Jack Ginnivan - Redemption arc

[Iago]

At 21, Ginnivan is rightly considered a very young player. He is a young adult in a societal context, a young player in an AFL context, and very young relative to the age of Ken Hinkley.

Is he though, he's been in the system long enough. 65 games, the first of which was in 2021, entering a professional club from November 2020. On a good enough wage to expect a lot from him.

 

[WesternSydneyHawk]

Is he though, he's been in the system long enough. 65 games, the first of which was in 2021, entering a professional club from November 2020. On a good enough wage to expect a lot from him.

The average age for AFL players in 2024 was 25.5 years old.

The average age for Hawthorn players, considered a young list, was 24.7.

The average age for North players, the youngest list in the competition, was 23.9.

Source: https://afltables.com/afl/stats/ages.html

At 21, Jack Ginnivan is nearly 3 years younger than the average age of the youngest list of the competition. He is nearly 4 years younger than the average age at Hawthorn and 4.5 years younger than the average age for the competition.

It's reasonable to describe him as a very young player.

And given Ken Hinkley is 57, it's definitely reasonable to say Ken Hinkley is "much older" or that Jack us "very young" relative to Ken Hinkley.

 

[Cdog71]

So we've now gone from attacking Sam Mitchell for things he never said to attacking him for what opposition supporters think he might have been thinking.

How utterly absurd!

Look, clearly Sam's intent was to talk about the main thing that he spoke about, which was to praise the leader's James Sicily showed.

In making this point, he gave a non-core once-sentence description of the incident in question.

Most of it was objectively true (a 21-year-old is relatively very young compared to 57-year-old), along with a subjective analysis of the nature of what was said to Ginnivan ("very aggressive").

That's it.

There was no lengthy diatribe where Sam Mitchell claimed Ginnivan was an innocent victim or any such nonsense, as opposition supporters have falsely claimed.

In fact, you can leave that sentence out of what Sam Mitchell said, and (other than needing to clarify who he meant by him) the core message remains unchanged:

I can only speak on my club's behalf. And if I think about how my club, the Hawthorn Football Club, dealt with the post game: ... The captain of my club stood up for [a teammate].

Now I understand, just having been rushed by the AFL to be at this press conference on time, of this time of year are really, really difficult.

And I'm really proud of our captain, who would have been just as emotional, to stand up and lead in a way he can be proud of.

So clearly, what we have here is just opposition supporters parroting a media narrative, getting angry over things Sam objectively never said, or claiming to have the clairvoyant skills to have uncovered a thought they disagree with.

There was also no mention of Breust and his milestone or any acknowledgment of the quality of opposition and how well they played.
Zero

He talked about himself and he talked about how Sicily “showed leadership he can be proud of”
What Sicily did was continue it on into the guard of honour for Bruest and nearly dropped him because he wanted to keep at it.

 

[peternorth]

I wonder what Hawthorn supporters would think of Ginnivan if he was still a Collingwood player and this happened......

Opinions and roles are reversed.

21-23 collingwood fans loved him. hawthorn fans detested his ducking
24 collingwood detest his ducking. hawthorn fans love him

 

[windyhill]

Opinions and roles are reversed.

21-23 collingwood fans loved him. hawthorn fans detested his ducking
24 collingwood detest his ducking. hawthorn fans love him

Sums it up. He’s a little turd, let’s face it, if he played for Essendon, we’d love him. Come on hawk fans let’s get real here.

 

[RCAB]

There was also no mention of Breust and his milestone or any acknowledgment of the quality of opposition and how well they played.
Zero

He talked about himself and he talked about how Sicily “showed leadership he can be proud of”
What Sicily did was continue it on into the guard of honour for Bruest and nearly dropped him because he wanted to keep at it.

He didn't talk about Breust because he wasn't asked, unlike the love-fest for Dusty.

I wonder why the reporters were asking different questions on Friday, but Mitchell was able to talk about Dusty in his 300th? Hmm? Have any idea?

 

[Wojcinski]

it's kinda funny that Ginnivan comes out of this whole situation the best since he didn't really react to Hinkley and instead Mitchell and Sicily come out looking like emotional crybabies

 

[LuvtheKangas]

it's kinda funny that Ginnivan comes out of this whole situation the best since he didn't really react to Hinkley and instead Mitchell and Sicily come out looking like emotional crybabies

True, but that's not the main point here.

