2004 Draft Revisited

[_RT_]

And yet they say the Swans are the most negative and most boring team in the AFL, go figure.
While Brisbane finished in the bottom 4 had less possies but played a more attacking footy because you say they had less disposals

It might be negative footy the Swans play but it gets results. The Lions finished bottom 4 yet they were missing most of their best 22 for the year. Think about the Lions when they had Brown as a target a CHF they demolished the Hawks at Carrara, then picture the same Lions against the Tigers later in the year, no target and were demolished. It depends on the players you have on the park. The Eagles had their best 22 players on the ground more than not. The Dogs gameplan was to run other teams off their feet, by moving the ball fast. It was brought about because they had no talls to target so they had to get the ball in fast to give Johnson and co a chance.

So they don't play attacking brand of football because they have high possesion game plans, even thought they win matches???

In the last 6 games Hawthorn played a more attacking brand which was being more direct into the forward line which resulted in more wins it was well documented at the time.

A Direct Attacking Brand of footy results in teams having low possession rates while scoring lots of goals. Hawthorn had 377 possies yet they scored only 7 goals against the Roos in the last 6 games. Hardly the attacking footy you talk about. Also the Bombers game I seem to recall you had blown them out the park in the first half and then when the Bombers surged the Hawks resulted to their old maintain possession chip around style. Thus resulting in the high count you ended up with. It still does not explain how the Hawks can have 40 odd more possies than the Tigers and score the same amount of goals in a game.

This comparison between the 2 teams shows the difference between the Hawks & Tigers gameplan: http://www.pro-stats.com.au/psw/web/compare_teams?tid1=108&tid2=112

Notice the stat regarding average handballs the Hawks averaged 22 more per game. Also the Tigers averaged lower in disposals per goal & per score.

 

[Melbdave81]

Don't change the subject Parrot answer the question. Do you think Roughead is a better player than Griffen?

BTW he kicked 6 against the Blues as well.

You changed the subjetc by bringing up Livo

Roughead is better than Tambling and equal to Griffen as he is a KPP and has shown plenty.

 

[lids2004roar]

That onlly happens when your running up the ground to get cheap possies, which Tambling excells at.


Very soft player that Tambling.

Lancey averages 1.9 tackles per game

Blinger averages 2.2 tackles per game

Considering one of them is a scrawny kid and the other is bigger and heavier... who's softer?

 

[parrot]

Lancey averages 1.9 tackles per game

Blinger averages 2.2 tackles per game

Considering one of them is a scrawny kid and the other is bigger and heavier... who's softer?

Mm. Perhaps you should stop reading stats, and start watching footy matches. Might help your judgement.

 

[wahawk]

Realistic Tiger , why dont you live up to your name.

In 1 post you put ***** on Hawthorn for playing negative football.

But then in another post you say that the swans play negative football ,but thats OK.

Make up your mind. You have contradicted yourself that many times in this thread.

Another example was earlier when you told someone to stick to the original question,a couple of posts later you bring Livingstone into the arguement.

You are not realistic you are pathetic

 

[lids2004roar]

Mm. Perhaps you should stop reading stats, and start watching footy matches. Might help your judgement.

It's just funny when people make blind judgements about Tambling being soft when he is harder at it than Buddy.

Skinny players aren't always soft like Fiora

 

[parrot]

It's just funny when people make blind judgements about Tambling being soft when he is harder at it than Buddy.

It's funny seeing you rattled - seems that you're having a go at Franklin, Lance - anyone for that matter. The hard cold reality of course is that Terry's Tambling draft decision was a complete disaster. The enormity of the gaff was really brought home when Franklin kicked 6 goals V Tiges. Did you get to see that game, or only read the stats sheet? Huge laughs.

 

[Richo83]

In 1 post you put ***** on Hawthorn for playing negative football.

But then in another post you say that the swans play negative football ,but thats OK.

The swans win games, the hawks don't, that's the difference. The swans have won a grand final with this style of play, what have the hawks won?

