On 14/12/2012 at 05:12, Jordie_tackles said:

Maybe on stats but i am saying in general Hawks defence having him in it is far better than last year, cant say he is a bad defender i dare you? will make them harder to score against because they never leak goals even with it being their weakness imo

Getting him on the ground may well be the problem, he is in my mind the best defensive mark in the comp and on his day is impassable. They have been able to set up well from down back and will probably continue to do it if their midfield holds up and opposition let them get on their left side often enough but I don't see them as the number 2 defence just yet.

  On 14/12/2012 at 05:18, belzebub59 said:

The reality is all that the stats ( champion ) can do is effectively evaluate was has BEEN.. its next to useless on identifying trends or collaborative changes the likes of which happen with list overhauls etc.

youd be a mug to place any coin on the basis of this Data's projections.

Lies, damn lies - and statistics ...... and nonsense.

It doesn't even get history right - the Swans won the flag last year.

............and then there is the small matter of 25% changes in team lists!

Based on best players, playing at their best. Unfortunately football aint like that, players have crap years and others have sensational years. Injuries and depth are tested, some players mature and get better which will benefit sides like GWS, GC, MFC, and others will age which will hamper GFC, HFC, etc... I would love to see how they ranked everyone last year.

  On 14/12/2012 at 05:12, Jordie_tackles said:

Maybe on stats but i am saying in general Hawks defence having him in it is far better than last year, cant say he is a bad defender i dare you? will make them harder to score against because they never leak goals even with it being their weakness imo

I think their defence is better, but not something that should be rated 2nd best defence in the league. Don't get me wrong, I think a fit Brian Lake will be an asset to any club, but at his age, I see his role being more like how Geelong played Scarlett, and actually I see Lake as being very similar to Gibson in how they play. Neither is a full back that could hold Jono Brown or Cloke, they don't have the size and would only be able to be effective with a double team with Gibson coming across to help out.

Again for all the crap about Tippett, he kicked what 40 odd goals last year? Add that into the forward line for Sydney with Reid, Goodes, Jetta McGlynn etc... yet they can only be rated as 11th best in the comp? Yet two small forwards in Garlett and Betts with a wonky Waite somehow is rated 2nd best?

The other bit that just doesn't work when you look at raw stats is pretty clear if you look at the MFC stats, our midfield being our weakness means that our defence is constantly under pressure, and therefore looks bad. Does anyone actually think we have a bad defensive unit with Frawley, McDonald, Garland, Watts etc? If our midfield can be shown to improve, our defence will get rated higher (purely by the fact of the ball not constantly being there.)

Ou\\\

  Oucher said:

Does anyone actually think we have a bad defensive unit with Frawley, McDonald, Garland, Watts etc? If our midfield can be shown to improve, our defence will get rated higher (purely by the fact of the ball not constantly being there.)

Oucher I know your trying to be optimistic like most of us but the scores for last year are on the board we were not very good in defense. I gotta say Frawley does worry me, this last year I used to shudder at times when he had the ball, he got caught regularly, his kicking at times was woeful he seemed as if he was often trying to stroll around instead of running when in traffic. I would now rate Tom Mc well ahead of frawley. We often butchered the ball so we were one of the worst teams for oppositions scoring off our turnovers which often meant our defense was often the ones who turned it over or were not marking their players on turnovers. As a unit they had trouble just getting the ball out of defense from kickins. While they are not bad players they ALL need to move up a notch or two for the Dees to be more competitive.

You don't need to worry about Frawley.

He'd be a required player on every list in the competition.

This surely is hysterical because it is historical.

How do they rate the totally untried and unproven?

For example, how did they rate HWSNBM, Trengove, Watts, etc before they played their first practice match let alone AFL games?

For a list with as much turnover as ours this is pure speculation.

