9 hours ago, Skuit said:

Talk of the bottom six winning flags is simply a short-cut to refer to depth. If two teams somehow had an even spread of talent, it's not the performance of the bottom six that will decide games/flags - it's the performance of the top players. We may target our lesser lights in the event of a loss, but besides Petty getting horribly exposed vs. the Saints, it's not the JKHs losing us games - it's our top tier failing to fire in unison. 

 

The point surely is that the elite player group ie top six, will fire in big games, as will the opposition’s otherwise they would not be classed as elite. Basically cancel out each other, except where teams have individuals of such brilliance that they turn a game through individual brilliance and skill. These are rare beasts, but no-one can deny that Franklin, Gawn, Nicnak, Dangerfield, Dusty Martin regularly do this, even Hawkins, Clary and Rance. 

If the elite six was so important, then Geelong would be clearly on top of the ladder, but they have so top ended their salary cap, that their bottom six are, not to put too finer point on it....ordinary.  In this, we should give credit to our recruiters: their strategy of picking the eyes out of the second tier leagues has been masterful and greatly stengthens our bottom six players through people such as Hannan, Fritsch.and Vanders. It is a lesson others such as Carlton and St. Kilda should note, but I rather suspect neither has the elite recruiting skills we have.

We are in good shape. 

8 hours ago, Dees2014 said:

The point surely is that the elite player group ie top six, will fire in big games, as will the opposition’s otherwise they would not be classed as elite. Basically cancel out each other, except where teams have individuals of such brilliance that they turn a game through individual brilliance and skill. These are rare beasts, but no-one can deny that Franklin, Gawn, Nicnak, Dangerfield, Dusty Martin regularly do this, even Hawkins, Clary and Rance. 

If the elite six was so important, then Geelong would be clearly on top of the ladder, but they have so top ended their salary cap, that their bottom six are, not to put too finer point on it....ordinary.  In this, we should give credit to our recruiters: their strategy of picking the eyes out of the second tier leagues has been masterful and greatly stengthens our bottom six players through people such as Hannan, Fritsch.and Vanders. It is a lesson others such as Carlton and St. Kilda should note, but I rather suspect neither has the elite recruiting skills we have.

We are in good shape. 

Very succinctly stated. 

For me our bottom 6 is a clear measurement of how our team is going to go. When guys like Mitch Hannan play well, we are bloody hard to beat but they can also go completely missing In games 

 

10 hours ago, Dees2014 said:

The point surely is that the elite player group ie top six, will fire in big games, as will the opposition’s otherwise they would not be classed as elite. Basically cancel out each other, except where teams have individuals of such brilliance that they turn a game through individual brilliance and skill. These are rare beasts, but no-one can deny that Franklin, Gawn, Nicnak, Dangerfield, Dusty Martin regularly do this, even Hawkins, Clary and Rance. 

If the elite six was so important, then Geelong would be clearly on top of the ladder, but they have so top ended their salary cap, that their bottom six are, not to put too finer point on it....ordinary.  In this, we should give credit to our recruiters: their strategy of picking the eyes out of the second tier leagues has been masterful and greatly stengthens our bottom six players through people such as Hannan, Fritsch.and Vanders. It is a lesson others such as Carlton and St. Kilda should note, but I rather suspect neither has the elite recruiting skills we have.

We are in good shape. 

Your notion that 'the elite player group ie top six, will fire in big games' - 'otherwise they would not be classed as elite' and 'basically cancel each other out' has so many logical flaws I'm not sure which one to highlight. 

P1: The top six players are elite (false premise)

P2: a. Elite players perform in big games b. otherwise they wouldn't be elite and thus top six (a. assumption b. circular logic)

P3: Any given club's elite are equal (false premise)

C1: The top six players cancel each other out in big games

Can you name three occasions where our top six have all fired in the same big game? Or, three recent matches when the top six players of each club have cancelled each other out in their performances? 

Who do you find it more important performs next Friday - Angus Brawshaw or Charlie Spargo?

Edited September 2, 20186 yr by Skuit

My list in order of quality + how critical they are to the team's success:

1     Gawn 

2     Oliver

3     Brayshaw

4     TMac

5  Harmes

6   Melksham

7  Jetta

8   Hibberd

9.   Salem

10.  Viney

11    Pettraca

12.   Lewis

13   O Mac

14    Frost

15  Jones

16   Fritsch

17   Neal-Bullen

18    Weideman

19   Vandenberg

20  Hannan 

21  Spargo

22   Kennedy-Harris

 

Evidence of the critical importance of the bottom six is the Tiges success last year.  Their 'spare parts' forward line of lesser light players (eg Graham kicking 3 goals in the granny).