The point is, the hawks can't afford to paly this high possesion game because they don't have the footskills like Sydney to win enough games. Sydney's style of play is acceptable because it delivers results, the hawks have been playing like this for five years now and it hasn't got them anywhere. Ditto Richmond.

 

[lids2004roar]

It's funny seeing you rattled - seems that you're having a go at Franklin, Lance - anyone for that matter. The hard cold reality of course is that Terry's Tambling draft decision was a complete disaster. The enormity of the gaff was really brought home when Franklin kicked 6 goals V Tiges. Did you get to see that game, or only read the stats sheet? Huge laughs.

Don't worry I've seen every Tigers game since around '95 '96

I'm enjoying all these premature opinions on Tambling. I saw a Tigers game at 2.30am just last night, and the way Blinger moves and delivers is pure quality. I am very happy that he gets to become the best of the 2004 draft while playing for Richmond


Btw to answer your previous question, Terry Wallace stated back in 2004 when we drafted Richie that he didn't expect much until he turns 21. They do research on players on his height/weight/speed etc, so it isn't spin if he said it before he played a single AFL game

 

[rick James]

Also, just my personal opinion, I'm happier with Matthew Bate than I would be ANY player apart from Griffen from that draft.

 

[jamesisabomber]

You're a joke.

Birchall is not in Griffen's league, and you're kidding only yourself to think otherwise.

Roughead has struggled thus far and he'll never be worthy of the pick he was taken at.

Some Hawk fans are dead set blind, it's unbelievable. Every kid of theirs is a "gun" and superior to any others. What a joke. Wake up.

Yeah I'd have to agree Griffen will be a star and from what I've seen is in a different league to Birchall. Dont get me wrong I rate Birchall but hes not that amazing. Disagree with Roughead though I really dont know what people are expecting of him I thought he was comming along pretty well.

Also Rick_james is right bate is a gun

 

[parrot]

...Btw to answer your previous question, Terry Wallace stated back in 2004 when we drafted Richie that he didn't expect much until he turns 21. They do research on players on his height/weight/speed etc, so it isn't spin if he said it before he played a single AFL game

OK, well I guess the "Terry clause" prevents us from officially calling the Tambling draft decision a clanger until he has turned 21. Will there be an extension period?

 

[lids2004roar]

Will there be an extension period?

There won't need to be

 

[parrot]

There won't need to be

Well, I guess at the moment, it looks like a complete disaster of a drafting decision. Bet the Hawks supporters are absolutely delighted with the outcome so far. I wonder what percentage of Tiges supporters would now prefer Tambling over Franklin? Less than 20% I suspect.

 

[Wally07]

Lets not forget in one of Franklin's 6 goal games he was playing on Ray Hall. I think during that 6 week period Ray's opponents picked up about 15 brownlow votes. Not great competition.

I have to agree the Hawthorn list is a lot better than the tigers list. That is why they have consistently finished above Richmond on the ladder under Clarkson.

 

[Melbdave81]

There won't need to be

Absolutely correct, Blinger (hahahahahahaha) will be delisted before then extension is needed.

 

[H2F]

Also, just my personal opinion, I'm happier with Matthew Bate than I would be ANY player apart from Griffen from that draft.

That's either untrue or your simply nieve.

Franklin >>>>>>> Roughead/Griffin >>>>>>>>> Deledio >>>>>>>>>>>Bate>>>>>>>>Tambling

 

[Limbach_19]

2) Tambling will improve too although I see Krakour written all over him.

Why? because they are both Aboriginal?
Besides that they are not alike at all.

 

[lids2004roar]

That's either untrue or your simply nieve.

Franklin >>>>>>> Roughead/Griffin >>>>>>>>> Deledio >>>>>>>>>>>Bate>>>>>>>>Tambling

Your own words say:

That's either untrue or your simply nieve.

 

[_RT_]

Realistic Tiger , why dont you live up to your name.

In 1 post you put ***** on Hawthorn for playing negative football.

But then in another post you say that the swans play negative football ,but thats OK.

