Equalisation of Competition

[Demonsone 1,600]

Agreed, but I meant over-reliance in a long-term sense. Clearly they drafted well when they needed to, but they have recognised that, with a strong core, you do not need to continue to go to the draft to keep a club strong.

When you nail your early picks & continue with good trades & free agents

2001

Luke Hodge (1) — 250 games, 3 x All-Australian, 2 x best and fairest, 3 x premierships, 2 x Norm Smith Medal

Rick Ladson (16) — 125 games, 1 x premiership

Campbell Brown (32) — 159 games, 1 x All-Australian, 1 x premiership

Sam Mitchell (36) — 261 games, 2 x All-Australian, 4 x best and fairest, 3 x premierships

2004

Jarryd Roughead (2) — 207 games, 441 goals, 2 x All-Australian, 1 x Coleman Medal, 3 x premierships

Lance Franklin (5) — 182 games, 580 goals, 5 x All-Australian, 3 x Coleman Medal, 2 x premierships

Jordan Lewis (7) — 217 games, 1 x All-Australian, 1 x best and fairest, 3 x premierships

Tom Murphy (21) — 95 games

Simon Taylor (53) — 85 games

[What 18,810]

Hawks should be held up as an example of whats achievable when an entire club is on the same page and professional and hungry from top to bottom, not be used as an example for how equalization has failed.

They have built a dynasty with no academy picks, no extra salary cap room and I don't think they've even struck gold on any father-son picks.

They lost Buddy Franklin and havent replaced him with another superstar, just role players

I hate them as much as the next bloke but what they have been able to achieve is amazing.

Edited October 3, 2015 by Petraccattack

[loges 6,027]

I dunno about you, but if my job was sheizen and there was a better employer out there offering better money and better prospects I'd jump off a shakey ship too.

Hardly picking the eyes out. 90% of players don't change clubs at the end of the year

Thats because they pick the eyes out

[The heart beats true 16,154]

No, Hawthorn traded Croad to Fremantle in exchange for pick 1.

I was basing my research on Wikipiedia Clint - which says they got Hodge. Lesson learnt

[Macca 16,173]

True, but the lower teams have better picks to trade as a result.

Melbourne would be a top four team right now if we nailed our draft picks from 2008 until 2012.

More importantly, we would definitely be a better team if we'd traded a number of those picks for bona fide established talent (especially involving that 2009 draft) The bigger mistake was not who we picked in those drafts but how we managed those picks.

Things have changed since then as we've seen Roos come in and trade our first rounder for Tyson & ultimately Salem ... he also traded our compo 2nd rounder for Vince with his first off-season with us. We also traded our normal 2nd round pick in the Tyson/Salem deal as well as getting a 1st round draft pick back with the same deal.

Also, we did trade out another 1st round pick (#12) for Clark (which we subsequently turned into Lumumba) Effectively, pick 12 in the 2011 draft has become Lumumba. I understand that most already know all the above stuff but it's worth repeating when considering how our club is now going about it.

I feel sure we had it in mind to do much the same last year but the Trengove trade fell through and the club then decided to go with Petracca & Brayshaw. So, it's been a bit of both so far but we could have easily traded both our 1st and 2nd round picks in Roos' first 2 off-seasons. Or at least nearly all of them - the compo pick for Frawley may well have been used on Petracca or Brayshaw.

I'd expect us to do more of the same this off-season unless we can't get a decent enough deal done - so those eyeing off a young prospect with our pick 6 may need to do a re-think. Unless we land a big fish I can see the club swapping pick 6 for a player and pick 11-13 (or such like) I can also see the club hanging on to pick 6 and using it on a top prospect .... it can be either/or.

.

Edited October 4, 2015 by Macca

[Davos 734]

It's a competition for a reason you [censored], harden the [censored] up.

[Earl Hood 5,789]

Yep, if we'd of nailed our picks we would be in the frame. Shocking drafting by MFC. We have a got a few right the past few years though. Hopefully we get our chance oneday,

Actually I think if we had nailed the first rounders between 2007, 08, 09, we would be better but still off the pace compared to the Dawks. I don't think the talent was there, at least amongst those who were perceived to be top10. We should have drafted Hurley or Nic Nat, then Dusty, guys like Fyfe and Shuey were not so highly regarded. We would have needed to pick the eyes out of those drafts, first and second round picks and so pick up the likes of Fyfe, Shuey, Selwood, etc, etc and we may be competitive today with the Dawks.

