The Blight Theory

[BayesysLeftBoot]

I know Malcom Blight talks crap 90%, however he has one theory which I have always thought was very interesting and have to agree with. He says that games of football and more importantly premierships are won by your teams worst 6 players not your best 6 players.

If you look at the swans form this season you will find that our best 6 players (Hall, Kirk, Jude, Goodes, Leo, MOL) performed reasonably well all year, however it wasn't until our team settled and the bottom 6 lifted their game that we turned our season around. IMO and this is not anything against the players mentioned but I believe our bottom six in the team at the moment would be (Fosdike, Matthews, Bevan, Dempster, Schneider, LRT) and these guys (Bevan the exception) have been good if not very consistent over the last 9 or 10 matches.

This is where I believe we have an advantage over the eagles, they will be coming into the GF with a very unsettled bottom six (Gaspar, Butler, Selwood, B. Jones (if he makes it), P. Matera (ditto), and Nicoski). And that bottom six is probably hopeful at best for them. The eagles were flying earlier in the season but I believe it has been the changes to the team (as minor as they may seem) through injury that have upset them since.

I am sure people may disagree with one or two of the bottom 6 I have selected for both teams but that is not relevant to the point I am making.

Everyone knows that our top 6 and their top 6 are going to step up and give it their all and to a certain extent will nulify each other. I believe it is the bottom six of each team that will determine the outcome of this game and this being the case we look the goods.

Does anyone else agree? Or am I just trying to convince myself of another reason that we should win?

[Snowy]

Selwood is a pretty good player to be in the bottom 6 but it's a fair point. Whether Jones and Matera are fit might be just as relevant. Incidentally Craig McRae thinks that it might be a blowout with the Eagles midfield just rampaging their way to victory. He's the first I've heard who thinks that way but their midfield's incredible superiority is definitely a worry.

[Charlie]

It's a variation on the theory that a team's best 30 players - and injuries to them - are what determines a team's changes. Basically - the emphasis on depth rather than superstars.

It's rock solid in my book. Every team has a couple of stars. Richmond has a lot - but they're second tier is still bloody ordinary.

[hammo]

Originally posted by Snowy
Incidentally Craig McRae thinks that it might be a blowout with the Eagles midfield just rampaging their way to victory. He's the first I've heard who thinks that way but their midfield's incredible superiority is definitely a worry.

Brave call by McRae but I am sure there's some expert who also thinks our forward line will have a field day.
I wouldn't be underestimating our ability to match their midfield, put them under great pressure and also for our backline to hold strong. After all we did OK 3 weeks ago.

[barry]

I agree with Blight on this one, and to be honest our list is very solid until the last 2 (LRT and Bevan) where it just comes down to lack of AFL grooming.
But on the positive, LRT and Bevan are essentially defenders, where the game becomes very simple: Stick with your man, spoil and tackle. Hence, our weakest options have the easiest jobs, and we shouldnt be exposed.

On the contrary, the eagle weaknesses are up forward, where they also need to be creative.

[australian_made]

Originally posted by hammo
Brave call by McRae but I am sure there's some expert who also thinks our forward line will have a field day.
I wouldn't be underestimating our ability to match their midfield, put them under great pressure and also for our backline to hold strong. After all we did OK 3 weeks ago.

Exaclty. And anyone who was at the SCG last time we played them will know that we are more than capable of nullifying their midfeild.

[Schneiderman]

Re: The Blight Theory

Originally posted by BayseysLeftBoot
I know Malcom Blight talks crap 90%, however he has one theory which I have always thought was very interesting and have to agree with. He says that games of football and more importantly premierships are won by your teams worst 6 players not your best 6 players.

Its always a good theory. It does depend on one thing though: Your top 6 neutralising or beating their top 6.

McRae is assuming one thing: that their midfield is SO superior, that our midfield cant come close to neutralising it. Of course the fact of the matter is that our last three games have had us play against the three best midfields in the comp (except maybe Adelaide). In all three we did what we needed to, and the last two showed signs of us getting a better than 50/50 result. By the end of both of those games, we were simply smashing the opposition midfield in clearances.

