Traded #42: Massimoe D'Ambrosioe - Thank you for your service

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reader mode
Mercurial89 said:
I'm sure people will find a way to argue it
Click to expand...
I'm sure the usual suspects will wait till he has a poor game to rush in to tell us we were right to let him go.

Jye Menzie on the HBF flank. 😂 Clearly we had no room for him.
 
Mass is not playing half back so who we are playing there is a bit irrelevant.
He is playing behind the footy wing.
Hawks have decided that is how they want to play.
Scott uses the wing in a different role that has a lot more running up and back.
Not saying Scott is 100% right but given we are trying to build a better team defence I can cop letting him go as I do not see long term what creating another non defensive role does for us.
Sure his offensive stuff is great but we have a few average defensive players already.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

ant555 said:
Mass is not playing half back so who we are playing there is a bit irrelevant.
He is playing behind the footy wing.
Hawks have decided that is how they want to play.
Scott uses the wing in a different role that has a lot more running up and back.
Not saying Scott is 100% right but given we are trying to build a better team defence I can cop letting him go as I do not see long term what creating another non defensive role does for us.
Sure his offensive stuff is great but we have a few average defensive players already.
Click to expand...

Moving him on for absolutely nothing (and barely selecting him and not giving him a chance to be anything at the club)
And then searching desperately for the things he provided by shuffling your team is the issue.

It's not even about Mass, it's the process is just poor.


Which is fine, teams can make mistakes, everyone makes a few. Doesn't mean they are a bad coach, or list team (if the mistakes are isolated and learnt from) but having those mistakes defended as if they were totally fine is just nuts.
 
Mercurial89 said:
Moving him on for absolutely nothing (and barely selecting him and not giving him a chance to be anything at the club)
And then searching desperately for the things he provided by shuffling your team is the issue.

It's not even about Mass, it's the process is just poor.


Which is fine, teams can make mistakes, everyone makes a few. Doesn't mean they are a bad coach, or list team (if the mistakes are isolated and learnt from) but having those mistakes defended as if they were totally fine is just nuts.
Click to expand...
The proof will be there in the future. Right now you can not say their plan to play him behind the footy as a winger is better than our plan to build a stronger team defence by playing our first choice wingers with more of a defensive role.
It comes down to how many defensively deficient players you can carry. For us to fit him in then we have to not have Martin or Parish or Perkins also having defensive problems.
Can a coach really change his own game philosophy based upon n one player who albeit is good but not an A grade star ? The Hawks have generally done it in some form.
 
Milanista28 said:
It's been proven already, letting any AFL standard player leave for nothing is a mistake, it's completely insane to argue against that. Even if Massimo never plays another game for the Hawkes my opinion won't change.
Click to expand...
Happens all the time. It is not something that under normal circumstances happens to us a lot. The basics of it in my view is do you keep Mass and if you do do you not keep one of the other defensively average players like Martin or Parish ?
 
Milanista28 said:
Why is that the only possible way to keep Mass?
Click to expand...
You can only carry so many blokes who can not defend well. He is not defending with the Hawks . They sacrifice a wing so he can play behind the footy in the same way we let Martin run free from half back and use defensive wings. As a club we needed to improve the team defense . He was the bloke they deemed expendable. Does not stop him from being a good player but you simply can not have too many of them. We will need to make the same adjustments with the forwards at some stage as well to sharpen things up. We made a call that was never going to be totally easy . Not like we did not offer him anything. Bit like a casualty of war. If we where at a different stage it may have been different.
 
ant555 said:
You can only carry so many blokes who can not defend well. He is not defending with the Hawks . They sacrifice a wing so he can play behind the footy in the same way we let Martin run free from half back and use defensive wings. As a club we needed to improve the team defense . He was the bloke they deemed expendable. Does not stop him from being a good player but you simply can not have too many of them. We will need to make the same adjustments with the forwards at some stage as well to sharpen things up. We made a call that was never going to be totally easy . Not like we did not offer him anything. Bit like a casualty of war. If we where at a different stage it may have been different.
Click to expand...
We are carrying a heap of blokes who can't attack, who have absolutely zero hurt factor, you harp on his defensive inability, you'll praise Kelly on his defensive ability a bloke who has zero attacking weapons, who hurts the way we move the ball when he has it by slowing the game down.

Also consider we tried to offer Mass the 2 years he wanted really late, we knew he had some value when we realised we were losing him, that was poor.

I'd have paid out Weideman like we did Stewart to free up a list spot, or not drafted Lual or Roberts even though I like those picks, we could've kept Massimo, we should've.

