Hawks playing Pies with two fewer players

[walhawk]

Last night Hawthorn played 24 players against the Pies who had the full 26.

As part of equalisation, they should do this in the season proper.

E.g. As Premiers, we could have three on the bench to play other top 8 sides.
Two v middles sides and one v bottom 4.
(and maybe just a sub v Carlton).

 

[walhawk]

On a serious note it shows the lack of respect for what is nothing more than a practice match and demonstrates why you should not be able to bet on these games.

 

[Cynic]

Sorry but this really seems like a bit of a sook. Collingwood beat us. They played better. If anyone reads too much into it they are idiots but you can't argue they played better.

 

[Sttew]

Last night Hawthorn played 24 players against the Pies who had the full 26.

As part of equalisation, they should do this in the season proper.

E.g. As Premiers, we could have three on the bench to play other top 8 sides.
Two v middles sides and one v bottom 4.
(and maybe just a sub v Carlton).

A handicapped competition?

 

[TigerTime3]

At least you didn't need top-ups.

 

[Lensen]

On a serious note it shows the lack of respect for what is nothing more than a practice match and demonstrates why you should not be able to bet on these games.

why
and i say this as someone who bet on hawthorn last night after the initial squads were announced. obviously the late withdrawals burnt me but i knew going in it might happen and so considered my stake accordingly
why should i not be able to bet on the game if i choose to do so?

 

[Roddy]

We lost every pre-season game in '13 too, and that season kinda worked out ok for us.

Collingwood outplayed us last night, beat us fair and square, no matter what personnel were there or weren't there. You can only beat what's put in front of you.

And I'm not experiencing one single solitary iota of worry about it.

 

[Cashmoney13]

cool thread ...

 

[Cmarsh]

Last night Hawthorn played 24 players against the Pies who had the full 26.

As part of equalisation, they should do this in the season proper.

E.g. As Premiers, we could have three on the bench to play other top 8 sides.
Two v middles sides and one v bottom 4.
(and maybe just a sub v Carlton).

Well whose fault is that?

 

[piesaregreat]

I would happily lose every NAB cup match if the cause was winning the previous years GF
4 weeks less preseason probably was a reason

Still why play only 24?

 

[Hens Hall]

strange thread

 

[JUBJUB]

A handicapped competition?

Timmy & Jimmy like this idea

 

[JUBJUB]

On a serious note it shows the lack of respect for what is nothing more than a practice match and demonstrates why you should not be able to bet on these games.

People bet on NAB challenge games ?
Might as well just flush your money down the dunny

 

[The Falcon Strike]

The outrage people have when teams use the pre-season to prepare for the season...


Yet we are told no-one cares about the pre-season... yet there is lots of outrage.. so someone must be caring

mindboggling

 

[I Lost My Keays]

accept the defeat

 

[aussierulesrules]

People bet on NAB challenge games ?
Might as well just flush your money down the dunny

I find this to be easily the best time of the year to be able to bet successfully on the footy. You just look out for the games that have one side with a close to full strength squad playing a club with a very weak squad and chances are if you get in early enough the odds won't reflect the squads respective strengths. Tomorrow's game between WB and Rich at Whitten Oval for example. WB look to be taking it seriously, while Richmond don't and are going in with a very weak team, plus it's at Whitten. Tonight's WC v Carlton game is one example of a game that you could just about bet your house on, although in this case the odds do reflect the strength of the squads, with Carlton incredibly weak and WC close to full strength.

 

[muzzy2]

I would happily lose every NAB cup match if the cause was winning the previous years GF
4 weeks less preseason probably was a reason

Still why play only 24?

Clarkson said last night after the game that it was a calculated risk to get their players more game time.

A better decision would've been to name subs, in case of injury etc, then just leave them on the bench the whole game, Leon Davis style.

In fact, that sort of reminds me of my u10's & u12's playing career.
The free small fries from Maccas made it all better though when you got the coaches award for not getting on the field.

 

[Rushed_Behind]

This shouldnt be the issue. What has really upset me and its an AFL objective to always benefit collingwood. I mean for the first time in 12 years they play an away game and they get 4 more weeks to prepare for it. Disgusting. This has McGuire's fingerprints all over it.

 

[Easy Slips Catch]

Last night Hawthorn played 24 players against the Pies who had the full 26...

Good on Clarko. Do we really need to have 8 on the bench?

 

[Captivating]

The amount of Hawks defending the result makes me think there is an underlying insecurity. I've said before, I don't think the Hawks will have the hunger after being "up" for 4 straight years. Was the result our first evidence of a lack of hunger and passion?

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Good on Clarko. Do we really need to have 8 on the bench?

This
No point playing extra, as in the actual season you don't have the luxury

You'd find, there was only 3 players really used on the bench, for three quarters, and it showed

Good on the pies for using the rules to Their advantage

 

[mellowyellow]

Last night Hawthorn played 24 players against the Pies who had the full 26.

As part of equalisation, they should do this in the season proper.

E.g. As Premiers, we could have three on the bench to play other top 8 sides.
Two v middles sides and one v bottom 4.
(and maybe just a sub v Carlton).

.... More then made up for the 48 heads you lot had

 

[Bluelegs]

On a serious note it shows the lack of respect for what is nothing more than a practice match and demonstrates why you should not be able to bet on these games.

Yes its nab, but Hawthorn were rusty; Collingwood outplayed you. Why do you even care? It's a practice match for god's sake.

 

[Procrastinator35]

The amount of Hawks defending the result makes me think there is an underlying insecurity. I've said before, I don't think the Hawks will have the hunger after being "up" for 4 straight years. Was the result our first evidence of a lack of hunger and passion?

Yeah....Nah!

Collingwood cared.... We didn't & still don't!

 

[master bate]

On a serious note it shows the lack of respect for what is nothing more than a practice match and demonstrates why you should not be able to bet on these games.

Why? The information was readily available that Hawthorn were going to play 24. I believe they only listed 24 on the team sheet.

It's not a lack of respect. It's Clarkson (as he explained pre match) wanting to give 24 guys a really good run instead of 22 guys a good run and 4 guys used in the sub which therefore means it's only a half at max each.

If you're silly enough to lose money betting on nab challenge then good luck to you. Shouldn't a regulation to stop you.