Tigers of Old said:
You might be right with that one ToO! Harvey didn't relocate the whole family just for the weather, yeah?
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
An observation whilst previewing the Hawkers.
- Thread starter pahoffm
- Start date
You might be right with that one ToO! Harvey didn't relocate the whole family just for the weather, yeah?
Soulmanpete said:
Dont get carried away with assumptions like this 'soulman'. Hawthorn have a strong list of young hopefuls coming through the system. Strategically, they have made some good decisions, parting with the likes of Thompson, Rawlings & Hay to pick-up early draft selections. These decisons are orchestrated by a coach that wants to build success and not playing safe in keeping a job. If Richmond coaches over the last 10 years had challenged this theory, perhaps we would be looking at a top four finish in 2006. The other pertinent point to make, is the smooth transition made by Presidents Dicker and Kennett. Hawthorn appear to making strong progress both on & off the field - That to me sounds like a strong force. Oh...and when they are ready for a tilt, they can always top up - My only advice for the Hawks, dont seek the opinion of Jeff Geischen, Danny Frawely & Tony Jewell.
Phantom said:
Good post Phantom.
I monitor club footy forums just to keep up with developments at the grass roots level, but I've never posted on a rival club's fora until now. You usually write good, thought-provoking material, and I thought this topic was worth breaking my self-imposed posting ban for.
It is true that Hawthorn has focused heavily on midfield players in recent times, starting with the recruitment of Hodge & Mitchell in 2001. This process has had mixed success, with Mitchell always being top quality, Hodge finally throwing off the injury shackles to join him, and Bateman showing strong signs of taking it up a notch or two. For all that, Elstone was an horrendous flop, Ries is fatally flawed, Ladson is on his last chance after an injury-*smile* few years, Lonie never quite made it, and the jury remains out on Sewell. A cursory glance at that group reveals a marked dearth of pacy, outside potency, hence the focus on outside midfielders at the past draft.
Phantom said:
You are correct about Hawthorn's spine deficiencies. Your argument that Hawthorn has gone midfielders first can be argued, but also falls down, mainly because "rebuilding" can be very much an ongoing process. Hawthorn definitely went talls first in the late 90s, which was the period that saw the recruiting of Croad, Hay, Thompson, Rawlings & Barker. This obsession with tall mobile players resulted in a mortifyingly myopic approach to matters of team balance, with the club failing to adequately complement fresh tall stocks with a capable midfield rotation. The push for players like Hodge & Mitchell was actually coming in at (what should have been) the tail end of the Hawk restructuring process, but, unfortunately for us, this coincided with a series of rolling disasters that effectively crippled our entire tall fleet (bar Croad). The end result of this unpalatable recipe of misfortune and open neglect was a list at the end of 2004 that was disturbingly light-on for talls, and painfully limited with outside midfield presence.
With football, its never really a question of preferring an enhanced spine over a deep midfield (or vice-versa), but rather disciplining your recruitment practices to best ensure a balanced structure to your list. Hawthorn failed this badly in the late 1990s, and can consider themselves lucky that they had a player of Crawford's calibre in the midfield during this time, or the immediate consequences would have been much worse.
I think its also true that many football supporters fail to appreciate Hawthorn's good fortune in getting those late 90s talls to the levels they got to. Holland was well rated as a youngster and Barker looked promising at Fitzroy, but Thompson, Hay & Rawlings were all taken very low down in their respective drafts. All three managed to perform well enough to take their place in what I consider the upper second tier of competition KPPs, which is as good as you could hope for from talls taken so low. A lot of people view them as young guns that have, by and large, underperformed across their careers, but this can be somewhat misleading.
Phantom said:
Again, the perception that Richmond may be following the Hawthorn path depends largely on where you take your starting point from. At the end of the day, Hawthorn finds itself entering stage 3 of an ongoing rebuild because it failed dismally with the first one, and the failures of the first one limited and delayed the impact from the second phase.
