An Injury FREE fully fit Hawthorn team

[Strapping Young Lad]

Yeah I'm in denial for thinking that a team that finished ninth is not a top four side.

I'm terrified that Essendon might not be able to handle a side we battered twice in the season......

Obviously.

 

[The House]

Good to see you agree with me.

Yes, and since you say my point of view lacks credibility, and you now agree, where does that leave your point of view?

 

[The House]

I should given up on this thread alot earlier, but it intrigues me as to why are a bunch of Essendon supporters are so keen on arguing that Hawthorn will be no good in 2010?

We're not arguing that at all.
You seem to have missed the point etirely...i'm embarassed for both of us.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

Can't believe this thread is still going.

Hawks fully fit without Burgoyne have a top 4 midfield.
Hawks with Burgoyne have equal best midfield in the league - no questions.

A forward line with Roughead, Franklin and Rioli is pretty damn good. Geelong is probably the only other forward line with that much talent.

Backline needs some work, but from 2008 we've got Croad out, Gibson and Schoenmakers (Kept a few forwards goalless in 2009, not bad considering the number of inside 50s we conceeded) in.

The real benefit will be having a team that is fit enough to implement the gameplan that saw side average just 42 inside fifties per match against us during 2008.

You essendon fans need to relax. It's a simple equation - with less injuries (which is pretty much a given considering things just couldn't get worse) more pre-season fitness into our crew (tick) and the additions of Burgoyne and Gibson we'll be a much better side than the one that JUUUUSSSSST missed out on the finals.

Why is this so hard for people to comprehend?

 

[The House]

Can't believe this thread is still going.

Hawks fully fit without Burgoyne have a top 4 midfield.
Hawks with Burgoyne have equal best midfield in the league - no questions.

A forward line with Roughead, Franklin and Rioli is pretty damn good. Geelong is probably the only other forward line with that much talent.

Backline needs some work, but from 2008 we've got Croad out, Gibson and Schoenmakers (Kept a few forwards goalless in 2009, not bad considering the number of inside 50s we conceeded) in.

The real benefit will be having a team that is fit enough to implement the gameplan that saw side average just 42 inside fifties per match against us during 2008.

You essendon fans need to relax. It's a simple equation - with less injuries (which is pretty much a given considering things just couldn't get worse) more pre-season fitness into our crew (tick) and the additions of Burgoyne and Gibson we'll be a much better side than the one that JUUUUSSSSST missed out on the finals.

Why is this so hard for people to comprehend?

JUUUUUSSST??? You were a game and a half out from a finals series that only required 10.5 wins as entry yeah?
Just checking...

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

No we were a disgusting act from an over-the-hill thug from playing finals.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Yes, and since you say my point of view lacks credibility, and you now agree, where does that leave your point of view?

Ok, I admit it, I only said I agreed with you to shut you up.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

JUUUUUSSST??? You were a game and a half out from a finals series that only required 10.5 wins as entry yeah?
Just checking...

JUUUUUSSSSST is another way of saying: would have made the finals if it were not for an illegal game-changing cheap shot. We had you guys on toast up to that point.

But yeah, FYI 9th comes just after 8th, which means it's as close to making finals as you can get, without actually making finals.

 

[Slattery_20]

Had us on toast? Nice re-write.
There was nothing in it.

 

[cs61]

Reminds me of North supporters after 2007 these Bomber fans on bigfooty.

We have bigger fish to fry than just scraping in to the finals these next 3-4 years I'm afraid.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

Had us on toast? Nice re-write.
There was nothing in it.

4 goals up at half time = nothing in it?

You idiot. You were getting whacked and needed a momentum shift.

Sewell gets knocked out and all of a sudden Essendon win the quarter 5 goals to 3?

now which part of that is incorrect?

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Like moths to a flame.

Guys, just sign up already. No other clubs supporters care so much.
http://membership.hawthornfc.com.au/

Not that we really need you, I mean 35,000 members and counting...before Christmas, woah!

