View Full Version : Tim Clarke leadership Group!!!
HODGEYROAD
9 Oct 2007, 14:46
Why is he in the Leadership group?? He should not be in our best 22 next year... We should be looking to offload him this week at Telstra Dome.
hawka187
9 Oct 2007, 14:52
i agree, the players rate him highly tho, didnt play nothing this year, others should be in leadership before him.
Why is he in the Leadership group?? He should not be in our best 22 next year... We should be looking to offload him this week at Telstra Dome.
Awesome thread! Except I don't agree with you! If the club has put him in the leadership group, I'm not going to complain. They obviously know what they're doing.
I also think he's more valuable than what we would attain via trading. Outside of the club he wouldn't hold the same value that Hawthorn regard him in.
Bennycoff
9 Oct 2007, 14:58
Works hard and would have featured in team throughout season if wasn't for injuries.
Why is he in the leadership group? Because he is one of the most respected player by his peers, alot of guys look up to Little Tim for the hard work he has done to improve his football.
I dont really rate him as a player, neither do I think he will be around in the distant future but from the interviews and stories I hear Tim Clarke is certainly deserving to be in the leadership group.
HODGEYROAD
9 Oct 2007, 15:03
Clarke is an honest trier but I don't think you can win Premierships with him in your best 22. He is not versatile eg cant play foward or back and if you are a top side he is not good enough to play midfield.. Tim Clarke = Good fill in player for a team in rebuilding phase.
I'm just wondering if Clark will be around even in 5 seasons. I think he will be! He's the type of player who will continually achieve 20 + possessions per game, simply because he can outrun his opponent. That has to be worthwhile?
Being in the leadership group does not mean that you have to be 1 of the very best players at the club.
TC is one of the best at setting examples. Other players look at him for inspiration,team values,how to get the best out of the ability that you have.
the leadership group is voted in by the playing group and endorsed by the coaches.
Surely our players and coaches are smart enough to know who deserves to be there and who doesnt. Im sure they know just a little more than the average fan/member.
lickmerocks
9 Oct 2007, 15:06
Why is he in the Leadership group?? He should not be in our best 22 next year... We should be looking to offload him this week at Telstra Dome.
Finally a Hawthorn supporter on this forum that doesnt rate every player on our list as a champion.
Fact-A great long distance runner. A Great trainer. A great allround guy.
Fact-Not up to AFL Standard
When are we going to get serious at our club. If he gets picked before a young kid next year that deserves a shot, Clarko will be recieving a filthy letter.
Vandenburg Smith and Dixon should not of been playing in our team this year on talent and kept Ellis, Mcglynn, Muston and Tuck out at times when they were in great form for Box Hill.
Dont give me experience rubbish. PICK the best 22 every week.
Clarke is an honest trier but I don't think you can win Premierships with him in your best 22. He is not versatile eg cant play foward or back and if you are a top side he is not good enough to play midfield.. Tim Clarke = Good fill in player for a team in rebuilding phase.
I agree I dont think he is a premiership player, and I think he needs to become a competitive tagger to hold a spot week in and out.
I Am Disgusted That The Players Would Choose A Player Than Us Fans Rate So Poorly. It Is Well Known That Only 22 Superstars With Natural Talent Make Up A Premiership Team And This Is Holding Us Back.
Why is he in the Leadership group?? He should not be in our best 22 next year... We should be looking to offload him this week at Telstra Dome.
He has been in Leadership group for 2 years
flukeyluke
9 Oct 2007, 15:19
It was published in the Hun that Timmy was again in the leadership group for next year.
He obviously isnt on the outer as I suspected he might be.
Gazman15
9 Oct 2007, 15:20
on a slightly separate note, anyone else think browny should've made the leadership group?
we all know he bleeds for hawthorn; obviously stepped up on the discipline side of things and often i see him directing the troops down back.
Dixie Flatline
9 Oct 2007, 15:22
Hawthorn highly rates Tim Clarke.
He will be in our team for round 1 2008, barring injury.
HODGEYROAD
9 Oct 2007, 15:24
He has been in Leadership group for 2 years
But Vanders had been captain for the last 3 years now that he has moved on I thought we would get rid off all the dead wood and start get serious about winning a premiership.
If Clarke is in the team then you would think it would be at the expense of Mcglynn, Young or Ellis. I don't rate Clarke above the above 3 at all.
Hawthorn highly rates Tim Clarke.
He will be in our team for round 1 2008, barring injury.