Suffice to say, I share your hopes on Hawthorn's performances in 2006, although, I suspect I do so for different reasons entirely. ;D
rosy23 said:CyberKev said:
Welcome to PRE Kev
Thanks for the kind welcome, Rosy.
How embarrassing, I've just realised that I've managed to screw-up from the outset and have not only double-posted, but fashioned the double-post as a quote of myself in the fourth person!!! :-[
Can you delete the offending post, or should I just go back and edit out all the content?
Kind Regards,
Kevin
Thanks CyberKev.
When I posted that preview of Hawthorn I was very wary of the post being taken the wrong way. A couple of PRE readers have. Thank you for understanding my points in the way that I wanted to represent them. Also, thank you for adding your perspective because I don't represent to fully understand the dynamics of the Hawthorn list, and you've filled in some blanks.
Regarding Hawthorn circa 2000. You are right about Crawford. I hope all Hawthorn supporters appreciate his contribution to the club at that time. I remember going to the night final that year at the MCG. I think it was Hawks v Geelong, or maybe North, not sure. I also remember it because it was the same night I had Kevin Sheedy sitting next to me for 3 hours. (Our banter was better for me than sex!) It struck me in that game, that I recall the Hawkers just lost, that Crawford was the only real midfielder that they had. Crawford was injured that night and played some of the game from a fp. The Hawks relied entirely on Crawford. He's given the club great service.
I suppose the crux of the point is to be constantly recruiting both midfielders and kpps at the same time giving each equal priority to achieve balance.
When I posted that preview of Hawthorn I was very wary of the post being taken the wrong way. A couple of PRE readers have. Thank you for understanding my points in the way that I wanted to represent them. Also, thank you for adding your perspective because I don't represent to fully understand the dynamics of the Hawthorn list, and you've filled in some blanks.
Regarding Hawthorn circa 2000. You are right about Crawford. I hope all Hawthorn supporters appreciate his contribution to the club at that time. I remember going to the night final that year at the MCG. I think it was Hawks v Geelong, or maybe North, not sure. I also remember it because it was the same night I had Kevin Sheedy sitting next to me for 3 hours. (Our banter was better for me than sex!) It struck me in that game, that I recall the Hawkers just lost, that Crawford was the only real midfielder that they had. Crawford was injured that night and played some of the game from a fp. The Hawks relied entirely on Crawford. He's given the club great service.
I suppose the crux of the point is to be constantly recruiting both midfielders and kpps at the same time giving each equal priority to achieve balance.
Shane Crawford was the Hawthorn Football Club. I was and still to this day amazed that some of there own thought that he should be moved on and that he thought his media commitments were harming the club. All of a sudden we are trying to develop players on AFL lists to give them a career after football, well Crawford was doing that five years ago and was called a big head. Pound for pound is his prime one the best and toughest players in the AFL. Easily in the 10 players of the last decade.
Interesting point about the KPP and were they were picked. At what point in a players career do we stop looking at what number they were picked and judge them on there performance?
Interesting point about the KPP and were they were picked. At what point in a players career do we stop looking at what number they were picked and judge them on there performance?
Cheers, Phantom.
You're right about Hawthorn's circa 2000 midfield. It was worse than all current midfields with the probable exception only of Carlton's.
Your closing sentence pretty much sums up my mantra with regard to football recruiting.
I don't concur with some views that errantly privilege KPP strength above all else AND similarly I strongly disagree with contrary views that the significance of KPP strength is declining in the current game.
The weaknesses of the former view are pretty straightforward, whilst the latter is regularly exposed by the willingness of clubs to jump all over good KPP prospects whenever they become available.
It is true that clubs need more midfielders on their list than they have in the past, but it is not evident that this is a preferred tactical option at the expense of KPP, but rather an understandable recognition that the extra pace of the contemporary game puts centre players under enormous extra physical stress, hence the need for more of these players for rotation purposes. As such, you still need IMO 8 capable KPP on your list, but where you once could have got by with around 8 midfielders, you now need a contingent of around 12-14. As I see it, extra midfielders tend to come more at the expense of peripheral forwards and defenders, with most midfielders more than capable of filling spots on flanks if needed so that team depth isn't adversely affected by having less "specialist" peripherals.
