Richmond vs Hawthorn - all the stats

[Mitchell Madness]

Selective re-writing of history. Richmonds first 2 VFL premierships are no less valid just because Hawthorn were too crap to even win VFA premierships at the time. The official tally is 10 premierships to Richmond, 9 to Hawthorn.

I never disputed that. What i did dispute however was flogs like yourself using Flags as evidence of "superiority" to the Hawks, even though you have been in the league longer. In the same time, say it with me same time that both clubs have been in, hawthorn have more flags. Then other fans come in, and use the fact that we won more spoons... well concidering for a majority of our first 50 years in the VFL/AFL we struggled, 11 spoons isnt that bad of a return...

The fact is that Hawthorn were huge beneficiaries of the VFLs unbalanced zoning policy that directly lead to Hawthorns golden era from the 70s up to 91. Once the effects of zoning died out and the effects of the draft started to kick in, in the early-mid 90s, Hawthorn's success dried up. Almost the entire success Hawthorn has achieved in the VFL/AFL arises from one period when the recruiting rules were stacked heavily in their favour. In the periods before and since, they have achieved SFA. So it rings a little hollow to cry poor about no concessions in 1925, when there were few restrictions on how clubs could build a team.

hold on, selective re-wording of history..... yes, we benifited, but still, we had to go out and find the players! we had to make sure they stayed out on the park. I am sure every other club could have found a great bunch of players in thier own zone's if they actually tried!

 

[Frankston Rover]

The fact is that Hawthorn were huge beneficiaries of the VFLs unbalanced zoning policy that directly lead to Hawthorns golden era from the 70s up to 91. Once the effects of zoning died out and the effects of the draft started to kick in, in the early-mid 90s, Hawthorn's success dried up. Almost the entire success Hawthorn has achieved in the VFL/AFL arises from one period when the recruiting rules were stacked heavily in their favour. In the periods before and since, they have achieved SFA. So it rings a little hollow to cry poor about no concessions in 1925, when there were few restrictions on how clubs could build a team.

So John Platten, Jason Dunstall, Tony Hall, Darren Jarman were all from our 'zone' were they?

Oh, and guess who else had a 'zone' down the South Eastern suburbs - St.Kilda. How many flags did they win during the 70's and 80's?

Try again, blowhard.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

So John Platten, Jason Dunstall, Tony Hall, Darren Jarman were all from our 'zone' were they?

Oh, and guess who else had a 'zone' down the South Eastern suburbs - St.Kilda. How many flags did they win during the 70's and 80's?

Try again, blowhard.

Nice work Rover!

 

[_RT_]

Over 83 years, I'll take 11 early spoons for 9 late Premierships.

And, given Hawthorn had only 11 rivals for all their spoons, whereas you outdid 15 other teams to 'win' you spoon this season, that should count for 5.

And that is relevant in what way because according to you spoons don't count yet you feel the need to take a potshot about when we won our last spoon.

Finishing last is still finishing last and the Hawks no matter how you try and justify when, why and how the Hawks did it they have still done it more times that Richmond in the 83 years that both sides have been in the competition. THATS A FACT

BTW, isn't the thread is titled: Richmond vs Hawthorn - all the stats not Richmond vs Hawthorn - all the flags. So if you're going to argue you might want to argue on all the points not just the ones that look good from a Hawk perspective.

So how about addressing the inferior head to head record the Hawks have against the Tigers or the inferior number of finals series played, or the inferior number of GF appearances or the inferior overall record over the 83 year journey? Oops I forgot you already did address it, IIRC the Hawks were crap for the first 35 years in the comp partly because they were not allowed to pay their players for most of that period. Since when did the amount of money a player gets determine how much skill that player had to begin with.

So if were not going to count the periods when either side was crap then can I discount all the stats regarding Richmond post 1982? Because I do seem to recall a few pages back that you just wanted to focus on the Hawks record post 1970, amazing how that happens to coincide with their most successful era. So stick to the topic of the thread which is All the Stats and try and argue along those points and you wont make yourself look foolish in the process.

Just one more question whats a better record 11 spoons and 9 flags in 83 years or 8 flags and 5 spoons in 83 years?

 

[_RT_]

I never disputed that. What i did dispute however was flogs like yourself using Flags as evidence of "superiority" to the Hawks, even though you have been in the league longer. In the same time, say it with me same time that both clubs have been in, hawthorn have more flags. Then other fans come in, and use the fact that we won more spoons... well concidering for a majority of our first 50 years in the VFL/AFL we struggled, 11 spoons isnt that bad of a return...

Simple question, what is the title of this thread that you created? I believe it is called Richmond vs Hawthorn - all the stats.

Therefore you should be expected to discuss all the stats, yet when those stats don't show the Hawks are superior to Richmond, is it any wonder that their fans just want to focus on the one stat that does.

 

[Mr Lizard]

BTW, isn't the thread is titled: Richmond vs Hawthorn - all the stats not Richmond vs Hawthorn - all the flags. So if you're going to argue you might want to argue on all the points not just the ones that look good from a Hawk perspective.

