Who's got the better chance? Hawks or Roos?

[SA HAWK]

I don't think either team will win a final.

 

[Hawkk]

I don't think either team will win a final.

Hawthorn will – if we get the double chance, no sure about the Kangaroos.

Regardless, I would hate to be the 2 sides that have to play Adelaide and Sydney in the first week of the finals - making the 4 is that crucial to the finals campaign.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

There might be something in that we became less dependant and a couple of other guys had to step up, but we would be much, much better with Thommo in the team now.

Your theory would be stronger for Williams.

We won 13 games in 2005 remember, and Thommo was the least problem we had last year. He carried us in a shocker.

Thommo is awesome and is a brilliant shot for goal from 50+.

I'm really glad he got over the depression and made a new start, full credit to the guy, glad both parties are better for the split. He was in a rut at Hawthorn and only a shadow of his potential.

 

[walkers a legend]

hawks have better chance

 

[giantroo]

Any particular reason why WAL?

 

[Leather Poisoning]

hawks have better chance

Ahhhh back on topic.

Realistically, Kangas haven't won many games against top 4 sides (except hawthorn) and it's been a long time since the hawks have played top 4 sides. (except port, and we showed were roughly on par with them.)

These are the sides that must be overcome to win the premiership, so are the hawks or roos better equipped to do this?

So how do you predict which team will do better?

 

[rancidpants13]

Top 3 aside, Both teams have risen out of nowhere to be somewhat condenders this year. I am interested to know, before this rounds results decide a top 4 spot, Who do you guys reckon has the better team and a more realistic shot ?

hawthorn....roos have been good, brave, surprising....but hawthorn have the all-round class to threaten the cats and weagles

 

[drunk_in_public]

Do you roo's notice that majority of the neutrals say Hawks?

 

[giantroo]

Ahhhh back on topic.

Realistically, Kangas haven't won many games against top 4 sides (except hawthorn) and it's been a long time since the hawks have played top 4 sides. (except port, and we showed were roughly on par with them.)

These are the sides that must be overcome to win the premiership, so are the hawks or roos better equipped to do this?

So how do you predict which team will do better?

You'll have to wait till it actually commences.

 

[giantroo]

Do you roo's notice that majority of the neutrals say Hawks?

Maybe because we are meant to be the "SO CALLED WOODEN SPOONERS" but because everyone underestimated us we are in the finals.

 

[jacko57]

Top 3 aside, Both teams have risen out of nowhere to be somewhat condenders this year. I am interested to know, before this rounds results decide a top 4 spot, Who do you guys reckon has the better team and a more realistic shot ?

Well it's one win each this year.......I'd say North, but I would, wouldn't I ? I'd be more confident of our chances if we had mustered at least one win out fo the recent games vs Lions/Eagles/Cats.

I'm not even sure if it's a matter of who makes the top 4 will have a better chance. Would you rather play Geelong, and have the double chance & quite possibly need it ? Or not have the double chance, and not need it because whoever finishes 8th will just be scraping into the finals ?

I'd say it's better to finish 4th, because the rewards are so great for a win against Geelong.............but it's a close call.

 

[drunk_in_public]

Maybe because we are meant to be the "SO CALLED WOODEN SPOONERS" but because everyone underestimated us we are in the finals.

and we wern't? barely anyone had any of our teams in the top 8 at the start of the year, Which is why i find roo supporters calling the hawks rookies for the whole season kinda funny, hence starting this thread.

I think they are both good teams, I just wanted a non Bias oopinion

 

[jacko57]

We're the only club in contention that didn't get any seconds on Melbourne/Richmond or Carlton.

quote]
Yeah, but we only played Essendon once.

 

[giantroo]

and we wern't? barely anyone had any of our teams in the top 8 at the start of the year, Which is why i find roo supporters calling the hawks rookies for the whole season kinda funny, hence starting this thread.

I think they are both good teams, I just wanted a non Bias oopinion

Finally, you have some common sense.


Well will have to wait and see how we go in the first round of the finals before we can make a judgement.