 

[The House]

No we were a disgusting act from an over-the-hill thug from playing finals.

Please, you're not going back over that again are you?
Your club and supporters have caused themselves enough embarassment over that i'd suggest.

Hawthorn post round 21 - "the bump is dead. The afl are killing it. It's not fair. You can't even hip and shoulder anymore. Just because he got knocked out....poor us, wah, wah, wah."

Hawthorn post round 22 - "Give Lloyd 6. He's a sniper. That bump is discusting. We would've won if it wasn't for the bump. Wah, wah, wah."


Spare me.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Reminds me of North supporters after 2007 these Bomber fans on bigfooty.

We have bigger fish to fry than just scraping in to the finals these next 3-4 years I'm afraid.

You're absolutely, positively right there Schreuders, as usual.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

One of Hawthorn's major issues in '09 was that you had so many players with seriously interrupted pre-seasons. If you have pretty-well a full list doing a full pre-season then your best 22 is going to be up their with anyone else's.

I agree with other posters that your depth seems to be lacking somewhat, although I can't say i have seen a huge amount of Hawthorn's 2nds this year either.

A few question marks over your defence and poor ruck stocks are concerns. Will be interesting to see what your coaching staff come up with this year as well. Your game plan in 08 was one of the reasons you won the flag, yet teams seem to have worked out how to beat it now (except for Collingwood).

Wouldn't be surprised if Hawthorn finished anywhere between 3rd-8th.

Good post in the main, however the following "Hawthorn 2nds" played this year: (bolded were "ready" for AFL football in 09)

Round 1 (8): Murphy, Taylor, Renouf, Schoenmakers, Whitecross, Tuck, Stokes, Suckling
Round 2 (9): Murphy, Renouf, Schoenmakers, Whitecross, Stokes, Kennedy, Morton, Moss, Thorp
Round 3 (8): Murphy, Renouf, Schoenmakers, Whitecross, Stokes, Morton, Moss, Tuck
Round 4 (8): Murphy, Renouf, Whitecross, Stokes, Morton, Moss, Taylor, Dowler
Round 5 (9): Murphy, Renouf, Whitecross, Stokes, Morton, Moss, Taylor, Dowler, Tuck
Round 6 (8): Murphy, Renouf, Whitecross, Morton, Moss, Taylor, Dowler, Tuck
Round 7 (8): Murphy, Whitecross, Moss, Taylor, Dowler, Tuck, Stokes, McGlynn
Round 8 (8): Murphy, Whitecross, Moss, Taylor, Dowler, Tuck, McGlynn, Morton
Round 9 (9): Murphy, Whitecross, Moss, Taylor, Dowler, McGlynn, Morton, Stokes, Muston
Round 10 (7): Murphy, Whitecross, Taylor, McGlynn, Morton, Muston, Shiels
Round 11 (7): Taylor, McGlynn, Muston, Shiels, Tuck, Renouf, Schoenmakers
Round 12 (7): Taylor, McGlynn, Muston, Tuck, Renouf, Schoenmakers, Murphy
Round 13 (7): Taylor, McGlynn, Muston, Schoenmakers, Murphy, Whitecross, Stokes
Round 14 (7): Taylor, McGlynn, Murphy, Stokes, Shiels, Dowler, Kennedy
Round 15 (6): Taylor, McGlynn, Murphy, Shiels, Dowler, Kennedy
Round 16 (8): Taylor, McGlynn, Murphy, Shiels, Dowler, Kennedy, Schoenmakers, Renouf
Round 17 (8): Taylor, McGlynn, Murphy, Shiels, Dowler, Kennedy, Schoenmakers, Renouf
Round 18 (9): Taylor, McGlynn, Murphy, Shiels, Kennedy, Schoenmakers, Renouf, Stokes, Whitecross
Round 19 (10): Taylor, McGlynn, Murphy, Shiels, Kennedy, Schoenmakers, Renouf, Whitecross, Dowler, Tuck
Round 20 (10): Taylor, McGlynn, Shiels, Kennedy, Schoenmakers, Renouf, Tuck, Muston, Morton, Savage
Round 21 (10): McGlynn, Shiels, Kennedy, Schoenmakers, Renouf, Tuck, Muston, Savage, Milne, Dowler
Round 22 (11): McGlynn, Shiels, Kennedy, Schoenmakers, Renouf, Muston, Savage, Milne, Dowler, Murphy, Moss

...........................................

