Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
The bottom 6 is a furphy if the players are playing as a team
Carry out the job that you are assigned and you become just as important as any other player in the team no matter what position you play
At the moment we are 9 and zip and are playing as a team - we have no bottom 6
Ask our captain Roo who he thinks is in our bottom 6 at the moment and I am sure he would say we have no bottom 6 because the team is more important than any one individual
There I said it - shoot me down if you wish but do it at your own peril as I might be forced to rank you in my bottom 6
The bottom 6 is a furphy if the players are playing as a team
Carry out the job that you are assigned and you become just as important as any other player in the team no matter what position you play
At the moment we are 9 and zip and are playing as a team - we have no bottom 6
Ask our captain Roo who he thinks is in our bottom 6 at the moment and I am sure he would say we have no bottom 6 because the team is more important than any one individual
There I said it - shoot me down if you wish but do it at your own peril as I might be forced to rank you in my bottom 6
Of course there is a bottom 6 but the thing that can happen and has this year is players improve they get out of the bottom 6. We have improve because the gap between top and bottom is less than last year.
Protip - Train and drill a bunch of hacks well enough to play like a team, and if the bunch of hacks try hard enough and do the team things, they will play good football.
And ofcourse that good teams have an even spread of contributers who all do their job.
But obviously the bottom 6 are going to have lesser jobs than the top 6.
If everyone does their role in the game plan we will win more often than we lose and for the first time in a long time we've got 22 players who are good enough to play AFL competitvely...
ROBERT HARVEY A.K.A The Great Man, Banger, Harves, Ol' Man River...
384 games, 4 B&F's, 3 EJ Whitten Medals, St.Kilda Captain, 2 Time Brownlow Medalist, 8 Time All Australian, 2nd Highest Brownlow votes poller.... The greatest of ALL TIME!!
Why bottom 6?? why not bottom 1, bottom 2, bottom 3, bottom 8, bottom 10, bottom 13, bottom 15, bottom 18, bottom 20, bottom 21 - who determined that "16 players" can be more important than 6 unlucky others
In mean why are players pigeon-holed as "bottom 6" - does it come down to skill?? games played?? age?? position played?? no of disposals?? time on ground?? disposal efficiency?? speed?? running style?? pint skull time?? penis length??
Given any game played a supposed bottom 6 could change every round so why are some unfortunate players forever ranked in the bottom 6
People say we have a, b, c, d, e & f in our bottom 6 yet in any one week any of these players could be in our top 6 players actually they could be in our top 4 players two weeks running yet in people's mind they remain in our "bottom 6"
The bottom 6 is a furphy if the players are playing as a team
Carry out the job that you are assigned and you become just as important as any other player in the team no matter what position you play
At the moment we are 9 and zip and are playing as a team - we have no bottom 6
Ask our captain Roo who he thinks is in our bottom 6 at the moment and I am sure he would say we have no bottom 6 because the team is more important than any one individual
There I said it - shoot me down if you wish but do it at your own peril as I might be forced to rank you in my bottom 6
All this talk of the 'bottom six' will seem a whole lot more important when we eventually lose a game.
Armoooo wrote:
But obviously the bottom 6 are going to have lesser jobs than the top 6.
Lesser jobs???
What is a lesser job on the footy field
Is applying forward pressure (see Mini) which results in goal less important than a spoil at centre half back (Fisher) which stops the opposition from scoring
Kosi might kick 5 goals at full forward but what about Gwilt breaking 2 tackles to get the ball to him or Eddy applying an enormous tackle allowing to ball to spill free to Geary so he can hit Kosi on the tit 20 metres out dead in front
As I said I doubt you would never hear Hayes or Ball continually reminding Dawson that he is bottom 6 so why as supporters do we do it
Devilhead wrote:Given any game played a supposed bottom 6 could change every round so why are some unfortunate players forever ranked in the bottom 6
of course the bottom six changes every round. it's the six players who made least contribution to the team's success in that particular game. obviously.
so to answer your question, if particular players are in the bottom six for multiple games then that means that for each of those games they made least contribution to the team's success. they're "ranked" there purely because of their performances.
in the bottom six for multiple games? maybe time for a spell at sandy.
Milton66 wrote:So what you're saying is that if someone like Roo has 4 poor games, you drop him? Coz he's bottom 6?
nope. it's a complex equation, i know, but i'll try to explain it.
some players have played 167 games, kicked 348 goals and averaged more than ten brownlow votes a year for the past seven years.
some haven't.
those in the first category - we'll call them "elite players" - get a certain amount of leeway because they've shown over a long period that they're likely to bounce back. those not in the first category - we'll call them "everyone else" - are in trouble if they play four bad games in a row.
hence dal and milne (as good as they are, still part of the "everyone else" group) were dropped last year.
The "Bottom Six" term has been around for as long as journalists have been lazy. They like to look at teams as being 3 tiered and the easier it is to determine your Top Tier, Middle Tier & Bottom Tier the worse your team is going.
If your Bottom Tier melts into your Middle Tier and your Middle Tier melts into your Top Tier (never the other way around) then your team is going pretty well because everyone has a place in that team and knows what that place requires. That is how I would describe the saints 2009 model.
You need to ask yourself;
Do Raph Clarke's efforts help Brendon Goddard do what he does best?
Do Andrew McQualter's efforts help Nick DalSanto do what he does best?
Do Clinton Jones' efforts help Liegh Montagna do what he does best?
Do Jaryn Geary's efforts help Lenny Hayes do what he does best?
Do Zac Dawson's efforts help Sam Fisher do what he does best?