 

I reckon our bot 6 compares very well compared to the other finals contenders. 

Edited September 2, 20186 yr by Maluski

43 minutes ago, Maluski said:

My list in order of quality + how critical they are to the team's success:

1     Gawn 

2     Oliver

3     Brayshaw

4     TMac

5  Harmes

6   Melksham

7  Jetta

8   Hibberd

9.   Salem

10.  Viney

11    Pettraca

12.   Lewis

13   O Mac

14    Frost

15  Jones

16   Fritsch

17   Neal-Bullen

18    Weideman

19   Vandenberg

20  Hannan 

21  Spargo

22   Kennedy-Harris

 

Evidence of the critical importance of the bottom six is the Tiges success last year.  Their 'spare parts' forward line of lesser light players (eg Graham kicking 3 goals in the granny).

 

I reckon our bot 6 compares very well compared to the other finals contenders. 

Maluski 

The bottom six listed there all have made significant contributions to our ascent into the top 5 position we now hold.

Have they all fired together?  I thought that they actually did their bit last week v GW$$, and if they can do so again this week it would go a long way towards beating the pu551es. 

4 hours ago, monoccular said:

Maluski 

The bottom six listed there all have made significant contributions to our ascent into the top 5 position we now hold.

Have they all fired together?  I thought that they actually did their bit last week v GW$$, and if they can do so again this week it would go a long way towards beating the pu551es. 

Tend to agree, the ranking by @Maluski wasn’t bad either. The last 6 chipped in and held up their end of the bargain, WC and GWS are excellent examples of that, but I do agree with @Skuit, if our top six aren’t playing their part, we’re doomed.

 

 

12 hours ago, Maluski said:

 

17   Neal-Bullen

18    Weideman

19   Vandenberg

20  Hannan 

21  Spargo

22   Kennedy-Harris

 

My take on this

If these players can manage one goal each or any 6 between them we most likely will win. And they are all likely to contribute that goal. Or assist, 

assuming Hawkins does not kick 7 or 8

so mids need to break even at worst and if we get in front ( when) in the last quarter Fritz goes back down and takes 3 or 5 marks. To help OMac and Frosty.

 

Go Dees give em hell !!!

18 minutes ago, 640MD said:

My take on this

If these players can manage one goal each or any 6 between them we most likely will win. And they are all likely to contribute that goal. Or assist, 

assuming Hawkins does not kick 7 or 8

so mids need to break even at worst and if we get in front ( when) in the last quarter Fritz goes back down and takes 3 or 5 marks. To help OMac and Frosty.

 

Go Dees give em hell !!!

Like it

Looking at the likely Geelong line up, I would reckon their bottom 6, matched up vs our bot 6, are:

Mark O Connor - never even heard of him,  a 6-gamer who averages 12 D (disposals). Avg S (score of supercoach and dreamteam) is 53. 

3.3 score involvements, 1 tackle.

Compare him to our weakest link JKH: 34 gamer with 15 D,  62 S. 5.3 scoee involvements, 4 tackles. 

Big win to JKH over O Connor. 

 

(yes I know these scores arent necessarily perfectly indicative of a player's worth but they are a decent-ish surrogate marker) 

 

Jed Bews: 70 gamer, 11 D, 43 S, 3.6 Marks, 1.6 ScoreInvolvements. Bigger bodied bloke, probs most comparable to Vandenberg. AVB has him dominated easily. Statswise he covers him in disposals (15), marks (4.8), SI (5), score (67) but most importantly, grunt. 

 

Jack Henry: Has done some decent things as a young 21 gamer. 11 D, 58 S, 0.4 goals, 2.6 SI. 

Spargo: just 15games, 15 D, 58S, 0.8 goals, 5.3 SI, pressure forward. Spargo wins here imo. 

 

Jake Kolodjashnij: 69 gamer, 11D, 54 S. Classed as Key position player similar to Weideman. Weideman 17gamer, 10 D,  52 S. Probably a draw.

 

Menzel: 72 gamer,  11 D, 64 S, 2.3 goals,  6 SI. 

Murdoch: 107 gamer,  15 D,  72 S, 0.5 Goals, 4.2 SI, 3 tackles. Forward who moves thru midfield.

Both these Geelong blokes are skillful,  but light 'soft' type players which dont stand up as well under finals pressure imo. 