The main point is that 57 is objectively a bigger number than 21. I've read it here numerous times. It's compelling stuff, isn't it? I'm thinking of taking time off work tomorrow to ponder its ramifications.

But back to your point, it's only correct if you add Hodge and Lewis to the crybabies list.

 

[z547043]

So we've now gone from attacking Sam Mitchell for things he never said to attacking him for what opposition supporters think he might have been thinking.

How utterly absurd!

Look, clearly Sam's intent was to talk about the main thing that he spoke about, which was to praise the leader's James Sicily showed.

In making this point, he gave a non-core once-sentence description of the incident in question.

Most of it was objectively true (a 21-year-old is relatively very young compared to 57-year-old), along with a subjective analysis of the nature of what was said to Ginnivan ("very aggressive").

That's it.

There was no lengthy diatribe where Sam Mitchell claimed Ginnivan was an innocent victim or any such nonsense, as opposition supporters have falsely claimed.

In fact, you can leave that sentence out of what Sam Mitchell said, and (other than needing to clarify who he meant by him) the core message remains unchanged:

I can only speak on my club's behalf. And if I think about how my club, the Hawthorn Football Club, dealt with the post game: ... The captain of my club stood up for [a teammate].

Now I understand, just having been rushed by the AFL to be at this press conference on time, of this time of year are really, really difficult.

And I'm really proud of our captain, who would have been just as emotional, to stand up and lead in a way he can be proud of.

So clearly, what we have here is just opposition supporters parroting a media narrative, getting angry over things Sam objectively never said, or claiming to have the clairvoyant skills to have uncovered a thought they disagree with.

I think we will agree to disagree, but in regard to your theory about how the media has twisted the commentary here.

I want to clarify that I watched the post game and PC directly after the game. I was amazed at the narrative that first Hodge outlined in commentary surrounding the incident, but more so Jordan Lewis who seemed really wound up about it and at complete odds with the Fox Footy panel. To label it embarrassing, attempt to connect it to Breust’s 300th chairing was an exaggeration at best and giving it far more oxygen than it deserved.

Then I was also incredulous at Sam Mitchell’s choice of words, after

a) choosing not to pour water over it pre-game and instead giving gen y and z’ers an explanation as to how millennials communicate, while ignoring the fact his player was showing disrespect to an upcoming opponent

b) then after knowing all this and seeing the incident, choosing to describe said player as young and Ken action’s as very aggressive.

Knowing these three guys and how ruthless and hard-nosed they played the game, I simply found their commentary incongruous with how they conducted their AFL careers and hypocritical.

 

[Doc1763]

Opinions and roles are reversed.

21-23 collingwood fans loved him. hawthorn fans detested his ducking
24 collingwood detest his ducking. hawthorn fans love him

The love affair had started to go cold in 2023, and his performance in the Grand Final after going out the night before was the beginning of the end.
Sooner or later, Hawthorn fans will also tire of his antics and the distraction he brings.

 

[sr36]

There was also no mention of Breust and his milestone or any acknowledgment of the quality of opposition and how well they played.
Zero

He talked about himself and he talked about how Sicily “showed leadership he can be proud of”
What Sicily did was continue it on into the guard of honour for Bruest and nearly dropped him because he wanted to keep at it.

Absolutely. AFL carry on about the message being sent out.

AFL fine Kenny as they're worried about the message sent out - a light hearted smartarse quip.

Meanwhile captain loses the plot and can't control his emotions and the message sent out by coach and captain is that it was great leadership. Sicily losing the plot, yelling what looked like campaigner multiple times and being restrained by teammates whilst supposedly honouring a champion of his club. Not just excused or ignored, but promoted as great leadership ...

Strange AFL world we're in.

 

[WesternSydneyHawk]

There was also no mention of Breust and his milestone or any acknowledgment of the quality of opposition and how well they played.
Zero

Sam Mitchell, in that press conference, in that video I posted at 3:30

"It was a close game. We didn't control much of the game, they controlled territory ... The technical, tactical aspects of tonight's game, we found a way, we gave ourselves chanced to win against odds, and a lot of the game was on their terms."

