Rockliff v S.Hill
- Thread starter askdotcom
- Start date
- Tagged users None
timtamWB
Resident Biscuit
One is an outside midfielder with great skills and line breaking ability whose every possession is gold, the other is a tackling machine that thrives on the contest, but doesn't make the most of his possessions.
Very strange comparison. I'd rather have Hill at the Dogs because it would complement our midfield because of our lack of line breakers.
Very strange comparison. I'd rather have Hill at the Dogs because it would complement our midfield because of our lack of line breakers.
- Jul 20, 2013
- 13,042
- 8,824
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- LIVERPOOL, Sydney FC, Nottm Forest
Can't Believe you started a thread on this. Never said Hill was the better player, I said I would still take him at 3 and that he is a far more damaging player then Rockliff, which he is. Both would get a game in every side in the league, but I would take hill.
scaryness
Premium Platinum
- Oct 19, 2008
- 14,849
- 23,291
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- Trail Blazers / Cowboys
Hill is the player we need at Sydney more than Rockliff.
Rockliff is the better more rounded player. I'm surprised this poll is so close. Hill has speed and is a longer kick than Rockliff (essentially more flashy), so perhaps that is affecting people's perspective. Rockliff is a top 10 midfielder in the comp atm, not sure Hill is in the top 20.
Schraderbrau
Cancelled
- Oct 7, 2014
- 5,371
- 6,647
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Rockliff is the Scott West of the modern era - just accumulates a load meaningless possessions that have a minimal effect on the outcome of matches.
Hill is inconsistent and gets about 1/2 as much of it but still has more of an impact which says something.
Have to give the voters in this thread credit though, it looks as if at least 50% of them have actually managed to look further than the statsheet.
Hill is inconsistent and gets about 1/2 as much of it but still has more of an impact which says something.
Have to give the voters in this thread credit though, it looks as if at least 50% of them have actually managed to look further than the statsheet.
Bitter until the very end
Rockliff is a two time best and fairest and current all Australian. Comparing him to Scott West and thinking that is an insult just worsens your argument for Hill.
If Hill, capitalises on his 2014 form and continues to gain consistency then I think he has the tools to be the better midfielder.
However, at this stage, Rocky is better just because he's such a competitive beast around the ball.
However, at this stage, Rocky is better just because he's such a competitive beast around the ball.
TheHoneyBadger
"I lost my phone"
10k Posts
Western Bulldogs - Cordy, Honeychurch, Prudden, Dale Player Sponsor 2015
- Sep 17, 2012
- 13,060
- 18,201
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Other Teams
- Footscray
Rockliff's the kind of guy you build a club around, but I don't think this should rule Hill out, by any means. He's outrageously good in full flight.
I'd rather have Hill at the Dogs, purely because of his pace and the greater impact of his disposals.
I'd rather have Hill at the Dogs, purely because of his pace and the greater impact of his disposals.
HeHateMe
Norm Smith Medallist
- Nov 28, 2009
- 7,620
- 6,136
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Elite outside mids are alot harder to find then inside grunts. Look at most people's top 50/25 players and count how many are one paced mids.
Also look at how many fast athletic types who get drafted fail. I heard a statistic that in the first round inside mids succeed 80% of the time opposed to outside mids who only have a 40% success rate.
In saying that rockliff is clearly has more runs on the bored.
Also look at how many fast athletic types who get drafted fail. I heard a statistic that in the first round inside mids succeed 80% of the time opposed to outside mids who only have a 40% success rate.
In saying that rockliff is clearly has more runs on the bored.
Schraderbrau
Cancelled
- Oct 7, 2014
- 5,371
- 6,647
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
It also worth mentioning that one racks up meaningless possessions for one of the worst teams in the comp while the other is a crucial player in one of the best midfields in the comp. If Rockliff moved into Fremantle's midfield it wouldn't help them much - he is not better than Mundy or Fyfe imo. If Hill left Fremantle it would significantly weaken them.
Hill. We could use his skillset more, but Rockliff is probably the more reliable player.