Comparatively, Hannan: 32 gamer, 12 D, 58S, 1.6 goals,  6.4 SI. Draw, or slight edge goes to Menzel. 

ANB 56 game forward/midfielder, 17 D, 76 S,  4 tackles, 1.1 goals, 6 SI. All more than Murdoch, absolute domination here. 

 

JKH, ANB, AVB dominate O Connor, Murdoch and Bews.

Spargo beats Henry imo. 

Weideman/Kolodjashnij is a draw.

Only Menzel edges out Hannan. 

 

Overall scores for bot 6 players:

Demons 375, Geelong 344

 

Go Dees! Time to crush the kitten pretenders!

 

Edited September 3, 20186 yr by Maluski

Champion Data has put each finalist’s Round 23 line-up under the microscope and highlighted the six players with the lowest season average based on its official AFL player ratings.

STRENGTH OF BOTTOM SIX IN ROUND 23

1. Melbourne 47.7

2. Richmond 42.9

3. Geelong Cats 41.3

4. West Coast 40.7

5. Collingwood 39.4

6. GWS Giants 39.2

7. Hawthorn 39.1

8. Sydney Swans 35.2

MELBOURNE

Dom Tyson 9.5 (14 games)

Jay Kennedy Harris 8.5 (6)

Dean Kent 8.5 (5)

Oscar McDonald 7.4 (22)

Charlie Spargo 7.0 (15)

Sam Weideman 6.8 (7)

Also in the mix: Mitch Hannan, Jayden Hunt, Jeff Garlett, Cam Pedersen, Joel Smith, Tom Bugg.

Clearly the strongest bottom-six of the eight finalists and with some seriously good players in the wings if needed. Weideman has kicked just one goal in each of his two games since replacing the injured Jesse Hogan but it hasn’t hurt the Dees who kicked 16 and 15 goals in those matches. Oscar McDonald will be relied on to take one of the opposition’s best forwards while Spargo and Kennedy Harris play in probably the hardest position to shine in finals.

Edited September 5, 20186 yr by ProDee

Interesting discussion.

Our list is certainly stronger across the board than it was during our last finals campaign.

I've always thought that your bottom 6 can play a big part in winning, but STARS can win games almost by themselves, and we have a couple of players now that could be considered stars.

But....

Stars are also made in finals, and with a strong finals campaign, it may come to light that we actually have more stars than people realised.

I'm not expecting a flag tilt this year, although its one of the worst top 8's I can recall, so anything is possible.

But next year, all things equal, look out comp.

On 8/31/2018 at 2:24 AM, Dees2014 said:

Weideman

I can understand the blind excitement now we are in the finals.. 

But the Weid ain’t above a guy like Fritsch who has played more games this year than the Weid 3 years into his career.

Hannan Spargo & Neal Bullen still a head of him quite comfortably as well..

Replace Kent and JKH with Hannan and Viney.  

Its a pretty strong side.

4 hours ago, ProDee said:

Champion Data has put each finalist’s Round 23 line-up under the microscope and highlighted the six players with the lowest season average based on its official AFL player ratings.

STRENGTH OF BOTTOM SIX IN ROUND 23

1. Melbourne 47.7

2. Richmond 42.9

3. Geelong Cats 41.3

4. West Coast 40.7

5. Collingwood 39.4

6. GWS Giants 39.2

7. Hawthorn 39.1

8. Sydney Swans 35.2

MELBOURNE

Dom Tyson 9.5 (14 games)

Jay Kennedy Harris 8.5 (6)

Dean Kent 8.5 (5)

Oscar McDonald 7.4 (22)

Charlie Spargo 7.0 (15)

Sam Weideman 6.8 (7)

Also in the mix: Mitch Hannan, Jayden Hunt, Jeff Garlett, Cam Pedersen, Joel Smith, Tom Bugg.

Clearly the strongest bottom-six of the eight finalists and with some seriously good players in the wings if needed. Weideman has kicked just one goal in each of his two games since replacing the injured Jesse Hogan but it hasn’t hurt the Dees who kicked 16 and 15 goals in those matches. Oscar McDonald will be relied on to take one of the opposition’s best forwards while Spargo and Kennedy Harris play in probably the hardest position to shine in finals.

Where did you get this stat from ProDee?

11 hours ago, hells bells said:

Where did you get this stat from ProDee?

HS

Don't ever think your bottom six determines finals.  And don't ever think your "stars" cancel each other out.