Make up your mind. You have contradicted yourself that many times in this thread.

Another example was earlier when you told someone to stick to the original question,a couple of posts later you bring Livingstone into the arguement.

You are not realistic you are pathetic

Actually I never put ******** on the Hawks for playing negative footy what I said was they did not play a direct attacking brand of footy as claimed by your fellow Hawthorn fan. How can he claim they do that when they average more disposals than the Tigers yet the Tigers average lower disposals per goal/scoring shot. As my fellow Tigers supporter said, the Swans style, which incidently has them average the least possies per game while still beating most teams, works for them. The Hawks on the other hand try to play possession footy and they lose, try and claim they play attacking footy and the win, yet the stats show they use the ball more than 12 other teams in the league.

So to explain it to you plain and simple, the Hawks use the ball 6th most times per game(348 average) and they were the 12th ranked team for goals scored per game beating Port, Brisbane, Carlton and Roos.

BTW my line about Livingstone was in reply to this:

Originally posted by Moss Rocket:
How could any tiger fan be happy to have taken Tambling? He has shown nothing! Tambling may be delisted by years end if he doesn't learn how to play footy. Shocker!

So perhaps instead attempting to abuse me why not try and argue the points. Hawthorn do not play attacking footy. They play a high possession, keepings off style of footy as shown by the following rankings:
3rd in Handballs
12th in Kicks
11th in Long Kicks
16th in Contested Marks
7th in Marks
6th Overall Disposals per game

 

[dipper86]

The Lions finished bottom 4 yet they were missing most of their best 22 for the year.
Think about the Lions when they had Brown as a target a CHF they demolished the Hawks at Carrara, then picture the same Lions against the Tigers later in the year, no target and were demolished. It depends on the players you have on the park.

Hmm so having a focal point in the forward line is what matters to an attacking brand of football which i do agree helps but by your logic that then cancels out the bulldogs as attacking, because they have no focal point and have a high possesstion ratio per goal.

The Eagles had their best 22 players on the ground more than not.

Yeh and ? They play a high possesion game, they don't always score high amounts of goals, but by you logic they aren't attacking because there goal to possesion ratio is high. But ofcourse you said that they win matches thats the difference, Hawthorn won the last 5 matches by playing more direct to their forward line.

The Dogs gameplan was to run other teams off their feet, by moving the ball fast. It was brought about because they had no talls to target so they had to get the ball in fast to give Johnson and co a chance.

And yet they have a high possesion rate.

A Direct Attacking Brand of footy results in teams having low possession rates while scoring lots of goals. Hawthorn had 377 possies yet they scored only 7 goals against the Roos in the last 6 games.
Hardly the attacking footy you talk about.

It was nice of you to point and single out this game, the fact that North flooded like pigs and didn't score a goal in 3 quarters of footy preety much sums this one up.
Its preety much what you did to Adelaide during the year. How did Adelaide go again in that game. You can only play as well as the opposition lets you, In this case the gameplan had to change.

Also the Bombers game I seem to recall you had blown them out the park in the first half and then when the Bombers surged the Hawks resulted to their old maintain possession chip around style. Thus resulting in the high count you ended up with.

Yep Hawthorn did play an attacking brand of football and wen't direct into their forward line but as the game wen't on Essendon got better and Hawthorn as young inexperienced teams sometimes do , pulled the foot of the pedal and played in spurts.

It still does not explain how the Hawks can have 40 odd more possies than the Tigers and score the same amount of goals in a game.

And it doesn't explain how West Coast or the Bulldogs had more possession's per goal either with the same, less or more goals, it also doesn't explain that it was different opposition with different game plans with different circumstances.

But hey, you think that less possies per goals makes Richmond more attacking that Hawthorn West Coast and the Bulldogs.

while Sydney because they are winning are the most exciting and attacking team in the league because they have the least amount of possies per goal but are renowned and play a boring brand of footy.

Nice logic.

