the myth about our bottom six....

[groupie1]

interesting post, Maverick.... a lot of validity in that.

i thought the focus on the bottom 6 was fair enough, but what you say makes a lot of sense - the stars need to play like stars in finals for us to go further.

[plugger66]

Its not our bootm six that are the problem, its our top 6.

We played 3 finals.

Our top 6 roughly:

Roo
S Fisher
Hayes
Dal Santo
BJ
Ball

None of them dominated the finals, only Hayes and Fish had a good finals series really. Yeah Bally didn't play, but that's his issue.

This is our problem, our best aren't good enough, certainly weren't this year anyway.

The Hawks won the GF with a superior gameplan and their very best players either dominating or playing specific roles that got them the choccies.

Cousins would instantly move into our top 3 or 4 I would have thought, that's our issue I reckon.

Our B&F top ten tells the story.

Not sure about the top 6. Hawthorn won a GF with probably 3 their top 6 not even having an average game but with most of their middle 6 and bottom 6 having good games they were able to win it. Its about consistancy across all 22 players and not having a big drop off in ability like we have.

[Red]

Bottom 6 is important. I dare say that Dew was seen in the bottom 6 at

the Hawks and yet played a vital part in them winning the GF. You need

to have every player able to step up not just the stars. In fact other

than Hodge most of the regular stars at the Hawks had average days and

it was the lesser lights that stood up.

[Mr Magic]

I am absolutely staggered that this thread has been going for quite a while and not a single post from rodgerfox on it's content!
Afterall he has been posting ad nauseum for weeks that the bottom 6 are virtually meaningless to our performance and you would think that this thread would be like waving a 'red rag to a bull' for him.

Unless of course he is now posting under the name Maverick?

[fingers]

This discussion seems to have stemmed from our finals performance.....I just wanted to ask people's thoughts on Milne's performances in finals....has he ever played a big game in a BIG game?

Don't want this to become a Milne thread but I was thinking about his performance after the announcement of his new contract. He kicked 60 goals - but has he ever stood up in a final to make a real difference?

[True Blue Sainter]

Bottom 6 is important. I dare say that Dew was seen in the bottom 6 at

the Hawks and yet played a vital part in them winning the GF. You need

to have every player able to step up not just the stars. In fact other

than Hodge most of the regular stars at the Hawks had average days and

it was the lesser lights that stood up.

So were Xavier Ellis & Clinton Young. Both played extremely important roles in setting up the Hawk's victory... It's about consistency across the 22, as plugger mentioned, so that if someone from your top 6 isn't having a good game, there's 2nd tier players that can cover and lift their game to compensate.

[SAINT JUMP]

dont forget ray, got drop for the finals with the wb, but all you seem to thing hes, going to make our 22 straight off.

[Saints94]

dont forget ray, got drop for the finals with the wb, but all you seem to thing hes, going to make our 22 straight off.

Looking for a big pre-season from Ray

[Mr Magic]

This discussion seems to have stemmed from our finals performance.....I just wanted to ask people's thoughts on Milne's performances in finals....has he ever played a big game in a BIG game?

Don't want this to become a Milne thread but I was thinking about his performance after the announcement of his new contract. He kicked 60 goals - but has he ever stood up in a final to make a real difference?

He certainly played well in the elimination final against the Filth this year.

I wonder how we'd have seen his game aginst the Cats in the first week if he had received the free kick from the blatant push in the back near the goal square in the first 5 minutes of the game?

Milne's game is almost totally dependant on how the tall forwards are going. If the ball is being kicked to marking contests and a spillage occurs, then you would expect him to get his fair share of the ball and subsequently score.

If the ball doesn't get to these types of contests then, IMHO, he is unfairly castigated as having a bad game.

[Legendary]

Milne broke the game open in the Semi-Final against Collingwood. Kicked the last goal before halftime and then the first 2 of the third quarter to give us a lead ... was critical and stood up when the game was there to be won.
In our best players that day.

I thought he actually played pretty well against Geelong in that final ... certainly wasn't one of our worst that day.


There is no doubt, finals included, that Milne's season 2008 was EASILY the best of his career.

[Saints94]

Milne broke the game open in the Semi-Final against Collingwood. Kicked the last goal before halftime and then the first 2 of the third quarter to give us a lead ... was critical and stood up when the game was there to be won.
In our best players that day.

I thought he actually played pretty well against Geelong in that final ... certainly wasn't one of our worst that day.


There is no doubt, finals included, that Milne's season 2008 was EASILY the best of his career.

I thought his 2005 season was better i think he kicked 64 goals or something like that

[meher baba]

The concept of the "bottom six" is a bit meaningless IMO.

All clubs have a mixture of
1. Superior AFL players who are virtually automatic selections regardless of current form

2. AFL players with average skills/capabilities who are also automatic selections when in good form, but can miss out when out of form

3. Younger players who we hope will eventually be able to display AFL level skills/capabilities on a consistent basis

4 Borderline players who do not have AFL level skills/capabilities but can make up for this through pure effort

5. Tried and found wanting.

Given salary cap restrictions, AFL clubs typically have 5-10 players of type 1, 15-20 or so of type 2, around 5 of type 3, and as few as possible of types 4 and 5 (but with a strong preference for type 4 over type 5).