Only because Hodge, Lewis and Crawf will be out.
I Am Disgusted That The Players Would Choose A Player Than Us Fans Rate So Poorly. It Is Well Known That Only 22 Superstars With Natural Talent Make Up A Premiership Team And This Is Holding Us Back.
Put Cynic In The Leadership Group.;)
Pessimistic
9 Oct 2007, 15:41
But Vanders had been captain for the last 3 years now that he has moved on I thought we would get rid off all the dead wood and start get serious about winning a premiership.
Get rid of dead wood or ring bark (and kill) the tree ?
After the first 22, Jacobs and Clarke the rest is talented kids with no experience.
By all means shaft them and get more kids with no experience but be prepared to return to the bottom 6 of the competition.
I reckon if that happened you'd be calling for the coaches head too !
Don't confuse his leadership traits with his playing
A bit like Vander's leadership input.
Appreciated by those within the playing group but dammed by many supporters.
If the players vote for him, The coaching panel endorse him, and the board ratify it, that's good enough for me. (Bear in mind they're not voting on the best players)
Unless you'd played along side him it's doubtful you'd know what he leadership capabilities were.
He may end up being a borderline player next season but that shouldn't exclude him from the leadership group.
Past efforts would suggest he'll set a great example be it at Boxhill or Hawthorn.
Pessimistic
9 Oct 2007, 15:44
Only because Hodge, Lewis and Crawf will be out.
I would have thought Crawford should be the one needing to be justified - 3 games is 1/7 of the season I hope we arent paying him for that !
I see it took the footy show panel to point out his handballing is absolute crap - Is he so big he cant listen to the coaches ? - Even Kouta has stolen his 'Mr AFL Entertainment crown'.
Frostyhawk
9 Oct 2007, 15:46
Lets get serious people, i asked a friend 3-4 years ago, who would u rather standing in the goal square in the dying seconds of the grand final going at it with Micheal Voss one on one vying for that Vital mark that decides your teams grand final, Brad Sewell? Matthew Ball? Steven Greene? or Tim Clarke?
We both Strongly agreed on rather having either Brad Sewell or Matt Ball before the other 2 lightweight little bugs because of the fact they have got bigger body's and a bit of muscle on them and could actually provide a contest.
Now it has turned out that Ball and Greene have gone because of a lack of potential and to be honest i havent seen Tim Clarke warrant a Leadership position before his injury because he also lacks potential, its now desperatley getting to the stage for Hawthorn where Bigger Bodies should become the main focus because boy do they help in the big crunch games such as a Grand final.
We have enough weeds on the list at the moment such as, Dowler ( Who is a retard spastic fairy ), Ladson, Ellis, Young, little, and that man they call Thurgood.
So why would we even consider keeping Tim Clarke, ( another weed ) who is not going to grow an inch or build a muscle in the remaining years of his life and start focusing on getting the talented weeds like Ladson and Ellis and Young bulked up and then we can finally piss off these fill in duds that i have mentioned in this post and start getting serious about getting a premiereship contending side on the park that can challenge those sides like the Eagles and the Cats and the pies and power who all rely on bigger and healthier bodies getting them over the line in those massive crunch games, just like the massive crunch game that the hawks lost this year in the Semis because it looked like we were beaten up by a bunch of men while we looked like little kids who couldnt mix it with the big boys!!
Pessimistic
9 Oct 2007, 15:46
I Am Disgusted That The Players Would Choose A Player Than Us Fans Rate So Poorly. It Is Well Known That Only 22 Superstars With Natural Talent Make Up A Premiership Team And This Is Holding Us Back.
And don't worry about depth the 22 are so good they'll never get injured
Brown Blood
9 Oct 2007, 15:51
I Am Disgusted That The Players Would Choose A Player Than Us Fans Rate So Poorly. It Is Well Known That Only 22 Superstars With Natural Talent Make Up A Premiership Team And This Is Holding Us Back.
What makes you think you talk for me!
I'm disgusted reading your post.
Tim is a player who has realised his difficiencies and worked hard to address them.
Sad for him he was injured last year.
He also is a player WHO HAS BEEN ELECTED BY HIS PEERS to be in the leadership group.
Do you understand what that means.
Frostyhawk
9 Oct 2007, 15:53
What makes you think you talk for me!
I'm disgusted reading your post.
Tim is a player who has realised his difficiencies and worked hard to address them.
Sad for him he was injured last year.
He also is a player WHO HAS BEEN ELECTED BY HIS PEERS to be in the leadership group.