 

[_RT_]

Hmm so having a focal point in the forward line is what matters to an attacking brand of football which i do agree helps but by your logic that then cancels out the bulldogs as attacking, because they have no focal point and have a high possesstion ratio per goal.




Yeh and ? They play a high possesion game, they don't always score high amounts of goals, but by you logic they aren't attacking because there goal to possesion ratio is high. But ofcourse you said that they win matches thats the difference, Hawthorn won the last 5 matches by playing more direct to their forward line.



And yet they have a high possesion rate.



It was nice of you to point and single out this game, the fact that North flooded like pigs and didn't score a goal in 3 quarters of footy preety much sums this one up.
Its preety much what you did to Adelaide during the year. How did Adelaide go again in that game. You can only play as well as the opposition lets you, In this case the gameplan had to change.



Yep Hawthorn did play an attacking brand of football and wen't direct into their forward line but as the game wen't on Essendon got better and Hawthorn as young inexperienced teams sometimes do , pulled the foot of the pedal and played in spurts.




And it doesn't explain how West Coast or the Bulldogs had more possession's per goal either with the same, less or more goals, it also doesn't explain that it was different opposition with different game plans with different circumstances.

But hey, you think that less possies per goals makes Richmond more attacking that Hawthorn West Coast and the Bulldogs.

while Sydney because they are winning are the most exciting and attacking team in the league because they have the least amount of possies per goal but are renowned and play a boring brand of footy.

Nice logic.

This poll is about the apparent "Blunders" of the 04 draft. You brought up the subject of Hawthorn playing direct attacking footy, yet when the stats show that the Tigers play a more attacking direct game than the Hawks you want to change it to include the Eagles, Dogs & Swans. Simply put those sides are successful and played finals the Hawks and Tigers are still trying to get there.

Hawthorn average 28.4 disposals per goal & 12.3 goals per game
Richmond 26.4 & 12.6
WCE 25.5 & 14.4
WB 23.1 & 15.1
Swans 22 & 13.9

The Hawks are behind each of the teams you wanted to compare them to, for the season, when it comes to disposals per goal and goals per game.

Sure they may have finally changed in the last 6 weeks where they averaged 13.6 goals a game yet still averaged 31.5 disposals per goal. If you take away the Roos game the Hawks still average over 27 disposals per goal in the last 5 games & they did increase the goals per game to 15. It still is not a direct attacking brand if you average over 27.

 

[Melbdave81]

This poll is about the apparent "Blunders" of the 04 draft.

Exactly right yet you were the first person to go off topic when you brought up Livingston. Its becoming an all too regular event with you, as soon as someone says something you don't like you go off topic and bring up something about another clubs past.

You started the topic and your second post was off your own topic. Get serious mate, don't have a go at others when you do exaclty the same thing yourself.

 

[_RT_]

Exactly right yet you were the first person to go off topic when you brought up Livingston. Its becoming an all too regular event with you, as soon as someone says something you don't like you go off topic and bring up something about another clubs past.

You started the topic and your second post was off your own topic. Get serious mate, don't have a go at others when you do exaclty the same thing yourself.

Go 3-4 posts up and read what I said regarding the Livo comment. Then read the rest of the posts I have made in the thread they are about the topic. But unlike some fans who run from an arguement I will discuss it even if it does go off topic. Seems as soon as Carlton fans are hit with a few facts or tough questions they run and hide.

 

[Melbdave81]

Go 3-4 posts up and read what I said regarding the Livo comment. Then read the rest of the posts I have made in the thread they are about the topic. But unlike some fans who run from an arguement I will discuss it even if it does go off topic. Seems as soon as Carlton fans are hit with a few facts or tough questions they run and hide.

It had nothing to do with Livo, the topic involves Tambling and a comment was made about him. It may be correct, it probably wont be but as soon it was made you sooked up and went off topic! I'm not running anywhere, you're yet to ask a tough question and give me any facts that would send me anywhere. The only person who ran was you when a poster made a comment about Tambling that you didn't like and you ran and hide behind a drafting mistake from 2002, not 2004 which is your topic