We have an excellent record against strong midfields. Only St Kilda and Adelaide have worried us more than once, and we have been able to beat Brisbane, Port, Geelong, WC and St Kilda at various times, and at different venues. I have faith our boys will not disappoint on Saturday.

I maintain that the big challenge is actually at either end of the ground. I predict a 50/50 flow of footy from the midfield, so its up to our defence to keep WC to a 12-13 goal scoreline, and our forwards to kick 13+ goals with whatever opportunities they have.

If WC had a strong forward line, who were fit and healthy, in form and had featured in the Coleman race this year I'd be worried. As it is they are throwing all of their eggs into the one midfield basket.

[Thunder Shaker]

Re: Re: The Blight Theory

Originally posted by Schneiderman
I maintain that the big challenge is actually at either end of the ground. I predict a 50/50 flow of footy from the midfield, so its up to our defence to keep WC to a 12-13 goal scoreline, and our forwards to kick 13+ goals with whatever opportunities they have.

West Coast at the MCG this year:

R.9 15.5 vs Collingwood (lost)
R.11 15.15 vs Richmond (won)
R.13 15.15 vs Melbourne (won)
R.19 14.13 vs Bulldogs (lost)

[Schneiderman]

Re: Re: Re: The Blight Theory

Originally posted by Thunder Shaker
West Coast at the MCG this year:

R.9 15.5 vs Collingwood (lost)
R.11 15.15 vs Richmond (won)
R.13 15.15 vs Melbourne (won)
R.19 14.13 vs Bulldogs (lost)

Against the top three defences this year:

R.1 9.10 vs Adelaide (won)
R.6 15.14 vs Sydney (won)
R.8 13.10 vs St Kilda (won)
R.17 9.13 vs Sydney (lost)
R.22 10.14 vs Adelaide (lost)
QF 10.9 vs Sydney (won)
PF 14.9 vs Adelaide (won)

At home they managed 13+ goals three times for three wins. Away from home and in the R.22 and QF games they managed only 10 goals at best.

I think we can grant them 12-13 goals, as long as we kick our target of 13+. We have shown we can do it, and it has been shown that they can be restricted to it by other defensive units too.

[RogueSwan]

Re: Re: The Blight Theory

Originally posted by Schneiderman
... so its up to our defence to keep WC to a 12-13 goal scoreline, and our forwards to kick 13+ goals with whatever opportunities they have.

So what you're saying is that we need to kick more goals than the Wet Toast?

[punter257]

fosdike and LRT were brilliant
bevo did a good job on sampi when he was on him
dempster does whats required by the coaches
mathews was solid as always

and you look at WC , blokes like selwood, butler, staker and nicoski didnt do that much at all

maybe there is a method to his madness
ahhhhh who cares we have the 05 cup

[timthefish]

it's an interesting theory from blight considering the extent to which his grand finals teams depended so heavily on individuals such as ablett and mcleod.

[Sean]

Blight's theory proved to be right but the weird thing was that he completely ignored it when picking a winner. It was pretty obvious before the match that our bottom 6 are better than the Eagles' but he kept going on about their best players.

Having said that, when he tipped WC and Matthews tipped us I became more confident.

[dimelb]

Originally posted by timthefish
it's an interesting theory from blight considering the extent to which his grand finals teams depended so heavily on individuals such as ablett and mcleod.

And Jarman.

[BayesysLeftBoot]

Originally posted by timthefish
it's an interesting theory from blight considering the extent to which his grand finals teams depended so heavily on individuals such as ablett and mcleod.

Yes but his point is Ablett was always going to play excellent football but so were the oppositions top players: Dunstall, Brereton, Salmon, Watson, Jackovich, Matera etc but it was the lesser knowns that could either step up and play well or go missing and cost their team dearly.

Take the GF yesterday for example: We all knew that Kirk, Hall and Leo were all going to play well but so were Judd, Cousins and Cox. All these players had decent games as expected and pretty much nullified each others output, however going into the game we didn't know that LRT, Buchanen and Fosdike would step up to another level which I believe is what won the game for us.