Wizard
Brownlow Medallist
Actually yesterday Stephen played the exact game Brad plays, run up and down the wings without an opponent..
Billy Smedts tried to follow him, unsuccessfully.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Actually yesterday Stephen played the exact game Brad plays, run up and down the wings without an opponent..
My thoughts exactly.Brad's a gun but Stephen is the better player, at least atm. Quality footballer.
His skills are poor. Nearly every time I see him play he has 2 or 3 shocking turnovers that Bruce etc. fail to mention
Freo's one can kick, so I'll go with him
Brad is a shocking kick. Easily bottom 5 at Hawthorn.
Whenever I watch him he misses the target at least half the time. Take the Brown and Gold glasses off.
And you can't accept others opinions criticizing an area of weakness for a player. Honestly, of Friday night's team for Hawthorn, I would only rather him have the ball ahead of Ceglar, Duryea and Hale. The rest are better users of the pill, as simple as that.
Tell that to Wells, Deledio and Griffen
Wow. Just wow. What's next, Hill is a better runner than Mark Blicavs? **** me, you're clueless
Hill is good, I'll give you that, but he's not "comfortably" better than Deledio, Wells and Griffen, all of whom are very good runners.
Brad's a better kick than that now, but he's still nowhere near his brothers. Would take Stephen every time still.Geez, I know these posts are from mid 2014, but I don't know if you're trolling or deluded. Couldn't go any further into this thread without being amazed at these comments.
Brad's a better kick than that now, but he's still nowhere near his brothers. Would take Stephen every time still.
You just hit the nail on the head. Although I disagree about not being damaging. He is, just not damaging enough to outdo it big brother.Yeah, I think Stephen is a more damaging player with his inside 50's, ability to goal and create. Brad has better endurance and can do suicide side runs up the wing all day to provide that option out of the back line and into the forward line, but isn't as damaging just yet.
Oh, really, majority of the whole comp are very good runners. I could name probably 50 players off the top of my head that are very good runners.Hill is good, I'll give you that, but he's not "comfortably" better than Deledio, Wells and Griffen, all of whom are very good runners.
Actually yesterday Stephen played the exact game Brad plays, run up and down the wings without an opponent.
Why do you think Brad looks like he runs around like he's free?
Because he's already run his opponent into the ground.
LOL, Hawthorn is such a well rounded team that it does not rely on any one player to play well to win, let alone a wingman.
Imagine if Stephen got the same amount of space that Brad gets week in week out. Would be an AA lock.
Because he doesn't usually get the first tag like Stephen?Gee I wonder where he gets all that space from.
Because he doesn't usually get the first tag like Stephen?
Still not hawthorns best outside runnerBecause his distance running is exceptional.
Hawthorn Supporters.There are people who unironically believe Brad Hill's a better player?
Stephen is a better player. Brad had a tag all finals series last year and played well, so if your gonna bother replying at least make it factual. You sir, have no clueStephen always has and always will be the better player. Brad doesn't even cop a tag and has nowhere near the impact that Stephen does who cops a tag.
Anytime there's a chance to generalise Hawthorn supporters you are the first to jump in Bobresorting to playing the man is becoming a very common theme with Hawthorn supporters on here.
Hey! I resent that remark.Anytime there's a chance to generalise Hawthorn supporters you are the first to jump in Bob
I'll be weak and give you both a tie for firstHey! I resent that remark.
I called him sir..resorting to playing the man is becoming a very common theme with Hawthorn supporters on here.