Matchwinners

[rodgerfox]

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.

I'm not sure that's my argument?

My argument is, that all bottom 6's are ordinary.

They appear better, when the top 6 are playing well. This is where I see it as a myth.....

The team is winning and looks great because of the top 6. Because the top 6 are playing well, the bottom 6 get a good ride. So the myth is born that a winning team's bottom 6 are the difference.

Take that same team's top 6 back a peg, and suddenly the bottom 6 look ordinary again.


Our top 6 do match Geelong's. This year, however, they are not. And in turn, our bottom 6 look ordinary.

Geelong's top 6 are flying, so their bottom 6 suddenly look quite deep.


Remember when the Cats rested their top 6 last year against Brisbane? They got mauled by 9 goals after being unbeatable for 12 weeks. Suddenly their bottom 6 were asked to perform higher duties and were woeful.

Same players - different result without the top 6 carrying them.



Top teams always have a little 'golden era' of All-Australian selection - and often the GF team includes the Brownlow Medallist.

When the good players are up and about, it directly results in success.

When they're not, your bottom 6 don't make a difference at all.

[Saintsfan]

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.

Well i don't trust McQ to tag anyone really.

Zac has been awful for 12 months.

Gwilt is still coming along although untested against Geelong (the best team by far).

[joffaboy]

Remember when the Cats rested their top 6 last year against Brisbane? They got mauled by 9 goals after being unbeatable for 12 weeks. Suddenly their bottom 6 were asked to perform higher duties and were woeful.

Didn't quote your whole post, but I cant see your point. I suppose my point is that if you have players in your bottom six doing their job (like a Bakes or Jones) and nullifying some of the opposing top six, then they are contributing significantly to the success of the team.

This also means that the bottom six are doing their job. Top six players dont usually go head to head. The stoppers sacrifice their game to nullify the top six of the opposition.

When the team is going well the bottom six does look better, but why is the team going well in the first place? Doesn't always get "carried" by the top six players.

Re the quote above, conversely the Saints rested 7 of their top players against Hawthorn and won pretty easily with players like Armo, Begley, and McEvoy stepping up, all the while with the bottom six still doing their job.

[degruch]

Zac has been awful for 12 months.

I remember how crap he was against Buddy R19 last year.

People are getting a bit carried away with their Zac bashing IMO...he was very good all of last year, including the finals.

[bigcarl]

I suppose my point is that if you have players in your bottom six doing their job (like a Bakes or Jones) and nullifying some of the opposing top six, then they are contributing significantly to the success of the team.

you obviously see it differently to me because i have blake and jones in our top 10.

[joffaboy]

I suppose my point is that if you have players in your bottom six doing their job (like a Bakes or Jones) and nullifying some of the opposing top six, then they are contributing significantly to the success of the team.

you obviously see it differently to me because i have blake and jones in our top 10.

Oh well, its not a go at them, just usig names for the sake of the argument. Used them as they sacrifice their own game to stop opposition top six.

[rodgerfox]

I suppose my point is that if you have players in your bottom six doing their job (like a Bakes or Jones) and nullifying some of the opposing top six, then they are contributing significantly to the success of the team.

Sure, that's fair. It's a good point.

I guess the debate there is whether or not it's an indictment on the top 6 player to have a poor game - or a tick for the bottom 6 player to keep him quiet?

Some would say that that's a sign of how good your top 6 really are. Or aren't.


I think also, that a role such as stopping a champion makes you more than a 'bottom 6' player.

[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.

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.

You wrote this inyour OP.

1) Why aren't guys like Dal and Kosi still able to be matchwinners? Has it been 'coached out of them'? Does our game nullify the type of flair and unpredictability required?

Thoughts?

You raised the matter and I have replied.

You asked for thoughts, but when the replies do not fit your argument you resort to abuse instead which is all part of RF 101 of when the argument is not going your way you resort one or more of :
* abuse,
* calls of LIAR
* deflection by refusing to answer questions
* asking unrelated questions instead.


Since your post Milne, Hayes, Joey have all had "matchwinning" parts of games.

Pretty obvious to me that your "coached out of them " implication is just unfounded.

You have posted about the GF loss being due to Lyon, but in this thread clearly rate the Cats 22 above the Saints 22 player wise.

Yet the Saints played them twice last year in games that count. Beat them once, and should have beathen them the second time.

All with a list not as good as theirs.

My thoughts on Lyon is that he is "coaching it into them", and not "out of them". That he is the difference in the Saints being able to defeat teams such as the Cats who have a better 22. A team rated by many as one of the best teams ever.

When the players dip a bit in team application and or form, and lose that coaching advantage we are vunerable.