 

[jacko57]

Do you roo's notice that majority of the neutrals say Hawks?

Gee, our team better not bother playing in that case.

 

[Brown n Gold]

We beat the Hawks convincingly a few weeks ago, in their cauldron, obviously we are the better chance. Just because we have had a harder draw than anyone else above us doesn't make us less worthy.

Hmmmm we struggled to get 22 fit players for that game...

 

[Leather Poisoning]

Maybe because we are meant to be the "SO CALLED WOODEN SPOONERS" but because everyone underestimated us we are in the finals.

Just had a look and realised that North only won 7 games in 2006! I thought they did quite well last year but realised I was thinking of 2005.
In 2005 they won 13 and bowed out in the first week of the finals.

Not trying to be a smartarse here, but I think 2007 will be a lot like 2005 for the roos.

Based on what? Gut feel and the memory that North slipped under everyone's radar that year two, with a similar percentage. The similarities between 05 and 07 for the roos to this point is amazing.

 

[MC_9]

I think both teams should just be happy that we both have a huge chance of making the top 4, at the start of the season no one would have expected either team to make the top 4.

I think the two teams are pretty even, when we played Roos at the start of the year they were not playing great footy, as when they played us in Tassie we were well bellow our best.

I think Hawthorns best is better then the roos best, as when we get on a role and playing well we will blow teams away (ie Bulldogs).

I would say hawks are slightly ahead as we have more fire power, but i may be biased.

The one thing both supporters can agree on, is that both teams have had a great season, and have very bright futures.

 

[giantroo]

Just had a look and realised that North only won 7 games in 2006! I thought they did quite well last year but realised I was thinking of 2005.
In 2005 they won 13 and bowed out in the first week of the finals.

Not trying to be a smartarse here, but I think 2007 will be a lot like 2005 for the roos.

Based on what? Gut feel and the memory that North slipped under everyone's radar that year two, with a similar percentage. The similarities between 05 and 07 for the roos to this point is amazing.

Difference between 05 -07


05


Older players
Won by under 10 points in 7+ games
% = 99

07

Younger Players
Winning by an average of 20 + points.

% = 106 and could go up this week

 

[Leather Poisoning]

Difference between 05 -07


05


Older players
Won by under 10 points in 7+ games
% = 99

07

Younger Players
Winning by an average of 20 + points.

% = 106 and could go up this week

Okay, I'll take your word that you know your team well enough to recognise improvement from season 05 to 07,

The lowest % of a team that finished top 4 in the last 8 years is 109.

Teams that don't finish top 4 tend not to win GFs. (or make them???)

I'm just not convinced by North. I think premiership sides have the ability to smash teams, and North just don't seem to have that whereas the hawks do.

 

[AGC]

Hawks by the length of 2 Flemington Straights!

I'm sure Geel,WCE and Port will be praying to play the Roos rather than Hawthorn throughout the finals.

Yay, the jackass is back. Maybe you would like to eloborate on those statements?

I find it quite funny that North constantly bring up the game in Tassie to their arguement. Take Judd, Kerr and Cousins out of west coast and they are easy beats. You played us Without 4 of our best players. You were missing your fringe players. Take out Harvey, Petrie and big hamish and play us with a full strength and we will destroy you Hands down. As much as you love your club, A full strength Roo's Vs a full strength Hawthorn would be alot different to the game in Tassie

I think this week, West Coast might be easy beats then.

Care to elaborate on the finals experience ?

Martin Pyke left a long time ago you know.

We only have a handful but they did go close in 2001


PS on thommo - I like him but did you realise both hawks and Roos have been better for losing him from the team ?

Not very true. Hawks were bound to rise up to the top, with all the first round picks your team had, whilst Thommo almost single-handedly got us to 5th on the ladder in 2005. I think the only benefit we would have had, without Thommo in our team in 2006 would have been that we would have lost more matches, and got a better pick, which would have been used on Hansen anyway.

Okay, I'll take your word that you know your team well enough to recognise improvement from season 05 to 07,

The lowest % of a team that finished top 4 in the last 8 years is 109.

Teams that don't finish top 4 tend not to win GFs. (or make them???)

I'm just not convinced by North. I think premiership sides have the ability to smash teams, and North just don't seem to have that whereas the hawks do.

We have smashed enough poor teams this year. Melbourne and Carlton if you recall correctly. The fact is that we have beaten teams relatively comfortably without smashing them. I would think that finals teams, need only to win matches, not thrash teams.


The Roos have a better chance of progressing further in the Finals, yet I don't think that either team will make it to the Grand Final, or even the Preliminaries.

My reasons for this are:

-Experience in FINALS conditions. Put Geelong in the 2005 SF again, and they would not have lost it. Inexperience cripples a team, and whilst almost no Hawks players have finals experience, the majority of the Roos team has.

-Roos ability to win the hard ball, and play in contested football situations. Fair enough, when we last played the Hawks they had many injuries, but even with Franklin, Mitchell, Boyle etc, that would not have changed the way they reacted to the the Roos pressure.

-Finals preperation in the last few rounds of the season. The Roos have played the 2 realistic chances for the Grand Final in the 2 weeks prior to the Blues match. We put up good fights, yet he area in which we lost out, was that for only brief periods in both matches, we lost "the plot" and let both teams "pile on goals" (i.e. West Coast at the start of the 2nd quarter where they kicked 4 goals, to break out to a 25pt lead, and Geelong, where 6 goals were kicked in 9 mins.) I have no doubt that the Roos will have learnt from that situation, and the coaching staff would have drilled this fact into the team. THe Hawks on the other hand, have really only played the Power, who are a serious finals contender. Whilst they would have learnt from that, the old addage that "you learn from mistakes" will mean that should the Eagles/Cats "increase the pressure" the Hawks would not have had this occur to them prior, and might not be well equiped to deal with it.

-Minor point really, but the Archer factor plus the insipid efforts we put up in Colbert and Stevens last games, will mean that the Roos will have an extra insentive to perform better, whilst the Hawks will be of the view that "next year we will be stronger and have a more realistic chance."

This is not to say that the Hawks aren't a better team compared to the Roos, because in my opinion the Hawks might have that edge. Yet, when it comes to finals, I believe that the Roos will progress futher.

 

[wells is god]

Okay, I'll take your word that you know your team well enough to recognise improvement from season 05 to 07,

The lowest % of a team that finished top 4 in the last 8 years is 109.

Teams that don't finish top 4 tend not to win GFs. (or make them???)

I'm just not convinced by North. I think premiership sides have the ability to smash teams, and North just don't seem to have that whereas the hawks do.

We didn't just play a game against Carlton in which we were in 2nd or 3rd gear for the majority of it and win by 82 points did we?

 

[Leather Poisoning]

We didn't just play a game against Carlton in which we were in 2nd or 3rd gear for the majority of it and win by 82 points did we?

Alright alright, allow me to research my facts a bit better next time.

Sorry guys.

Seriously just thought with a percentage of only 106 you couldn't have had many (if any) blowouts in your favour.

 

[wells is god]

Hmmmm we struggled to get 22 fit players for that game...

Oh so what you're saying is that you lack depth then? Fair enough. We managed to cover not having our FF for the entire year, not having one of our best midfielders for the majority of the year and not having a key defender for most of the year also...and we still eclipsed everyone's expectations for the 07 season.

 

[giantroo]

Okay, I'll take your word that you know your team well enough to recognise improvement from season 05 to 07,

The lowest % of a team that finished top 4 in the last 8 years is 109.

Teams that don't finish top 4 tend not to win GFs. (or make them???)

I'm just not convinced by North. I think premiership sides have the ability to smash teams, and North just don't seem to have that whereas the hawks do.

Well expect our percentage to rise over 110 this week. If you can flog the dogs by 84, we will double it. If we played carlton and beat them by 82 at half paced, imagine what we will do to the dogs at full pace.