And fwiw he's not going to be the reason we fail or succeed this list build, I just think losing him was stupid and unnecessary, there is zero positive in it.
 
Milanista28 said:
We are carrying a heap of blokes who can't attack, who have absolutely zero hurt factor, you harp on his defensive inability, you'll praise Kelly on his defensive ability a bloke who has zero attacking weapons, who hurts the way we move the ball when he has it by slowing the game down.

Also consider we tried to offer Mass the 2 years he wanted really late, we knew he had some value when we realised we were losing him, that was poor.

I'd have paid out Weideman like we did Stewart to free up a list spot, or not drafted Lual or Roberts even though I like those picks, we could've kept Massimo, we should've.

And fwiw he's not going to be the reason we fail or succeed this list build, I just think losing him was stupid and unnecessary, there is zero positive in it.
Click to expand...
I have not praised Kelly a lot this year . Secondly I have praised him as a back pocket. You do not need the worlds best attacking ability to play back pocket. You need an ability to beat your opponent which he has done in the past. It would be no good playing Mass in a back pocket.
I harp on about defense as that is the area we needed to improve the most. You do not keep finishing 16th and worst defensively and it not be an issue.
It would not really matter a lot as far as paying blokes out or drafting Lual or Roberts. The fact is we where not going to have the same plan as the Hawks so we would still have been asking Mass to defend better.
I said in this thread after he was traded people would blow up as he would run around and get 25 possessions a week. I am just prepared to concede losing a good player in the name of improving the team defense long term. More will go.
The improvement in the Hawks recently is not off the back off Mass. He has played his role well all year. They have improved because their midfield has been playing better and the team defending better under their plan.
 
Milanista28 said:
We are carrying a heap of blokes who can't attack, who have absolutely zero hurt factor, you harp on his defensive inability, you'll praise Kelly on his defensive ability a bloke who has zero attacking weapons, who hurts the way we move the ball when he has it by slowing the game down.

Also consider we tried to offer Mass the 2 years he wanted really late, we knew he had some value when we realised we were losing him, that was poor.

I'd have paid out Weideman like we did Stewart to free up a list spot, or not drafted Lual or Roberts even though I like those picks, we could've kept Massimo, we should've.

And fwiw he's not going to be the reason we fail or succeed this list build, I just think losing him was stupid and unnecessary, there is zero positive in it.
Click to expand...
We’ve been defensively trash for a decade and if the call needs to be made to not reward a player who is poor defensively with a longer contract then so be it.

Sometimes it happens. The Suns let Wright go for peanuts yet he’s important (albeit with his own limitations), are they atrocious list managers for letting him go to another club?
 
ant555 said:
They sacrifice a wing so he can play behind the footy in the same way we let Martin run free from half back and use defensive wings.
Click to expand...
Maybe me but I’m not seeing Martin being an effective defender so why not have Mass play same role and then would’ve enabled us to push Martin further up the ground where he’s needed more. Mass’ disposal has been superb for the Hawks. We made a mistake not ensuring he stayed
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Good on him. Looks like all he needed was a change of scenery, a club that could play him in a position that suited him and some confidence .
 
TheGreatBarryB said:
Maybe me but I’m not seeing Martin being an effective defender so why not have Mass play same role and then would’ve enabled us to push Martin further up the ground where he’s needed more. Mass’ disposal has been superb for the Hawks. We made a mistake not ensuring he stayed
Click to expand...
They backed Martin to be better in the role as he has better intercept ability as far as making. Martin defends better despite him not being much good one on one. He transitions into defence a lot quicker and he has an ability to get to the contest and spoil.
Mass is not playing defence. He is playing wing . We use our wings in a different role. Rightly or wrongly we were not going to change what we want to build for one bloke.
Right now we are about building team defence.
Martin was never going to end up at half back full time.
 
ant555 said:
They backed Martin to be better in the role as he has better intercept ability as far as making. Martin defends better despite him not being much good one on one. He transitions into defence a lot quicker and he has an ability to get to the contest and spoil.
Mass is not playing defence. He is playing wing . We use our wings in a different role. Rightly or wrongly we were not going to change what we want to build for one bloke.
Right now we are about building team defence.
Martin was never going to end up at half back full time.
Click to expand...
Ok but he’s just turned 21. At the moment they have Amon to play deeper but eventually Mass could play deeper. You’d be delighted if you had a high draft pick playing the way he has this season. He’s had to defend as well and has been far more physical this season.
 