My point is they got fortunate to have a chump like Freemantle to get Hodge and to have Mitchell sitting under their nose at Box Hill, then to tank and go to the 2004 draft and have Roughy, Buddy and Lewis there to be picked. The 2003 draft was threadbare when we had the picks, it produced very little for everyone involved. From there they had the nucleus of what we see today. Priority picks in 2005 helped and then pulling out Cyril in 07 was icing on the cake. I have lays smelt a rat with Cyril's selection in 2007, spent time at Scotch College under some Hawks people and come draft time put in a shocker at the camp and several recruiters commented later on that he interviewed appallingly. I remember Matt Rendall saying he had obvious talent but he seemed too shy and just wanted to go home.

Anyway they have three and I can't see hy they won't get four. It is usually injuries but these guys don't seem to get injuries. Full list to chose from for the second year running and we are talking about the oldest team in history for heavens sake.

[Jaded No More 57,913]

People still don't get it, the problem isn't free agency.

Frawley didn't win Hawthorn a premiership this year, the problem is players picking and choosing where they are traded to which has nothing to do with free agency.

Here's the thing, players have been picking and choosing where they are traded to for many years before free agency was introduced and this is what needs to change.

Yes but now players can choose to go where they want, and clubs give up nothing for it.

Hawthorn got a FB for free.

[Deecisive 1,652]

how many clubs played in or won premierships throughout the 50s and 60s when Collingwood and Melbourne dominated. Yes draft picks going right is a big issue but then so is the ability to apply pressure and keep your skills under pressure. Today the hawks were pretty impressive they manned up when the Eagles had the ball and spread when they had it. Their deliver was first class with even fumbles going their way. The Eagles were all at sea some of the best players turned it over time and time again. Their zoning approach was useless, the hawks passed with precision not giving the eagles a chance to intercept. and finally the hawks kicked straight and the eagles players cracked under pressure either kicking points, or turning it over in their forward 50.

The hawks team play and pressure won. It reminded me of the way the bears played a few years ago when they won. Constant pressure on the ball carrier. I fear we use the zone, which essentially relies on players intercepting mis-kicks, etc... rather than winning the ball through the application of hard pressure.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

Yes but now players can choose to go where they want, and clubs give up nothing for it.

This isn't new.

[daisycutter 28,534]

Hawthorn have lost Franklin to free agency and gained Frawley through free agency.

Which of those two players would you prefer?

well given buddy might never play again, i'll let you work that one out

[Earl Hood 5,789]

how many clubs played in or won premierships throughout the 50s and 60s when Collingwood and Melbourne dominated. Yes draft picks going right is a big issue but then so is the ability to apply pressure and keep your skills under pressure. Today the hawks were pretty impressive they manned up when the Eagles had the ball and spread when they had it. Their deliver was first class with even fumbles going their way. The Eagles were all at sea some of the best players turned it over time and time again. Their zoning approach was useless, the hawks passed with precision not giving the eagles a chance to intercept. and finally the hawks kicked straight and the eagles players cracked under pressure either kicking points, or turning it over in their forward 50.

The hawks team play and pressure won. It reminded me of the way the bears played a few years ago when they won. Constant pressure on the ball carrier. I fear we use the zone, which essentially relies on players intercepting mis-kicks, etc... rather than winning the ball through the application of hard pressure.

Good point Deecisive. This back half zoning is interesting. We saw the Crows zone off and get smashed in a semi. So again we see WC zoning off in a Grand Final and guess what, they got smashed! Gee I don't get payed $300K a year to be a coach but my guess is if you lose midfield control you have to revert to plan B and man up on the oppostion's forwards, but what would I know. You go man on man, make every tackle hurt and go the knuckle if you need to make the Dawks at least think twice about their systematic game plan.

[ucanchoose 1,803]

Thats because they pick the eyes out

So the best clubs ALWAYS get the best players?

No.

[ucanchoose 1,803]

Your first sentence just emphasises why those players will go to top clubs and why those clubs will pay for them.

Your second is confusing - if many players changed clubs each year it would not be 'picking the eyes'. So I don't understand your point. Perhaps I have confused you by implying that these players were rendered blind and thus somewhat hampered marking the ball......

If the best players were raided each year Nahan Jones would have nominated a trade to Hawthorn or Collingwood 5 years ago. Didn't happen.