Do you understand what that means.
Ummm,
Does it mean that your a poof?
HODGEYROAD
9 Oct 2007, 15:54
Get rid of dead wood or ring bark (and kill) the tree ?
After the first 22, Jacobs and Clarke the rest is talented kids with no experience.
By all means shaft them and get more kids with no experience but be prepared to return to the bottom 6 of the competition.
I reckon if that happened you'd be calling for the coaches head too !
Clark hardly plays like an expierence player though he has the body of an 18 year old but at least our 18 year old kids have talent, eg Muston, Ellis, Morton.. Id rather any of them play than clarke.
Hawkamania!
9 Oct 2007, 15:54
Don't confuse his leadership traits with his playing
A bit like Vander's leadership input.
Appreciated by those within the playing group but dammed by many supporters.
If the players vote for him, The coaching panel endorse him, and the board ratify it, that's good enough for me. (Bear in mind they're not voting on the best players)
Unless you'd played along side him it's doubtful you'd know what he leadership capabilities were.
He may end up being a borderline player next season but that shouldn't exclude him from the leadership group.
Past efforts would suggest he'll set a great example be it at Boxhill or Hawthorn.
Well said. Only the players and coaches know what he brings to the team. With the lack of experience at Hawthorn at the moment, we cannot afford to lose anyone who can bring some experience and help the youngsters.
HODGEYROAD
9 Oct 2007, 16:03
Problem is people are to busy creaming themselves over everyone on the list they can't see reality... Thier is too many fav clubman at Clubs that thier lack of ability dosen't get seen coz people turn a blind eye.. Also the reason no trades get done in trade week is everyone looks at thier players with rose coloured glasses they think that no deal is fair.
What makes you think you talk for me!
I'm disgusted reading your post.
Tim is a player who has realised his difficiencies and worked hard to address them.
Sad for him he was injured last year.
He also is a player WHO HAS BEEN ELECTED BY HIS PEERS to be in the leadership group.
Do you understand what that means.
Brown Blood - maybe I gave Cynic more credit than he deserves but I assumed he wasn't serious.
If he was serious, then I withdraw my nomination of him for the leadership group.
Brown Blood
9 Oct 2007, 16:11
Brown Blood - maybe I gave Cynic more credit than he deserves but I assumed he wasn't serious.
If he was serious, then I withdraw my nomination of him for the leadership group.
Oops :o,
Hope your right.
What makes you think you talk for me!
I'm disgusted reading your post.
Tim is a player who has realised his difficiencies and worked hard to address them.
Sad for him he was injured last year.
He also is a player WHO HAS BEEN ELECTED BY HIS PEERS to be in the leadership group.
Do you understand what that means.
*Cough*
:o
hawkstars
9 Oct 2007, 16:17
This guy shouldn't even be getting a game. SIMPLE!:thumbsd:
Lets get serious people, i asked a friend 3-4 years ago, who would u rather standing in the goal square in the dying seconds of the grand final going at it with Micheal Voss one on one vying for that Vital mark that decides your teams grand final, Brad Sewell? Matthew Ball? Steven Greene? or Tim Clarke?
We both Strongly agreed on rather having either Brad Sewell or Matt Ball before the other 2 lightweight little bugs because of the fact they have got bigger body's and a bit of muscle on them and could actually provide a contest.
Now it has turned out that Ball and Greene have gone because of a lack of potential and to be honest i havent seen Tim Clarke warrant a Leadership position before his injury because he also lacks potential, its now desperatley getting to the stage for Hawthorn where Bigger Bodies should become the main focus because boy do they help in the big crunch games such as a Grand final.
We have enough weeds on the list at the moment such as, Dowler ( Who is a retard spastic fairy ), Ladson, Ellis, Young, little, and that man they call Thurgood.
So why would we even consider keeping Tim Clarke, ( another weed ) who is not going to grow an inch or build a muscle in the remaining years of his life and start focusing on getting the talented weeds like Ladson and Ellis and Young bulked up and then we can finally piss off these fill in duds that i have mentioned in this post and start getting serious about getting a premiereship contending side on the park that can challenge those sides like the Eagles and the Cats and the pies and power who all rely on bigger and healthier bodies getting them over the line in those massive crunch games, just like the massive crunch game that the hawks lost this year in the Semis because it looked like we were beaten up by a bunch of men while we looked like little kids who couldnt mix it with the big boys!!
