meltiger said:
You (& most Hawthorn people) are making an exceptionally huge assumption that every single one of these kids makes it. All good to them if it does, but usually she doesn't work like that.
Not me. From 5 picks at that level I'd be looking for 3 to come on well and for anything more to be a bonus. Markedly improved 21st century draft practices and the extra effort that goes into preparing and identifying young players for the next step, has shown this is not ambitious.
meltiger said:
Personally, I think going down the loser St Kilda road is a huge, huge gamble.
Except that you address St Kilda from an angle that suggests any club should be a premiership certainty. Premierships are bloody hard to win even if you do have a strong list, which is why I look at premierships as a bonus. St Kilda has made the top four over the past two years and most likely will again in 2006. The challenge for all clubs is to get good enough to be in the top four, because if you can do that, you are at least giving yourself a genuine chance at winning a premiership.
Once you're in the top four you then hope that you've put sufficient time and thought into getting balance and strength across your list, so you don't get exposed in key areas (re: St Kilda in the ruck & West Coast in their forwards). From there, you hope you get the luck, ala Sydney, that will seal the deal.
The 'St Kilda' road (such as it is) may be a gamble, but it would be more so if you did it with zero experience on board. Hawthorn still has around 8 very experienced footballers, plus the league's largest quotient of 21-24 year old footballers. That puts us closer to 1992 Essendon than 1995 Fitzroy (if you like to run comparisons with previous younger sides), but until we can get into finals football we're nowhere.
meltiger said:
Then again, it's better than conceding you are a perpetual middle running team like 1 club which brings us to the Rawlings/Hay trades...
The Kangaroos obviously feel that its better to play safe and keep a solid mid table side that's just good enough to raise outside hopes of a flag, and not fragile enough to plummett into the bottom four.
Essentially they're hoping to do a Steven Bradbury on the competition, which -- I suppose -- is what Sydney did this year to some extent, although the Swans do have a few classier players on offer than the Kangaroos.
The problem I have with the Kangaroos is that they've gone from the most aggressive and adventurous club in the comp, to one that would rather nourish its fanbase on hollow notions of "shinboner spirit", than genuinely give them a chance at the big prize.
As I said previously, you're either in the four and a serious premiership player, or you're not really anywhere.
The club likes to push the nonsense line that unlike other clubs it can't afford to finish in the bottom four. As if any club can "afford" to spend time in the bottom four. They end up there because they're not good enough. If you know you're not quite good enough, but you persist in prioritising other club's cast-offs across numerous years, then eventually you'll find yourself in the bottom four regardless.
Having said that, watch for a shock Kangaroo premiership win in 2006. Football can be like that.
meltiger said:
North Melbourne basically got him for nothing now, with the Dogs paying 450 over the next two years and the Roos 150. Dogs must have been DESPERATE to get rid of him.
Personally, still think he has potential as a 3rd backman, with a genuine CHB and FB in the same side. Hay gives them a Fullback, not sure of their CHB stocks though?
I've been hearing those figures bandied around, but I'm not sure that I believe them. Given that the Bulldogs actually traded down a draft pick for the Kangaroos to take Rawlings, I can't believe that they would also have agreed to paying that much of his salary.
He's gone physically, but at least his brother should be happy.
meltiger said:
Hay.... most of you seem to have lost faith in him ... Gaspar had a very, very poor year last year, this year was bloody sensational. Why? The flow of ball coming from the oppositions midfield was less. A FB can only look as good as his midfield allows him too. Will be interesting to see if Hay is really yesterdays man, or if playing in a marginally better side will allow him some freedom to get back to AA form.
Hay will probably, in one-on-one terms, do much the same for the Kangaroos as he has done for us. He rarely allows his direct opponent to kick much because he sits off him and punches, and does this well. What doesn't show up in the stats sheets is his lack of effort in supporting teammates and, more tellingly, his horrific ball use which leads to regular turnovers and goals registered against team mates instead of him. This is why he was well down on blokes like Michael, Scarlett & even young Rutten who are confident players with the ball and can think through situations when running with it in their defensive 50.
Good luck to him anyway, he's not a bad person and was always popular around the club.
