Brad Hill Vs Stephen Hill

[Holy Rioli]

My last post I was balanced but if you are going to use stats to show Brad as more consistent, here's a stat for you.

AFLCA votes 2014.

S Hill: 28 (+ more this week)
B Hill: 2

Carlton v Hawthorn
10 Hill (Haw)
5 Casboult (Carl)
5 Rioli (Haw)
4 Judd (Carl)
4 Sewell (Haw)
1 Birchall (Haw)
1 Carrazzo (Carl)

Richmond v Fremantle
9 Ballantyne (Frem)
9 Fyfe (Frem)
6 Miles (Rich)
2 Mundy (Frem)
2 Petterd (Rich)
1 Foley (Rich)
1 Martin (Rich)

Only 1 Hill scoring points and not the one that wears purple.

 

[Kenny_01]

Carlton v Hawthorn
10 Hill (Haw)
5 Casboult (Carl)
5 Rioli (Haw)
4 Judd (Carl)
4 Sewell (Haw)
1 Birchall (Haw)
1 Carrazzo (Carl)

Richmond v Fremantle
9 Ballantyne (Frem)
9 Fyfe (Frem)
6 Miles (Rich)
2 Mundy (Frem)
2 Petterd (Rich)
1 Foley (Rich)
1 Martin (Rich)

Only 1 Hill scoring points and not the one that wears purple.

My post was before last week's votes where Stephen got votes and Brad didn't. Anyway was an excellent game from Brad on the weekend, it's now 29 votes to 12 with Stephen polling from 6/11 games and Brad polling in 2/12.

 

[Upgrayedd]

Lets not argue, Just be happy that both our teams snared a Hill and every other club didn't?

 

[detox]

Lets not argue, Just be happy that both our teams snared a Hill and every other club didn't?

No.

I come here to debate meaningless football related sh*t, that in no way will ever make a difference to my life. This is why I am here

 

[Zahasouvlakis]

Brad is a shocking kick. Easily bottom 5 at Hawthorn.

How right you are, all the hawks fans shooting you down, but you're right. He is an absolute turnover merchant and doesn't work back hard enough. Stephen, easily.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

How right you are, all the hawks fans shooting you down, but you're right. He is an absolute turnover merchant and doesn't work back hard enough. Stephen, easily.

Don't post rubbish here.

 

[Holy Rioli]

How right you are, all the hawks fans shooting you down, but you're right. He is an absolute turnover merchant and doesn't work back hard enough. Stephen, easily.

oh but Brad Hill got tagged (MacAffer) - isn't that the Stephen Hill excuse even though he never actually gets tagged?

 

[Zahasouvlakis]

Don't post rubbish here.

Ha, you're kidding. Criticism of players is allowed. He isn't a damaging enough player and Buckley wasted the tag today. There are far more tag worthy players in the hawks side than Hill. He is full of potential and could become a very good player. His endurance and ability to get the ball are impressive, his disposal and defensive work rate are highly flawed. I've watched him closely and think that rather than just calling it rubbish, you should try and disprove it. Averages nearly 3 clangers a game, considering over 76% of his possessions are uncontested and he only averages 21 touches a game that's not very good now, is it? Also isn't in the top 300 tacklers league wide (per game). Or are these numbers rubbish too seeing as they give a negative impression of young Bradley?

 

[Upgrayedd]

Ha, you're kidding. Criticism of players is allowed. He isn't a damaging enough player and Buckley wasted the tag today. There are far more tag worthy players in the hawks side than Hill. He is full of potential and could become a very good player. His endurance and ability to get the ball are impressive, his disposal and defensive work rate are highly flawed. I've watched him closely and think that rather than just calling it rubbish, you should try and disprove it. Averages nearly 3 clangers a game, considering over 76% of his possessions are uncontested and he only averages 21 touches a game that's not very good now, is it? Also isn't in the top 300 tacklers league wide (per game). Or are these numbers rubbish too seeing as they give a negative impression of young Bradley?