That sounds like an acknowledgement of how Port Adelaide played well.

At 8:30

"It was nice of Port Adelaide to respect him and line up.

"But I think everyone looks up to Luke, and the players who were chairing him off, we have an enormous amount of pride and we're so privileged that he's been such a part of the Hawthorn Football Club. And on a personal level, to have spent such a big amount of time with him over his journey, I'm enormously proud at what he's been able to achieve. And he's going on next year so there'll be plenty more games for him to get that one back."

Clearly, you didn't watch the press conference.

I can tell, because if you had, you would have known that Sam spoke at length about Luke, and explicitly acknowledged things that Port did well during the match.

Your comment further proves the point I made earlier.

There's a lot of opposition supporters who have seen the confected outrage in the media.

They've seen just a couple of out of context clips of a nine-minute press conference.

Or they've read other opposition comments on BigFooty.

And they're attacking Sam for things he didn't say, or for "what he was thinking", or now for things they didn't realise that he did say.

 

[sr36]

True, but that's not the main point here.

The main point is that 57 is objectively a bigger number than 21. I've read it here numerous times. It's compelling stuff, isn't it? I'm thinking of taking time off work tomorrow to ponder its ramifications.

But back to your point, it's only correct if you add Hodge and Lewis to the crybabies list.

Even Dermie joined in the pearl clutching over a smartarse quip. Those 3 - unsociable football, standing on heads - giving a lecture series on etiquette. It's the ugly Aussie cricketers lecturing other countries about the spirit of cricket all over again.

 

[Cdog71]

Sam Mitchell, in that press conference, in that video I posted at 3:30

"It was a close game. We didn't control much of the game, they controlled territory ... The technical, tactical aspects of tonight's game, we found a way, we gave ourselves chanced to win against odds, and a lot of the game was on their terms."

That sounds like an acknowledgement of how Port Adelaide played well.

At 8:30

"It was nice of Port Adelaide to respect him and line up.

"But I think everyone looks up to Luke, and the players who were chairing him off, we have an enormous amount of pride and we're so privileged that he's been such a part of the Hawthorn Football Club. And on a personal level, to have spent such a big amount of time with him over his journey, I'm enormously proud at what he's been able to achieve. And he's going on next year so there'll be plenty more games for him to get that one back."

Clearly, you didn't watch the press conference.

I can tell, because if you had, you would have known that Sam spoke at length about Luke, and explicitly acknowledged things that Port did well during the match.

Your comment further proves the point I made earlier.

There's a lot of opposition supporters who have seen the confected outrage in the media.

They've seen just a couple of out of context clips of a nine-minute press conference.

Or they've read other opposition comments on BigFooty.

And they're attacking Sam for things he didn't say, or for "what he was thinking", or now for things they didn't realise that he did say.

Ok
I concede I was wrong about him not celebrating Bruests 300.
I’m glad a champ of the game was acknowledged.
I’m not going to keep going on about it but IMO I don’t think he gave credit to Port for the way they played and what you posted doesn’t change my view on that.
IMO I dont recognise Sicily’s behaviour as Leadership to be proud of.

 

[Scritchyscroony]

So we've now gone from attacking Sam Mitchell for things he never said to attacking him for what opposition supporters think he might have been thinking.

How utterly absurd!

Look, clearly Sam's intent was to talk about the main thing that he spoke about, which was to praise the leader's James Sicily showed.

In making this point, he gave a non-core once-sentence description of the incident in question.

Most of it was objectively true (a 21-year-old is relatively very young compared to 57-year-old), along with a subjective analysis of the nature of what was said to Ginnivan ("very aggressive").

That's it.

There was no lengthy diatribe where Sam Mitchell claimed Ginnivan was an innocent victim or any such nonsense, as opposition supporters have falsely claimed.

In fact, you can leave that sentence out of what Sam Mitchell said, and (other than needing to clarify who he meant by him) the core message remains unchanged:

I can only speak on my club's behalf. And if I think about how my club, the Hawthorn Football Club, dealt with the post game: ... The captain of my club stood up for [a teammate].

