Here is my likely team for Friday week:

 

B:          Jetta.                Omac.           Lewis

HB       Hibberd.              Frost            Salem

CC        Neal-Bullen        Oliver           Hannan 

HF         Melksham          TMac          Pettracca

F             Harmes         Weideman       Fritsch

Foll.        Gawn.             Brayshaw.     Jones

Inter.      Kennedy-Harris.  Spargo. Vandemberg.  Viney 

 

Here they are in quality order:

1     Gawn 

2     Oliver

3     Brayshaw

4      TMac

5       Jones

6       Viney

7       Lewis

8.      Salem

9.      Melksham

10     Jetta

11      Hibberd

12      Harmes

13    Pettraca

14.    Frost

15     Omac 

16    Vandenberg

17    Weideman

18   Fritsch 

19    Hannan 

20    Neal-Bullen

21   Spargo

22.   Kennedy-Harris

 

This makes the crucial six for us as Spargo, Kennedy-Harris, Neal-Bullen, Hannan, Frisch, Weideman. Interestingly, the majority are forwards or mids, and two are ex VFL and mature age recruits.In light of our #1 rating in scoring, seems a bit contradictory. In any case, some serious talent here, and IMHO would be amongst the top two or three if you rated the bottom 6 across all sides in the AFL. 

Be interested in others views both on overall ratings and where we sit in bottom six rankings. 

Hi Dees2014 (not our most auspicious year btw...)

Interesting subject, sure to provoke some discussion. FWIW IMHO ?

1. Gawn 

2. Oliver

3. Brayshaw

4 TMac

5.Viney

6. Jones

7. Salem

8. Lewis

9. Melksham

10.Jetta

11. Hibberd

12. Harmes

13. Tyson

14. Fritsch

15. Pettraca

16.Neal-Bullen

17. Omac

18. Frost

19. Vandenberg

20. Weideman

21.  Spargo

22. Kennedy-Harris

Our bottom six have not hit their respective ceilings yet, that really excites me.

Well either way from those two our bottom six is way better than Geelong's.....   Hence I'm confident of a win

Glad to see im not the only one who thinks Harmes has gone past Petracca.

A fully fit Viney would be 3rd behind Gawn/Oliver.

No way Jones is in our top 6 players anymore. I will come back and provide a 22 when I have more time.

 

 

Petracca should be ahead of Fritsch and Tyson DD. And the way Vanders is playing ATM he is not in the bottom 6.

Edited August 30, 20186 yr by Jibroni

Rate the top 6 from both sides going into our game 

1.dangerfield

2.gawn

3.oliver

4.selwood

5.mcdonald

6.hawkins 

Am I being biased?

this is why harmes on danger could be our most important matchup, and stopping Hawkins from kicking a bag 

Edited August 30, 20186 yr by brendan

Weideman before Fritsch??? No way is Fritsch in our bottom 6.  

Our bottom 6 are:
Jay Kennedy-harris, Weideman, Omac, Tyson, Spargo and Vandeberg.

Edited August 30, 20186 yr by Dr.D

12 minutes ago, Dr.D said:

Weideman before Fritsch??? No way is Fritsch in our bottom 6.  

Our bottom 6 are:
Jay Kennedy-harris, Weideman, Omac, Tyson, Spargo and Vandeberg.

I can't take anything you say seriously with that avatar.

My only issue with this list is where Jones sits. If we are talking pure football ability, I wouldn't have thought he'd make top 5, but in the scope of this thread that's irrelevant anyway. 

Fritter surely isn't in our bottom 6? He's proven to be highly skillful and incredibly versatile. He plays tall and his kicking is well above average. IMO our bottom 6 are: 

JKH, Spargo, VDB, Frost, ANB and Hannan. All of which are significantly better than Geelongs bottom 6. 

Dee's by 30+ 

Are these lists based on current form? Or overall this season? Importance to the team?

If it was based on form and importance right now Harmes would be top 5 and I don't think Jones would crack the top 10 to be honest. He's playing his role well but not influencing games as much as others.

 

 

The most pleasing thing looking at the bigger picture is there's guys that could potentially (but probably doubtful) play that could round out an even better bottom 6 and maybe be ahead of JKH

Hunt, Joel Smith, Pederson, Bugg, Garlett, Wagner

Not to mentioned the injured that won't be available: Lever, Vince, Kent, Stretch

Thats some depth right there.

1 hour ago, brendan said:

Rate the top 6 from both sides going into our game 

1.dangerfield

2.gawn

3.oliver

4.selwood

5.mcdonald

6.hawkins 

Am I being biased?

this is why harmes on danger could be our most important matchup, and stopping Hawkins from kicking a bag 

I would never have Hawkins in the top 6 from both teams. I would have Brayshaw or Stewart.

