A Preseason Preview - Part 2 of 16 - Hawthorn

[pahoffm]

The rest of them like Clarke, Greene, Sewell, Osborne, Ries etc etc are not good enough to make it and the mids they have drafted recently do not show anything.

At least our junior mids show a bit.

http://hawthornfc.com.au/default.asp?pg=players&spg=playerprofile&personid=31795

Player Statistics - Nick Ries
Season
AFL 2004 Premiership Season

Round Date vs.                     K H P
Round 1 27/03/2004 Melbourne 0 1 1  
Round 2 04/04/2004 Kangaroos 11 13 24  
Round 3 11/04/2004 Port Adelaide 9 4 13  
Round 4 18/04/2004 Western Bulldogs 8 7 15  
Round 5 24/04/2004 Brisbane Lions 9 7 16  
Round 6 30/04/2004 Richmond 12 6 18  
Round 7 09/05/2004 Geelong 6 4 10  
Round 8  16/05/2004 Fremantle 3 9 12  
Round 9  23/05/2004 Sydney Swans 5 11 16  
Round 10 29/05/2004 Adelaide 5 8 13
Round 11 05/06/2004 Essendon 5 2 7
Round 12 11/06/2004 Carlton 8 16 24  
Round 13 18/06/2004 St Kilda 7 10 17  
Round 14 03/07/2004 Collingwood 12 9 21  
Round 15 10/07/2004 West Coast Eagles 9 13 22  
Round 16 18/07/2004 Port Adelaide 10 17 27  
Round 17 24/07/2004 Kangaroos 5 10 15
Round 18 01/08/2004 Melbourne 4 5 9
Round 19 07/08/2004 Western Bulldogs 8 4 12
Round 20 14/08/2004 Brisbane Lions 6 5 11  
Round 21 22/08/2004 Richmond 8 9 17  
Round 22 29/08/2004 Geelong 8 4 12

Some pretty high possie rates for someone not rated as a genuine ball getter. Got 20+ possies on 5 occassions. How many Tigers picked up 20+ possies on 5 occassions in 2004?

And if your excuse is that we had a sh!t coach and gameplan, well remember they sacked their coach too, twice.

 

[dmx]

Some pretty high possie rates for someone not rated as a genuine ball getter. Got 20+ possies on 5 occassions. How many Tigers picked up 20+ possies on 5 occassions in 2004?

And if your excuse is that we had a sh!t coach and gameplan, well remember they sacked their coach too, twice.

I guess you are of the opinion that if a young player gets enough of the pill, irrespective of what is porduced in quality disposals after getting it, then eventually he will get the hang of it and deliver it to the advantage of his team.
If not, then what is the use of 20+ disposals when they are to the opposition more times than not.
I also cant understand how you can put faith in stats, when a player can gather 4 in a blink of an eye, by way of handballing it backwards and then receiving it back, go sideways with another, and back and forth.

The stat that is most important is effective disposals.
Do the stats men have to be told that nowadays, they should look closer at what is happening and not jot down the 1 against someone's name when the ball is being stuffed around with.

 

[Dallas]

Phantom,

Great work, i'm pretty scared what this may look like when we get to Port Adelaide and have to painfully compare it to us.

 

[mb64]

Should be a long year for the Hawks.Not that I really care.

 

[Daigoro]

Some pretty high possie rates for someone not rated as a genuine ball getter. Got 20+ possies on 5 occassions. How many Tigers picked up 20+ possies on 5 occassions in 2004?

And if your excuse is that we had a sh!t coach and gameplan, well remember they sacked their coach too, twice.

Ries is the best of the players I mentioned, but still a hack. At 23yo those stats are nothing to write home about at all.  This is particularly the case given he was given a fair crack in the midfield this year due to Crawford and Vandenburg missing large chunks. On ball is his only position and his deficiencies in pace and defensive pressure hang him on those mediocre figures. Hawks have a glut of his type as well - Mitchell, Sewell, etc.

