Tom Mitchell 50 possessions

[LoungeLizard]

"You lot!, Even if swan gets 'Useless Possesions'."

Don't put words in my mouth i have done no such thing but answer questions about the topic.
So you think Swan gets useless possessions?

Now we wait for the penny to drop...... hahahahaha

You mate have lost the plot.
I will ask one last time.
Explain to me what the poster who said Swan gets "useless possessions" has to do with Mitchell.

Because the way i see it he is comparing the 2, other wise why bring up Swan at all.

 

[HairyO]

Explain to me then why he bought Swan into the equation?

Swan won a Brownlow racking up 30 useless possessions each week. Mitchell is ahead on possessions, so should be a shoe-in.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Swan won a Brownlow racking up 30 useless possessions each week. Mitchell is ahead on possessions, so should be a shoe-in.

So you are saying his possessions are useless?

 

[HairyO]

So you are saying his possessions are useless?

Im saying Swan's were. I think Mitchell is doing a fantastic job and without him we'd be 5 or 6 goals a week worse off.

I also think the recent media fascination with metres gained is quite simply ******ed. It makes perfect sense in American football but tells you absolutely nothing important in our game.

Though I do find it interesting how readily people lap up the simplistic observations of ex footballers on AFL related TV shows.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Im saying Swan's were. I think Mitchell is doing a fantastic job and without him we'd be 5 or 6 goals a week worse off.

I also think the recent media fascination with metres gained is quite simply ******ed. It makes perfect sense in American football but tells you absolutely nothing important in our game.

Though I do find it interesting how readily people lap up the simplistic observations of ex footballers on AFL related TV shows.

You think Swan's were, but Mitchell's aren't?
Then please explain what Swan has to do with this thread, because for the life of me i see no comparison.
They played different roles.

 

[The Swert]

He was considered 3rd and 4th best on the ground. So he was ahead of 40 other players.

And Clarko never gives 5 votes to our players if we lose. Ever.

Swan won a Brownlow getting useless possessions every week. And he got far less as well.

Swan won a Brownlow in a year where Collingwood only lost 2 games.

If the Hawks win 20 games with Mitchell averaging 30+ possessions a game, then he would be a favourite for sure.

But the Hawks are losing, so Mitchell's Brownlow tally won't be high.

But he's still clearly the stand-out Hawk this year and would have a big lead in the B&F at the moment. Should be in the AA team too.

Ablett suffered similar criticism in 2011-12.

 

[Frank Gallagher]

Mitchell has done it twice this year in a team that sucks. He also did it a number of times last year at the Swans.

With all due respect mate, you're massively underrating the influence of Swan if you're even mentioning Mitchell in the same sentence.

 

[SterlingArcher]

Swan won a Brownlow racking up 30 useless possessions each week. Mitchell is ahead on possessions, so should be a shoe-in.

Im saying Swan's were. I think Mitchell is doing a fantastic job and without him we'd be 5 or 6 goals a week worse off.

I also think the recent media fascination with metres gained is quite simply ******ed. It makes perfect sense in American football but tells you absolutely nothing important in our game.

Though I do find it interesting how readily people lap up the simplistic observations of ex footballers on AFL related TV shows.

Swan also kicked 32 goals, finished 4th for inside 50s (averaging 5.2), 7th for clearances (6.1), and 10th for goal assists (0.9).

Mitchell has kicked 2 goals, and is not top 20 for inside 50s (20th is Dylan Shiel averaging 4.4, Mitchell is averaging 4.1), is 19th for clearances (5.6) and is not top 20 for goal assists (20th is Patrick Dangerfield with 0.9, Mitchell is averaging 0.4).

Swan also averaged less clangers than Mitchell.

No disrepect to Mitchell who I still maintain played a hell of a game and lacked support, and is enjoying a great season, but Swan was on a whole different level. Swan crushes Mitchell.

 

[HeHateMe]

This is true, swan at his peak.

swan in his early days its comparable in fact Mitch would be better. As players (athletically) there a lot alike.

now it's up to Mitch to turn his shots on goal into more 6 pointers and to turn his momentum in games into more attacking influences. A better team around him will help immensely though.

Although a 50 Pos game if fantastic no matter who you are.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

It's a funny thing, if Collingwood lost that match the experts (so called) would be saying not tagging him cost us the game, but now their saying not tagging him actually won us the game, go figure.

Fact is he was very good, and if he didn't play we would've won by a fair bit more IMO.

What I find funny is that for once the media probably ARE right in this case (first time ever?)

The decision Buckley made was to NOT tag Mitchell.

This allowed Pendlebury and Treloar to both play with a 3rd attacking mid in support, combined with Grundy eventually winning the ruck led to Hawthorn eventually being overrun.

Had Levi moved into the middle to tag Mitchell, he likely would not have been able to stop all of Mitchell's drive, yet Langford and Shiels (the Hawks two most defensive mids) would have increased their chances at stopping Pendlebury and Treloar knowing there was no-one else to worry about.