As I said earlier (Dr.J backed it up) leadership group is voted on by players and endorsed by coaches.It's not about ability alone. Its more about being a team leader , which obviously the players and coaches think Tim is.
As for your comment on Dowler , PATHETIC COMMENT :thumbsd:
fill in duds ? It's called depth , something that premiership sides have. You need experience in that depth.
Semi. I was at the game and we didnt look like little kids. We looked like an in-experienced side trying to rough up the opposition. The Kangas didnt look any bigger than us , they just played the ball
Re:your response to Brown Blood's post
again PATHETIC , ABSOLUTELY CHILDISH. :thumbsd:
He asked a simple question but YOU are too immature to answer it properly.
flukeyluke
9 Oct 2007, 17:25
Frosty, havent school holidays finished yet?
FatBoy's Wombats
9 Oct 2007, 17:39
This whole thread is a massive yawn. Dammit there isn't a smiley for that. Get real what makes you think you know more about the club and football than A. The coaching staff who are supported by most and B. The players. If you knew a lot about the game then you would know that there are a range of roles carried out in a team some players are good in some respects not so good in others, it is after all a team sport.
Tim Clarke has a role to play at the club and is in our best 22.
Comments on Dowler - you fool. :thumbsd:
croady_fan24
9 Oct 2007, 19:30
Im pretty shocked he actually got in.
Frostbite wrote:Lets get serious people, i asked a friend 3-4 years ago, who would u rather standing in the goal square in the dying seconds of the grand final going at it with Micheal Voss one on one vying for that Vital mark that decides your teams grand final, Brad Sewell? Matthew Ball? Steven Greene? or Tim Clarke?
That must have been a riveting conversation, those around must have been struck dumb in awe at the complexity of the conundrum you had devised.
Frostbite wrote: We both Strongly agreed on rather having either Brad Sewell or Matt Ball before the other 2 lightweight little bugs because of the fact they have got bigger body's and a bit of muscle on them and could actually provide a contest.
So, after carefully evaluating the mass and velocity of the persons involved in your fascinating hypothetical quandary you two intellectual giants managed to come to the ground breaking revelation that Newton’s Laws of Motion might actually apply on a football field. Outstanding!!! Absolute Genius at work here. There have been so few moments in science that have provided humankind with such an epiphany. Well done, you should both be very proud.
As a personal favour, could you please discuss the following hypothetical situation with your equally gifted friend and report in detail to me your considered opinion. Which of the four players you mentioned would be most adept at making repeated long hard leads in your hypothetical grand final in order to win the ball and avoid a contest in the goals square with Michael Voss?
Frostbite wrote: to be honest i havent seen Tim Clarke warrant a Leadership position
I wonder why the playing group didn't consult you before they voted for Tim's inclusion in the leadership group. Possibly because they have been very happy with his previous appointment in the post which I thought he had held since the Kokoda trip in 2004. I can only assume that the playing group and the coaches wouldn't wish to distract you from you true calling.
So why would we even consider keeping Tim Clarke, ( another weed ) who is not going to grow an inch or build a muscle in the remaining years of his life and start focusing on getting the talented weeds like Ladson and Ellis and Young bulked up and then we can finally piss off these fill in duds that i have mentioned in this post and start getting serious about getting a premiereship contending side on the park that can challenge those sides like the Eagles and the Cats and the pies and power who all rely on bigger and healthier bodies getting them over the line in those massive crunch games, just like the massive crunch game that the hawks lost this year in the Semis because it looked like we were beaten up by a bunch of men while we looked like little kids who couldnt mix it with the big boys!!
I wish I could get more of an insight to your obviously magnificent mind. It such a shame I lack the intellectual capacity to understand this magnificent piece of writing. I kept passing out when I reach the 87 word mark; unfortunately I need a full stop in order to get my breath back. Again your intellect is exposed for all to see. I am not sure there would be too many people on the planet who could be capable of writing a 155 word sentence and have it filled with as much insight as you provide.
It must be said though that your comments about Dowler seemed to be offensive and unwarranted. Perhaps it was a clever ruse on your behalf to catch out the ignorant toolbags among us who would actually think such ridiculous garbage.
Hawk0373
9 Oct 2007, 22:42
Clarke could be our answer as a defensive fwd. Can't see any other position for him in our best 22.
Why is he in the Leadership group?? He should not be in our best 22 next year... We should be looking to offload him this week at Telstra Dome.
OMG, we has a leadingship groop?
That is sooo kool - ur gr8 :thumbsu: