One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => View from the Outer => Topic started by: one-eyed on October 07, 2015, 11:27:05 AM
-
Hawthorn's domination shows up the other clubs
Jake Niall
The Age
October 7, 2015
West Coast wasn't the only team that cannot have been happy with what happened on grand final weekend. Team AFL, too, can't have been jumping, as if in a Toyota commercial, over what transpired.
Hawthorn killed the suspense early in the grand final for the second season on end and, in a related development, the AFL was beaten in the television ratings by the NRL thriller between two Queensland clubs.
The Hawks know that the AFL Commission is less than delighted to see them winning a third flag, since the outcome runs contrary to the league's equalisation objectives. It is worth noting that since 2001, three clubs have won three premierships, albeit one of those clubs, the Brisbane Lions, have had sand kicked in their face in the past decade.
There is much discussion about "the problem" of Hawthorn's hegemony, which bothers football people more than Geelong's Ling dynasty. Among clubs, one popular theory for the lengthy reigns of the Cats and Hawks is that the expansion of the competition diluted the talent pool and made it harder for rivals to make up ground.
Advertisement
Free agency is viewed as another bulwark against football socialism. On the day when Brian Lake and David Hale retired as triple premiership players, it's worth remembering that that pair, while not free-agent signings, were symptoms of a new culture in which players seek success; ex-Bulldog Lake finished his career – and re-defined his legacy – by his performances in winning grand final teams.
But if free agency and expansion have assisted the Hawks, those mechanisms were available to most clubs. While the AFL Commission can't be a happy team about Hawthorn's winning ways, the reality is that the problem lies with their rivals, who simply haven't kept up.
The extent of the Hawthorn dynasty is an indictment of sorts on most of the clubs. Geelong is exempted, because the Cats have merely declined in accord with the competition's rules and the life cycle of a champion team.
Hawthorn's success has involved some measure of luck – three of their past four preliminary finals were decided by under a kick – but the prolonging of their success is largely self-made. That the Hawks can maintain their standing for so long – in defiance of the draft and salary-cap system – is because they have been superior on multiple fronts.
Hawthorn is the clear market leader in coaching – the extent of that edge evident in the unexpected rises in West Coast and the Bulldogs under ex-Hawk assistants Adam Simpson and Luke Beveridge.
The Hawks were without peer in adding mature players to address needs, in fashioning new game plans, in their teaching methods for players, in conditioning – particularly with older players. The incredible output of Sam Mitchell, Luke Hodge, Shaun Burgoyne, Josh Gibson, Lake and Hale easily surpassed what any other club has managed from veterans. In 2008, they were one of the youngest premiers; this year, they were the oldest on record.
Mitchell and Hodge play like million-dollar men, but have accepted significantly less than their market worth. The same applies to Cyril Rioli, Jordan Lewis, Grant Birchall, Jarryd Roughead and several others. As some player managers noted, this sacrifice hasn't necessarily happened elsewhere.
Even Sydney, which has a fine team culture, has paid excessive money to a small number of players, headed by Lance Franklin and Kurt Tippett. Buddy's exit, clearly, has helped the Hawks in their retention and recruiting.
A bursting salary cap also conspired against Collingwood, which was one of the youngest premiers in 2010, runners-up the next year and has since embarked on a rebuild that is as much cultural as a re-stocking of cattle. Collingwood's top players have not accepted "unders" in the manner of Mitchell, Hodge et al and it is not surprising that they weren't in the market for A graders from 2011-14.
Essendon has squandered a potential contention period for reasons that need no elaboration, Carlton has been dismal in list management. Fremantle has lacked depth of talent and can't score enough to best the Hawks. The Tigers are simply coming off a low base and had little margin for error. North, a steady team, have struggled to draft or trade in game breakers. Adelaide has lost too much elite talent.
The Hawthorn empire has a shelf life, and everyone – besides their own – will hope the expiration date is imminent. But that one club has been so comprehensively superior is as much due to what other clubs haven't managed, as the winner's work.
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/hawthorns-domination-shows-up-the-other-clubs-20151006-gk2o0v.html#ixzz3npyA8Te8
-
Mitchell and Hodge play like million-dollar men, but have accepted significantly less than their market worth. The same applies to Cyril Rioli, Jordan Lewis, Grant Birchall, Jarryd Roughead and several others. As some player managers noted, this sacrifice hasn't necessarily happened elsewhere.
were as cotchin and co. will get upset if we trelor too much money (according to some on here)
:lol
-
Mitchell and Hodge play like million-dollar men, but have accepted significantly less than their market worth. The same applies to Cyril Rioli, Jordan Lewis, Grant Birchall, Jarryd Roughead and several others. As some player managers noted, this sacrifice hasn't necessarily happened elsewhere.
were as cotchin and co. will get upset if we trelor too much money (according to some on here)
:lol
Cleary having a dig at me ::)
So please enlighten me and tell me which FA has come into the Hawks on contract significantly ahead of their established stars? Which has always been the point I've made
Yes they've taken less to stay together but the list team at Hawthorn haven't compromised what they've built list wise by giving "excessive deals" to incoming players. They get players to buy in to their culture, their success.