 

[Armchair Critic]

Really weird that people are chiming in with the 'oh he only had 334.567 meters gained that sucks', like he's an inside mid, they rack up more possies historically and heaps of his were contested tough possessions, you're not gonna see him have 800 meters gained, he's not Isaac Smith and that's not his job. Really unintelligent stuff on this board sometimes.

Only sometimes ?

 

[TheWhiteRhino]

Hilarious that the mainstream football media are now downplaying these type of performances from Tom, when they were convinced the Swans had lost the second coming when he left for the Hawks at the end of last season.

If they had any insight, they'd be acknowledging that the Swans did the right thing in prioritising the development of a linebreaker like Zak Jones and locking up more dynamic midfield prospects like Heeney and Mills long term over keeping yet another contested ball beast on their list.

But no, that would also involve admitting some kind of error in their own over the top reactions...

 

[WWSD]

Swan also kicked 32 goals, finished 4th for inside 50s (averaging 5.2), 7th for clearances (6.1), and 10th for goal assists (0.9).

Mitchell has kicked 2 goals, and is not top 20 for inside 50s (20th is Dylan Shiel averaging 4.4, Mitchell is averaging 4.1), is 19th for clearances (5.6) and is not top 20 for goal assists (20th is Patrick Dangerfield with 0.9, Mitchell is averaging 0.4).

Swan also averaged less clangers than Mitchell.

No disrepect to Mitchell who I still maintain played a hell of a game and lacked support, and is enjoying a great season, but Swan was on a whole different level. Swan crushes Mitchell.

No he doesn't. Mitchell is better. Sam Mitchell that is.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

He was close to worst on ground.

Proof that stats mean nothing.

He was about as close to worst on ground as you are of being the Prime Minister.

 

[Ricmel]

#1 in the entire league for assisted metres gained.

What more do you want? 400+ players going around, I'm sure Tom Mitchell isn't the worst player to have on your list.

I never said he was a crap player or that he played a crap game. It was just low impact. He is not a player that carves you up, he is an accumulator, serves a purpose but opposition supporters are not going to lose sleep over him.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

I never said he was a crap player or that he played a crap game. It was just low impact. He is not a player that carves you up, he is an accumulator, serves a purpose but opposition supporters are not going to lose sleep over him.

Yeah, nah. He's very much an extractor at this stage. A very good one at that. Would be looking a million bucks if he had Sammy on his shoulder to distribute from the first touch.

Of his 50 touches, about 10 were 'useless' accumulations with zero hurt factor, so good on him for having the stamina/intent to run into space, but it was still a mammoth game.

I always criticized Ablett, Swan, Judd and the like for their "accumulation work", Ablett getting 40 touches but 25 of them from 1-2s, Swan and Judd with 20 quick kicks from congestion (mostly to a contest or direct turnovers). Ablett had the skills to hurt on the outside too.

 

[Ricmel]

Yeah, nah. He's very much an extractor at this stage. A very good one at that. Would be looking a million bucks if he had Sammy on his shoulder to distribute from the first touch.

I'd have him at Saints no problem. But to me he doesn't need a Sam Mitchell, he is sort of a poor man's S.Mitchell anyway, he needs a Dangerfield type, a player that can turn the possession into penetration. 4 years ago Burgoyne would have been your guy. Maybe that is what they were looking for from JOM, not sure what type of player he is.

 

[PenAndPaper]

I'd have him at Saints no problem. But to me he doesn't need a Sam Mitchell, he is sort of a poor man's S.Mitchell anyway, he needs a Dangerfield type, a player that can turn the possession into penetration. 4 years ago Burgoyne would have been your guy. Maybe that is what they were looking for from JOM, not sure what type of player he is.

I think that's definitely what we were hoping for JOM. I still think he can get there, especially considering he was tipped to not even play a game this year and our cautious approach to him.

Will be interesting to see if another mid can step up and do that job now though.

 

[Guardian Hawk]

So? His impact was medium. Never looked like he was seriously hurting Pies. For a guy to get 50 posies and not get BOG tells you something. Joel Selwood gets 50 posies and Cats win by 6 goals plus.

The silly thing about all of this coaches votes, not BOG, etc. is that if he had a handful of teammates turn up in the second half he would have been BOG and picked up 10 votes.

When you get completely overrun and beaten by 4 goals you are not getting BOG regardless of how good you are - 1 player can never win a match on their own.

Also, Cats win by 6 goals because they are a good TEAM. Selwood has always had heaps of support - in the midfield with him he has the best player in the competition and another mid who is a shout for AA. Even lowly Brisbane has Rockliff, Beams, Zorko, etc running through the middle.

Who does Mitchell have?? Hodge and Burgoyne are playing in defence (and past their best anyway), O'Meara is injured, Shiels is a B grader having a poor season, Langford has the worst disposal by foot in the AFL and Smith is purely a winger.

It's Mitchell and no one else and he still is getting more of the ball than anyone in the comp, top 4 for contested ball, top 3 for tackles, most assisted 'metres gained', etc. Some might call it unprecedented