It's interesting reading people's views about one being more damaging yet over their careers they average the same goal assists per game and 1 shot on goal per game as well. It will be good when we have Rich, Redden and Leuenberger back into our midfield next year - he will then be able to get forward of the ball to bump up his attacking stats. Especially when you consider Mayes and Aish will have another year under their belt and we will be adding Beams, Christensen and Robinson to our midfield, I'd be surprised if Rockliff doesn't break the 20 goal barrier next year (interestingly Hill hasn't done this yet either).
timtamWB
Resident Biscuit
You're looking at this wrong. Goal assists and shots on goal don't mean one is more damaging, especially since Rocky has played a bit of time as a forward whereas Hill has not.
Hill makes his possessions count. You just have to watch a game each of theirs to see the difference in this, and it's something stats won't show properly.
But the thing is, because of the rest of the midfield Rockliff doesn't need to do that. You have Rich, Christensen, Beams, Hanley etc. for that and I hate you because your midfield is absurdly good.
TheHoneyBadger
"I lost my phone"
10k Posts
Western Bulldogs - Cordy, Honeychurch, Prudden, Dale Player Sponsor 2015
- Sep 17, 2012
- 13,060
- 18,201
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Other Teams
- Footscray
As timtamWB mentioned, it's got little to do with scoring, and more with the impact (hence 'damaging') of his disposals around a stoppage - chains of possession often begin with Rockliff but his disposals don't open up stoppages or create opportunities for the team to break and/or score - for the most part. The players feeding off Rockliff within the stoppage often dish it out to the runners.
It's just a vision thing - we had a similar debate on the Rockliff/Liberatore thread - you shouldn't equate people preferring Hill's impact with them stating he's a better player - it's merely what they'd prefer to add to their team. Rocky's a leader of men, a huge physical presence and capable of hitting the scoreboard, but his contribution at the stoppages is the 'meat and potatoes', if you like. It's not something you can always statistically measure, with the traditional KPIs.
Rocky's got other dimensions to his game, but plenty of sides lack someone of Hill's pace and vision - he opens up the stoppage and moves it forward so often. That's essentially why, given the choice, people would choose to add Hill to their team.
But the context of damaging I was talking about was goal assists and goals. I totally agree that the traits Hill has means he will mostly always be more damaging on the outside with his disposals (if he wasn't he'd be struggling to get a game). It's like comparing Rich and Rockliff, one is more damaging with his disposals without a doubt. But put both permanently in the forward line and I'd take Rockliff's ability over Rich.
Regarding Rockliff playing more time up forward than Hill, I disagree with. You'll find he had 7 goals in his first 3 games this year and then at the end of that 3 game stretch Leuenberger and Rich went down meaning he couldn't spend anywhere near as much time up forward, with those injuries resulting in two less mature bodies in the middle for a team that had 6 teenagers in it for a majority of the weeks. So to say Hill spent less time in the forward half is wrong, especially when one player was in a top 4 team and we also had Redden went down halfway as well.
Also, when we have the midfield we have, with Rockliff's ability in the forward 50, we'd be crazy not to have him spending time up forward next year.
timtamWB
Resident Biscuit
I wasn't talking about their work in the forward line at all, I only mentioned it because you brought it up. Rockliff is better than Hill in the forward line, no doubt. And he's played a lot more as a forward than Hill has over his whole career, which is what I said. Rocky has played more time as a forward over his whole career, and he probably has more this year as well. He hasn't played much time up forward, Hill just doesn't really play in the forward line.
When I say damaging, I mean in whatever position they are. If I'm talking about a midfielder, I'll be talking about their use of the ball. If I'm talking about a defender, I'll be talking about their rebound or their ability one on one etc. And Hill is a more damaging mid than Rockliff. Rockliff is a better player, but like you've said it's like comparing Rich and Rockliff. They're completely different players, so it doesn't make much sense to compare them.
Hill has to many games where he does nothing
Hardly a fair comparison, only the great one is better than Fyfe IMO (Rocky's got Mundy covered though).
I voted Rockliff, contested possessions is where the game is won (thus making them probably the most meaningful possessions) and Rocky averaged five more CP per game than Hill.
Plus, Rocky is unable to be tagged, where as Hill can be tagged out of it (although much better this year than previously).
Pretty sure it has been said on big footy that Rockliff averaged the most effective possessions so your logic is out the window.