Now I understand, just having been rushed by the AFL to be at this press conference on time, of this time of year are really, really difficult.

And I'm really proud of our captain, who would have been just as emotional, to stand up and lead in a way he can be proud of.

So clearly, what we have here is just opposition supporters parroting a media narrative, getting angry over things Sam objectively never said, or claiming to have the clairvoyant skills to have uncovered a thought they disagree with.

You miss comprehended what I was saying and now you are writing some thesis to divert from that fact. Could have just manned up and said "my bad".

I get that you are yet another arse sore Hawks supporter with zero ability to be objective or intelligent in your appraisal of the matter. But for those of us with no skin in it, it was just funny to see how these supposed grown ups acted. Ginnivan was the most mature and unfazed of the lot of them.
I've said my piece on the whole juvenile saga and the completely embarrassing and weird way Mitchell responded to it. It's no big deal in most people's views. A bit of drama. It's just Hawk weirdos like you who are taking it really seriously and getting all worked up about it and think it was anything other than stupidity all round!
For Mitchell to say "absolutely not" when asked if he'd talk to Hinkley about it was also highly juvenile imo. Petulant and childish emotive responses aren't what you want from leaders. If you have an issue with someone then talk to them about it and let them know how you feel. It's the adult thing to do. But not if your the Hawks coach apparently.

Sicily made his point as was his right but then he continued to carry on and took it way too far. The way he continued mouthing off at Hinkley EVEN as Bruest was on his shoulders being chaired off was very poor and incredibly selfish to ruin Bruest's moment. Everyone knows Sicily has anger issues and in that moment he showed he didn't have enough class or self control to put his mate first in his 300th.
If you, your fellow supporters and your coach think that was a good example of leadership then it speaks volumes about you and your clubs private schoolboy culture...

 

[RCAB]

You miss comprehended what I was saying and now you are writing some thesis to divert from that fact. Could have just manned up and said "my bad".

I get that you are yet another arse sore Hawks supporter with zero ability to be objective or intelligent in your appraisal of the matter. But for those of us with no skin in it, it was just funny to see how these supposed grown ups acted. Ginnivan was the most mature and unfazed of the lot of them.
I've said my piece on the whole juvenile saga and the completely embarrassing and weird way Mitchell responded to it. It's no big deal in most people's views. A bit of drama. It's just Hawk weirdos like you who are taking it really seriously and getting all worked up about it and think it was anything other than stupidity all round!
For Mitchell to say "absolutely not" when asked if he'd talk to Hinkley about it was also highly juvenile imo. Petulant and childish emotive responses aren't what you want from leaders. If you have an issue with someone then talk to them about it and let them know how you feel. It's the adult thing to do. But not if your the Hawks coach apparently.

Sicily made his point as was his right but then he continued to carry on and took it way too far. The way he continued mouthing off at Hinkley EVEN as Bruest was on his shoulders being chaired off was very poor and incredibly selfish to ruin Bruest's moment. Everyone knows Sicily has anger issues and in that moment he showed he didn't have enough class or self control to put his mate first in his 300th.
If you, your fellow supporters and your coach think that was a good example of leadership then it speaks volumes about you and your clubs private schoolboy culture...

Obviously not, Ken went up to him after the game and rubbed it in more. It's amazing you think this is good behaviour.

Anyway, I'm going to enjoy smashing Port from now on, and all the opposition salty tears. It's dripping from your post.

 

[Royalbeagle]

As a West Coast supporter, I thought Ken Hinkley showed his personality the other night and it was a breath of fresh air. I thought the behaviors of the Hawthorn players and the media was ridiculous. As for the WokeFL, well, say no more. Anyway, I’m barracking for Port for the rest of this year and hope they can go all the way.

 

[sr36]

Obviously not, Ken went up to him after the game and rubbed it in more. It's amazing you think this is good behaviour.

Anyway, I'm going to enjoy smashing Port from now on, and all the opposition salty tears. It's dripping from your post.

Ken was being a smartarse. A bit similar to most of Hawthorn's goal celebrations this year.

Do you think Hawks should be talking up Sicily's reaction and talking aobut being proud of his leadership? Bizarre if you ask me.

