Carlton's "Bottom Six"

[BlueFeaver]

The bottom 6 Wallsy was talking about last year, were those lower tier players who don't contribute enough compared to the rest of the team.

For example, players who I'd say would qualify for the "bottom 6" at Carlton would be:

1 Houlihan
2. Fisher
3. Johnson
4. Walker
5. Grigg
6. Setanta

Its these type of players where you're just not sure what you're going to get. Over the course of the year, it is the contribution and consistency of effort you get from these bottom 6 players which makes the difference.

Teams like Geelong and StKilda have been able to get better contributions and output (not just stats) out of their "bottom 6" than other teams have.

My problem is how to define "Bottom 6".

You can have a player who gets very little of the ball in one game but sacrifices their own possession count for the benefit of the team and take an opposing teams damaging player out of the picture or you can have a guy who gets 20 touches or so because he plays a kicj behin play and gets posessions through the switching of play...........ala Joel Bowden!

I am not saying there isn't a bottom six, its more a matter of how one defines them in a team game consisting of so many players with so many varying roles from game to game.

A great example was Scottland last season.............was it against Essendon he got 20 odd touches but hardly got a tackle all game and played as an individual rather than playing for the team.......he was the dropped to the Bullants.

Just an opinion on the term.

 

[Murphy2Judd]

My problem is how to define "Bottom 6".

You can have a player who gets very little of the ball in one game but sacrifices their own possession count for the benefit of the team and take an opposing teams damaging player out of the picture or you can have a guy who gets 20 touches or so because he plays a kicj behin play and gets posessions through the switching of play...........ala Joel Bowden!

I am not saying there isn't a bottom six, its more a matter of how one defines them in a team game consisting of so many players with so many varying roles from game to game.

A great example was Scottland last season.............was it against Essendon he got 20 odd touches but hardly got a tackle all game and played as an individual rather than playing for the team.......he was the dropped to the Bullants.

Just an opinion on the term.

Well i think if a player turns over the ball alot (i.e Armfield) then they'd automatically get put into that category. IMO it's the players that do the least for the team, but i see your point about specific roles that players are given.

 

[BlueFeaver]

Well i think if a player turns over the ball alot (i.e Armfield) then they'd automatically get put into that category. IMO it's the players that do the least for the team, but i see your point about specific roles that players are given.

..............and I agree with the effect turnovers have on a players rating/effectiveness in the team.

 

[BlueTouchPaper]

Um where to start people bag the like of russel and fisher but they are much better players in my oppion than armfield and brown.
These 3 armfield and brown and even joe anderson not up to afl level.

so once the match commitee work that out and not play them the bottom 6 wont be as bad

Sorry bbolt!
Browne has balls of steel and a knack for reading the play.
Armfield too, is courage personified and is right up there with the gutsiest.

 

[Malifice]

Well i think if a player turns over the ball alot (i.e Armfield) then they'd automatically get put into that category. IMO it's the players that do the least for the team, but i see your point about specific roles that players are given.

This doesn't happen.

I really dont understand the angst against Army.

 

[Murphy2Judd]

This doesn't happen.

I really dont understand the angst against Army.

I'm a big fan of him mate, i just think IMO he needs to put some effort into improving his disposal, and then he'll become a great player for this club.

 

[Malifice]

I'm a big fan of him mate, i just think IMO he needs to put some effort into improving his disposal, and then he'll become a great player for this club.

Agree to a point. He'd probably be the first to admit its an area that needs work.

But when you actually look at his disposal eff% and number of clangers per game compared to other players its actually quite good.

Better than average in fact.

Id have him in my starting 22 at the moment to be honest. No where near our 'bottom six' at all IMO.

 

[bbolt1]

i maybe wrong about brown anderson and armfield but everyone is entitled to an oppion and that is my oppion atm.
to the few times i seem them play top level these 3 are only top line vfl players.
i know not every 1 going to be like a judd or murphy but the 3 i have named wouldnt get a game in my best starting 22
so if people want to slag me or have a go at me i dont care

 

[Malifice]

i maybe wrong about brown anderson and armfield but everyone is entitled to an oppion and that is my oppion atm.
to the few times i seem them play top level these 3 are only top line vfl players.
i know not every 1 going to be like a judd or murphy but the 3 i have named wouldnt get a game in my best starting 22
so if people want to slag me or have a go at me i dont care

No-ones having a go mate.

I think you'd find those players would get picked up in an instant by any of the other clubs should we delist them however.

 

[GoBlues!]

GB,

This why I struggle with the term.

The players you have named, except for Houihan [20 games], played 12 games or less. Injuries were the major cause of missisng games. You can't blame them if they didn't play.

I think you lose when your better players under perform.

Rmh, I first heard the term used by Wallsy in May last year:

So who are these men who need to deliver more? In my book they are Russell, Cloke, Wiggins, Ryan Houlihan, Setanta O'hAilpin and Bret Thornton. All are experienced. Wiggins, Thornton and Houlihan have played over 100 games, while Russell, Cloke and O'hAilpin all have had at least five years in the the system. They have survived because they have been members of a poor side, but as the team improves, so must they. If not, they will hold the team back and eventually lose their AFL careers.

Its not about how many games they have played in the 2009 season, Wallsy was picking out players that had been around for while ie. 100 games or 5 years, who he thought didn't do enough.

IMO I think Russell has come good, but maybe his first couple of years were questionable. Not sure why Thorton was mentioned - Hawthorn were chasing him hard a couple of years ago.