178 games missed by 1st 22 players, or 8 players a game.

Poor run (ala Geelong 09, Hawthorn 08) is 4.5 each week.
Great run (ala Saints 09) is 2.5 each week.
League Average is about 3.5 each week.

52 of those were played by "mature" players, so we were "carrying" 126 or close enough to 6 players a week who weren't 'ready' for AFL football. Most clubs carry 2-4 players depending on where they are in their premiership cycle.

That's only looking at the best 22 allready missing, not thinking about players injured during games (31), playing injured (Mitchell, Bateman, Brown, Franklin), lacking fitness due to pre-season injuries (Hodge, Guerra, Gilham, kids, etc), or even those kids allready in the 22 due to talent, that are yet to develop fully.

From a statistics point of view, 2009 is such a massive outlier to any other team in recent history as to be ignored, so the previous injury performance (08) being set as the base, with improvement to come from there.

 

[cs61]

Please, you're not going back over that again are you?
Your club and supporters have caused themselves enough embarassment over that i'd suggest.

Hawthorn post round 21 - "the bump is dead. The afl are killing it. It's not fair. You can't even hip and shoulder anymore. Just because he got knocked out....poor us, wah, wah, wah."

Hawthorn post round 22 - "Give Lloyd 6. He's a sniper. That bump is discusting. We would've won if it wasn't for the bump. Wah, wah, wah."


Spare me.

One had their head over the ball and the other was standing up in play trying to dodge past the defenders.

How someone can't see the difference between a spear tackle, and a normal tackle, is beyond me.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Please, you're not going back over that again are you?
Your club and supporters have caused themselves enough embarassment over that i'd suggest.

Hawthorn post round 21 - "the bump is dead. The afl are killing it. It's not fair. You can't even hip and shoulder anymore. Just because he got knocked out....poor us, wah, wah, wah."

Hawthorn post round 22 - "Give Lloyd 6. He's a sniper. That bump is discusting. We would've won if it wasn't for the bump. Wah, wah, wah."


Spare me.

Don't watch football much?

Franklin had his feet planted, and was down low - in fact his shoulder was what did the damage, as Cousins "whiplashed" forward after being hit in the CHEST. Cousins changes direction, lowers head, slips and causes the impact to be high. Franklin did absolutely nothing wrong, in fact did very well to get as low as he did, tucked in and protected. Simple body-mass and Cousins' momentum caused the injury.

Lloyd runs in and deliberately takes out a bloke from front on who had his head over the ball, collecting him on the TOP of his head. Lloyd's hit has NEVER been legal, and was incredibly dangerous (neck compression). Franklin's hit has ALWAYS been legal, and there is little if any danger unless something goes wrong (like Cousins slipping).

 

[Leather Poisoning]

Please, you're not going back over that again are you?
Your club and supporters have caused themselves enough embarassment over that i'd suggest.

Hawthorn post round 21 - "the bump is dead. The afl are killing it. It's not fair. You can't even hip and shoulder anymore. Just because he got knocked out....poor us, wah, wah, wah."

Hawthorn post round 22 - "Give Lloyd 6. He's a sniper. That bump is discusting. We would've won if it wasn't for the bump. Wah, wah, wah."


Spare me.

Basically you're an idiot if you think the two situations are the same, which you appear to. Franklin didn't have to assert himself cowardly on a match because he was getting thrashed by a first year player. But let's move onto something more relevent before this thread derails.