You say you watch him a lot and closely however you miss the mark pretty much of what type of player he is (Listing contested stats as a weakness of his game, why not put hitouts and claim he will never be a premier ruckman why your at it?) and furthermore you start listing a bunch of numbers and stats, including averages, top Numbers of players in the AFL, I'm going to go out of a limb but watching one game then going to footywire doesn;t make you informed on the subject

Troll Elsewhere

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Ha, you're kidding. Criticism of players is allowed. He isn't a damaging enough player and Buckley wasted the tag today. There are far more tag worthy players in the hawks side than Hill. He is full of potential and could become a very good player. His endurance and ability to get the ball are impressive, his disposal and defensive work rate are highly flawed. I've watched him closely and think that rather than just calling it rubbish, you should try and disprove it. Averages nearly 3 clangers a game, considering over 76% of his possessions are uncontested and he only averages 21 touches a game that's not very good now, is it? Also isn't in the top 300 tacklers league wide (per game). Or are these numbers rubbish too seeing as they give a negative impression of young Bradley?

That post is a far cry from "he's a turnover merchant", so well done for that.

If you'd watched him as closely as you say you'd see why he gets tagged. He doesn't stop running, giving an option or creating space.

He's a kid finding his way, showing huge potential and would be top 5 in the best and fairest.

Don't rubbish him.

 

[Holy Rioli]

Ha, you're kidding. Criticism of players is allowed. He isn't a damaging enough player and Buckley wasted the tag today. There are far more tag worthy players in the hawks side than Hill. He is full of potential and could become a very good player. His endurance and ability to get the ball are impressive, his disposal and defensive work rate are highly flawed. I've watched him closely and think that rather than just calling it rubbish, you should try and disprove it. Averages nearly 3 clangers a game, considering over 76% of his possessions are uncontested and he only averages 21 touches a game that's not very good now, is it? Also isn't in the top 300 tacklers league wide (per game). Or are these numbers rubbish too seeing as they give a negative impression of young Bradley?

22.3 disposals per game in 2014 but don't let the truth get in the way of a good story. Also has more tackles this year than S Hill but whatevs.

 

[MinerBoy]

How right you are, all the hawks fans shooting you down, but you're right. He is an absolute turnover merchant and doesn't work back hard enough. Stephen, easily.

Congratulations on being in contention for the 'saying stupid s**t' award.

One of the best delivers I50 in our team and considering the way our team uses the ball, that's saying something.

 

[Zahasouvlakis]

You say you watch him a lot and closely however you miss the mark pretty much of what type of player he is (Listing contested stats as a weakness of his game, why not put hitouts and claim he will never be a premier ruckman why your at it?) and furthermore you start listing a bunch of numbers and stats, including averages, top Numbers of players in the AFL, I'm going to go out of a limb but watching one game then going to footywire doesn;t make you informed on the subject

Troll Elsewhere

I didn't list contested stats as a weakness of his game, I said he has a lot of clangers for someone who has a large percentage of uncontested possessions, because if you're in space you're more likely to hit a target. He's an outside player but there's nothing wrong with that. I think you're right, he won't be much of a ruckman . Didn't use footywire, I keep a database so just checked that..

That post is a far cry from "he's a turnover merchant", so well done for that.

If you'd watched him as closely as you say you'd see why he gets tagged. He doesn't stop running, giving an option or creating space.

He's a kid finding his way, showing huge potential and would be top 5 in the best and fairest.

Don't rubbish him.

Yeah, I didn't deny he was a good runner or good at creating space/creating an option but there's more to being an outside player than just running and giving an option, got to be a good user and work hard back the other way (still a lot of them don't I guess). Fair enough if that's the thinking behind the tag then, I just thought there were other more dangerous options to put the time into.

True, maybe I was too harsh on him reacting to some Hawks supporters scoffing at others suggesting Stephen is better/a better kick.

 

[Zahasouvlakis]

22.3 disposals per game in 2014 but don't let the truth get in the way of a good story. Also has more tackles this year than S Hill but whatevs.

21.6 actually, call it 22. Doesn't really matter.

Congratulations on being in contention for the 'saying stupid s**t' award.

One of the best delivers I50 in our team and considering the way our team uses the ball, that's saying something.

Wasn't aware that was an award but thanks for the nomination. I elaborated on my opinion with some statistical evidence. Do you have some to prove he's a better user than Stephen? Seeing as you ridiculed eth-dog for his opinion on it.

Stephen's DE is slightly lower but averages almost 1 less clanger (from more possessions) and his UCP% is 19% lower than Brad's, suggesting to me that his disposals would be under more pressure.

You sound as if Brad is a better player and kick of the footy by 100 million miles but just because that's your opinion doesn't make it so.

 

[MinerBoy]

You sound as if Brad is a better player and kick of the footy by 100 million miles but just because that's your opinion doesn't make it so.