 

[Scritchyscroony]

Obviously not, Ken went up to him after the game and rubbed it in more. It's amazing you think this is good behaviour.

Anyway, I'm going to enjoy smashing Port from now on, and all the opposition salty tears. It's dripping from your post.

When did I say or indicate that I think Hinkley displayed "good behaviour"? I said just the opposite!

I'm not salty in the slightest about the Hawks. I've always had a ton of respect for Hawks but the way you've sooked it up over this has diminished it somewhat.

If it adds a real sense of rivalry to Hawk/Port games in the future then that's a win for the sport.

 

[Cyclops]

Obviously not, Ken went up to him after the game and rubbed it more. It's amazing you think this good behaviour.

Anyway, I'm going to enjoy smashing Port from now on, and all the opposition salty tears. It's dripping from your post.

If the Hawks wanna wring that motivation out of all this fair play to them.

Jack did nothing wrong, just some internet banter. People misunderstand him, he's not nasty in the slightest. Occasionally silly, misses the subtext.

Ken has NFI what Jack is about, used the comment as if it was evidence of WMDs and them dunked on him gently after match. I say gently because if Jack meant to be arrogantly disrespectful he deserved to be steamrolled: fact is he didn't and he wasn't.

Given Sicily has been a massive sook in the past his idiotic over reaction is probably evidence he is improving ad a person. Still a wringer like Hodge, and especially Lewis who is wearing the clown shoes this week.

Sicilys game, especially his last quarter was brilliant, came within a whisker (width of a goalpost s our Hawk friends keep saying), he was massive and mature.

Breusts send off wasn't spoiled by anyone, not even Sicilys verbal flux.

Looking over some sensible Hawk posts it's fair to say he was ambushed a bit and tried to stick up for his overreacting captain. Still a bit sooky but on balance less so than our coach Fly getting sucked into 2hinging about umps.

Lay off Ginni boy, he's a good kid. Can't expect Ken or Mitchell to be anything but proud and competitive. Sicily will always be a sook. Jordan Lewis and his mates need to sell themselves as entertainment machines so they keep flapping their gums. Brereton I love but he's flying the flag here.

Honestly Jack doesn't need protection, he's a confident cheeky footballer.

 

[WesternSydneyHawk]

I think we will agree to disagree, but in regard to your theory about how the media has twisted the commentary here.

Both Nine and Fox Footy have run full segments of confected outrage.

They've shown grabs from the press conference where they only highlight the sentence about Ken Hinkley being older, which was a side point.

The main point Mitchell was clearly making about Sicily's leadership in the situation were left out.

These clips were out of the context of the press conference being immediately after a close finals loss and coming immediately after a question about said loss.

And there's been many opposition supporters in this thread who clearly haven't watched the full press conference.

They're parroting this media narrative and piling into Mitchell for:

a) Things he never said
b) What they think he was thinking
c) Things they didn't realise that he said.

I want to clarify that I watched the post game and PC directly after the game. I was amazed at the narrative that first Hodge outlined in commentary surrounding the incident, but more so Jordan Lewis who seemed really wound up about it and at complete odds with the Fox Footy panel. To label it embarrassing, attempt to connect it to Breust’s 300th chairing was an exaggeration at best and giving it far more oxygen than it deserved.

But Ken did say it immediately before Luke was going to be chaired off.

After the game was over.

Then I was also incredulous at Sam Mitchell’s choice of words, after

a) choosing not to pour water over it pre-game and instead giving gen y and z’ers an explanation as to how millennials communicate, while ignoring the fact his player was showing disrespect to an upcoming opponent

It was clearly pre-match banter.

Pre-match banter from a guy I think most people will acknowledge is an immature 21-year-old.

Ken Hinkley had plenty of opportunity to respond before or during the game, if he wanted.

That includes during the broadcast, when the Fox Footy commentary team explicitly asked him about Ginni's comments.

If Ken were a brave man who backed his team, he would have made his little Jack's not flying anywhere comments then.

But he knew it would be a tough game, and if he said it then and Port lost, it would absolutely be used against him.

He knew if he made his comment before or after the game and Port lost, Kane Cornes would be repeating the "Jack's not going anywhere" claim on Nine and the AFL website and on SEN.