Funny you didn't reference that bit but here it is anyway
The Hawks were without peer in adding mature players to address needs, in fashioning new game plans, in their teaching methods for players, in conditioning – particularly with older players. The incredible output of Sam Mitchell, Luke Hodge, Shaun Burgoyne, Josh Gibson, Lake and Hale easily surpassed what any other club has managed from veterans. In 2008, they were one of the youngest premiers; this year, they were the oldest on record.
Even Sydney, which has a fine team culture, has paid excessive money to a small number of players, headed by Lance Franklin and Kurt Tippett. Buddy's exit, clearly, has helped the Hawks in their retention and recruiting.
-
its easy to buy into a culture when the club actually win flags. What does our club culture stand for? Mediocrity.
Frawley is on more coin than some of their established players. Perhaps not Hodge, Mitchell, Roughy, Rioli but the rest well if he isnt he is pretty close. Compared with their other defenders he would miles in front but did they sulk or accept him?
WP out of curiosity what is excessive to you? 700k for treloar or carlisle too steep?? Hawks have built their list with an even spread of quality players both at box hill and the seniors team. Thats the difference. We dont have that luxury which is why we need to add some top end talent to get anywhere near them. Players like treloar are exactly that and all players like yarran will do is ensure we finish around 8th position
-
WP out of curiosity what is excessive to you? 700k for treloar or carlisle too steep??
IMHO $700k is excessive for Carlisle; he's $550k-$600k max mainly because you never which ones going to show up. His good is great but his bad is woeful
$650k for Treloar but would go to $700k. Talk was we were offering him more than that and no I don't think he is worth more than that
its easy to buy into a culture when the club actually win flags. What does our club culture stand for? Mediocrity.
Frawley is on more coin than some of their established players. Perhaps not Hodge, Mitchell, Roughy, Rioli but the rest well if he isnt he is pretty close. Compared with their other defenders he would miles in front but did they sulk or accept him?
Exactly my point Angus, thank you.
-
Mitchell and Hodge play like million-dollar men, but have accepted significantly less than their market worth. The same applies to Cyril Rioli, Jordan Lewis, Grant Birchall, Jarryd Roughead and several others. As some player managers noted, this sacrifice hasn't necessarily happened elsewhere.
were as cotchin and co. will get upset if we trelor too much money (according to some on here)
:lol
Cleary having a dig at me ::)
incorrect
more a general comment
from memory your not the only one
-
WP out of curiosity what is excessive to you? 700k for treloar or carlisle too steep??
IMHO $700k is excessive for Carlisle; he's $550k-$600k max mainly because you never which ones going to show up. His good is great but his bad is woeful
$650k for Treloar but would go to $700k. Talk was we were offering him more than that and no I don't think he is worth more than that
its easy to buy into a culture when the club actually win flags. What does our club culture stand for? Mediocrity.
Frawley is on more coin than some of their established players. Perhaps not Hodge, Mitchell, Roughy, Rioli but the rest well if he isnt he is pretty close. Compared with their other defenders he would miles in front but did they sulk or accept him?
Exactly my point Angus, thank you.
fair enough
-
The Hawks have timed to perfection the window between sides that have or are beginning to fall away from being serious challengers (Geel, Syd, Freo + Coll, St K before them) and others trying to rise and bridge the gap to becoming regular top sides (WC, North, Rich, Adel, Port 2013-14). The latter are too inconsistent to bridge that gap though.
Expansion has enabled this window to remain open for longer by stalling those coming up. Hawthorn were a young premiership side when they pinched 2008 off an inaccurate Geelong. 2012-15 are part of their prime years and they have no other clubs in the same window to compete against (compare that to dominant Rich & Carl sides in the 60s/70s contesting at the same time).
Free agency also helps extend the premiership window for a side like Hawthorn as it has encouraged good mature footballers at bottom clubs who are flag-less to switch (even via a trade) to genuine contenders like Hawthorn in search of a flag before they retire. No doubt, now that Lake & Hale have retired, that Hawthorn will have probably $700k in the cap to chase the next Lake, Hale, Burgoyne, Gibson, Gunston, Frawley, etc. With the last 3 cups, they don't need much power of persuasion or $$$ either to get someone good. They are using the system beautifully.
