-
AFLW 2024 - Round 4 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
How good is our list at the moment?
- Thread starter H2F
- Start date
- Tagged users None
With our best 22 on the park i couldn't find a spot for either player.
They were however 2 players who could step in and play a role if any of our midfielders got injured so they are a substantial loss to our depth but not our best 22.
I pretty much feel the same way.
Our ruck stocks are the worst in the league and if one of our rucks or a kpd goes down we are in real strife.
The midfield is top notch and our forward line is good enough to kick big scores.
True for McGlynn I think and while true for Kennedy for now, if he continues on the progress he made last year he'll be a in most teams 22.
Brant
Brownlow Medallist
Kinda hard to answer that one this early mate - a retrospective answer is possibly best.
Neither were in our best 22 and if they were integral to the club then we wouldn't have traded them (or at least demanded more for them.)
I guess another way to measure it is to look at who we got for them. In rating their loss it might be prudent to measure against what we gained in drafting (with the picks that we got for trading them).
I am sure someone can remember what picks we traded each for and can elighten the rest of us as to what we did with those picks.
* I think it is also important to note that both wanted trades from HFC as they didn't see themselves getting regular games with our current list. (or there abouts.)
Neither were in our best 22 and if they were integral to the club then we wouldn't have traded them (or at least demanded more for them.)
I guess another way to measure it is to look at who we got for them. In rating their loss it might be prudent to measure against what we gained in drafting (with the picks that we got for trading them).
I am sure someone can remember what picks we traded each for and can elighten the rest of us as to what we did with those picks.
* I think it is also important to note that both wanted trades from HFC as they didn't see themselves getting regular games with our current list. (or there abouts.)
Kennedys problem was that he is too similar a player to mitchell, sewell, lewis & hodge in terms of being a tough in & under player none of which have great leg speed.
You can only have a certain amount of those types in your team and he was always going to be behind those guys at hawthorn.
I'm with SA & C-L-A.
List is still pretty good, few weaker areas in the rucks and tall backs, look to have added some speed as well (replacing Crawf a year down the track), midfield still one of the best for ball-winning and using it. Depth is a bit weaker, pending on development of some of the younger guys like Shiels. End of the day, most of your list is proven to be as good as anyone.
I'll be more interested to see if the game plan is adjusted. 2008 everything worked. 2009 everything didn't work.
List is still pretty good, few weaker areas in the rucks and tall backs, look to have added some speed as well (replacing Crawf a year down the track), midfield still one of the best for ball-winning and using it. Depth is a bit weaker, pending on development of some of the younger guys like Shiels. End of the day, most of your list is proven to be as good as anyone.
I'll be more interested to see if the game plan is adjusted. 2008 everything worked. 2009 everything didn't work.
Strapping Young Lad
Moderator
- Apr 19, 2006
- 100,036
- 249,344
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Storm, Spurs, Socceroos
- Moderator
- #58
This point is continually brought up when discussing Hawthorns 2009.
"the cluster was broken-down", they say. Yet no one seems to make the connection between our revolving door of players coming in and out of the team and the output/implementation of the gameplan.
How does a motor work with a missing piston?
Our recruiting in 2009 to fill holes has been first class. The 2010 list is better than the 2009 list.
One measure of the strength of our list is the players we have let go. If we can afford to lose Williams, McGlynn and Kennedy then we are well placed.
One measure of the strength of our list is the players we have let go. If we can afford to lose Williams, McGlynn and Kennedy then we are well placed.
Exactly our defence was pretty much stuffed all year with Croad not coming up and Gilham going down. That was our main problem imo.
Also the losses of Young & Ladson robbed us of a lot of run out of defence and Birchall just had a shocking season.
Someone ban this prick please, sensible posts are stupid
A less sensible post. Is too narrow in it's thinking.
Starting at the forwards, neither Buddy or Roughie could dominate due to injury problems and supply issues.
Moving to the mids, Lewis was injured in the pre season and was behind the 8ball all season. So too Hodge. Taylor had a hip injury that would have crippled hin if he took another decent hit on it, Campbell was plauged by a career ending knee injury and was also required down back, Mitchell did his shoulder, Batemen was our only available line breaking runner and he was tagged heavily, Birch had to pinch hit all over the place and was never settled, Young was gone. Dew could not get fit, Boyle went down and so on.
The backs were never settled. We know about Croad and Gilham.
Goo carried injuries all season and eventually had to have his shoulder reconstructed, Ladson was amongst the missing all season, Murphy was asked to do what he was phiscally too small to do.
Apart from these 1st 22 players there were also injuries to other players on the list who might have been expected to fill roles. Moss, Morton, Stokes, Bailey, Lowden and others. They may never have been world beaters, but their absence meant injured players had to keep playing.
So the problen was not an issue of a limited few, but rather a whole of list problem that the club was never able to overcome.
grizzlym
Premium Platinum
The 'perfect storm', or more accurately, the 'bloody awful storm'.