90% of the best players DON'T change hands

[Bombay Airconditioning 5,888]

Hawthorn have lost Franklin to free agency and gained Frawley through free agency.

Which of those two players would you prefer?

The issue is, has been and always will be players nominating where they are traded to in addition to clubs requiring player permission in order to be traded.

I could potentially live with players nominating a state to play in (now that there are at least two clubs in each state) but certainly not nominating a team to be traded to.

This team was built around the draft in the initial stages (Hodge, Franklin, Roughead, Lewis, Mitchell, Rioli) and maintained through trading.

They wouldn't be here without the draft, it is the foundation of this team.

Some great points.

[monoccular 16,072]

Sure we have stuffed up big time in drafting, Morton > Rioli just reminded me of the today, but to me, now with free agency I honestly can't see any road up for those stuck at the bottom at this particular time.

We are destined to be a "development / feeder" club for the upper echelons who will let us develop,or stuff up, high picks, and skim the cream if we uncover / develop any talent.

It is hitting me as a sad reality.

A reverse salary cap, and restriction of FAs going to top 4 or top 6 teams could help with equalization, maybe.

[Deecisive 1,652]

Look at the hawks, they are big bodied, strong and willing. How many sides have skinny young kids in their sides trying to get game experience.

How many sides compare in all of those aspects, plus have damn fine skills. The Hawks tackle and put pressure on so if you do not deliver the ball with precision you will be tackled hard, if you fumble you will be tackled hard. If one players misses a tackle a second is usually not far away ready to tackle. The hawks apply pressure, pressure, pressure. So many eagles players today just wanted the bang the ball down field and ended up turning it over more times than not.

When I watch Melbourne play I see players run past the opposition player with the ball chasing their man not looking at or chasing the man with the ball. Our players often don't tackle but try to bottle the opposition in. You cannot afford to give skilled players 5-10 meters head start which is what we do when we play a zone. When our zone falls apart the opposition players are running free everywhere while our players try to figure out who should chase who, or who should to where. I prefer the hawks method, man up and play one on one football when they have the ball and run off your opponents when you have it.

[SaberFang 7,141]

Let's not forget their acquisition of Rioli at pick 12 was hardly the "drafting genius" it's portrayed to be.

It's become increasingly obvious he was shielded from other clubs and likely told to tank his draft interviews by acting disinterested and uncommitted.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

Look at the hawks, they are big bodied, strong and willing. How many sides have skinny young kids in their sides trying to get game experience.

How many sides compare in all of those aspects, plus have damn fine skills. The Hawks tackle and put pressure on so if you do not deliver the ball with precision you will be tackled hard, if you fumble you will be tackled hard. If one players misses a tackle a second is usually not far away ready to tackle. The hawks apply pressure, pressure, pressure. So many eagles players today just wanted the bang the ball down field and ended up turning it over more times than not.

When I watch Melbourne play I see players run past the opposition player with the ball chasing their man not looking at or chasing the man with the ball. Our players often don't tackle but try to bottle the opposition in. You cannot afford to give skilled players 5-10 meters head start which is what we do when we play a zone. When our zone falls apart the opposition players are running free everywhere while our players try to figure out who should chase who, or who should to where. I prefer the hawks method, man up and play one on one football when they have the ball and run off your opponents when you have it.

Good points.

I also love the way Hawthorn players are always moving and when they get the ball in tight they take a couple of quick steps to make space then pass it off, they don't just slam it on the boot or panic they are always looking to create space for themselves.

[titan_uranus 22,363]

When I watch Melbourne play I see players run past the opposition player with the ball chasing their man not looking at or chasing the man with the ball. Our players often don't tackle but try to bottle the opposition in. You cannot afford to give skilled players 5-10 meters head start which is what we do when we play a zone. When our zone falls apart the opposition players are running free everywhere while our players try to figure out who should chase who, or who should to where. I prefer the hawks method, man up and play one on one football when they have the ball and run off your opponents when you have it.

That issue reminds me of a quote from Adam Simpson regarding the development of West Coast:

"They play on instinct now rather than trying to comply," Simpson said of his players in an extensive interview with Fairfax Media in mid-July. "And if they can understand their role and not have to think too hard about positioning or running patterns or how we want to defend or move the ball, I think then you see the growth in individuals."

Our players are still learning to play on instinct and not to "comply". At times this year it was working to the point where I felt that there was cohesion and there was more instinct coming through but the bulk of the second half of the season indicated that too many players are still pre-occupied with the things the coaches are telling them to do and not enough on the game as it is playing out in front of them.

