Gator

vandenBerg on Smith for me. He has far better pace than given credit for round these parts, he has a great tank, he's the same height, and he can absolutely physically work him over. vandenberg confirmed this morning on SEN that Goody had him playing wing due to his tank and let's face it Smith will only get to use his elite speed on a handful of times and not at all if he's constantly under pressure. I may be wrong, but I could see a vandenBerg matchup.

I'd prefer Harmes to go to O'Meara. Mitchell is going to do Mitchell stuff and Viney can keep a watch on him if it looks like getting out of hand. Shut down O'Meara and keep Mitchell under reasonable control and it goes a long way to winning the match.

I like Spargo, but he's clearly the 22nd player and if there was a change he'd be the one who makes way.

Nah, it's just a bit of fun to expose the footy acumen of many here, not to mention the jellybelly culture. I'd hate to be in the trenches with some of them. "Goodwin can't coach or has lost the players" "Not going on the camp was a huge mistake" "Viney's career could be over" "Brayshaw should give the game away for the sake of his health" "Trading Jack Watts is a major mistake" "Weideman is never going to make it" And the commentary on Hogan is too numerous to mention. The flogs and snowflakes who frequent this forum are many and a sight to behold and they need to (occasionally) be held account for their really stupid "opinions".

Poor thumbnail sketch. He'll always physically hurt the opposition, you'd love to run out next to him, he'll have days where the footy stuff really works, and he'll have days where his skills aren't on song. Probably a bottom six player, but one of the more valuable bottom six players running around.

Thank you.

Don't know don't care.

Saw this elsewhere. Dees - red.

The two clubs that have embarrassed us most over the last 30 years have been Hawthorn and Geelong. There would be nothing more glorious or fitting than dispatching both in consecutive weeks. Am I that lucky ?

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.

I hear you. Although, for me, that first bounce tonight will be like the last frame of a mostly harrowing movie.

I started posting on the old site (run by Andy and Jack) in November 2002. It had been going at least couple of years before I joined.

HS

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.

You would.

There's a reason Jack Watts is no longer at the club. Still, snowflakes are gonna snowflake. Poor Wattsy...

You've had one poster laugh at your post and another say, "Not your finest work", but, of course, you're (mainly) right. I wrote the following (in part) in July, 2009: A few years ago Craig Cameron effectively denounced the widely held belief that “a team is only as good as the bottom 6 of its best 22”. He argued and conclusively proved to me that a team is only as good as it ‘best 6’. He pointed out that if one analyzed the end of year ladders over recent seasons there was a strong correlation between the ‘H&A’ ladder at round 22 and the quality of a club’s top 6 players. In most cases the ladder at year’s end mirrors the quality of the team’s top 6 players. Naturally, it won’t be absolute due to vagaries such as injury, but the pattern is undeniable. And it’s not to say that the bottom 6 isn’t important to a team’s flag chances, as we know that all great sides have good depth, but it’s the stars that determine how well a team can be built and how deep it will go into September. Now, I need to add that I've shifted my view somewhat, as the game HAS changed. In the 1970s, 80s, 90s, and early 2000s the team that had the most talent nearly always won. It was predominantly a 'man on man' contested game. Flooding and zones were coming in, but even so more often than not the most talented teams won, especially prior to 2005. The evolution of the game is fascinating and right now the team with the most talent at the top end is far more regularly beaten by less talented teams due to game-plans, systems, and the fact that talent is now spread over 18 teams. I mean, who really thinks Clarkson's team is a top 4 team on talent alone ? Obviously, the best combination is a highly drilled pressure team that scores well and has the most top end talent. As 'Old' has mentioned, the Bulldogs were an anomaly, but also testament to the shift in football. So, as we know there are exceptions to every rule, but I still hold firm to the view that 'stars' win you flags. They make lesser players better and give those bottom six players the opportunity to make a difference. Those bottom six players don't get the chance to shine without the influence of their team's elite. The perfect combination is having one of the competition's elite top 6-8, a rock solid contested game-plan, and the depth of talent so no-one in your 22 gets exposed. That they can shine in pivotal moments. But be under no illusion, your top end talent is far more important to your fortunes than your bottom end talent. Especially in finals. I don't hold the view that your best 6 are cancelled out by the opposition's best 6 and that the bottom 6 are left to duke it out. It's possible that variations of this can occur, but in the main you need your best players shading the opposition's best players, which allows your core players the best opportunities to perform.

Blight's right and was backed up by Cooney. Many players don't watch games and get their feedback from media scribes as to who the dominant players are in a particular year. It seems popular for younger posters to denigrate older past players just because of their age. I automatically consider such posters dolts of the highest order.

I know it's possible, but I'm not convinced it works best. Give me the structure that will run out Friday week any day of the week.

Yeah nah.

I'm interested in "highest and best use"", not watering down a player's best position to squeeze in someone else. Salem wasn't great in the midfield, but is great down back. Brayshaw wasn't great as a high half forward or on a back flank, but is great on ball. Yes, players can be juggled, but invariably water finds its own level and the course you're advocating rarely is sustainable.

If I'm Sam Weideman and I'm being told we want to keep you as insurance for injuries then of course I'd be seeking opportunities elsewhere. I'd be wanting to know how the club sees me fitting in to the best 22 in my 4th year. I'd want assurances. Obviously there are no guarantees and selection is subject to form, but I'd want the vision to be clear.

You're not convincing me. But who knows, you may be right.

If I'm one of those players that answer doesn't cut it for me.

I was having this discussion yesterday. I really rate what Weideman can become, but also like what McDonald offers as the second banana. And unlike some I'm a Jesse fan and he's 3 years from his peak years. I can't see the three of them working well in the same forward half. But I could be wrong. I'll be fascinated to see what Goodwin comes up with in 2019.