In general stats have to be taken with a grain of salt but I agree that they are potentially a very valuable tool if used properly.

 

[pahoffm]

Some pretty high possie rates for someone not rated as a genuine ball getter. Got 20+ possies on 5 occassions. How many Tigers picked up 20+ possies on 5 occassions in 2004?

And if your excuse is that we had a sh!t coach and gameplan, well remember they sacked their coach too, twice.

I guess you are of the opinion that if a young player gets enough of the pill, irrespective of what is porduced in quality disposals after getting it, then eventually he will get the hang of it and deliver it to the advantage of his team.
If not, then what is the use of 20+ disposals when they are to the opposition more times than not.
I also cant understand how you can put faith in stats, when a player can gather 4 in a blink of an eye, by way of handballing it backwards and then receiving it back, go sideways with another, and back and forth.

The stat that is most important is effective disposals.
Do the stats men have to be told that nowadays, they should look closer at what is happening and not jot down the 1 against someone's name when the ball is being stuffed around with.

I've seen plenty of Tiger players over the years who've looked good on the track but when it comes to getting the pill on the ground, well that's another story. Such great names as Proctor, Houlihan, Funcke, Ryan, Fiora come to mind immediately.

On another thread we're talking about Pattison not being able to kick, but that's OK by everyone. You say he'll learn that in time. Why can't you hold the same view with junior runners. I'd rather look to the juniors and list all the players who can get a kick, then make the decision based on that list, who can kick and who can't.

It was Beck who first drafted a player on how he kicked the ball before actually making sure that that player could actually get it under pressure. So that's why I'm always going to look to see who can get 20+ possies under pressure in a game before I see who has half a dozen total but pretty kicks in a game.

Well that's my Friday. I think I've almost got through it without picking an argument. I'm off now to get in a net practice before cricket tomorrow, so I bid you all adieu.

 

[Stu]

Yes, but have a look at the comparison of ages between their runners and ours. Not only do they have 17 to our 14, but 8 of our 14 are still in the junior stage, whereas 10 of their 17 are in the development stage. Their runners are ready to run now, ours will still take a couple of years.

They may be older and more developed but there's still no room for them on the team
I don't consider myself an expert by any means, but if I were to put out a lineup, I'd want something like this

Smalls 2
SmMed 6
TalMed 6
Mobkpp 5
Kpp/Rk 2
Ruck 1

That offers good size and versatility to cover most spots on the ground, how on earth can you have 10 players vying for only 2 or 3 spots max in a senior side
Regardless of how developed they are, they would be playing for Box Hill except for the fact they only have 7 Small Mediums to play about 6 spots on the ground. This just means that they'll be playing smalls in this spot, giving away height and strength in more positions on the ground.

 

[pahoffm]

They may be older and more developed but there's still no room for them on the team
I don't consider myself an expert by any means, but if I were to put out a lineup, I'd want something like this

Smalls  2
SmMed 6
TalMed 6
Mobkpp 5
Kpp/Rk 2
Ruck    1

OK Stu,
Then let's test your proposition by looking at the 2 sides that played off in the 2004 GF:

Port Adelaide Brisbane
Brogan 199 Keating 197
Lade 199 McLaren 196
Bishop 195 Brown 195
Thurstans 195 Lynch 193
Tredrea 194 Leppitsch 191
Wakelin 192 Bradshaw 191
CornesC 191 Hadley 190
BurgoyneS 185 Michael 190
Cassisi 184 Pike 189
Dew 183 White 189
Kingsley 183 Lappin 188
BurgoyneP 182 Notting 188
CornesK 182 Copeland 187
Wanganeen 181 Black 186
Wilson 181 Caracella 186
Hardwick 180 ScottC 182
Montomery 180 Voss 182
Mahoney 179 ScottB 181
Carr 178 Johnson 179
Pickett 178 Power 179
Schofield 178 McRae 176
James 177 Akermanis 177

God, I hate the formatting on this message board.

