Matchwinners

[rodgerfox]

Talking about match winners I am now convinced more than ever your bottom six win you matches against good sides. Your top 6 will get you over the lines against poor sides as shown in the last 2 weeks but I doubt we would have beaten good sides in the last 2 weeks because we have got bugger all out of our bottom 6. You cannot carry 4-6 players against good sides.

I think it depends on a few things.

I know stats arent everything but pretty much weekly we have 4-6 players with 10-12 stats or less, Geelong will have one or two. I think that is why they have just been fractionally better than us over the last 3 years. Our top players are as good as theres so what other reason could it be.

Sure, but....

Geelong's '1 or 2' would spread out to '5 or 6' is Ablett, Selwood, Chapman etc. weren't blitzing.


I think it all hinges on the stars.

Why are Geelong better than us when our top 6 easily match theirs.

I don't think our top 6 do match theirs.

Currently.

[plugger66]

Talking about match winners I am now convinced more than ever your bottom six win you matches against good sides. Your top 6 will get you over the lines against poor sides as shown in the last 2 weeks but I doubt we would have beaten good sides in the last 2 weeks because we have got bugger all out of our bottom 6. You cannot carry 4-6 players against good sides.

I think it depends on a few things.

I know stats arent everything but pretty much weekly we have 4-6 players with 10-12 stats or less, Geelong will have one or two. I think that is why they have just been fractionally better than us over the last 3 years. Our top players are as good as theres so what other reason could it be.

Sure, but....

Geelong's '1 or 2' would spread out to '5 or 6' is Ablett, Selwood, Chapman etc. weren't blitzing.


I think it all hinges on the stars.

Why are Geelong better than us when our top 6 easily match theirs.

I don't think our top 6 do match theirs.

Currently.

That is rubbish to try and suit your arguement.

Rooy
Lenny
BJ
Dal
Joey
Chips

Ablett
Scarlett
Chapman
Selwood
Bartel
Enright

Looks pretty close to me. Nothing in it. But a bit different down the bottom 6.

[rodgerfox]

Talking about match winners I am now convinced more than ever your bottom six win you matches against good sides. Your top 6 will get you over the lines against poor sides as shown in the last 2 weeks but I doubt we would have beaten good sides in the last 2 weeks because we have got bugger all out of our bottom 6. You cannot carry 4-6 players against good sides.

I think it depends on a few things.

I know stats arent everything but pretty much weekly we have 4-6 players with 10-12 stats or less, Geelong will have one or two. I think that is why they have just been fractionally better than us over the last 3 years. Our top players are as good as theres so what other reason could it be.

Sure, but....

Geelong's '1 or 2' would spread out to '5 or 6' is Ablett, Selwood, Chapman etc. weren't blitzing.


I think it all hinges on the stars.

Why are Geelong better than us when our top 6 easily match theirs.

I don't think our top 6 do match theirs.

Currently.

That is rubbish to try and suit your arguement.

Rooy
Lenny
BJ
Dal
Joey
Chips

Ablett
Scarlett
Chapman
Selwood
Bartel
Enright

Looks pretty close to me. Nothing in it. But a bit different down the bottom 6.

Take Enright out for Steve Johnson, and you'd be kidding yourself if you thought our guys were as good as theirs.

[plugger66]

Talking about match winners I am now convinced more than ever your bottom six win you matches against good sides. Your top 6 will get you over the lines against poor sides as shown in the last 2 weeks but I doubt we would have beaten good sides in the last 2 weeks because we have got bugger all out of our bottom 6. You cannot carry 4-6 players against good sides.

I think it depends on a few things.

I know stats arent everything but pretty much weekly we have 4-6 players with 10-12 stats or less, Geelong will have one or two. I think that is why they have just been fractionally better than us over the last 3 years. Our top players are as good as theres so what other reason could it be.

Sure, but....

Geelong's '1 or 2' would spread out to '5 or 6' is Ablett, Selwood, Chapman etc. weren't blitzing.


