Hawthorn's domination shows up the other clubs (Age)

[mightytiges]

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.

[Stalin]

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 

[Penelope]

this could be interesting.......

[Stalin]

Doubtful

[Penelope]

 

[RollsRoyce]

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. 

[Penelope]

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?

[RollsRoyce]

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.