Do these efforts also work in reverse? I think the answer is YES to all these questions at the moment. Also, you could chose any two players in our side to ask this question of (either way) and come up with the same answer, YES. That is why we are 9-0 !!
Could David Armitage play better football than Jarryn Geary?
Could Robert Eddy play better football than Steven Baker?
Could Tom Lynch play better football than James Gwilt?
Disclaimer - This post is suggesting nothing about what changes should be made to the side.
James wrote:At the same time though, you should ask:
Could David Armitage play better football than Jarryn Geary?
Could Robert Eddy play better football than Steven Baker?
Could Tom Lynch play better football than James Gwilt?
Disclaimer - This post is suggesting nothing about what changes should be made to the side.
In the context of your post the term "Better" is difficult for us armchair critics to determine. Is it skills? Is it following team rules? Is it part of team structure? While it is great that we can debate these things on this forum, we pay our coaching panel good money to "Get it Right". They are worth every cent they are getting right now !!
Milton66 wrote:So what you're saying is that if someone like Roo has 4 poor games, you drop him? Coz he's bottom 6?
nope. it's a complex equation, i know, but i'll try to explain it.
some players have played 167 games, kicked 348 goals and averaged more than ten brownlow votes a year for the past seven years.
some haven't.
those in the first category - we'll call them "elite players" - get a certain amount of leeway because they've shown over a long period that they're likely to bounce back. those not in the first category - we'll call them "everyone else" - are in trouble if they play four bad games in a row.
hence dal and milne (as good as they are, still part of the "everyone else" group) were dropped last year.
does that make sense?
not really
Hotel De Los Muertos: Your room is ready... Care to step inside?
agree and disagree. my opinion is there is a bottom six. Its just not the same guys every week. If one has a rough day, they still contribute to the team and have been stepping up the next week to be higher than the bottom six for that game. Good balanced team. So short term, game by game there is a bottom six. But in the long run you could say there isn't.
It takes all departments to make the company tick over, and one department probably couldn't function without the other. However I would argue that while the $ and social standing in the company may vary depending on the role, this doesn't determine who works harder.
And that, was my very confusing and long winded point....
It takes all departments to make the company tick over, and one department probably couldn't function without the other. However I would argue that while the $ and social standing in the company may vary depending on the role, this doesn't determine who works harder.
And that, was my very confusing and long winded point....
No, but it determines who's more expendable.
As afr as we go this year, it's a more balance contribution so as stated, the agp has closed to the point where we have a bottom 3
Hotel De Los Muertos: Your room is ready... Care to step inside?
Milton66 wrote:So what you're saying is that if someone like Roo has 4 poor games, you drop him? Coz he's bottom 6?
nope. it's a complex equation, i know, but i'll try to explain it.
some players have played 167 games, kicked 348 goals and averaged more than ten brownlow votes a year for the past seven years.
some haven't.
those in the first category - we'll call them "elite players" - get a certain amount of leeway because they've shown over a long period that they're likely to bounce back. those not in the first category - we'll call them "everyone else" - are in trouble if they play four bad games in a row.
hence dal and milne (as good as they are, still part of the "everyone else" group) were dropped last year.
does that make sense?
That's total crap.
They were dropped for a lack of effort, because they weren't giving it their all, not because they're part of the 'everyone else group'.
I think this years shown that its far from the case of treating players differently. ie; max, maguire
The bottom 6 is a furphy if the players are playing as a team
Carry out the job that you are assigned and you become just as important as any other player in the team no matter what position you play
At the moment we are 9 and zip and are playing as a team - we have no bottom 6
Ask our captain Roo who he thinks is in our bottom 6 at the moment and I am sure he would say we have no bottom 6 because the team is more important than any one individual
There I said it - shoot me down if you wish but do it at your own peril as I might be forced to rank you in my bottom 6
All this talk of the 'bottom six' will seem a whole lot more important when we eventually lose a game.[/quote]
Couldn't agree more of course there is a bottom six it can be clouded as much as you want with all this important contribution etc but they are a lower level of player to the top players.
And trying to compare someone like Roo making a mistake and then being in the same category is ridiculous.
They are very Important and that is why so much emphasis is put on them. All the top players good work can be undone if these players aren't at least holding their own.
And don't listen to a humble comment by Roo do you think he's in our bottom 6?
The Saints aren't playing well because of the reasons listed above.
The Saints are winning because they have the luxury of keeping the same team on the park each week. And this same team each week contains it's bets players who are fit and healthy.
I'd say only 5 or 6 teams couldn't realisitically be 9-0 like the Saints given the availiabilty of the list they've had.
The concept of the 'bottom 6' I think is a good one.
For example, if your 'bottom 6' contains players such as Andrew Mackie, or Travis Varcoe - your in a very good position and as such would expect to be pretty successful.
However if your 'bottom 6' contains players such as Cameron Cloke and Simon Wiggins - then you're rooted.
Most clubs, when fully fit, will have a reasonable 'bottom 6'. Fewer clubs can maintain a resonable 'bottom 6' when they suffer injuries. Barely any can maintain a decent 'bottom 6' when they cop lots of injuries.
Having said all that, I still don't think it matters who your bottom 6 is neccessarily. I believe it's your top 6 that makes the difference. If your best 6 players are guns, and they all play well then the bottom 6 simply get carried along.
McQaulter, Jones, etc. wouldn't look as decent if Hayes and Dal Santo suddenly went down.
The Saints are a good team, I still think they're the second best. However a 9-0 record doesn't reflect how good they are compared to everyone else. I think the 9-0 record reflects their injury list compared to everyone else's.
How far down the rabbit hole do you really want to go?