I think it all hinges on the stars.

Why are Geelong better than us when our top 6 easily match theirs.

I don't think our top 6 do match theirs.

Currently.

That is rubbish to try and suit your arguement.

Rooy
Lenny
BJ
Dal
Joey
Chips

Ablett
Scarlett
Chapman
Selwood
Bartel
Enright

Looks pretty close to me. Nothing in it. But a bit different down the bottom 6.

Take Enright out for Steve Johnson, and you'd be kidding yourself if you thought our guys were as good as theirs.

Yep fair enough on Johnson. Still doesnt alter my opinion that is very level. But the bottom 6 arent and your kidding yourself if you think otherwise.

[rodgerfox]

Talking about match winners I am now convinced more than ever your bottom six win you matches against good sides. Your top 6 will get you over the lines against poor sides as shown in the last 2 weeks but I doubt we would have beaten good sides in the last 2 weeks because we have got bugger all out of our bottom 6. You cannot carry 4-6 players against good sides.

I think it depends on a few things.

I know stats arent everything but pretty much weekly we have 4-6 players with 10-12 stats or less, Geelong will have one or two. I think that is why they have just been fractionally better than us over the last 3 years. Our top players are as good as theres so what other reason could it be.

Sure, but....

Geelong's '1 or 2' would spread out to '5 or 6' is Ablett, Selwood, Chapman etc. weren't blitzing.


I think it all hinges on the stars.

Why are Geelong better than us when our top 6 easily match theirs.

I don't think our top 6 do match theirs.

Currently.

That is rubbish to try and suit your arguement.

Rooy
Lenny
BJ
Dal
Joey
Chips

Ablett
Scarlett
Chapman
Selwood
Bartel
Enright

Looks pretty close to me. Nothing in it. But a bit different down the bottom 6.

Take Enright out for Steve Johnson, and you'd be kidding yourself if you thought our guys were as good as theirs.

Yep fair enough on Johnson. Still doesnt alter my opinion that is very level. But the bottom 6 arent and your kidding yourself if you think otherwise.

I'd argue our top are well behind theirs - and their middle are even further ahead of our 'middle 6'.

The bottom 6 in any team is the dregs and are ordinary. They just don't matter.

[plugger66]

Well you would be argueing wrongly about the top 6. Obviously not based on anything apart from you losing an arguement. Yes their middle 6 are probably better but the bottom 6 will help you win a GF if all the other players play to their ability. If you cant see that you know less about footy than you sometimes show. Its a real pity.

[saintsRrising]

I'd argue our top are well behind theirs - and their middle are even further ahead of our 'middle 6'.

The bottom 6 in any team is the dregs and are ordinary. They just don't matter.

Well since you rate the Cats team so clearly above the Saints.....that would mean that our year relative to theirs had to be due to Lyon's coaching and gameplan.

This really puts paid to your theory that Lyon "coaches it out of" our players.


Now I personally rate the Cat's best 22 as above ours, and I subcribe our success last year to Lyon getting the most out of his list. {Though like Plugger I rate our Top 6 as comparable and the bottom 6 as where the Cats have a real edge}

PS: Footie is team game and the whole 22 matters. In this age of gameplans, this is more so than ever. When the 22 fall apart you get results like the games we had against PA, Blues or the Dons.

[rexy]

Wouldnt put their top 6 much if any above ours, Roo and Ablett clearly freaks.

Chapman an excellent forward and under rated as a mid, Selwood hard, Bartel a true pro and good overhead for a mid, Scarlett the best FB in the comp, Johnson flashy but inconsistent.

BJ easily the equal of Chappy, possibly the best true utility in football. Joey and Dal better runners and as good a user as Bartel, Lenny as hard as Selwod with a bigger heart and Fish an AA defender, versatile and attacking.

[SainterK]

I don't really care who's lineup is better, it's not always an indicator on who wins anyway.

[rodgerfox]

I'd argue our top are well behind theirs - and their middle are even further ahead of our 'middle 6'.