  On 15/12/2012 at 00:47, Deecisive said:

Ou\\\

Oucher I know your trying to be optimistic like most of us but the scores for last year are on the board we were not very good in defense. I gotta say Frawley does worry me, this last year I used to shudder at times when he had the ball, he got caught regularly, his kicking at times was woeful he seemed as if he was often trying to stroll around instead of running when in traffic. I would now rate Tom Mc well ahead of frawley. We often butchered the ball so we were one of the worst teams for oppositions scoring off our turnovers which often meant our defense was often the ones who turned it over or were not marking their players on turnovers. As a unit they had trouble just getting the ball out of defense from kickins. While they are not bad players they ALL need to move up a notch or two for the Dees to be more competitive.

I wouldn't worry too much about Frawley and our defence. They were under constant pressure all season and even the best defences come unstuck in that situation. WC, Sydney and Geelong's defences who I would rate as the top 3 came unstuck at times last season and looked 2nd rate when the ball was coming in when their midfields were down.

Hawthorns great kicking defence couldn't hit a target and at times couldn't even get ball to boot when Geelong jumped them at the 'G'. Our guys had to cop this most games, a better midfield and stronger defensive pressure up the ground and we won't have a problem here.

  On 15/12/2012 at 00:47, Deecisive said:

Ou\\\

Oucher I know your trying to be optimistic like most of us but the scores for last year are on the board we were not very good in defense. I gotta say Frawley does worry me, this last year I used to shudder at times when he had the ball, he got caught regularly, his kicking at times was woeful he seemed as if he was often trying to stroll around instead of running when in traffic. I would now rate Tom Mc well ahead of frawley. We often butchered the ball so we were one of the worst teams for oppositions scoring off our turnovers which often meant our defense was often the ones who turned it over or were not marking their players on turnovers. As a unit they had trouble just getting the ball out of defense from kickins. While they are not bad players they ALL need to move up a notch or two for the Dees to be more competitive.

No offence (and no pun intended) , but I don't think you actually took notice of what I was actually referring to either.

Our defensive group is actually solid unit. But yes statistically it was not great last year. However, I think most clubs would generally be happy with the defensive make up that we have (Note... the players not the results) My point was a poor midfield actually contributed to the defence looking more ordinary than it actually is.

You would also no doubt be aware that our defence regularly had players pulled out to provide targets up forward (Garland and Rivers) after Clark went down, meaning that the group wasn't that settled.

I'd rate our defence as about 10-14th for the 2013 season but with a lot of potential. It's not unreasonable to say Frawley and McDonald become a really good tall pairing with Sellar, Davis and Gillies fighting for spots, then Garland, Watts and Dunn all could be very handy players on potential and our small defenders with the likes of Strauss and Nicholson could really show something. I certainly think if you put Grimes on a HBF as a rock of the defence its almost instantly a much improved quality defence.

Our midfield is still going to battle but should be much improved as a unit. I think we've got a group now that could almost be elite if things go to plan but is still so inexperienced. Whether we've got the 12th best midfield or 17th best depends a lot on Jones, McKenzie and Sylvia. If those 3 play consistently at their best it really means Trengove, Viney, Toumpas and others can contribute. If Rodan plays top line footy then we'll really become a good unit quicker than expected.

The forward line certainly has the talent and structure to be good enough already. We just needs games together for Clark, Dawes, Pedersen and a mixture of smalls like Blease, Bail, Byrnes, Tapscott and even Davey.

Sydney wouldn't of rated in the top 8 in that before the start of last year.

That list means absolutely nothing.

But I am glad they put it out so I can nit pick at it last on in the year.

The reason Carlton forward rate 2nd is they have forwards that have high averages in supercoach scores.

Can you believe Schoenmaker has a higher supercoach average than Glass,Scarlett and Luke Mcpharlin last year.

This is why, we shouldn't rate this list.

  On 15/12/2012 at 15:59, 7-UP said:

The reason Carlton forward rate 2nd is they have forwards that have high averages in supercoach scores.

Can you believe Schoenmaker has a higher supercoach average than Glass,Scarlett and Luke Mcpharlin last year.

This is why, we shouldn't rate this list.

Agree. Especially when it comes to defensive units. They give higher value to the players who play loose and rack up disposals than to the ones who prevent opposition scores and shut down their man.

Did they issue a list like this prior to the 2012 season? I'd love to see it.