Dustin Martin was the reason Richmond won last night.

Stars win finals, not your most mediocre players.

1 hour ago, ProDee said:

Don't ever think your bottom six determines finals.  And don't ever think your "stars" cancel each other out.

Dustin Martin was the reason Richmond won last night.

Stars win finals, not your most mediocre players.

Martin certainly had the biggest influence...

Interesting to compare with Mitchell who had lot of the ball with limited influence.

They certainly didn't cancel each other out.

To further prove that point a few Hawk stars had a very average night.

I would also say their bottom 6 were poor but that's what happens if your stars are not in the game.

Your bottom 6 will always ride the coat-tails of the stars.

BUMP

When your bottom 6 players play well and perform their roles you win games of footy. We`ve had a few standout players in both wins but a real evenness across the board, a classic team effort.

Who they are is becoming harder to answer, and everyone will have different views and they will probably change by the week the way things have started. I`d probably have Jones, Jetta, Sparrow, Hunt, Spargo and TMac from last nights team (not on performance but expectation). Before rd 1 I`d have had Jordon in there somewhere but I`m starting to believe the hype,

All of them played their part last night and its hard to see any of them get dropped for next week. What a great problem to have.

1 hour ago, Hell Bent said:

BUMP

When your bottom 6 players play well and perform their roles you win games of footy. We`ve had a few standout players in both wins but a real evenness across the board, a classic team effort.

Who they are is becoming harder to answer, and everyone will have different views and they will probably change by the week the way things have started. I`d probably have Jones, Jetta, Sparrow, Hunt, Spargo and TMac from last nights team (not on performance but expectation). Before rd 1 I`d have had Jordon in there somewhere but I`m starting to believe the hype,

All of them played their part last night and its hard to see any of them get dropped for next week. What a great problem to have.

bit stiff to have jetta in there, u can't just go by bottom 6 for disposals coz thats not his job, thought he was fantastic on butler and co, they didn't get a sniff once ball hit ground. hunt will be turning in his sleep with hibbo breathing down his neck

17 minutes ago, Turner said:

bit stiff to have jetta in there, u can't just go by bottom 6 for disposals coz thats not his job, thought he was fantastic on butler and co, they didn't get a sniff once ball hit ground. hunt will be turning in his sleep with hibbo breathing down his neck

Maybe read my post again. I didn’t go by last nights disposals.

Jetta was very good last night and as I said it’s going to be hard to drop anyone.

Who would your bottom 6 be Turner if you look at the team sheet, disregarding how they played last night?

2-0 with Weid, b Brown, Hibberd and Melk waiting in the wings.

Bedford and Petty have impressed in every practice match.  Even big Majak Daw is kicking goals.

Bowey, Rosman and Laurie all very promising.

 

This is the best position we have been in for a while.

11 minutes ago, Hell Bent said:

Maybe read my post again. I didn’t go by last nights disposals.

Jetta was very good last night and as I said it’s going to be hard to drop anyone.

Who would your bottom 6 be Turner if you look at the team sheet, disregarding how they played last night?

bottom 6: hunt, sparrow, jordon, jones, historically i'd have nibbler but gee he's been good and tmac

I’m still not entirely convinced by Tomlinson, Jetta, Hunt, Rivers (form not talent), Brayshaw, Jordon, Sparrow, Jones, Tommy Mc and Jackson
 

That’s a long list.

Defenders: All around the mark and the system is working, just want to see a bigger sample size 
Slow mids: Gus and Nath can play the game, it’s more can the succeed in the role
Young mids: Jordon and Sparrow absolutely doing their roles so far 
Talls: We’ve got reinforcements if needed

I love happy post-win Demonland, a LOT more than post-loss Demonland, but this is classic.

We lose, and it's "shuffling deck chairs", terrible depth, wasting draft picks, no future, etc.

We win, and our depth is amazing and our bottom 6 incredible.

5 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

I’m still not entirely convinced by Tomlinson, Jetta, Hunt, Rivers (form not talent), Brayshaw, Jordon, Sparrow, Jones, Tommy Mc and Jackson
 

That’s a long list.

Defenders: All around the mark and the system is working, just want to see a bigger sample size 
Slow mids: Gus and Nath can play the game, it’s more can the succeed in the role
Young mids: Jordon and Sparrow absolutely doing their roles so far 
Talls: We’ve got reinforcements if needed

Tomlinson could win a Brownlow and you wouldn't be entirely convinced by him.

His first two games this year have exceeded anything for which you have given him credit.