The bottom 6 in any team is the dregs and are ordinary. They just don't matter.

Well since you rate the Cats team so clearly above the Saints.....that would mean that our year relative to theirs had to be due to Lyon's coaching and gameplan.

This really puts paid to your theory that Lyon "coaches it out of" our players.


Now I personally rate the Cat's best 22 as above ours, and I subcribe our success last year to Lyon getting the most out of his list. {Though like Plugger I rate our Top 6 as comparable and the bottom 6 as where the Cats have a real edge}

PS: Footie is team game and the whole 22 matters. In this age of gameplans, this is more so than ever. When the 22 fall apart you get results like the games we had against PA, Blues or the Dons.

Before you embarrass yourself further with more of this nonsense, please read what I've posted.

You sound like a raving derelict on a street corner preaching to passers by.

[rodgerfox]

Well you would be argueing wrongly about the top 6.

You think Geelong's top 6 that you've listed (plus Johnson), isn't playing better than ours this season?

[plugger66]

Well you would be argueing wrongly about the top 6.

You think Geelong's top 6 that you've listed (plus Johnson), isn't playing better than ours this season?

Well if Rooy was playing to his early season form then it would be very close. Could go either way. If you look at most awards we have 3 up the top not including Rooy and they have 3 so very very even. They have us because of the bottom 6. It is clear that is the reason.

[rodgerfox]

Well you would be argueing wrongly about the top 6.

You think Geelong's top 6 that you've listed (plus Johnson), isn't playing better than ours this season?

Well if Rooy was playing to his early season form then it would be very close. Could go either way. If you look at most awards we have 3 up the top not including Rooy and they have 3 so very very even. They have us because of the bottom 6. It is clear that is the reason.

Why aren't you including Roo?

We're talking about the impact of the top 6. Without Roo our top 6 isn't having the impact it did last year - and hence our form dropping this year with our top 6 not performing as they did last year.

[saint66au]

I'd argue our top are well behind theirs - and their middle are even further ahead of our 'middle 6'.

The bottom 6 in any team is the dregs and are ordinary. They just don't matter.

Well since you rate the Cats team so clearly above the Saints.....that would mean that our year relative to theirs had to be due to Lyon's coaching and gameplan.

This really puts paid to your theory that Lyon "coaches it out of" our players.


Now I personally rate the Cat's best 22 as above ours, and I subcribe our success last year to Lyon getting the most out of his list. {Though like Plugger I rate our Top 6 as comparable and the bottom 6 as where the Cats have a real edge}

PS: Footie is team game and the whole 22 matters. In this age of gameplans, this is more so than ever. When the 22 fall apart you get results like the games we had against PA, Blues or the Dons.

Before you embarrass yourself further with more of this nonsense, please read what I've posted.

You sound like a raving derelict on a street corner preaching to passers by.

Even after all this time, your derision of anyone who disagrees with you takes my breath away

[Leo.J]

I do tend to agree in part with the match winner theory.

And the notion of the Cats best 22 being better than us right now...

While they are better, they are absolutely choc full of confidence, I can't see them getting too much better on that front.

As opposed to us who are so down on confidence it's not funny, yet we are still top 4.

This is where we can improve imo.

As long as we can stay unscathed and get our confidence back by September, we'll be more even with the Cats.

[rodgerfox]

I'd argue our top are well behind theirs - and their middle are even further ahead of our 'middle 6'.

The bottom 6 in any team is the dregs and are ordinary. They just don't matter.

Well since you rate the Cats team so clearly above the Saints.....that would mean that our year relative to theirs had to be due to Lyon's coaching and gameplan.

This really puts paid to your theory that Lyon "coaches it out of" our players.


Now I personally rate the Cat's best 22 as above ours, and I subcribe our success last year to Lyon getting the most out of his list. {Though like Plugger I rate our Top 6 as comparable and the bottom 6 as where the Cats have a real edge}

PS: Footie is team game and the whole 22 matters. In this age of gameplans, this is more so than ever. When the 22 fall apart you get results like the games we had against PA, Blues or the Dons.