The comparison we draw from this is:
             Stu            Port Ade             Bris
Smalls       2               5                       4
SmMed      6                    9                3
Subtotal     8               14                      7
TalMed      6               1                       7
Mobkpp     5                3                       5
Kpp/Rk      2                4                       2
Ruck         1                0                      0

You see how Port & Bris compare to you Stu. Both had double or more smalls than you have. And Port the winner had more runners. And it was a dry day, so you can't blame the wet, it was a dry day. Port didn't try to match Brisbane, they did the opposite and ran Brissie off there feet. Much in the same way North used to do to the Hawks in the 70s.

But Stu it's not your fault. It's the Richmond mentality of the late 70s & 80s that says that we have to be the biggest side in the competition. That mentality partly cost us the '82 GF. The overall biggest side in the competition, you can back it in, is probably the slowest. And that's what the Tigers have been for 10 years. Usually the tallest and the slowest. That's the part of the Richmond mentality that has to change. Miller knows it. Wallace knows it. But most of the Richmond supporters don't.

What's more, climactically the next 5 years are going to be wet years. Drought's broken. The reservoirs over the next 5 years are going to recover from the drought of the last 5 years. That means that the successful teams over the next 5 years are the ones that have lists that must be capable of playing consistantly in bad conditions, the wind & the wet.

Food for thought hey.

 

[Rosy]

God, I hate the formatting on this message board.

Do other kinds of message boards have better formatting? If so if you can give me some details/examples I'll ask the tech guys if ours can be similar.

 

[pahoffm]

Sorry Rosy,
I don't know of other message boards that are better. I could format these lists better if I bothered to use the table BCC tags above. But that would add another half an hour to a post like this. And I don't have that inclination.

 

[Stu]

Use the Courier font, each character has the same pixel width

[font=Courier][/font]

As for the running players, I stand by my opinion. Despite the size of the players in the Port & Lions sides, players are always getting bigger and quicker.
Consider Deledio & Tambling, two of the quickest players in the league who will play running roles for us and neither are <180cm. Gilmore was top 10 speed wise at draft camp from memory and considering his age he's quite likely to have moved up into the "tall mediums" by the start of this season, yet he's still considered a running, rover/goal sneak.

The Lions may not have won the flag this year, but the side isn't too different from the one that won three flags in a row and I've selected more runners overall than they have, in fact the balance is fairly similar to what I put down. I don't think a couple of cm makes a huge difference in ability, if they can run as quick and as long, then the taller the better with only a couple of specialist smalls thrown in for roving roles.

 

[TrewTIGER]

Everitt 203 103 31
Taylor 200 101 23 New
Campbell 199 110 23
Hay 196 96 25
Willday 196 82 19 Rookie
Franklin 196 87 18 New
Holland 195 103 31
Dawson 195 79 19
Barker 194 86 30
Scott 193 90 25
Boyle 193 92 21
Roughead 193 88 18 New
Kirkby 192 80 18 Rookie
Nixon 191 84 21 New
Croad 190 96 25
Thurgood 190 70 20 New
Beaumont 189 87 30
Jacobs 189 93 25
Lonie 189 90 22
Murphy 189 83 19 New
Young 189 76 19 Rookie
Dixon 188 89 28
Little 187 74 19 New
Lewis 186 87 19 New

Just an experiment - copied som of Phantoms list to Excel & placed in columns. Doesn't want to right align though - still not too bad, what do others think?

 

[TrewTIGER]

Sorry, should have previewed it first.

 

[Chiang Mai Tiger]

What's more, climactically the next 5 years are going to be wet years. Drought's broken. The reservoirs over the next 5 years are going to recover from the drought of the last 5 years. That means that the successful teams over the next 5 years are the ones that have lists that must be capable of playing consistantly in bad conditions, the wind & the wet.

Food for thought hey.