-
Speaking of using the system beautifully MT, I was wondering if you or William Powell could clarify something that I've heard about vaguely?
I heard that back in the days of zoning, sometime back in the late 70s, the league was concerned that we were too powerful and gave our zone to Hawthorn, and gave us the weaker Mildura zone, I think, instead. This zone gave us Dale Weightman and not very much else of quality, whereas Hawthorn went on to build a dynasty throughout the 80s.
As I said, can somebody either confirm, debunk or expand on this story? Cheers in advance.
-
Speaking of using the system beautifully MT, I was wondering if you or William Powell could clarify something that I've heard about vaguely?
I heard that back in the days of zoning, sometime back in the late 70s, the league was concerned that we were too powerful and gave our zone to Hawthorn, and gave us the weaker Mildura zone, I think, instead. This zone gave us Dale Weightman and not very much else of quality, whereas Hawthorn went on to build a dynasty throughout the 80s.
As I said, can somebody either confirm, debunk or expand on this story? Cheers in advance.
Lee
-
Speaking of using the system beautifully MT, I was wondering if you or William Powell could clarify something that I've heard about vaguely?
I heard that back in the days of zoning, sometime back in the late 70s, the league was concerned that we were too powerful and gave our zone to Hawthorn, and gave us the weaker Mildura zone, I think, instead. This zone gave us Dale Weightman and not very much else of quality, whereas Hawthorn went on to build a dynasty throughout the 80s.
As I said, can somebody either confirm, debunk or expand on this story? Cheers in advance.
Lee
Yeah, I was going to mention Mark Lee, but first I wanted to clarify if there was any truth to this story or not.
-
I think u may be right
We had the zone around warrigal road at some stage?
-
Speaking of using the system beautifully MT, I was wondering if you or William Powell could clarify something that I've heard about vaguely?
I heard that back in the days of zoning, sometime back in the late 70s, the league was concerned that we were too powerful and gave our zone to Hawthorn, and gave us the weaker Mildura zone, I think, instead. This zone gave us Dale Weightman and not very much else of quality, whereas Hawthorn went on to build a dynasty throughout the 80s.
As I said, can somebody either confirm, debunk or expand on this story? Cheers in advance.
Sorry RR I can't help you. I have no idea about the truth/accuracy of that story.
Actually only vaguely remembering hearing about it as I was only a little tacker back then ;D
-
Mitchell and Hodge play like million-dollar men, but have accepted significantly less than their market worth. The same applies to Cyril Rioli, Jordan Lewis, Grant Birchall, Jarryd Roughead and several others. As some player managers noted, this sacrifice hasn't necessarily happened elsewhere.
were as cotchin and co. will get upset if we trelor too much money (according to some on here)
:lol
Cleary having a dig at me ::)
So please enlighten me and tell me which FA has come into the Hawks on contract significantly ahead of their established stars? Which has always been the point I've made
Yes they've taken less to stay together but the list team at Hawthorn haven't compromised what they've built list wise by giving "excessive deals" to incoming players. They get players to buy in to their culture, their success.
Funny you didn't reference that bit but here it is anyway
The Hawks were without peer in adding mature players to address needs, in fashioning new game plans, in their teaching methods for players, in conditioning – particularly with older players. The incredible output of Sam Mitchell, Luke Hodge, Shaun Burgoyne, Josh Gibson, Lake and Hale easily surpassed what any other club has managed from veterans. In 2008, they were one of the youngest premiers; this year, they were the oldest on record.
Even Sydney, which has a fine team culture, has paid excessive money to a small number of players, headed by Lance Franklin and Kurt Tippett. Buddy's exit, clearly, has helped the Hawks in their retention and recruiting.
Why does significantly ahead" matter?
They were able to get in a number b plus or a minus types due to stablished stats taking a pay cut for the greater good
Burgoyne. Hale. Lake. Etc equal at least one established star, no?
It's like chess so many bishops or knights is eventually worth a queen
-
Which part of my point are you unable (perhaps unwilling) to understand?
Yes Hawthorns stars took cuts to stay together I have never disputed that
But what Hawthorn hasn't done is bring in players on massive contracts above what their stars are on
They haven't compromised the culture of the club which is built in part on the example set by those players.
You said it yourself they've bought in "b plus types" outside of Burgoyne.
And no I don't consider hale or lake A graders they are B plus borderline A minus players
-
Speaking of using the system beautifully MT, I was wondering if you or William Powell could clarify something that I've heard about vaguely?
I heard that back in the days of zoning, sometime back in the late 70s, the league was concerned that we were too powerful and gave our zone to Hawthorn, and gave us the weaker Mildura zone, I think, instead. This zone gave us Dale Weightman and not very much else of quality, whereas Hawthorn went on to build a dynasty throughout the 80s.