Before you embarrass yourself further with more of this nonsense, please read what I've posted.

You sound like a raving derelict on a street corner preaching to passers by.

Even after all this time, your derision of anyone who disagrees with you takes my breath away

He's not disagreeing with me. I'm not sure who he's agreeing or disagreeing with.

His comments are off on a tangent.

[SainterK]

Be interesting to see how Geelong go in the next few weeks without Scarlett, and against teams who actually give themselves opportunity to win.

Maybe we should revisit their top 6 after that, they still may be right up there, but it should be a good test for them.

[rodgerfox]

Be interesting to see how Geelong go in the next few weeks without Scarlett, and against teams who actually give themselves opportunity to win.

Maybe we should revisit their top 6 after that, they still may be right up there, but it should be a good test for them.

Let's not get confused here.


I'm arguing, that a team's top 6 is what wins games and flags. Not the 'bottom 6' myth.

I'm not talking about the best 6 on the park necessarily, I'm talking about their best 6 players.

If a club's best 6 is fit and firing, then magically their bottom 6 start to look and everyone starts crapping on about how good their depth is.

Take 2 of these 'top 6' off the ground, and it means everyone below them needs to play bigger and more important roles.
The bottom 6 then get found out. This is what has happened to us this year.

Suddenly guys like McQualter, Zac, etc. are being exposed because out top 6 are either not playing or not playing well.

Last year, when our top 6 were firing everyone was harping on about how wonderful our 'bottom 6' was and how great our depth was.


Since Lenny put a line in the sand against the West Coast, our top 6 was playing average footy. And subsequently our bottom 6 were being asked to produce more than just cameos, and were being found out.

Suddenly, Lenny starts blitzing, BJ playing good footy, Joey producing a matchwinning performance etc. - then bingo our bottom 6 appear to have found form too.


There's a reason people say 'If he was in a better team he'd be a superstar'. It's because having better players around you makes you play better.

That line applies directly to the bottom 6 myth.

Put a 'bottom 6' player in a team with an in form 'top 6' and they'd look good. Put them in a team with an average top 6 and ask them to play a top 6 role themselves and suddenly they look shiit.

[SainterK]

Be interesting to see how Geelong go in the next few weeks without Scarlett, and against teams who actually give themselves opportunity to win.

Maybe we should revisit their top 6 after that, they still may be right up there, but it should be a good test for them.

Let's not get confused here.


I'm arguing, that a team's top 6 is what wins games and flags. Not the 'bottom 6' myth.

I'm not talking about the best 6 on the park necessarily, I'm talking about their best 6 players.

If a club's best 6 is fit and firing, then magically their bottom 6 start to look and everyone starts crapping on about how good their depth is.

Take 2 of these 'top 6' off the ground, and it means everyone below them needs to play bigger and more important roles.
The bottom 6 then get found out. This is what has happened to us this year.

Suddenly guys like McQualter, Zac, etc. are being exposed because out top 6 are either not playing or not playing well.

Last year, when our top 6 were firing everyone was harping on about how wonderful our 'bottom 6' was and how great our depth was.


Since Lenny put a line in the sand against the West Coast, our top 6 was playing average footy. And subsequently our bottom 6 were being asked to produce more than just cameos, and were being found out.

Suddenly, Lenny starts blitzing, BJ playing good footy, Joey producing a matchwinning performance etc. - then bingo our bottom 6 appear to have found form too.


There's a reason people say 'If he was in a better team he'd be a superstar'. It's because having better players around you makes you play better.

That line applies directly to the bottom 6 myth.

Put a 'bottom 6' player in a team with an in form 'top 6' and they'd look good. Put them in a team with an average top 6 and ask them to play a top 6 role themselves and suddenly they look shiit.

I am not confused....

I wasn't even responding to you specifically or I would of quoted you.

Not agreeing or disagreeing with you Rodger, it was just a comment.

[rodgerfox]

I am not confused....