What an interesting proposition Phantom. Do you know if Wallace and Miller have factored in this meteorological outcome into the five year plan? Seriously, any angle to give us an advantage is worth looking into.

 

[TigerMasochist]

They may be older and more developed but there's still no room for them on the team
I don't consider myself an expert by any means, but if I were to put out a lineup, I'd want something like this

Smalls  2
SmMed 6
TalMed 6
Mobkpp 5
Kpp/Rk 2
Ruck    1

OK Stu,
Then let's test your proposition by looking at the 2 sides that played off in the 2004 GF:



God, I hate the formatting on this message board.

The comparison we draw from this is:
             Stu            Port Ade             Bris
Smalls       2               5                       4
SmMed      6                    9                3
Subtotal     8               14                      7
TalMed      6               1                       7
Mobkpp     5                3                       5
Kpp/Rk      2                4                       2
Ruck         1                0                      0

You see how Port & Bris compare to you Stu. Both had double or more smalls than you have. And Port the winner had more runners. And it was a dry day, so you can't blame the wet, it was a dry day. Port didn't try to match Brisbane, they did the opposite and ran Brissie off there feet. Much in the same way North used to do to the Hawks in the 70s.

Hey Phantom, can see and understand the points you are making but considering that both Port and Brisbane were finalists over the last four years how do there size configurations stand up for a fuller period rather than just a one off?
If you have two teams of similar performance capabilities over a long period of time wouldn't something less tangible factor in? Like Malthouse's development time frame,a team list just going past it's peak playing era compared to one right at its peak.
Or perhaps something like the groups personal hunger ie, Bris with 3 flags in the bank Port with 3 succesive failures in finals.

 

[johnson2richo2003]

What's more, climactically the next 5 years are going to be wet years. Drought's broken. The reservoirs over the next 5 years are going to recover from the drought of the last 5 years. That means that the successful teams over the next 5 years are the ones that have lists that must be capable of playing consistantly in bad conditions, the wind & the wet.

Music to my ears Phanto if thats the case.No GF success to the following:Essendon,Stk or the Bulldogs.Moreso the Bummers ;D

 

[Tango]

I understand the points made about the number of smalls vs talls but the fact of the matter is that both PA & Bris had a team of players with a good blend of pace, skill, hardness, running ability and players that can kick accurately over 50m to a target, something that RFC has not had consistently for 10 years regardless of the size of our players

 

[pahoffm]

They may be older and more developed but there's still no room for them on the team
I don't consider myself an expert by any means, but if I were to put out a lineup, I'd want something like this

Smalls  2
SmMed 6
TalMed 6
Mobkpp 5
Kpp/Rk 2
Ruck    1

OK Stu,
Then let's test your proposition by looking at the 2 sides that played off in the 2004 GF:



God, I hate the formatting on this message board.

The comparison we draw from this is:
             Stu            Port Ade             Bris
Smalls       2               5                       4
SmMed      6                    9                3
Subtotal     8               14                      7
TalMed      6               1                       7
Mobkpp     5                3                       5
Kpp/Rk      2                4                       2
Ruck         1                0                      0

You see how Port & Bris compare to you Stu. Both had double or more smalls than you have. And Port the winner had more runners. And it was a dry day, so you can't blame the wet, it was a dry day. Port didn't try to match Brisbane, they did the opposite and ran Brissie off there feet. Much in the same way North used to do to the Hawks in the 70s.

Hey Phantom, can see and understand the points you are making but considering that both Port and Brisbane were finalists over the last four years how do there size configurations stand up for a fuller period rather than just a one off?
If you have two teams of similar performance capabilities over a long period of time wouldn't something less tangible factor in? Like Malthouse's development time frame,a team list just going past it's peak playing era compared to one right at its peak.
Or perhaps something like the groups personal hunger ie, Bris with 3 flags in the bank Port with 3 succesive failures in finals.

Good points. A dynamic view is always better than a static one. Hopefully I will cover some of this when I get to parts 15 & 16 on both these 2 clubs in more depth.