As I said, can somebody either confirm, debunk or expand on this story? Cheers in advance.
I don't have proof RR but I remember being told as a kid by someone at the Club that the VFL used the zone system to get back at us after the Windy Hill brawl and for our "Tigers vs the world" attitude back in 1974. Essentially, you can't beat City Hall.
I think reality is not so blatantly anti-Tigers. Yes, we were given poor zone(s) [as was Fitzroy] compared to Hawthorn, Carlton and Essendon who gained strong ones. However, the original idea was these zones were meant to be rotated every 3 or so years so everyone got fair access to the available talent. The problem was the VFL back then needed approval from the clubs to make changes and of course the majority of clubs were happy with their stronger zones. So the rotation policy never occurred and we were left lumbered with our poor zone. In desperate need to find other avenues to gain good players, this then lead to our open cheque-book era and eventual trade wars which were part of the reason we went broke and almost went under.
-
Which part of my point are you unable (perhaps unwilling) to understand?
Yes Hawthorns stars took cuts to stay together I have never disputed that
But what Hawthorn hasn't done is bring in players on massive contracts above what their stars are on
They haven't compromised the culture of the club which is built in part on the example set by those players.
You said it yourself they've bought in "b plus types" outside of Burgoyne.
And no I don't consider hale or lake A graders they are B plus borderline A minus players
you do make a somewhat fair point
allow me to attempt to get my thoughts in coherent articulate manner and i will explain to you why you are incorrect ;)
-
this could be interesting.......
-
Doubtful
-
:lol
-
Speaking of using the system beautifully MT, I was wondering if you or William Powell could clarify something that I've heard about vaguely?
I heard that back in the days of zoning, sometime back in the late 70s, the league was concerned that we were too powerful and gave our zone to Hawthorn, and gave us the weaker Mildura zone, I think, instead. This zone gave us Dale Weightman and not very much else of quality, whereas Hawthorn went on to build a dynasty throughout the 80s.
As I said, can somebody either confirm, debunk or expand on this story? Cheers in advance.
I don't have proof RR but I remember being told as a kid by someone at the Club that the VFL used the zone system to get back at us after the Windy Hill brawl and for our "Tigers vs the world" attitude back in 1974. Essentially, you can't beat City Hall.
I think reality is not so blatantly anti-Tigers. Yes, we were given poor zone(s) [as was Fitzroy] compared to Hawthorn, Carlton and Essendon who gained strong ones. However, the original idea was these zones were meant to be rotated every 3 or so years so everyone got fair access to the available talent. The problem was the VFL back then needed approval from the clubs to make changes and of course the majority of clubs were happy with their stronger zones. So the rotation policy never occurred and we were left lumbered with our poor zone. In desperate need to find other avenues to gain good players, this then lead to our open cheque-book era and eventual trade wars which were part of the reason we went broke and almost went under.
Thanks for the info MT. It sounds from what you say that being handed a weaker zone was a massive contributing factor towards our demise as one of the powerhouse clubs. That and, as you say, getting into a recruiting war (which was essentially tit for tat recruiting) with Collingwood, failing to keep Kevin Sheedy on as coach, and failing to adapt to the emerging nationalisation of the game combined to create a perfect storm which ultimately sunk us. It has been a long and torturous climb back up the mountain, and we're sadly, still miles from the summit.
-
if the zoning thing is true it had very little impact on us. premiership in 1980, played off in 82, draft replaced zones in 86
The trade war with colllingwood and arrogant mis management was the killer. have read on numerous occasions that while graeme richmonds style played a a big part in our success, it also played a big part in our downfall.
as for sheedy?. stuff me sideways In what reality do you get rid of a premiership coach for an untried coach?
Seriously?
-
if the zoning thing is true it had very little impact on us. premiership in 1980, played off in 82, draft replaced zones in 86
The trade war with colllingwood and arrogant mis management was the killer. have read on numerous occasions that while graeme richmonds style played a a big part in our success, it also played a big part in our downfall.
as for sheedy?. stuff me sideways In what reality do you get rid of a premiership coach for an untried coach?
Seriously?
The answer is you don't, and we didn't obviously. It's more a case of, on this occasion the stars just didn't align for us, in so much as TJ had just won us a flag by a then record margin, so you couldn't possibly tap him on the shoulder. The ironic thing of course is, that the year Sheedy defected to Essendon, hungry to coach (1981), TJ couldn't get us into the finals and ended up being sacked anyway. Then we tried another favourite son and untried coach in Francis Bourke which turned out to be an unmitigated disaster, while Sheedy took the Bummers to four flags.