Worst six

[Tannin]

You don't measure the quality of a finals team by the best player, you measure it by the worst player. Or, more realistically, by the worst 6 players.

Suppose a full list. Out first-pick 22 would look something like this:

B: Langdon, Dunn, Maynard
HB: Burg, Howe, Crisp
C: Mayne, Adams, Phillips
HF: Sidey, Checkers, WHE
F: Stevo, Cox, De Gun
R: Grundy, Pendlebury, Treloar
Int: Elliott, Thomas, Murray, Greenwood
Emer: Sier, Aish, Varcoe,

Not selected: Moore, Reid, Goldsack, Appleby,
Not seriously considered: Fasolo, Blair, Daicos, Brown, Smith, Crocker, Wells, Broomhead, Oxley, Madgen

Yes, yes, a lot of you would select Moore the injury magnet to play ahead of Checkers. I wouldn't. I'd rather run out the game with four players on the bench, none of them in tracksuits. Reid, same thing. Wells also. And I'm happy to go in a bit short down back in exchange for the mobility and class of players like Burg and Howe.

But whichever way you slice it, your best team is going to look very like the one above. So who are the six worst players?

I'll pick Thomas, Murray, Mayne, Phillips, Greenwood, and Langdon as the worst. Those are six seriously good players to be calling the "worst" in your side. In fact, I'd back those six to beat any other "worst" six in the AFL. Except, just maybe, Richmond's worst six.

Think about it: Greenwood just tore Zorko a brand new hole - Brisbane's best player, an All-Australian in the prime of his career, triple best and fairest winner - and Greenwood smashed him. And cleaned up Beams for dessert.

Tom Langdon has been a pretty ordinary middling-grade defender for a good while but has risen to the tall defender injury challenge magnificently these last few weeks and, in his current form, would walk into any side in the comp. Most people have had him in the votes these last two or three weeks.

Josh Thomas is spotty, granted. He still tends to play one week good, one week bad (a common failing among young and inexperienced players) but he's not by any means useless on a bad week and bloody dynamite on a good week. His ability to play a useful general-purpose midfield role all day without attracting much attention and then suddenly snag a couple of brilliant goals out of nowhere makes him very dangerous.

Sam Murray has improved a lot. Those still saying his disposal and his brain farts are a worry need to watch more recent football. His game against Brisbane was an exhibition of courageous contested ball gets, smart cooperation with the rest of the defensive team, and intelligent disposal. OK, it was only Brisbane, but the youngster is learning fast and I don't mind Sam Murrary in my team, not one bit.

Phillips is the new Swan. He's going through a bit of a flat spot just now - put that down to a combination of tiredness and teams waking up to his influence and no longer letting him run so free - but he's still racking up possessions all over the ground. He's still the most likely midfielder of the whole lot to turn up just when an extra body is needed to help clear the defensive 50 - his ability to be the first extra man to arrive from either side is phenomenal - and his disposal is better than his detractors say. Anywhere inside 50, look out! A fair kick in general play (not great, not bad: decent), he transforms into a bit of a dead-eye nearer goal. Or possibly it only seems this way because he's often the only one with the tank to run into a clear spot inside the scoring zone on a fast transition. Oh, and one more thing: when we get injuries and have to run out a game with two exhausted players on the bench and the other two down in the rooms, who is still out there running hard as ever deep into time-on in the final quarter? Tom Phillips. He's a keeper.

As for Chris Mayne, if you are not seeing his value to the side yet, you need to give up football and take up some other sport. For preference, one you have a clue about.

[stui magpie]

Welcome back Tannin, where ya been?

I agree with the premise and broadly with the comments. The biggest problem is, it's your bottom 6 on the day and we have too many players out so our bottom 6 is finals is going to be stretched. This year at least.

If fit, I would have Moore and Reid in the team and would love to fit Goldy in somewhere. Unfortunately in the real world I think Reid is cooked and we need to put Moore through some sort of post season rehab program to strengthen his strings and stop this constant injury.

[Tannin]

Cheers Stui.

I'm just passing through on a tourist visa, not back to stay forever. You are right about this year's bottom six, of course. From last week we'd have ... er ...

Oxley, who is better than most people think and really should be running and intercept marking off half-back rather than the deep role he played v Brisbane. Not great, you could do worse.

Madgen. Not ready. Better than no-one.

Plus your choice of four from the six I named earlier, or from Sier, Aish, and Varcoe. All three of those last named can play more than a bit.

Still a pretty decent bottom six, with Madgen the only one I have real doubts about. And he's still in nappies: he won't play any worse and might just get better.

I'm not prepared to tip the Pies to go deep into finals, not with so many stars out, but I am more than happy to tip that any side beating us in finals will have to be a bloody good side, and they will know that they have just played a game of bloody football, not just had a stroll in the park.

