought that he would hold out the likes of the vastly more experienced Webster, Savage, Geary, McKenzie from the team's defence - I certainly did not!

Likewise players like Kent and Marsh who most of us felt were nowhere near featuring in the best 22, yet they both acquitted themselves admirably in the last 2 games.

Then there is the positioning of Ben Long as an attacking half-back - indicates to me how well this team is being coached right now.

If Wilkie should go down there is Roberton to take his place with no ill-effect whatsoever.

As Dan Hannebery said in the post match interview, no matter who gets injured, the selectors have multiple quality options to bring in.

3-2 with a percentage of 112 after 5 rounds is indeed a very promising start. Other than Dan Butler there have been no real individual stand-out performances, they are playing as team, cite Cam Mooney who told Fox Footy that he had been most impressed with the way the Saints forwards combined with aggression and players constantly directing each other...

How good was that bullet like pass from Jack Lonie in the forward pocket to Dan Butler in the goal square!!

Lastly, as good as they are playing right now, there is so much improvement still to come, especially when you consider that Brad Hill has yet to hit his straps, and Max King at probably only 25% of his potential.

[SaintPav]

I had the feeling that if the game had gone another 10 mins last night we would have lost.

We are so lucky that games only go for 4 quarters then.