Clarko initiated a fair few moves such as scragging the player who got rid of the footy to prevent them providing an overlap. That rule change hurt us.
The rest of the game plan was OK we just did not have the guys fit enough to run to the right spots.
Hungry Hawk
Club Legend
- Banned
- #64
I might be a little biased, but it appeared throughout theseason that the Hawks were being heavily scrutinised for "scragging" a little harder than that of other teams. Those downfield frees hurt and I never witnessed a free for us last year for such an indescretion.
On the engine theory, a motor without a piston still runs but it coughs and splutters (we played good footy at times), and uses more fuel (how many times last year did we stop in the last quarter) and blows a heap of exhaust (there was a whole lot of bitching and name calling on the hawks board in 09).
Here's to firing on all cylinders in 2010!
On the engine theory, a motor without a piston still runs but it coughs and splutters (we played good footy at times), and uses more fuel (how many times last year did we stop in the last quarter) and blows a heap of exhaust (there was a whole lot of bitching and name calling on the hawks board in 09).
Here's to firing on all cylinders in 2010!
Schoenmakers and Skipper (2010 cult hero) having big ones would be a great help
its an excellent question. I have read posts on other boards with some dismissing Hawthorn from premiership calculations on the grounds their gameplan has been "worked out".
This is somewhat simplistic and doesn't recognise the reality that Clarkson in all likelhood will be tinkering with his strategy. Still its a common call on the other boards
FWIW I reckon hawks have to be up there withe the stellar forward line and the quality midfield, but the real question mark with Croad down is the stability of the back 6. Reckon that group was a key reason for your flag in 08. Take that away and don't think hawks are the complete side they were 12 months ago.
Brant
Brownlow Medallist
My opinion is that the (in)effectiveness of the rolling zone in 2009 had very little to do with other teams and more to do with us.
I don't believe for a second that other teams worked it out more in 2009 than they did in 2008 - I see it more that we could not execute it nearly as effectively in 2009 as we did in 2008 - this primarily due to the (lack of) cattle we had on the park.
Get the full team (or even 90% of them) on the track 'game in - game out' and marvel at the revolution of the zone.
I don't believe for a second that other teams worked it out more in 2009 than they did in 2008 - I see it more that we could not execute it nearly as effectively in 2009 as we did in 2008 - this primarily due to the (lack of) cattle we had on the park.
Get the full team (or even 90% of them) on the track 'game in - game out' and marvel at the revolution of the zone.
Buddy Goes Bang
Team Captain
We barely zoned at all in the 2008 Grannie.
Our 2008 zone had more to do with minimising the miles that players ran throughout the season than it did with winning key matches.
IMO
Our 2008 zone had more to do with minimising the miles that players ran throughout the season than it did with winning key matches.
IMO
The gameplan didn't work with who you had in then. I don't think the zone will be as dominant (even at full strength) in 2010. Sides are recruiting pace, pace, pace to cut through zones/floods.
WeneedyoungJarmans
Senior List
- Jan 10, 2006
- 178
- 4
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Hawthorn
Those that followed the Hawks 2008 season closely and every game in person would know that the zone can only be implemented successfully with a close to best 22 line up. 2 or 3 missing players from best 22 is ok but as shown during mid / late 2008, with up to 7 injuries from the best 22, the zone breaks down. Tackling pressure, player positioning and phyisical presence play a key part in the zone.
If Hawthorn is able to implement the same strong hold zone it did during it's peak patches in 2008 and complement it with a direct counter attack, I think they'll be close to impossible to stop.
Those who followed 2009 closely would also know that the zone was barely ever implemented properly simply due to the number of key personnel missing from the best 22.
Experienced players are key to the zone. Physicaliy is very important to the zone's success. Losing Cambell, Williams, Croad, Crawford has been replaced with Hooper, Burgoyne, Gibson, JKT, Skipper.
Mature bodies, players with sufficient experience to understand and execute to instructions are what is needed.
Hawthorn is well positioned to implement a consistent zone again in 2009 but it can now afford to adapt a little more man on man that it could in the past now with a defence including Gibson and Shoenmakers.
If Hawthorn is able to implement the same strong hold zone it did during it's peak patches in 2008 and complement it with a direct counter attack, I think they'll be close to impossible to stop.
Those who followed 2009 closely would also know that the zone was barely ever implemented properly simply due to the number of key personnel missing from the best 22.
Experienced players are key to the zone. Physicaliy is very important to the zone's success. Losing Cambell, Williams, Croad, Crawford has been replaced with Hooper, Burgoyne, Gibson, JKT, Skipper.
Mature bodies, players with sufficient experience to understand and execute to instructions are what is needed.
Hawthorn is well positioned to implement a consistent zone again in 2009 but it can now afford to adapt a little more man on man that it could in the past now with a defence including Gibson and Shoenmakers.