[rodgerfox]

You asked for thoughts, but when the replies do not fit your argument you resort to abuse instead.

Thoughts in relation to what I posted, and/or the topic. Not some bizarre Ross Lyon rant that you read somewhere in your head and have attributed to me.

Pretty obvious to me that your "coached out of them " implication is just unfounded.

So it's not my theory now, as you previously dreamt up? It's now my 'implication'?

Next it may be closer to the truth (which I know you will find hard) and actually referred to as simply a 'question' I posed.

You have posted about the GF loss being due to Lyon, but in this thread clearly rate the Cats 22 above the saints 22 player wise.

You are deadset on another planet.

I have never, ever said or thought the GF loss was 'due to Lyon'. And in this thread, I have not clearly rated the Cats 22 above ours.

I've been painfully clear that I'm referring to now.

Now, currently, their top 6 is performing better than ours. Hence the gap in our respective form to last year.




Where do you pull this stuff from? Seriously. Do you just get your PA to give you the jist of my posts, then jump on frantically to defend the honour of your man-idol?
Or do actually read them yourself? If you do read them yourself, try ignoring who posts it. Because clearly, you're seeing things in posts by me that simply do not exist.

[rodgerfox]

My thoughts on Lyon is that he is "coaching it into them", and not "out of them". That he is the difference in the Saints being able to defeat teams such as the Cats who have a better 22. A team rated by many as one of the best teams ever.

When the players dip a bit in team application and or form, and lose that coaching advantage we are vunerable.

I'm not really sure where this dedication of love for Ross Lyon fits into this topic.


Isn't this thread about matchwinners being important and the discussion of the 'bottom 6' theory?

[saintsRrising]

I'm not really sure where this dedication of love for Ross Lyon fits into this topic.


Isn't this thread about matchwinners being important and the discussion of the 'bottom 6' theory?

You raised coaching, and specfically Ross Lyon's coaching in your OP and asked for thoughts on it.

I have reposted the relavant part of your OP again above.

RF 101 is for you to say that I "love" RL, and to pretend that you did not raise coaching by RL as an issue.

[rodgerfox]

I'm not really sure where this dedication of love for Ross Lyon fits into this topic.


Isn't this thread about matchwinners being important and the discussion of the 'bottom 6' theory?

You raised coaching, and specfically Ross Lyon's coaching in your OP and asked for thoughts on it.

I have reposted the relavant part of your OP again above.

RF 101 is for you to say that I "love" RL, and tp pretend that you did not raise coaching by RL as an issue.

I raised his coaching in relation to the topic.

You've gone off on a groin grabbing sales pitch on the wonders of his majesty, Ross Lyon.

[Saintsfan]

Zac has been awful for 12 months.

I remember how crap he was against Buddy R19 last year.

People are getting a bit carried away with their Zac bashing IMO...he was very good all of last year, including the finals.

So one game in 12 months....

Ever since the mid-season brake last season he was been declining in his ability to do anything.

[Leo.J]

...Zac has been awful for 12 months...

Zac was a inch or two away from being a premiership hero.

He held down FB for us last year, he went head to head with more key forwards than Dustin Fletcher, and generally held his own.

Zac has been very ordinary this year, last year he was not.

[rodgerfox]

...Zac has been awful for 12 months...

Zac was a inch or two away from being a premiership hero.

He held down FB for us last year, he went head to head with more key forwards than Dustin Fletcher, and generally held his own.

Zac has been very ordinary this year, last year he was not.

I think the reason Zac has been ordinary this year, is the decline in the output of our 'top 6'.

[degruch]

Zac has been awful for 12 months.

I remember how crap he was against Buddy R19 last year.

People are getting a bit carried away with their Zac bashing IMO...he was very good all of last year, including the finals.

So one game in 12 months....

Ever since the mid-season brake last season he was been declining in his ability to do anything.

I'll grant your point for several games this season (has been getting better the last couple), but you must have amnesia to forget how well he played last year, as Leo J has also pointed out.

[saintsRrising]

Zac has been awful for 12 months.

I remember how crap he was against Buddy R19 last year.

People are getting a bit carried away with their Zac bashing IMO...he was very good all of last year, including the finals.

So one game in 12 months....

Ever since the mid-season brake last season he was been declining in his ability to do anything.

I'll grant your point for several games this season (has been getting better the last couple), but you must have amnesia to forget how well he played last year, as Leo J has also pointed out.

Zac wasa good last year.

Evidently this year he was reportedly ill over Summer and lost weight and condition.

Form wise he seems to have fallen into the trap this year of watching his opponent without watching the flight of the ball which has often cuaght him out.