Since 1925

Effective long kicks:
Richmond 14,000,425, Hawthorn 12,490,850

Premierships:
Hawthorn 9, Richmond 8

 

[_RT_]

Since 1925

Effective long kicks:
Richmond 14,000,425, Hawthorn 12,490,850

Premierships
Hawthorn 9, Richmond 8

You forgot one
Wooden spoons
Hawthorn 11 Richmond 5.

 

[Frankston Rover]

And that is relevant in what way because according to you spoons don't count yet you feel the need to take a potshot about when we won our last spoon.

Finishing last is still finishing last and the Hawks no matter how you try and justify when, why and how the Hawks did it they have still done it more times that Richmond in the 83 years that both sides have been in the competition. THATS A FACT

BTW, isn't the thread is titled: Richmond vs Hawthorn - all the stats not Richmond vs Hawthorn - all the flags. So if you're going to argue you might want to argue on all the points not just the ones that look good from a Hawk perspective.

So how about addressing the inferior head to head record the Hawks have against the Tigers or the inferior number of finals series played, or the inferior number of GF appearances or the inferior overall record over the 83 year journey? Oops I forgot you already did address it, IIRC the Hawks were crap for the first 35 years in the comp partly because they were not allowed to pay their players for most of that period. Since when did the amount of money a player gets determine how much skill that player had to begin with.

So if were not going to count the periods when either side was crap then can I discount all the stats regarding Richmond post 1982? Because I do seem to recall a few pages back that you just wanted to focus on the Hawks record post 1970, amazing how that happens to coincide with their most successful era. So stick to the topic of the thread which is All the Stats and try and argue along those points and you wont make yourself look foolish in the process.

This takes the cake for the most stupid thing I've ever seen written on BF.

Seriously, do you think before you type?

Back in the day, players swapped clubs all the time. If you were good, you got paid. If one club couldn't afford to pay you, and another could, what would you do?

You'd go where the money was.

Hawthorn lost many players to other VFL (and even VFA) sides due to the fact we had no money.

Just like today, if the carrot is big enough, players move clubs.

So please tell me how we were meant to retain good players if we couldn't afford to pay them when clubs like Collingwood, Carlton, Richmond and Essendon could?

Think about it, mate. I still can't believe you would write that and still call yourself "Realistic".

 

[Mr Lizard]

Effective long kicks:
Richmond 14,000,425; Hawthorn 12,490,850

Rebound 50's:
Richhmond 7,956,445; Hawthorn 5,622,503

Clangers:
Richmond 2,600; Hawthorn 4,372

Wooden spoons:
Hawthorn 11; Richmond 5

Premierships:
Hawthorn 9, Richmond 8

 

[_RT_]

This takes the cake for the most stupid thing I've ever seen written on BF.

Seriously, do you think before you type?

Back in the day, players swapped clubs all the time. If you were good, you got paid. If one club couldn't afford to pay you, and another could, what would you do?

You'd go where the money was.

Hawthorn lost many players to other VFL (and even VFA) sides due to the fact we had no money.

Just like today, if the carrot is big enough, players move clubs.

So please tell me how we were meant to retain good players if we couldn't afford to pay them when clubs like Collingwood, Carlton, Richmond and Essendon could?

Think about it, mate. I still can't believe you would write that and still call yourself "Realistic".

So that is the only part of the post you care to address, why it that? The rest too difficult to argue with.

 

[bomba4eva]

Effective long kicks:
Richmond 14,000,425; Hawthorn 12,490,850

Rebound 50's:
Richhmond 7,956,445; Hawthorn 5,622,503

Clangers:
Richmond 2,600; Hawthorn 4,372

Wooden spoons:
Hawthorn 11; Richmond 5

Premierships:
Hawthorn 9, Richmond 8

In most of the stats Richmond are winning, but the most important one where you count the flags, the Hawks are up by 1. Both have been pathetic over the past 15 years, but with Hawthorns promising signs it seems they may extend the lead of the number of flags rather than Richmond equal it. In any case Richmond dont look like making finals for at least 2-3 more seasons when the Hawks should be primed for an assault at the premiership.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

I believe it is called Richmond vs Hawthorn - all the stats.

Sometimes I think you take things too literally, RT.

"All the stats" refers to the website that the premiership statistics were taken from (for the years that both clubs were competing.)

Interestingly, in all the years that Hawthorn have finished above Richmond on the ladder, the collective weight of Hawthorn listed players has been much higher than Richmond listed players.

Now we've got Dewy!

 

[Frankston Rover]

So that is the only part of the post you care to address, why it that? The rest too difficult to argue with.

Well when you address how were were supposed to stay competitive while other clubs poached our players, I might address the rest of your silly post.

 

[_RT_]

Sometimes I think you take things too literally, RT.

"All the stats" refers to the website that the premiership statistics were taken from (for the years that both clubs were competing.)

Interestingly, in all the years that Hawthorn have finished above Richmond on the ladder, the collective weight of Hawthorn listed players has been much higher than Richmond listed players.

Now we've got Dewy!

Took 250+ posts for you to think that excuse up. Try again Junior.

And WTF has the last part of your post got to do with anything I'll never know.