I wasn't even responding to you specifically or I would of quoted you.

Not agreeing or disagreeing with you Rodger, it was just a comment.

I didn't mean to sound condescending towards you. I just wanted to clarify my view.

[SainterK]

I am not confused....

I wasn't even responding to you specifically or I would of quoted you.

Not agreeing or disagreeing with you Rodger, it was just a comment.

I didn't mean to sound condescending towards you. I just wanted to clarify my view.

no probs

[BAM! (shhhh)]

Holy cr4p. An interesting premise followed by (amongst a 4 page thread) 1 page worth of fairly interesting debate, and 2 pages of the "rodgerfox" reflex.

IMO, the premise of the OP is pretty relevant right now. i.e. which players do we have today capable of turn a game on it's head. It's not all about gameplan, it just starts there.

over tjhe course of 2010, I'd say we've seen:
Montagna R10,
Hayes R9,
Milne, Goddard & Dal Santo R4,
Gilbert R3,
Reiwoldt R1

Go above and beyond. This doesn't make light of the structures, or team effort, rather that these were games that were probably played on a fairly even footing, but these individuals went above and beyond structure and gameplan to ensure a result.

I'm not worried about the spread. I do find it interesting that I really couldn't make a case for anyone doing it twice bar Goddard (could easily be added to R9, and possibly R10) and Hayes (was great against Essendon and the Bulldogs, but IMO you can't be a "matchwinner" in a loss, and R6 was more about structure and team).

I wonder if that's why we find ourselves sitting nervously in the stands in spite of a 7-3 record... Lyon can't do it all, once the match start he sits in the box. Catlle is pretty important.

[Saintsfan]

I'd argue our top are well behind theirs - and their middle are even further ahead of our 'middle 6'.

The bottom 6 in any team is the dregs and are ordinary. They just don't matter.

Well since you rate the Cats team so clearly above the Saints.....that would mean that our year relative to theirs had to be due to Lyon's coaching and gameplan.

This really puts paid to your theory that Lyon "coaches it out of" our players.


Now I personally rate the Cat's best 22 as above ours, and I subcribe our success last year to Lyon getting the most out of his list. {Though like Plugger I rate our Top 6 as comparable and the bottom 6 as where the Cats have a real edge}

PS: Footie is team game and the whole 22 matters. In this age of gameplans, this is more so than ever. When the 22 fall apart you get results like the games we had against PA, Blues or the Dons.

Before you embarrass yourself further with more of this nonsense, please read what I've posted.

You sound like a raving derelict on a street corner preaching to passers by.

Even after all this time, your derision of anyone who disagrees with you takes my breath away

You can't talk sunshine.

RF you continue to provide accurate summations of a few street corner posters.

Our top 6 matches the Cats. An issue for our team is that our bottom 6 does not match Geelongs.

[joffaboy]

Our top 6 matches the Cats. An issue for our team is that our bottom 6 does not match Geelongs.

This is the crux of the situation.

RF's argument that a top six will win you games, but if your bottom six cant do their job (e.g. tagging the oppositions champion midfielders) doesn't matter how good your top six are, you will get beaten.

So I tend not to agree with RF. You need an even spread and our bottom six (probably Blake, Zac, Mcqualter, Jones, Gwilt, and Kosi) tend to be very up and down and certainly not as consistant as Collingwood or Geelongs bottom six.

[Finna]

Well you would be argueing wrongly about the top 6.

You think Geelong's top 6 that you've listed (plus Johnson), isn't playing better than ours this season?

Well if Rooy was playing to his early season form then it would be very close. Could go either way. If you look at most awards we have 3 up the top not including Rooy and they have 3 so very very even. They have us because of the bottom 6. It is clear that is the reason.

Why aren't you including Roo?

We're talking about the impact of the top 6. Without Roo our top 6 isn't having the impact it did last year - and hence our form dropping this year with our top 6 not performing as they did last year.

Here he goes again......

We may as well re-open the 'Absence of Roo Thread'.