I'm disputing that Brad is in the worst 5 kicks at Hawthorn as a complete aside to the whole Brad/Stephen debate. It is clearly incorrect. As an avid watcher of Hawthorn I can assure you he is close to the best in terms of putting the ball I50 to a forward's advantage.

You can quote stats sheets or you can watch.

 

[Zahasouvlakis]

I'm disputing that Brad is in the worst 5 kicks at Hawthorn as a complete aside to the whole Brad/Stephen debate. It is clearly incorrect. As an avid watcher of Hawthorn I can assure you he is close to the best in terms of putting the ball I50 to a forward's advantage.

You can quote stats sheets or you can watch.

Wut? Pick Stephen if that's your inclination but jesus h christ, base it on something he may actually have the advantage in.

This was you in response to eth-dog saying he'd take Stephen because he can kick. That would not be appear to be 'a complete aside'.

I actually do both. As it's part of my job I watch nearly every game every week. My eyes tell me he's not a good kick, your eyes tell you he is a good kick. The difference is I have numbers to back it up.

We're not going to agree on it so let's move on

 

[MinerBoy]

This was you in response to eth-dog saying he'd take Stephen because he can kick. That would not be appear to be 'a complete aside'.

I actually do both. As it's part of my job I watch nearly every game every week. My eyes tell me he's not a good kick, your eyes tell you he is a good kick. The difference is I have numbers to back it up.

We're not going to agree on it so let's move on

You're quoting a convo now from about a month or more ago that has nothing to do with you and I.

I quoted YOU and called you out because you agreed with him that Brad is in the worst 5 kicks at Hawthorn with garbage disposal who isn't worth tagging. He is one of the best kicks of the ball to our forwards in the team. That was why he got the full 10 coaches votes last week because of the quality of his ball going forward. That's why he got tagged.

I'd suggest if watching games is part of you're job then you're doing it wrong.

 

[Zahasouvlakis]

You're quoting a convo now from about a month or more ago that has nothing to do with you and I.

I quoted YOU and called you out because you agreed with him that Brad is in the worst 5 kicks at Hawthorn with garbage disposal who isn't worth tagging. He is one of the best kicks of the ball to our forwards in the team. That was why he got the full 10 coaches votes last week because of the quality of his ball going forward. That's why he got tagged.

I'd suggest if watching games is part of you're job then you're doing it wrong.

But YOU still said it and that is what I was reacting to, suggestions that he is obviously a better kick than Stephen (in fact specifically that post). I did not agree anywhere that he was in the worst 5 kicks at hawthorn, I said he is a turnover merchant - admittedly an exaggeration, and yes I said he isn't worth tagging because I think there are more damaging hawks midfielders which you may disagree with, but again, that doesn't make it so.

 

[MinerBoy]

But YOU still said it and that is what I was reacting to, suggestions that he is obviously a better kick than Stephen (in fact specifically that post). I did not agree anywhere that he was in the worst 5 kicks at hawthorn, I said he is a turnover merchant - admittedly an exaggeration, and yes I said he isn't worth tagging because I think there are more damaging hawks midfielders which you may disagree with, but again, that doesn't make it so.

He said Freo's Hill can kick. Suggesting that the Hawk's Hill can't. Hence the not top 5...that you agreed with.

I said 'at least pick something he might have an advantage in'. If he does, it's negligible. Brad is a terrific kick. I didn't suggest he was an obviously better kick.

I did not agree anywhere that he was in the worst 5 kicks at hawthorn, I said he is a turnover merchant - admittedly an exaggeration, and yes I said he isn't worth tagging because I think there are more damaging hawks midfielders which you may disagree with, but again, that doesn't make it so.

How right you are, all the hawks fans shooting you down, but you're right. He is an absolute turnover merchant and doesn't work back hard enough. Stephen, easily.

How right you are....when he said he was clearly in our worst 5 kicks.

 

[Zahasouvlakis]

He said Freo's Hill can kick. Suggesting that the Hawk's Hill can't. Hence the not top 5...that you agreed with.

I said 'at least pick something he might have an advantage in'. If he does, it's negligible. Brad is a terrific kick. I didn't suggest he was an obviously better kick.





How right you are....when he said he was clearly in our worst 5 kicks.

"jesus h christ, base it on something he may actually have the advantage in."

That clearly suggests you think the kicking department is one where Stephen doesn't have an advantage and rather he should've picked another facet of their games to base his decision on.. don't try and twist it..