Well when you address how were were supposed to stay competitive while other clubs poached our players, I might address the rest of your silly post.

Fair enough I'll admit that it would have been rather difficult to keep you players but it still does not excuse 35 years of poor performances. 5-10 years maybe. Now seeing as the I have addressed that maybe now you can get onto trying to discuss why you think that period should not be included in this thread.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

Took 250+ posts for you to think that excuse up. Try again Junior.

The timing of a valid point does not make it any more or less valid.
The title of the thread is such because of the site the stats were taken from. It could have been called Richmond vs Hawthorn - footywire, but there you have it - a loophole for you to exploit.

You're becoming a dodger RT.

 

[Mr Lizard]

Here's another interesting stat:

Number of times each club has finished 12th or lower since Hawthorn joined the competition:

Hawthorn - 16
Richmond - 13

Still with the Hawks in front, but pretty close. Interestingly enough, 12 of Richmond's 13 entries have come since the competition went 'national' in 1987.

 

[_RT_]

The timing of a valid point does not make it any more or less valid.
The title of the thread is such because of the site the stats were taken from. It could have been called Richmond vs Hawthorn - footywire, but there you have it - a loophole for you to exploit.

You're becoming a dodger RT.

You call me a dodger yet it is the Hawks fans that have practically dodged every other stat bar the premiership one in this thread simply because they don't back their POV. As I said before if it relates solely to flags then why not title in Richmond vs Hawthorn - All the Flags.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

This takes the cake for the most stupid thing I've ever seen written on BF.

Seriously, do you think before you type?

Back in the day, players swapped clubs all the time. If you were good, you got paid. If one club couldn't afford to pay you, and another could, what would you do?

You'd go where the money was.

Hawthorn lost many players to other VFL (and even VFA) sides due to the fact we had no money.

Just like today, if the carrot is big enough, players move clubs.

So please tell me how we were meant to retain good players if we couldn't afford to pay them when clubs like Collingwood, Carlton, Richmond and Essendon could?

Think about it, mate. I still can't believe you would write that and still call yourself "Realistic".

Seems a little hypocritical from a supporter of a club that is always rabbiting on about their financial state?

 

[Frankston Rover]

So pointing out our financial situation from 70 years ago is hypocritical.....

Whereas going on about Premiership dry spells is not.


Stupid much?

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Stupid much?

Calm down champ.

When compared to you, I might as well be a Rhodes scholar.

 

[Frankston Rover]

Calm down champ.

When compared to you, I might as well be a Rhodes scholar.

Umm, yeah.

VicRoads, maybe. How's that ditch looking?

 

[Crumden]

So John Platten, Jason Dunstall, Tony Hall, Darren Jarman were all from our 'zone' were they?

Oh, and guess who else had a 'zone' down the South Eastern suburbs - St.Kilda. How many flags did they win during the 70's and 80's?

Try again, blowhard.

Wow. You've named 4 interstate players you picked up in 15-20 years of zoning. Also funny you mention St Kilda. They actually lost out bigtime because the Hawks were given their zone. From Wikipedia:

Some writers on VFL history have argued that the inequalities created by country zoning were much greater than those created by club wealth beforehand - let alone inequalities from metropolitan zoning - and that some clubs lost many players they would have gained were players able to move to the club nearest to them. This was especially true of St. Kilda, whose return to the bottom of the ladder in the 1970s has been related by some to its loss (to Hawthorn) of many players from the Frankston area which was already becoming part of metropolitan Melbourne when country zoning began (and was complete when it ended).
​

 

[Frankston Rover]

Wow. You've named 4 interstate players you picked up in 15-20 years of zoning. Also funny you mention St Kilda. They actually lost out bigtime because the Hawks were given their zone. From Wikipedia:

Some writers on VFL history have argued that the inequalities created by country zoning were much greater than those created by club wealth beforehand - let alone inequalities from metropolitan zoning - and that some clubs lost many players they would have gained were players able to move to the club nearest to them. This was especially true of St. Kilda, whose return to the bottom of the ladder in the 1970s has been related by some to its loss (to Hawthorn) of many players from the Frankston area which was already becoming part of metropolitan Melbourne when country zoning began (and was complete when it ended).
​

Nathan Burke and Robert Harvey were from St Kilda's zone, so it can't have been too bad.

As I said, nice try but Richmonds mediocrety is their own fault.

 

[peejay]

http://afl.allthestats.com/statistics/alltime.php?t2=&yrfm=1925&yrto=2007&gnd=0&inat=4&when=

Richmond go on about being so superior to us, well those stats do not lie. since 1925 (hawthorns inception)hawks 9 premierships, richmond 8!

you always say that it is premierships which matter, well, would you look at that! in the time we have been in the comp, we are better than you!

oh well, at least you have Kruez.... oh wait, you dont even have him....

I find it interesting that you had to go to a stats website to find this out.

What are you ? Some 16 year old pimple faced kid or something?

 

[_RT_]

Nathan Burke and Robert Harvey were from St Kilda's zone, so it can't have been too bad.

As I said, nice try but Richmonds mediocrety is their own fault.

And who is to blame for the Hawks mediocrity over the last 16 years?