Among your midfielders you certainly would like to see a good sprinkle of pace & grunt, with a hard nut or two for good measure. That being said, skills & smarts should always be requisite characteristics inherent in the midfielders you recruit and NOT optional extras. I don't think Schwab ever looked and sounded more like a deluded Hitler in his Berlin bunker when breathlessly stating (as late as mid-2004) that the club really needed to focus on getting players without patent kicking flaws, as if this was some bold new discovery!
That being said, I also don't think that talls should be taken simply because they're talls. This is easily misinterpreted as a suggestion that high picks shouldn't be wasted on talls, but it is really quite the opposite. My earlier comment on the effort of low-picked talls Thompson, Rawlings & Hay to get to the level they have got too in the game is, as much as anything, a recognition of the marked flaws inherent in all three. It doesn't surprise me that all three were taken relatively low, given that both Thompson & Hay are lacking for footy smarts, whereas Rawlings has clear skill deficiencies. The reality for recruiters, especially allowing for the shorter supply of young KPP types, is that higher ranked young talls are highly rated because their skills and smarts are better than lowly-rated ones. The downside to this is that you have to take them high as a consequence, and this takes bravery given that gun young midfielders almost invariably look safer and more composed.
Hawthorn, of course, tends to look braver than it was in taking Roughead & Franklin in the 2004 draft. A cursory glance at the KPP stocks (or lack thereof) at the club meant that they really had little choice but to run hard at replenishing the talls. As it is, the club still needs to come up with another 2 key defenders for the 2007 season. Even allowing for the lean KPP stocks, I have little doubt that the club would have been unable to resist Griffen had they not had Hodge & Mitchell on hand from the 2001 Croad trade. The encouraging aspect of this for all struggling clubs is that even a couple of draft "hits" can have resounding effects for the side. A good thing for us too, given that we only had 3 genuinely strong draft pick-ups from 1999-2003 (inclusive) :'(
You're right about Hawthorn's circa 2000 midfield. It was worse than all current midfields with the probable exception only of Carlton's.
Your closing sentence pretty much sums up my mantra with regard to football recruiting.
I don't concur with some views that errantly privilege KPP strength above all else AND similarly I strongly disagree with contrary views that the significance of KPP strength is declining in the current game.
The weaknesses of the former view are pretty straightforward, whilst the latter is regularly exposed by the willingness of clubs to jump all over good KPP prospects whenever they become available.
It is true that clubs need more midfielders on their list than they have in the past, but it is not evident that this is a preferred tactical option at the expense of KPP, but rather an understandable recognition that the extra pace of the contemporary game puts centre players under enormous extra physical stress, hence the need for more of these players for rotation purposes. As such, you still need IMO 8 capable KPP on your list, but where you once could have got by with around 8 midfielders, you now need a contingent of around 12-14. As I see it, extra midfielders tend to come more at the expense of peripheral forwards and defenders, with most midfielders more than capable of filling spots on flanks if needed so that team depth isn't adversely affected by having less "specialist" peripherals.
Among your midfielders you certainly would like to see a good sprinkle of pace & grunt, with a hard nut or two for good measure. That being said, skills & smarts should always be requisite characteristics inherent in the midfielders you recruit and NOT optional extras. I don't think Schwab ever looked and sounded more like a deluded Hitler in his Berlin bunker when breathlessly stating (as late as mid-2004) that the club really needed to focus on getting players without patent kicking flaws, as if this was some bold new discovery!