But okay, I skimmed over the post where he said he was in the bottom 5 kicks at the hawks and should've specified which posts I was referring to. 1,000 pardons sir.

 

[MinerBoy]

Wowsers.

 

[pacman]

How right you are, all the hawks fans shooting you down, but you're right. He is an absolute turnover merchant and doesn't work back hard enough. Stephen, easily.

Went at 90% against Carlton last week. Copped the tag the last 4 weeks going beautifully.

 

[detox]

This was you in response to eth-dog saying he'd take Stephen because he can kick. That would not be appear to be 'a complete aside'.

I actually do both. As it's part of my job I watch nearly every game every week. My eyes tell me he's not a good kick, your eyes tell you he is a good kick. The difference is I have numbers to back it up.

We're not going to agree on it so let's move on

Yeah nah.

Contrary to what you may believe, we actually watch our team more than you. In fact some on here (like me)would be watching the replays in full as well.

We know the limitations of our players. If you had of said that Sewell or Shiels are not great kicks, you'd have us all agreeing, cause its true. We wouldn't argue if you said that Rough needs to stand up in big games, or that Rioli can go missing for portions of games. All probably true.

But the fact that you "watch nearly every game every week" means sweet FA if you think that Brad Hill is not a good kick, because you are deadset wrong, and you need to go and re educate yourself. This is the reason you have about 10 Hawk posters disagreeing with you. Its not because you know more then us, its because your wrong. He is absolutely without a doubt, what I and most would class as a very good kick, especially at full pace, and especially coming inside 50. In fact Roughy and Gunston were asked who they like seeing with ball in hand when they are leading out, both mentioned Brad Hill. They would probabaly know i'd say.

 

[Zahasouvlakis]

Of 98 players with more than 250 disposals, Brad has the 3rd highest uncontested possession percentage yet he is 79th in disposals per clanger with a clanger every 8 touches. The only player in the top 25 outside players with a worse disposal to clanger ratio is Rhyce Shaw.

Stephen is 67th in uncontested possession percentage and is 18th in disposals per clanger at 12 per clanger.

You're right that you'd watch him more closely than I do, I was just stating that I do watch his games.

I suppose what the above doesn't take in to account is if his clangers are from his disposals that are from contested situations but it suggests I'm not completely wrong like you all seem to think.

By the same stats Shaun Burgoyne is the best user in the AFL at 17.7 disposals per clanger, even more impressive considering he is close to 50/50 inside/outside. The only other player within 2 possessions of him is Birchall.

Anyway, it's just my opinion and I was s**t stirring a little to start with. Good luck to him.

 

[Guardian Hawk]

Of 98 players with more than 250 disposals, Brad has the 3rd highest uncontested possession percentage yet he is 79th in disposals per clanger with a clanger every 8 touches. The only player in the top 25 outside players with a worse disposal to clanger ratio is Rhyce Shaw.

Stephen is 67th in uncontested possession percentage and is 18th in disposals per clanger at 12 per clanger.

You're right that you'd watch him more closely than I do, I was just stating that I do watch his games.

I suppose what the above doesn't take in to account is if his clangers are from his disposals that are from contested situations but it suggests I'm not completely wrong like you all seem to think.

By the same stats Shaun Burgoyne is the best user in the AFL at 17.7 disposals per clanger, even more impressive considering he is close to 50/50 inside/outside. The only other player within 2 possessions of him is Birchall.

Anyway, it's just my opinion and I was s**t stirring a little to start with. Good luck to him.

I appreciate the effort but clangers per disposal is a poor measure. Let me explain. Somebody who is an average kick and just bombs it forward or kicks to 50/50's all the time is likely to have less clangers per disposal than somebody who kicks spearing balls at peoples chests and miss 1 in every 7 or 8. Player 1 will be largely ineffective with their footskills but have very few clangers whilst player 2 will be incredibly damaging but have the occassional clanger.

Edit: To test my theory, I just looked up two players. The first, Brad Sewell, can barely kick 40 metres, usually kicks looping awkward balls and is regarded as probably the worst kick at Hawthorn. The second player (Matthew Suckling) gets a game at the premiers almost purely on the back of his kicking, able to hit flat and direct 60 m passes at will and is widely regarded as one of, if not the, best kicks in the AFL. Guess what, Brad Sewell averages less clangers per disposal that Matt Suckling which makes sense (given the types of kicks these players attempt) and highlights your measure to be very poor.