As for Wiggins, Houlihan, Cloke and O'hAilpin I can see where Walls is coming from. Your top players can play well every week, but if you don't have the quality in your depth then the lower tier players can let the team down by turning the ball over, poor disposal etc.

He wrote the article after we lost to Hawthorn and Essendon by less than a kick.

 

[GoBlues!]

My problem is how to define "Bottom 6".

You can have a player who gets very little of the ball in one game but sacrifices their own possession count for the benefit of the team and take an opposing teams damaging player out of the picture or you can have a guy who gets 20 touches or so because he plays a kicj behin play and gets posessions through the switching of play...........ala Joel Bowden!

I am not saying there isn't a bottom six, its more a matter of how one defines them in a team game consisting of so many players with so many varying roles from game to game.

A great example was Scottland last season.............was it against Essendon he got 20 odd touches but hardly got a tackle all game and played as an individual rather than playing for the team.......he was the dropped to the Bullants.

Just an opinion on the term.

BF - Walls' definition of the term "Bottom 6" last year is highlighted below:

So who are these men who need to deliver more? In my book they are Russell, Cloke, Wiggins, Ryan Houlihan, Setanta O'hAilpin and Bret Thornton. All are experienced. Wiggins, Thornton and Houlihan have played over 100 games, while Russell, Cloke and O'hAilpin all have had at least five years in the the system. They have survived because they have been members of a poor side, but as the team improves, so must they. If not, they will hold the team back and eventually lose their AFL careers.

Its not about possessions at all. I doubt that one of our greatest players, Bruce Doull, got many possessions at all neither did the opposition.

Its about those players who have been at the club for a while (games/years) who are not doing enough for the team when they're in the 22.

Personally I think Scotland has been great at Carlton over the years. Getting dropped now and again to regain form doesn't mean he is a bottom 6 player IMO. And the same for the guys who haven't played many games and been around long.

Of the 6 mentioned by Walls above - Cloke is gone and I think this year will be crunch time for Wiggins and Houlihan. If they get the opportunity and don't perform, expect the younger players like Browne, Lucas and Davies to get elevated.

I think you could throw Fisher and Walker into the mix. They have been cruelled by injuries and have shown glimpses on occassion, but they have been around a while. They will need to produce when the time comes.

 

[Robbo's my hero]

gb,

"Its not about possessions at all. I doubt that one of our greatest players, Bruce Doull, got many possessions at all neither did the opposition".

Bruce Doull was like a heat seeking missile on the footy field. Nobody read the play better than Doully. His ability to punch the ball away and then recover quickly enough to pick up the loose ball was a joy to watch. I remember reading an article by Brent Crosswell when he wrote for the Age. He offered a different opinion on the value of being a two sided player. He couldn't remember Doully ever kicking on his left foot. He used this as a measure of how the better players were not forced into habits that made them vulnerable. Doully got plenty of the ball and thrashed some of the legends of the game at the same time.

gb, I gather you didn't see the 'Flying Doormat' in the flesh. I hope this gives you an idea of how special it was to watch him play footy.

I rate him as Carlton's greatest player.

 

[BlueYoss]

Id have him in my starting 22 at the moment to be honest. No where near our 'bottom six' at all IMO.

The bottom six term refers to the bottom six of the best 22.

 

[pansies]

It's not a very difficult concept to understand. 22 players are selected every week. Of those are a variety of players who have different roles to play. There are FF's that need to kick goals and create scoring opportunities, FB's that need to shut down the opposing teams FF, midfield players that need to set up play going forward and help out defending. If you fail in your role i.e. Judd doesn't get a lot of the ball or set up our attacks or Russell's opponent runs riot scoring and assisting goals then they are not contributing.

If you still don't understand then an easy way for everyone at home to do this is to score the players out of 10 based on what type of player they are. Those with the low scores are the worst 6. The higher those 6 bottom scores are the better and more likely that we won the game. Also the tighter and more consistent those scores are the better because it means we are getting a more even contribution. For instance when Judd goes off the field if we could replace him with someone who though may not contribute as much as him but still is significant then it makes it harder for the opposition.

 

[thylacine60]

gb,

"Its not about possessions at all. I doubt that one of our greatest players, Bruce Doull, got many possessions at all neither did the opposition".

Bruce Doull was like a heat seeking missile on the footy field. Nobody read the play better than Doully. His ability to punch the ball away and then recover quickly enough to pick up the loose ball was a joy to watch. I remember reading an article by Brent Crosswell when he wrote for the Age. He offered a different opinion on the value of being a two sided player. He couldn't remember Doully ever kicking on his left foot. He used this as a measure of how the better players were not forced into habits that made them vulnerable. Doully got plenty of the ball and thrashed some of the legends of the game at the same time.

gb, I gather you didn't see the 'Flying Doormat' in the flesh. I hope this gives you an idea of how special it was to watch him play footy.

I rate him as Carlton's greatest player.

Yep.

 

[The Toad]

IMO Sticks was our greatest player.

 

[thylacine60]

Had no right to kick 10 on the old man that day. Respect...

 

[The Toad]

Had no right to kick 10 on the old man that day. Respect...

Yes that did piss me off a bit. But I think he more than made up for it in 87 & 95.

 

[Malifice]

The bottom six term refers to the bottom six of the best 22.

Fair point. I was thinking bottom six full stop.