That being said, I also don't think that talls should be taken simply because they're talls. This is easily misinterpreted as a suggestion that high picks shouldn't be wasted on talls, but it is really quite the opposite. My earlier comment on the effort of low-picked talls Thompson, Rawlings & Hay to get to the level they have got too in the game is, as much as anything, a recognition of the marked flaws inherent in all three. It doesn't surprise me that all three were taken relatively low, given that both Thompson & Hay are lacking for footy smarts, whereas Rawlings has clear skill deficiencies. The reality for recruiters, especially allowing for the shorter supply of young KPP types, is that higher ranked young talls are highly rated because their skills and smarts are better than lowly-rated ones. The downside to this is that you have to take them high as a consequence, and this takes bravery given that gun young midfielders almost invariably look safer and more composed.
Hawthorn, of course, tends to look braver than it was in taking Roughead & Franklin in the 2004 draft. A cursory glance at the KPP stocks (or lack thereof) at the club meant that they really had little choice but to run hard at replenishing the talls. As it is, the club still needs to come up with another 2 key defenders for the 2007 season. Even allowing for the lean KPP stocks, I have little doubt that the club would have been unable to resist Griffen had they not had Hodge & Mitchell on hand from the 2001 Croad trade. The encouraging aspect of this for all struggling clubs is that even a couple of draft "hits" can have resounding effects for the side. A good thing for us too, given that we only had 3 genuinely strong draft pick-ups from 1999-2003 (inclusive) :'(
Hi Kev,
I saw your post on HHQ and you think the tigers will have a good 2006.
I am interested in a non bias view on how the tigers are percieved, can you share with us your thoughts?
I saw your post on HHQ and you think the tigers will have a good 2006.
I am interested in a non bias view on how the tigers are percieved, can you share with us your thoughts?
TIGEREXTRA said:
G'Day Champ.
I guess the first step here is to define how the term "good" equates in this particular context.
Effectively, I expect Richmond to finish anywhere between 7th & 12 this season, which will be a perfectly acceptable effort given where the club was a mere twelve months ago. For mine, there are six sides in the comp that (barring unforeseen circumstances) should be able to tie-up the top six spots as they are simply ahead of the rest at the moment, so to be a genuine contender for the remaining finals spots is encouraging.
In terms of negatives, its not too hard to identify trouble areas. For awhile now, the club has been too Richo-centric up forward and still retains a worrying dependency on the big champ as a conduit for the vast majority of its attacking forays. Also, as for a number of other clubs, the Tigers are light-on for depth, but this was apparent at the end of 2004, and can't be addressed inside of a couple of short seasons. Outside of this, the club really needs to settle on a strong CHB presence and must find a hard nut small defender option from somewhere.
In terms of positives, Brown will most likely return ahead of schedule and the improvement of Pettifer proffers the prospect of multiple scoring options and a viable forward structure, asuming Richo stays fit. In normal circumstances the loss of a player like Campbell would have had a far greater impact than it is likely to here, as I'd expect Deledio to cover for his loss and then some. The form of Tuck in 2005 was a sensational bonus for the club, as he has given the side a massive boost and the side looks solidly placed for inside options. The team can still benefit from further pace injections, but the acquisition of Deledio, Tambling & Meyer; along with the improved form of Newman and the likely return of Rodan sees the side better placed in this area.
At the end of the day, I think the Tigers are better balanced at the moment than the likes of Hawthorn, Essendon, Collingwood & Carlton AND have greater hunger than the likes of Port & Brisbane.
The side should be very competitive in 2006 and if it follows its normal tendency of starting the season strongly, it should have an easier run home over "the back nine" given that the toughest segment of its draw is early on.
Very well said Big Kev. :clap :clap.
The banter between both club on the forums hopefully will translate on the feild between 2 sides in the "rebuilding" phase.
Will be interesting to watch both clubs as their young draftee,s come through the ranks.
Afterall we need to wrestle back the interstate dominance over the past 3yrs in particular.
The banter between both club on the forums hopefully will translate on the feild between 2 sides in the "rebuilding" phase.
Will be interesting to watch both clubs as their young draftee,s come through the ranks.
Afterall we need to wrestle back the interstate dominance over the past 3yrs in particular.