My hope is that in 2016 we start to see this change, fewer players following their man and not even watching the ball carrier next to them, more players making instinctive decisions when they have the ball, etc.

[Earl Hood 5,789]

Look at the hawks, they are big bodied, strong and willing. How many sides have skinny young kids in their sides trying to get game experience.

How many sides compare in all of those aspects, plus have damn fine skills. The Hawks tackle and put pressure on so if you do not deliver the ball with precision you will be tackled hard, if you fumble you will be tackled hard. If one players misses a tackle a second is usually not far away ready to tackle. The hawks apply pressure, pressure, pressure. So many eagles players today just wanted the bang the ball down field and ended up turning it over more times than not.

When I watch Melbourne play I see players run past the opposition player with the ball chasing their man not looking at or chasing the man with the ball. Our players often don't tackle but try to bottle the opposition in. You cannot afford to give skilled players 5-10 meters head start which is what we do when we play a zone. When our zone falls apart the opposition players are running free everywhere while our players try to figure out who should chase who, or who should to where. I prefer the hawks method, man up and play one on one football when they have the ball and run off your opponents when you have it.

Good points Deecisive, except the Dawks aren't big bodied. They may may be strong and willing though. What I noticed at the GF parade was the different body shapes. The Dawks are quite lean, except for McEvoy and Frawley, the rest seem to carry little weight and muscle when compared to WC. Kennedy, Darling, Shuey, Hurn, they are big. Ability to cover ground and keep running is now more important than being muscled battering rams. It helps to be skilled of course, that covers a lot of other deficiencies.

[deespicable me 1,434]

Hawks should be held up as an example of whats achievable when an entire club is on the same page and professional and hungry from top to bottom, not be used as an example for how equalization has failed.

They have built a dynasty with no academy picks, no extra salary cap room and I don't think they've even struck gold on any father-son picks.

They lost Buddy Franklin and havent replaced him with another superstar, just role players

I hate them as much as the next bloke but what they have been able to achieve is amazing.

I agree with your point, Hawthorn have been fantastic.

But.. It is not a question of Hawthorn. It is a question of the AFL. As a governing body do they want a lopsided competition or an even robust competition? For the first time in a long, long time I din't even watch the game today, I find it boring.

I would have thought if the AFL drew up a charter that stated what they stood for and their responsibilities, they would have near the top that in the next ten years the governing body should strive to create a competition where we have ten different premiers and eighteen different grand finalists.

Now I know this would be close to impossible to achieve but at the moment I think we are so far away from this ideal that the whole competition is bordering on being non-competitive. At the moment it is a contrived corporate politicised competition.

The game needs to be given back to the fans, the fans of all clubs should become the number one priority for the AFL, not just a chosen few.

[SaberFang 7,141]

The AFL vastly underestimated the ripple effect that these 3 events occurring within the same time frame would have on the overall health of the competition:

1. Giving all the best young talent to only 2 teams for about 4 years running.

2. Removing the priority pick, meaning teams that were genuinely struggling got no draft assistance.

3. Introducing free agency, allowing the best teams to cherry pick players without giving up any draft picks.

I mean, obviously any halfwit could see what would occur (the teams at the top would maintain a healthy domination because any lower-tier clubs would be unable to build a long-term competitive list via the scraps of the draft), but we're talking about the AFL here. They couldn't organise a chook raffle.

Edited October 3, 2015 by Lamashtu

[Macca 16,173]

As for the Hawks - they understand the parameters and the rules of engagement and conduct their activities accordingly. Rather than being envious, I see them as the benchmark that we can aspire to - we need to be aggressive and confident with our intentions.

There's no reason why we can't build a great list ... as an example - if we had to give up a 1st round pick in next years draft to help secure a top player this season, why couldn't we offset that drafting loss by securing the services of 2 decent free agents at the end of next season?

Having an average to fair list (as we have now) should always mean that we should have loads of salary cap space ... so, the bringing in of free agents should not come with any barriers. We'd probably need to make 2 "in principle" agreements with those free agents now (or perhaps, 6 months ago) but it's entirely do-able.

That's the new footy landscape - we need to be way ahead of the game. Otherwise, we'll be also-rans. Forever reacting rather than being proactive.

[biggestred 4,306]

The minimum salary cap must be removed.