So instead he batted away the question with a line about how Jack had given his team motivation.

He waited to deliver his pre-match banter after the game was over, because he's a coward.

And he made a fool of himself as a result.

b) then after knowing all this and seeing the incident, choosing to describe said player as young and Ken action’s as very aggressive.

Sam's comments were focused on praising James Sicily's leadership.

Knowing these three guys and how ruthless and hard-nosed they played the game, I simply found their commentary incongruous with how they conducted their AFL careers and hypocritical.

The operative phrase here is "played the game".

Yeah Dermis ran through an Essendon huddle and strutted like a rooster after a goal from time to time back in the day. While the game was still on.

But this time, the game was over. The players had shaken each other's hands and congratulated each other on a well-fought win.

They were all gathering to celebrate a milestone for a 300-game veteran.

That's when gutless Ken finally built up the courage to share his pre-match banter with the world.

 

[OniAu]

Both Nine and Fox Footy have run full segments of confected outrage.

They've shown grabs from the press conference where they only highlight the sentence about Ken Hinkley being older, which was a side point.

The main point Mitchell was clearly making about Sicily's leadership in the situation were left out.

These clips were out of the context of the press conference being immediately after a close finals loss and coming immediately after a question about said loss.

And there's been many opposition supporters in this thread who clearly haven't watched the full press conference.

They're parroting this media narrative and piling into Mitchell for:

a) Things he never said
b) What they think he was thinking
c) Things they didn't realise that he said.


But Ken did say it immediately before Luke was going to be chaired off.

After the game was over.

It was clearly pre-match banter.

Pre-match banter from a guy I think most people will acknowledge is an immature 21-year-old.

Ken Hinkley had plenty of opportunity to respond before or during the game, if he wanted.

That includes during the broadcast, when the Fox Footy commentary team explicitly asked him about Ginni's comments.

If Ken were a brave man who backed his team, he would have made his little Jack's not flying anywhere comments then.

But he knew it would be a tough game, and if he said it then and Port lost, it would absolutely be used against him.

He knew if he made his comment before or after the game and Port lost, Kane Cornes would be repeating the "Jack's not going anywhere" claim on Nine and the AFL website and on SEN.

So instead he batted away the question with a line about how Jack had given his team motivation.

He waited to deliver his pre-match banter after the game was over, because he's a coward.

And he made a fool of himself as a result.

Sam's comments were focused on praising James Sicily's leadership.


The operative phrase here is "played the game".

Yeah Dermis ran through an Essendon huddle and strutted like a rooster after a goal from time to time back in the day. While the game was still on.

But this time, the game was over. The players had shaken each other's hands and congratulated each other on a well-fought win.

They were all gathering to celebrate a milestone for a 300-game veteran.

That's when gutless Ken finally built up the courage to share his pre-match banter with the world.

You need to give it a rest. When its all boiled down , Mitchell used certain words to enhance the situation to suit the Hawthorn narrative.

 

[Wojcinski]

True, but that's not the main point here.

The main point is that 57 is objectively a bigger number than 21. I've read it here numerous times. It's compelling stuff, isn't it? I'm thinking of taking time off work tomorrow to ponder its ramifications.

But back to your point, it's only correct if you add Hodge and Lewis to the crybabies list.

I do admire that Sam Mitchell attempted do go down the 'Demented vile old predator abuses naive innocent young man' path. A real character building press conference for Good Guy Sammy

 

[DopeMaster]

I do admire that Sam Mitchell attempted do go down the 'Demented vile old predator abuses naive innocent young man' path. A real character building press conference for Good Guy Sammy

‘Acquired taste Sammy’

 

[Pie eyed]

Maybe Ken can get Jack a PlayStation and they can all smile at a press conference and it will all be square.

Problem is not what was said, when or by who.
Ginni is a kid and Ken is a generation and a half older, minimum.

Both have the ability to laugh it off, should and probably will.
But neither will even remotely understand what they allegedly did wrong in the eyes of a media full of halfwits.

It's banter.


PS. No issue with Ginni leaving the Pies.
Life long Hawks supporter found his way there.
Living the dream.

Life's short do it properly.