Add to this that last year he was mainly playing asa zone player vs this year the St Kilda zone often being broken through rapidly forcing him into one on ones without the third man in assisting him and you get a combination where he is out of form, not playing well and is being exposed.

Lyon and SOS obvisiouly has confidence that Zac can rediscover his form of last year.

[Dr Spaceman]

I have never, ever said or thought the GF loss was 'due to Lyon'.

Rodger, Rodger, Rodger. I'm just going to make this point and then I'll butt out and let you blokes slug it out.

I can’t be bothered going through your thousands of posts but the above comment just doesn’t ring true to me. I have managed to find the following from the thread "Ross Lyon needs to go NOW!!" that you posted Sat 08 May 2010 12:08pm. It reads (in full)

"I'm not suggesting that at all. There were some glaring errors from the coaches box leading up to, and during the GF. But it's not the reason we lost the GF.

Selection was a reason.
Tactical decisions late in the game were a reason.
Mentally fragile players, that we already knew were mentally fragile on the big stage, failed to deliver.
We missed goals.
Bad umpiring.
Injuries were a reason.
Raph's pace being exploited by Byrnes in the last quarter was a reason, with no response from us.
And bad luck was a reason.

Fact is, as stated on here, if "Ross Lyon got us to a GF", then surely he is just as responsible for what happened in the GF.

Or does the coach get credit for "getting us to a GF" when we win (and not the players), but if we lose the players wear the blame?

Some perspective would be nice, that's all.â€

[degruch]

It's clear you do blame Ross - why are you so afraid to admit it???

Because someone's bound to point out we wasted 8 shots at goal. Oops!

[rodgerfox]

I have never, ever said or thought the GF loss was 'due to Lyon'.

Rodger, Rodger, Rodger. I'm just going to make this point and then I'll butt out and let you blokes slug it out.

I can’t be bothered going through your thousands of posts but the above comment just doesn’t ring true to me. I have managed to find the following from the thread "Ross Lyon needs to go NOW!!" that you posted Sat 08 May 2010 12:08pm. It reads (in full)

"I'm not suggesting that at all. There were some glaring errors from the coaches box leading up to, and during the GF. But it's not the reason we lost the GF.

Selection was a reason.
Tactical decisions late in the game were a reason.
Mentally fragile players, that we already knew were mentally fragile on the big stage, failed to deliver.
We missed goals.
Bad umpiring.
Injuries were a reason.
Raph's pace being exploited by Byrnes in the last quarter was a reason, with no response from us.
And bad luck was a reason.

Fact is, as stated on here, if "Ross Lyon got us to a GF", then surely he is just as responsible for what happened in the GF.

Or does the coach get credit for "getting us to a GF" when we win (and not the players), but if we lose the players wear the blame?

Some perspective would be nice, that's all.â€

[Dr Spaceman]

Rodger, you’re still not being serious.

Everything I have quoted from you is very much in context.

You ask me to explain why I would jump into this thread, with that post of yours. Well it’s quite simple. I was responding to you saying “I have never, ever said or thought the GF loss was 'due to Lyon'â€

[rodgerfox]

[quote="Dr Spaceman"]Rodger, you’re still not being serious.

Everything I have quoted from you is very much in context.

You ask me to explain why I would jump into this thread, with that post of yours. Well it’s quite simple. I was responding to you saying “I have never, ever said or thought the GF loss was 'due to Lyon'â€

[Dr Spaceman]

If you think I'm implying something, you should just say so. Because quoting posts that contradict what you've said makes you look pretty silly.

Well one of us does look very silly indeed!

[plugger66]

...Zac has been awful for 12 months...

Zac was a inch or two away from being a premiership hero.

He held down FB for us last year, he went head to head with more key forwards than Dustin Fletcher, and generally held his own.

Zac has been very ordinary this year, last year he was not.

I think the reason Zac has been ordinary this year, is the decline in the output of our 'top 6'.

What are you smoking. Who in our top 6 has gone backwards this year at this stage of the year.

Lenny
Dal
Bj are ahead of this stage last year

Rooy was ahead but is now injured
Joey equal or maybe fraction below
Fisher just below because he was the greatest last year at this time either

You just tell untruths to try and suit a terrible arguement.

If our top 6 play to their expected potential then the bottom sic are hughly important in a big game.

[saintsRrising]

. And in this thread, I have not clearly rated the Cats 22 above ours.

.

You haven't????

You posted:

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 go figure..

According to you in this thread they:

* have a better top 6
* their middle are even further ahead of our 'middle 6'.

* and the bottom 6 don't matter.

But yet you now state " I have not clearly rated the Cats 22 above ours".

Got me confused there. How exactly do you get the Cats 22 not rated above ours when when rating each third you have clearly rated them as having the advantage?