Secondly, this is a thread about injury FREE and fully fit Hawthorn team. Lloyd saw to it that one of our injury FREE and fully fit players was no longer injury FREE and fully fit - so it has relevence here, Buddy's bump doesn't.

 

[The House]

Don't watch football much?

Franklin had his feet planted, and was down low - in fact his shoulder was what did the damage, as Cousins "whiplashed" forward after being hit in the CHEST. Cousins changes direction, lowers head, slips and causes the impact to be high. Franklin did absolutely nothing wrong, in fact did very well to get as low as he did, tucked in and protected. Simple body-mass and Cousins' momentum caused the injury.

Lloyd runs in and deliberately takes out a bloke from front on who had his head over the ball, collecting him on the TOP of his head. Lloyd's hit has NEVER been legal, and was incredibly dangerous (neck compression). Franklin's hit has ALWAYS been legal, and there is little if any danger unless something goes wrong (like Cousins slipping).

Oh, i see. Unlucky.

Franklin ran in, smashed him in the head with his shoulder, knocked Ben Cousins completely unconcious...but that's okay.
Lloyd runs in, smashes him in the head with his shoulder, knocks Sewell completely unconcious...but that's evil.

As Hamilton said - apalling double standards.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

I stand by my opening sentence you quoted.

In the interests of this thread, perhaps you should head towards Bay 13....it's down there somewhere vvvvvvv

 

[The House]

Basically you're an idiot if you think the two situations are the same, which you appear to. Franklin didn't have to assert himself cowardly on a match because he was getting thrashed by a first year player. But let's move onto something more relevent before this thread derails.

Secondly, this is a thread about injury FREE and fully fit Hawthorn team. Lloyd saw to it that one of our injury FREE and fully fit players was no longer injury FREE and fully fit - so it has relevence here, Buddy's bump doesn't.

No 2 situations are exactly the same...i would have thought that was a given. But there are similar situations on the field all the time.
The Buddy bump is entirely relevant when looking at this, in that it relates directly to how bias some of the opinions being put forward are. An objective point of view seems to elude a few of the Hawthorn posters here, but i guess that's your parogative.

 

[Slattery_20]

Well I guess it's lucky no Hawks player has every been rubbed out for anything.

Jeez, hold onto a grudge much you two? Must be lonely in that ivory tower.

 

[eldorado]

Well I guess it's lucky no Hawks player has every been rubbed out for anything.

.

No one is saying that.

Those previous posts are all in response to an assertion that Franklin's hit on Cousins and Lloyd on Sewell were pretty much the same, and that if we wanted Franklin off we should also have wanted Lloyd off too.

Which is a debate best left for non-Hawthorn and non-Essendon supporters, but I would be amazed if impartial observers would see them that way.

 

[Dave06]

Yes you did. Players that would not have been in the starting 22.

Suckling
Tuck
Moss
Whitecross
Stokes
Shiels
Schoenmakers
Morton
Savage
McGlynn
Kennedy
Muston
Dowler
Bailey
Milne

probably add Taylor as well which might be an issue next year.

McGlynn, now gone and Taylor and Murphy were on the fringe of our best 22. The upside is we have seen that Bailey, Schoenmakers, Savage, Shiels, Moss and Whitecross should be long term players. Only Bailey and Moss had had a game prior to the season starting.

In which case your depth IS lacking.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

No 2 situations are exactly the same...i would have thought that was a given. But there are similar situations on the field all the time.
The Buddy bump is entirely relevant when looking at this, in that it relates directly to how bias some of the opinions being put forward are. An objective point of view seems to elude a few of the Hawthorn posters here, but i guess that's your parogative.

Lloyd has said a number of times since the bump that he wanted to assert his influence on the contest. That is the difference. Premeditated attempt to involve himself in the contest and impart some physicality.

Franklins was a split second decision, in play, with a player trying to get around him.
The only thing that makes them similar is that contact was made between two players.