Gator

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'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.

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.

For me it's the chance to run out at the G most weeks compared to Etihad. When journalists say that Melbourne have given up on getting Gaff I tend to believe them. There are some things clubs won't let out, but others they do. In this instance I see no reason to doubt these reports. Sometimes journos guess, or put two and two together, and on other occasions clubs are frank, as I'm sure we have been. You can tell by the definite nature of reporters saying Melbourne don't expect to be landing Gaff. It was very different to the commentary around Lever last year, or Hibberd prior to that. I'm virtually certain Gaff won't be coming to Melbourne. Now I'll have dolts cite all the times journos get it wrong as though that has some sort of relevance to what I just said.

I'm surprised so many are confident. From everything being reported, and there's usually smoke when there's this much fire, Gaff will either stay or go to North for the dollars. I suspect North. I hold zero hope he'll come to Melbourne. And with the elevation in form of both Harmes and Brayshaw I'm far less eager than I was.

He's suggesting what you're advocating. Cerra was pick 5 and will be a gun plus a first rounder is the equivalent of two first rounders. Actually, in my view it's better, because Cerra has already shown what he'll be. That said, I want Hogan to stay and suspect he will.

I'm not sure what you're meaning.

My view on Frost is the same as Simon Goodwin's. He was a last resort, which is why he spent most of the year at Casey. He's playing well and as long as he plays within his many limitations he'll walk off the ground having played his role. I don't see him as a long-term solution. And I doubt my mate Goody does either.

Melbourne

I'm one of the 70% @Ethan Tremblay

Apparently there was a poll by a Dees forum on Facebook asking supporters who should play against West Coast out of Pedersen or Weideman. Pedersen was chosen by 70% of supporters. It merely confirmed my long-held views. Most Melbourne supporters are clueless about footy.

He showed he's an AFL quality tall forward.

Just heard Mark Brayshaw on SEN. He spoke exactly as I suspected. Thankfully, he has far more class than the outrage merchants on here who seem to salivate during these types of unfortunate events.

Absolutely. The incident has zero to do with awarding votes for the game. In fact, if Simpson thought he was the second best player on the ground he'd be compromising the award by not giving him votes. It's called integrity. This isn't a best and fairest award, this is a best award.

I keep hearing that Brayshaw is a teenager. His age in this incident is completely irrelevant.

Are you imagining this, or can you provide quotes that support this assertion ?

I have an 18 year old Son, the same age as Brayshaw. Of course you'd be tremendously upset. I'd condemn the act, but also acknowledge it was out of character and appreciate that these things can happen, as unfortunate as they are. He'll cop his penalty. What else do people want ?

If Angus was told the MFC wanted Gaff to improve the list and the prospects of a flag he wouldn't stand in the way of Gaff ending up at the Dees. He'd be mature enough to know it was out of character and he'd mend any bridges that needed mending. He'd look at the bigger picture.