Any club's "bottom six" on match day will be a mixture of types 3 and 4 (and, when the injury situation is really bad, a few of type 5 thrown in).

The more your mix is weighted towards the tope, the better your list is going to be. And, given an average run with injuries, the better your bottom six is going to perform on match day.

FWIW, my assessment of the players who still have a chance of playing AFL football at St Kilda in 2009 against these 5 types is as follows.

1. Riewoldt, Sam Fisher, NDS, Lenny, Ball, BJ

2. Max, Baker, Goose, Joey, Gram, Fiora, Milne, Schneider, Blake, Dempster, X, L Fisher, Kosi, Ray, M Gardiner

3. Armitage (but should be level 2 by now IMO), Howard, Allen, McEvoy, Steven, Eljay, Geary, Gwilt, Raph and Gilbert (the last 3 being on the verge of level 2)

4. Jones, Eddy, Attard, McQualter (should have developed into a 2)

5. Rix, Birss, C Gardiner, Ferguson

As you can see, we have far too many players at category 3 who haven't made it to categories 2 or 1, and we have 3 players in category 4 who were almost automatic first picks during the latter part of 2008: arguably playing in places that should have been permanently filled by the likes of Armo, Howard and Geary.

We have also had a number of our AFL-standard players seriously injured or badly out of form: Goose, Baker, X, Fiora, M Gardiner and Gehrig (during 2008).

And the likes of Birss and C Gardiner haven't commanded AFL spots as we might have wished.

So, to sum up, my concern is that our match day bottom six during 2008 has tended to feature a mix of players who are hard workers rather than genuinely talented (Jones, Eddy and McQualter), up and comers who haven't quite come up (Gwilt, Gilbert, Armitage, Allen and, until the last few games, Raph) or players who, IMO, are no-hopers (Birss, Ferguson and C Gardiner).

[BAM! (shhhh)]

We remain obsessed with our bottom 6. Personally, I'm as happy with our bottom 6 as I can recall being since '04, and the reason why is the competition for spots.

Birss, Armitage, Gwilt, Eddy, Gilbert, Raph, McQualter, Geary, Charlie Gardiner. A bunch of guys who haven't stepped up to the level of best 22 walkup starts - but, in each case, signs are there that their best football could be ahead of them. The last 6 games from Raph especially (including being one of the few who could hold their heads up after the Cats game) have given a lot of us back our hope for him. Gilbert had a rough year - but his game v Collingwood tantalised us to think perhaps he could be a key backman in the making.

More importantly, from that list, even with some key players out, not all can get a game. Birss was close but unlucky a number of times. Armo, Eddy and Mini treaded water, but have youth on their side... and in Steven, Allen, McEvoy, the pressure is on all of them to improve or lose even that borderline status - ala Geary going from bottom 6 at start of the year progressively down the depth chart, and will clearly need to do some improving to break in again.

To me, that's what the bottom 6 should represent. Players being asked to address specific tasks, and ideally young, improving players - capable of delivering.

At the most ideallistic level, if Armo and Mini can step up to win clearances at AFL level (they've shown the ability in the V), if Raph and Gilbert can make good on the improvement in defense, and if one of Gardiner/Allen/Gwilt can prove a dangerous option in the forward line, then we're there. More realistically, if those players can continue to improve, they give the top 6 every chance of winning the game. If they don't, then they will be surpassed.

The difference between the bottom 6 of our best 22 and bottom 6 actually used is fairly large... but I'm willing to wear that provided the "potential" evens out.

[maverick]

Its not our bootm six that are the problem, its our top 6.

We played 3 finals.

Our top 6 roughly:

Roo
S Fisher
Hayes
Dal Santo
BJ
Ball

None of them dominated the finals, only Hayes and Fish had a good finals series really. Yeah Bally didn't play, but that's his issue.

This is our problem, our best aren't good enough, certainly weren't this year anyway.

The Hawks won the GF with a superior gameplan and their very best players either dominating or playing specific roles that got them the choccies.

Cousins would instantly move into our top 3 or 4 I would have thought, that's our issue I reckon.

Our B&F top ten tells the story.

Not sure about the top 6. Hawthorn won a GF with probably 3 their top 6 not even having an average game but with most of their middle 6 and bottom 6 having good games they were able to win it. Its about consistancy across all 22 players and not having a big drop off in ability like we have.

Hawks top 6?

Hodge
Franklin
Mitchell
Bateman
Sewell
Roughead

Hodge BOG
Bateman v good
Sewell average.
Mitchell and Franklin played roles and ensured their opponents did nothing going the other way (which is something our stars can't do)
Roughead unsighted.

If our top 6 played like this we may have gone further, its called teamwork....

[Saints Premiers 2008]

Milne broke the game open in the Semi-Final against Collingwood. Kicked the last goal before halftime and then the first 2 of the third quarter to give us a lead ... was critical and stood up when the game was there to be won.
In our best players that day.

I thought he actually played pretty well against Geelong in that final ... certainly wasn't one of our worst that day.