TheGreatBarryB said:
Ok but he’s just turned 21. At the moment they have Amon to play deeper but eventually Mass could play deeper. You’d be delighted if you had a high draft pick playing the way he has this season. He’s had to defend as well and has been far more physical this season.
Click to expand...
Agree he has been more physical but he defends by being the extra behind the footy. I have been to 3 Hawks games and had a look . He basically plays quarterback.
If we went that way it would make sense to keep him. We have gone different direction. The proof will be further down the line as far as which philosophy ends up being better.

I can understand the frustration. I predicted that supporters would be annoyed when they let him run around and do his own thing.

Two clubs. Different philosophy on how to build the future.
 
Last edited:
ant555 said:
Agree he has been more physical but he defends by being the extra behind the footy. I have been to 3 Hawks games and had a look . He basically plays quarterback.
If we went that way it would make sense to keep him. We have gone different direction. The proof will be further down the line as far as which philosophy ends up being better.
Click to expand...
My point is he’s just turned 21 and showing a lot of talent ..doesn’t matter what role at Hawthorn. If you have talent you keep it and they will find a role. He’s clearly improved a fair bit ..no reason to think he couldn’t fit in
 
TheGreatBarryB said:
My point is he’s just turned 21 and showing a lot of talent ..doesn’t matter what role at Hawthorn. If you have talent you keep it and they will find a role. He’s clearly improved a fair bit ..no reason to think he couldn’t fit in
Click to expand...
I know what you are saying. He has not improved his defensive transition since his under 18 days. That was the decision.
We are a club trying to build team defence. They are building a different system.
The role is relevant. I suppose you have been a fan of our 18th ranked team defence.
He is playing great football . Comes down to how you value defence .
If we where going to play a extra behind the footy I would pick Ridley to be that bloke.
 
Mercurial89 said:
Moving him on for absolutely nothing (and barely selecting him and not giving him a chance to be anything at the club)
And then searching desperately for the things he provided by shuffling your team is the issue.
Click to expand...
What’s that about? Do you mean Martin at half back?
 
Lore said:
What’s that about? Do you mean Martin at half back?
Click to expand...

Ball use.
The process of letting AFL talent leave for nothing, especially one that has a skill that only 2-3 players on our list have.
To then take one of our better players out of position to take his kicking skills (which aren't THAT good, it's his vision that's his real weapon, but that's another debate) into that area of the ground excusing his defensive liabilities.
Strengthening a competitor, losing AFL talent when we are supposed to be building it, moving magnets and negatively impacting existing players from their best position.

The process this all followed is not a good one.
Which is ok, clubs can make mistakes, the defending of the mistake as not a big deal or that it isn't/wasn't an error is the frustrating part.
 
Last edited:
Mercurial89 said:
Ball use.
The process of letting AFL talent leave for nothing, especially one that has a skill that only 2-3 players on our list have.
To then take one of our better players out of position to take his kicking skills (which aren't THAT good, it's his vision that's his real weapon, but that's another debate) into that area of the ground excusing his defensive liabilities.
Strengthening a competitor, losing AFL talent when we are supposed to be building it, moving magnets and negatively impacting existing players from their best position.

The process this all followed is not a good one.
Which is ok, clubs can make mistakes, the defending of the mistake as not a big deal or that it isn't/wasn't an error is the frustrating part.
Click to expand...
Ability aside if we where to keep Mass based on what he is doing now then we would be playing him on a wing with a different game plan and Martin would not be at half back anyway. I can understand the different opinion but Mass is not playing half back so using Martin at half back is not the argument. That is a separate issue.
 
You don't throw away players with Massimo's skillset. He was never just a loose checking half back. Half the players in the competition are playing different roles week to week but we couldn't use a little foresight with one of the best kicks in the competition. Absolute inditement on everyone involved in this decision.
 
Red Black and Blue said:
You don't throw away players with Massimo's skillset. He was never just a loose checking half back. Half the players in the competition are playing different roles week to week but we couldn't use a little foresight with one of the best kicks in the competition. Absolute inditement on everyone involved in this decision.
Click to expand...
Bang on, anyone who can't see this is being deliberately obtuse.
 
Red Black and Blue said:
You don't throw away players with Massimo's skillset. He was never just a loose checking half back. Half the players in the competition are playing different roles week to week but we couldn't use a little foresight with one of the best kicks in the competition. Absolute inditement on everyone involved in this decision.
Click to expand...
It was clear the other night we had the grunt but lacked classy use and composure. He definitely has the former and I do believe the latter (he has that confidence, and kicked that goal from near the boundary to win us the North match). Now we have to try find someone else who is a silky user to go the next step.
 
Reader mode
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

Duckworth
Delisted #38: Rhett Montgomerie - Not offered a contract for 2024 - 28/8
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
196
Views
20K
Zach Package
Zach Package

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top