A champion team will always beat a team of champions.

Cliches are so definitive sometimes Stu.

They're worth repeating when they're that good.

I don't know about champs, but you need a leader on EVERY line.

As for playing for the coach, the last coach that had that effect was Swooper Northey - the boys ran through brick walls for him.

As for playing for the coach, the last coach that had that effect was Swooper Northey - the boys ran through brick walls for him.

I'm neither here nor there with Neeld and whilst he may be very good analytically and with the process side of the game, I do wonder if he is the type of coach who gets the emotional and unquantifiable aspects of football.

If Buddy kicks straight the Hawks have 2 flags.

He is a champion player Franklin and if Hogan is as good as Franklin - we will win flags.

I'm neither here nor there with Neeld and whilst he may be very good analytically and with the process side of the game, I do wonder if he is the type of coach who gets the emotional and unquantifiable aspects of football.

Does that exist anymore? Can't think of any coach that has that bond with his players...mebbe Hardwicke?

A champion team will always beat a team of champions.

the Swans have just proved this to be true in 2012

Cliches are so definitive sometimes Stu.

They're worth repeating when they're that good.

Cliches should be avoided like the plague.

A champion team will always beat a team of champions.

But a champion team of champions will always crush the crap out of the opposition.

A champion team will always beat a team of champions.

So how do you get a champion team? I think there is a sense in which certain champions will help make a champion team, and others who won't, or as G.K. Chesterton put it "There is a great man who makes every man feel small. But the real great man is the man who makes every man feel great."

For mine, Robbie Flower was the kind of champion who made teammates into better players; we can probably all name some others who aren't or weren't.

I am also reminded of a debate in the NBA yonks ago about the relative merits of Michael Jordan and Earvin 'Magic' Johnson. Every NBA coach surveyed said Jordan was the better player, but each would choose Johnson over Jordan as the foundation of their team.

(PS sorry about the font colours --- I just had this feeling that text in this forum should only be written in red and blue ... )

I am also reminded of a debate in the NBA yonks ago about the relative merits of Michael Jordan and Earvin 'Magic' Johnson. Every NBA coach surveyed said Jordan was the better player, but each would choose Johnson over Jordan as the foundation of their team.

But the teams of both those guys were beaten (at stages) to world championships by the Detroit Pistons, who at the time were just about the stereotype of the "champion team" ethos.

Although if we're talking basketball a better example might be Bill Russell (11 rings) v Wilt Chamberlain (2 rings). Both champions in their own ways, but VERY different as team members.

A champion team over a team of champions. Champion players are only anointed retrospectively (for the most part) anyway it is because they won flags people consider them champions (rare exceptions like Buckley or Ablett Snr for example). If Geelong lost all 4 GF's how many champions would you name in their side? If they won the 2 or 3 in the early 90's how many champs would their side boast compared to how they are viewed now? Just worry about working together as one cohesive unit and winning games/flags and let the media worry about subjective terms like "champions".

I'd settle for a champion midfield

It is an interesting excercise.

I have always believed that mathematical laws can be applied to human circumstances.

A former chair of the reseve bank said

"everything is connected to everything else"

I think that there are some fundemental laws of physics which reflect that truism and I think it applies to this topic.

As others have said

A champion team is that and will beat an ordinary team

A team of champions may or may not be a champion team

A poor team with 1 or 2 champions will probably still be a poor team

(individual brilliance is too fleeting and too easily countered)

I have always thought that to win a premiership you need a team with a champion.

That champion may not be obvious and may not produce champion efforts every day but is able to rise and respond to the occasion

Robbie was a champion We saw how good he was in state teams unfortunately his team could never get to the finals to see how they could support that champion.

Andrew Jarman, Mcleod Aker were champions of the big occasion I cant remember them failing when it absolutely positively had to be done. But they were also sporadic on minor games. They were champions not only in their deeds but they lifted their teammates and inspired others to perform above themselves.

I just hope we have one of those inspirational types in the new group that we have Theres plenty to choose from Viney Toumpas Trengove Mitch Hogan etc happy days

AFL clubs study the make up of past premiership teams closely. I've seen break downs before, but off the top of my head you need roughly 10-12 players with over 100 games experience, an average age of approx. 25/26, and an average games played of roughly 120. This may not be exact and there will always be premiership teams that buck the trend, but an experienced group with a genuine star of the competition, or two, give you the best chance of developing a premiership capable team.

You'll have a core group of 14/15 made up of A graders, or very close to it, and 2 or 3 stars, i.e. players that are rated in the top dozen in the competition when fit and firing. Add a strong culture, good coaching group and a bit of luck and you have a chance.

It is an interesting excercise.

I have always believed that mathematical laws can be applied to human circumstances.

A former chair of the reseve bank said

"everything is connected to everything else"

I think that there are some fundemental laws of physics which reflect that truism and I think it applies to this topic.

As others have said

A champion team is that and will beat an ordinary team

A team of champions may or may not be a champion team

A poor team with 1 or 2 champions will probably still be a poor team

(individual brilliance is too fleeting and too easily countered)

I have always thought that to win a premiership you need a team with a champion.

That champion may not be obvious and may not produce champion efforts every day but is able to rise and respond to the occasion

Robbie was a champion We saw how good he was in state teams unfortunately his team could never get to the finals to see how they could support that champion.

Andrew Jarman, Mcleod Aker were champions of the big occasion I cant remember them failing when it absolutely positively had to be done. But they were also sporadic on minor games. They were champions not only in their deeds but they lifted their teammates and inspired others to perform above themselves.

I just hope we have one of those inspirational types in the new group that we have Theres plenty to choose from Viney Toumpas Trengove Mitch Hogan etc happy days

Jared Rivers is a perfect example of this.

He will thrive at Geelong. He was always a class player, just never got any support over years.

2006 was the last gasp when Jared was just emerging.

Edited February 25, 201312 yr by why you little

We need 22 committed , focused , team oriented champions to be avaliable late September 2014,15,16 & 17.

AFL clubs study the make up of past premiership teams closely. I've seen break downs before, but off the top of my head you need roughly 10-12 players with over 100 games experience, an average age of approx. 25/26, and an average games played of roughly 120. This may not be exact and there will always be premiership teams that buck the trend, but an experienced group with a genuine star of the competition, or two, give you the best chance of developing a premiership capable team.

One thing that has impressed me with Neeld is that he understands that players need good quality experience as well as quantity. Bailey sent the kids in to get slaughtered, and whilst their game count increased they didn't get a lot out if losing by 60 odd points most weeks.

It is reflected in the recruiting policy of players like Byrnes and Rodan.

All you guys wanting champions......little steps first please....how about a star? I don't want much....but you need a few to help reach the pinnacle. Then you can talk champions.

I'd like a team with no chumps. I reckon there will be a few more cast adrift at season's end, maybe even some well known names.

As for number of champs, it doesn't matter as long as we win a flag.

7

Moonshadow I agree - I want that flag.

the Swans have just proved this to be true in 2012

Exactly. They don't have a lot of star players but boy, how they tackle, meet the ball with fearless body work. How they hunt in packs, support each other. That's what I want Melbourne to emulate. The champions just add icing to the cake e.g. Goodes.

But a champion team of champions will always crush the crap out of the opposition.

A great example of this would be the 1956 Melbourne team. What a combination.

22

22

22 +1

just in case the opposition has 22