But my main theme, I guess, is that this is a list that bats very deep. That's what you need for sustained success over a few years, a deep list.

[Pies2016]

I think the relevance of your team also helps to show where we need to focus on in order to improve in 2019.
We have a pretty solid list profile but the first aim should always be to improve in areas that are the most deficient.
I don’t think most would see Checkers as a premiership CHF and Dunn is certainly a lot closer to the end than his beginning. To me ( and most others ) their positions become the areas of focus. Obviously Moore with a solid pre season is a possible / likely wild card for one of those positions.

It’s also not hard to picture organic growth in players like Aish, Sier, Daicos, Murphy, Appleby and several others that you don’t have selected in today’s best 22. Any improvement in these guys would go a long way to pushing out some of your weaker links, particularly if those players don’t continue to improve with the times.

For me, the take away from this year is that we now have a sustainable game plan and list profile to maintain on field success ( given that you can’t guarantee the ultimate success )
The game plan and structures alone will help fast track the development of some of those “ fringe “ players as they learn their craft in a winning culture and environment.
This still doesn’t happen without hard work and ultimately, that rests in the hands of the players who want it the most.

P S I wouldn’t have Josh Thomas as a weaker link in this team. He is a little inconsistent but he has more strings to his bow than most.

[K]

[DT]

Madgen is good. Mark my words. This was a great value pick. Early days but shows that he knows what to do. Big upside in my view too.

[E]

[dalyc]

[Albert Parker]

Tend to agree with Pies 2016 and E on this occasion.

Murray replaced with Aish
Greenwood to Sier on current form
Mayne to Varcoe

Moore in for Mihocek too.

But the point about our depth, if everyone is available, is well made Tannin. Welcome back.

[Geek]

Good to see you again, Tannin.

I've missed your opinions on our friends from Moorabbin. Have you been enjoying their resurgence as much as I have this year? Apparently they were due for some finals by about now.

[Piethagoras' Theorem]

Agree with A.Parker, same changes for mine.

Worst 6 I ever saw was an attempted pull shot with a thick edge that ended up over 3rd man.

Welcome back, Tannin

[Tannin]

Cheers all and thanks for the welcomes.

Have to disagree with the complaints about my team selection though. The three I listed as emergencies are all worthy of a place in the 22. No argument there. But 25 good players (26 if we count Murphy, which on this week's effort we might have to do) can't all fit into a 22, and you have to leave somebody out.

Greenwood is by far our best tagger - yes, possibly better in that role even than Sidebottom, who is too valuable in other roles to waste on tagging anyway - and is persistently underrated by the usual Nicksters. And he doesn't just tag. His game against Brisbane last week was outstanding (haven't seen the Port game yet) with bone-crunching tackle after bone-crunching tackle. He reduced Brisbane's best on-baller to spectator status, and he makes us a significantly harder, more feared team. You can't buy that.

As for the urge to drop Mayne, well, there is no explaining some people. Now that he is finally back playing senior football and has got back up to speed, Mayne is consistently in the votes.

Nothing wrong with Sier either - he is getting better every week and is going to play a heap of games for us. And I've been a big Travis Varcoe fan since the days when he was wearing hoops. I was one of only about three Nicksters who applauded Buck's move to recruit him in the first place, and said so at the time. Still one of my four or five favourite players.

But 25 into 22 does not go. (And in the real world, you are never going to have all 25 fit at the same time, there is always going to be the odd corkie, a concussion, a minor hammy, or of course a dog bite.)

In the end, selecting the last three smalls (counting blokes the size of Sier and Pendlebury and Mayne as "smalls" because they are not rucks or KPPs) becomes a bit of a wash. There are good arguments for including every one of them, and no good reason to leave any of them out.

But now we come to the daylight madness of wanting to leave Checkers out. I've seen goldfish smarter than that. I've seen rabid dogs make better, more sensible decisions. As I said in the other thread -

[tbaker]

The trouble with the conjecture of who should be in at the expense of whom is that there is no ideal 22 - it is horses for courses - that is, the best 22 can and should change depending on the opponent and their strengths and weaknesses. And form obviously plays a big part...no one can predict which players' form stocks will rise and which will fall. The argument should be based on best 25-26 players to also allow for these factors...
For instance, some weeks Checkers may be a certain starter, others not etc., and it is all based on who we are playing and how others in the team are performing relative to the value of his role. At the end of the day the best 22 is those that are expected to be most capable of winning the next game, and to that end there is no fixed answer.

[Duff Soviet Union]

[Raw Hammer]

“Worth six” is derogatory. These guys are AFL footballers.

The term is “bottom six”.