Kev, for a Hawthorn supporter, you actually make a lot of senseCyberKev said:
Nice to seen an opposition supporter posting here who is not a moron. Welcome to the wonderland that is PRE.
CyberKev said:
I don't know how you can say that Kev. Name those 6 clubs, and you can get set with me at 20s that those 6 clubs will not fill the top 6 spots at seasons end.
Most so-called "experts" (I'm not having a dig at you) merely look at the previous seasons ladder and submit a carbon copy as their predictions. Get a hold of the ladder at the end of each season and you will be amazed how different it is from season to season.
If Sydney could win the 2005 flag, there would be 10 clubs who could realistically be premiers in 2006. Luck with injuries, hit form come round 17 or 18, get your players fit and available, some belief, luck of the draw, and there's the 2006 premier.
tiger12 said:
The clubs in question: West Coast, Geelong, St Kilda, Melbourne, Bulldogs, Sydney.
I know what you're saying, as every year there's at least one side that performs above expectation and at least one that sucks beyond expectation. Predicting who these sides will be is often reducible to guesswork, however, especially when every club raves to the media about how awesome their preseason is going. Still, I think Melbourne have the structure to slip up into the top six and the Bulldogs finished the last season in a manner which suggests they can join them there. Injuries and, to a lesser extent, internal club conflicts can get the better of clubs with stronger lists, however, but you never know who will or won't have a good injury run. You can only look at the lists, take into account recent performances and trends, and go from there.
The same applies at the other end of the table. There are few people willing to suggest Carlton can win more than 3-4 games this season, but they'd be the same people who swore that Adelaide would finish in the bottom four last year and that Hawthorn wouldn't win a game. With the exception of Camporeale, it'll be much the same Carlton side going around that won 10 games in 2004 and that many were suggesting was a finals chance in 2005. I'll be among those tipping them for the bottom 2 though, as its difficult to do otherwise given how poor they were last season and allowing for the anaemic look of their list.
tiger12 said:
I agree that Sydney is the most fortunate premier ever and that this does give hope to all sides, but realistically, sides like this winning the premier are not something you'd want to stake a lot of money on. During my lifetime, which would have been longer than most on this site (I'd imagine), only Essendon 1993 wouldn't have been considered among a small clump of clubs that were a genuine premiership shot at the start of a season.
A good many other persons wouldn't have Melbourne on their shortlist, and most would probably have Adelaide.
Suffice to say, a lot will have to go wrong with sides in my six and some very good things will have to go right for a side out of it for a team to unexpectedly upset the applecart this season.
CyberKev said:
I see your point, but I don't agree with it. Who thought Collingwood was a premiership chance pre season 2002?
Gone are the days of "super-teams". Go back 10 years, yes there was a gulf between Richmond and the premiers, an even bigger gulf 20 years ago. Let me tell you, there's no gulf between Richmond and the current premiers (nor the runners-up for that matter).
What I'm sure you will find in the short to medium term with the evening up of the competition, is that there will be more teams with a premiership chance and seasons begining than there will be without a premiership chance. Of this I am convinced.
What the heck, 25s your 6.
tiger12 said:
At the end of the day, Collingwood still didn't win and Brisbane was clearly among the small clump of highly-rated premiership fancies.
25-1 is fine for my six sides filling the top six positions, but anything outside of evens would be too generous for one of those sides NOT winning the premiership.
There certainly was a gulf between the Tigers (and other sides around them) and the top group last season. The side won few games after round 9 and were well beaten by numerous premiership fancies across the season. I"m sure that they've made ground and reduced this gap heading into 2006, but I'm yet to be convinced they've breached it.
There's always a gap between the top fancies and the rest, its just a matter of how big that gap is.
Taking injuries out of the equation, sides will fall away largely due to ageing, lack of hunger and inevitable list erosion.
Sides like Geelong, West Coast & St Kilda are yet to show genuine signs of this and remain among the more fancied group as a consequence.