It's the top 6 that win finals.

2 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

It's the top 6 that win finals.

I don’t think anyone is doubting the importance of top 6 fifty five... but a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. In the heat of finals, especially a GF, mistakes are enormously costly. 

 

..

The main thing I'm taking from this is that we have a lot of genuine quality players who fill their role really well. That and it gives the list a whole new look to have a few of the absolute top bracket players.

I wonder where we'd slot in some of the players from our previous 2004-5-6 finals? Not sure many would make it in, which is kind of exciting.

 

9 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

It's the top 6 that win finals.

Not your best work.

It's a myth that it's the bottom 6 who matter in finals, it's the top 6 that have to be capable and fire in big finals.

Here's a list of the "best" from Wikipedia for the last 10 GFs with the Norm Smith Medallist highlighted.  The lists are dominated by the best 6 players at each winning club.

2017: Martin (NSM), Rance, Houli, Astbury, Prestia, Edwards, Graham, Grimes
2016: Johannisen (NSM), Picken, T. Boyd, Macrae, M. Boyd, Dahlhaus
2015: Rioli (NSM), Mitchell, Smith, Hodge, Gunston, Burgoyne, Frawley    
2014: Hodge (NSM), Lewis, Mitchell, Roughead, Hill, Lake, Langford, Burgoyne
2013: Lake (NSM), Gunston, Lewis, Rioli, Hodge, Birchall
2012: Hannebery, O'Keefe (NSM), Kennedy, McVeigh, Jetta, Goodes
2011: Bartel (NSM), Selwood, Hawkins, Ling, Johnson, Chapman, Ottens, Varcoe
2010: Ball, N. Brown, Jolly, Pendlebury (NSM), Shaw, Sidebottom, D. Thomas, Wellingham    
2009: Chapman (NSM), Rooke, Milburn, Taylor, Selwood, Ablett, Corey, Bartel, Ling, Scarlett
2008: Hodge (NSM), Brown, Ellis, Sewell, Crawford, Dew, Rioli, Osborne, Williams

The reason MFC has failed to win flags in our competitive years in the 80s, 90s and 2000s was because our top 6 was not elte.  That's different now - our top 6 is developing to be as good as anyone's and that's why we're a real threat.

Haha funny how people dissect such things. I'll beat everyone and say one team's average player has to be better than the other teams average player.

By logic, if the average player is better than the opposing team's average player, their team wins. If they are the same, it's a draw

Let's call it the Stephen Armstrong Principle.  Your 'bottom six' don't have to be great players but they need to play their part effectively and not be leaving slack which your top players have to pick up. 

If your best six won finals, Carlton would've been romping it home for a decade.

Correction: Carlton would have been romping their way through finals if the top FIVE were what mattered.

Also, I've seen some silly arguments in my time but to argue that the best 6 are what matters by listing the best 6 and noting that they are the best 6 is taki g circular reasoning to an impressive level.

Is it enough to point out that the best 6 at Richmond has been much the same since almost as far back as Terry Wallace times?

Bottom six in descending order would be Vanders, Nibbler, Hannan, Weed, Spargo and JKH. That group would compare well with most other sides in the top 8.

2 hours ago, dl4e said:

I would never have Hawkins in the top 6 from both teams. I would have Brayshaw or Stewart.

With the way he’s playing I think he’d be in the top six. It’s not underselling his performance against us last time to say it was Carey-esque. Stop him and Danger and we win the game.

3 hours ago, Fifty-5 said:

It's the top 6 that win finals.

It's actually the 22.

6 minutes ago, Redleg said:

It's actually the 22.

The top 22 or the bottom?

It's a combination of the very best playing at their very best and role players playing their roles. No point having the best 6 playing great games and everyone else letting them do it, and no point the bottom 6 having great games but not having support from the more senior guys (generally the better players are more senior). 

1 hour ago, Little Goffy said:

Correction: Carlton would have been romping their way through finals if the top FIVE were what mattered.

Also, I've seen some silly arguments in my time but to argue that the best 6 are what matters by listing the best 6 and noting that they are the best 6 is taki g circular reasoning to an impressive level.

Is it enough to point out that the best 6 at Richmond has been much the same since almost as far back as Terry Wallace times?

I'm surprised that you can't see the distinction between being rated in the top 6 and actually bringing that on GF day - it's not circular.

8/10 of those NSMs are best 6 with probably only Lake and O'Keefe as outliers and some may even argue that they were top 6.

Across those "best" lists there's only Graham, Langford, Ellis and Osborne who are bottom 6.  That's 4 out of 70+.  They just don't make an impact.

3 hours ago, Fifty-5 said:

It's the top 6 that win finals.

Ted Hopkins says g'day.