There is no doubt, finals included, that Milne's season 2008 was EASILY the best of his career.

I thought his 2005 season was better i think he kicked 64 goals or something like that

his work off the ball and around the ground was much better, not just his goal kicking

proven performer

[fingers]

Milne broke the game open in the Semi-Final against Collingwood. Kicked the last goal before halftime and then the first 2 of the third quarter to give us a lead ... was critical and stood up when the game was there to be won.
In our best players that day.

I thought he actually played pretty well against Geelong in that final ... certainly wasn't one of our worst that day.


There is no doubt, finals included, that Milne's season 2008 was EASILY the best of his career.

Yeah good point. Like I said I am not looking to bash #44 - it was just something that I was thinking about. He has had some great games this year. I'd love to see him be a real impact player in a final - again agree with the earlier point about it being dependent on delivery and how the talls are going.

[borderbarry]

Let us hope that we can recruit one or two youngsters that can make our best 22 by the seasons end.

[Zed]

I think we are all in violent agreement ..

Fiora, Jones, Eddy, Gwilt and McQaulter all played in the finals and not one of them would have got a game at Geelong or Hawthorn.

Until that group is replaced with AFL standard players in our best 22 we cant win a flag..

PS> perhaps a fraction tough on Eddy & CJ who still may improve next year - but the others have had their chance one too many times..

[plugger66]

Its not our bootm six that are the problem, its our top 6.

We played 3 finals.

Our top 6 roughly:

Roo
S Fisher
Hayes
Dal Santo
BJ
Ball

None of them dominated the finals, only Hayes and Fish had a good finals series really. Yeah Bally didn't play, but that's his issue.

This is our problem, our best aren't good enough, certainly weren't this year anyway.

The Hawks won the GF with a superior gameplan and their very best players either dominating or playing specific roles that got them the choccies.

Cousins would instantly move into our top 3 or 4 I would have thought, that's our issue I reckon.

Our B&F top ten tells the story.

Not sure about the top 6. Hawthorn won a GF with probably 3 their top 6 not even having an average game but with most of their middle 6 and bottom 6 having good games they were able to win it. Its about consistancy across all 22 players and not having a big drop off in ability like we have.

Hawks top 6?

Hodge
Franklin
Mitchell
Bateman
Sewell
Roughead

Hodge BOG
Bateman v good
Sewell average.
Mitchell and Franklin played roles and ensured their opponents did nothing going the other way (which is something our stars can't do)
Roughead unsighted.

If our top 6 played like this we may have gone further, its called teamwork....

You cannot be serious. You rated 4 of their top 6 as aveage or worse. It was their bottom and middle 6 who won them the game. Not because any were best on the groung but their was no huge drop off like we had in 2 of the finals. Like you said its teamwork and that includes an even pread across all 22 players. We dont have this.

[SAINT JUMP]

i was at the medal count,, and cj got 1 vote less than fisher, against geelong.i think eddy and cj had a good year.You got ray in your 2nd teir group, lets wait and see first. wb didnt seem to worried about letting him go

[Saints Premiers 2008]

truth be told we are never going to see our best 22 on the paddock, injuries cause players outside to come in obviously

so therefore its a mute point talking about our perceived poor bottom 6 when all the way through next year and beyond some of the are going to be playing consistant footy

[spert]

We have a few good players and a lot of ordinary receivers - can only be addressed by good recruiting.

[maverick]

Its not our bootm six that are the problem, its our top 6.

We played 3 finals.

Our top 6 roughly:

Roo
S Fisher
Hayes
Dal Santo
BJ
Ball

None of them dominated the finals, only Hayes and Fish had a good finals series really. Yeah Bally didn't play, but that's his issue.

This is our problem, our best aren't good enough, certainly weren't this year anyway.

The Hawks won the GF with a superior gameplan and their very best players either dominating or playing specific roles that got them the choccies.

Cousins would instantly move into our top 3 or 4 I would have thought, that's our issue I reckon.

Our B&F top ten tells the story.

Not sure about the top 6. Hawthorn won a GF with probably 3 their top 6 not even having an average game but with most of their middle 6 and bottom 6 having good games they were able to win it. Its about consistancy across all 22 players and not having a big drop off in ability like we have.

Hawks top 6?

Hodge
Franklin
Mitchell
Bateman
Sewell
Roughead

Hodge BOG
Bateman v good
Sewell average.
Mitchell and Franklin played roles and ensured their opponents did nothing going the other way (which is something our stars can't do)
Roughead unsighted.

If our top 6 played like this we may have gone further, its called teamwork....

You cannot be serious. You rated 4 of their top 6 as aveage or worse. It was their bottom and middle 6 who won them the game. Not because any were best on the groung but their was no huge drop off like we had in 2 of the finals. Like you said its teamwork and that includes an even pread across all 22 players. We dont have this.

You need to read all of the post not some of it.
Mitchell and Franklin played their parts, more than Dal and Gehrig/Kosi do when they are getting beat. Sewell was OK/average.
Missed the Hodge BOG bit as well.

Yes we need an even spread, but the bottom 6 argument is BS, we don't have enough players on our list playing to their preceived potential, simple.