Preview Hawthorn v Bulldogs, 3 August 2014, 3.20pm @ York Park

[Goodo73]

every club needs a whipping boy, and with the retirements and delistings of Josh Thurgood and Tom Murphy, unfortuntely Schoe has become that player

Did Raggedy Andy play enough games to become a whipping boy??

Now Murphy, THERE was a whipping boy!

 

[Goodo73]

Yep. The Schoey talk is regarding his selection in the team that plays Sunday.

Unless Hawkins, Tippett and Cloke all play for the Doggies, it's not.

 

[Ripper Rioli]

If Spangher does come in he will go back and Schoey will go forward. Then when Lake comes back I dare say Spangher will be omitted barring an injury or a truly amazing run of form.

 

[Gold Member]

If Spangher does come in he will go back and Schoey will go forward. Then when Lake comes back I dare say Spangher will be omitted barring an injury or a truly amazing run of form.

Too many logics for Big Footy.

 

[Davo-27]

Did Raggedy Andy play enough games to become a whipping boy??

Now Murphy, THERE was a whipping boy!

is whipping boy another word for spud?, because i agree.....

 

[Baz_hawk]

Poor Ceglar, has one average game and loses his place.

 

[KINGBUDDY]

hale has been poor, but i recon dropping him would be the kick in the back side he needed. He is a finals player and im hoping for 2 big months from Hale,

 

[detox]

Whilst I feel for Cegs, I think the right call has been made.

First, Cegs has had a massive workload, is still very young, and whilst obviously is clearly in our future plans, it is the right call to test Hale and see which balance will work for finals.

Second, Hale is an experienced campaigner, who has the runs on the board in finals. At his best he is a much more potent force than Cegs/McEvoy due to his superior forward play, and his form at Box Hill was pretty insane in the 2 games. Hale getting dropped was a kick in the ass for him, but he has responded in a brutal fashion.

Cegs is the future, but Hale has delivered for us and absolutely deserves a shot at getting the second ruck spot.

 

[Tasmaniac]

Anyone have thoughts about crowd size? I'm thinking it's going to be pretty small.

Sunday afternoon game in Tassie in winter, we've just had 3-4 days of very ordinary weather. Sunday game will start off cold and get worse from there. 7 o'clock finish at the ground, you can bet attendances from Hobart will be at a minimum too.

Doggies won't draw many people either, their supporters are pretty thin on the ground down here.

I'll go with 13,000.

 

[Changamagic]

Anyone have thoughts about crowd size? I'm thinking it's going to be pretty small.

Sunday afternoon game in Tassie in winter, we've just had 3-4 days of very ordinary weather. Sunday game will start off cold and get worse from there. 7 o'clock finish at the ground, you can bet attendances from Hobart will be at a minimum too.

Doggies won't draw many people either, their supporters are pretty thin on the ground down here.

I'll go with 13,000.

I fear that it won't reach 10k given the combined set of circumstances that you mention...

 

[Tasmaniac]

I fear that it won't reach 10k given the combined set of circumstances that you mention...

I was trying to be positive, wouldn't surprise me if it's less than that (my 13,000 guess).

I think I've met one Doggies supporter here in Tasmania....and she didn't know who their players were.

 

[deanc]

I was trying to be positive, wouldn't surprise me if it's less than that (my 13,000 guess).

I think I've met one Doggies supporter here in Tasmania....and she didn't know who their players were.

I wouldn't be surprised if it's a better crowd than 13k as; A. it's the last match in Tassie for the year and B. I have friends and friends of friends etc. going (who haven't been a match all year) mainly because the Hawks are now, after the Swans win, a real chance of going back-to-back.

 

[Collins-Langford-Ayres]

If Spangher does come in he will go back and Schoey will go forward. Then when Lake comes back I dare say Spangher will be omitted barring an injury or a truly amazing run of form.

I think you are spot on.

 

[Crankyhawk]

this is pretty much 80% of supporters reactions, thank god we have a hard working midfield.....

as for Schoey his last month has been solid, very few mistakes or brain-farts so i'm starting to support him and not bag him out, i feel as though he is a good 22-25 player on our list, i still have Lake and Gibson ahead of him.........and i also believe that Heatherley and Brand have some talent and could surpass him in future

i think if he plays finals we should all back him in, as he has stepped up his game recently and we should encourage better performances and not dwell on the past too much.......

I found that when you approach it from a mindset of seeing/ cheering the positives the players seem to play better (or maybe I just get less irritated). It seemed to work with Tom Murphy.

 

[deanc]

I think you are spot on.

Beg to differ. Clarko won't play Shoenmakers as a swing man forward without Lake in the back line. Spanghar, despite his admiral endeavour and intent has very little composure and has been a great fill-in but he's a long way from Lake's class.

 

[hawkheart]

I gots me a feeling that in some crazy karmic balance for that dropped mark late in the 2011 prelim that somewhere, at some time in this year's finals, Shoey is going to win the game for us with either a late goal or a saving mark

 

[HR Roughnstuf]

Whilst I feel for Cegs, I think the right call has been made.

First, Cegs has had a massive workload, is still very young, and whilst obviously is clearly in our future plans, it is the right call to test Hale and see which balance will work for finals.

Second, Hale is an experienced campaigner, who has the runs on the board in finals. At his best he is a much more potent force than Cegs/McEvoy due to his superior forward play, and his form at Box Hill was pretty insane in the 2 games. Hale getting dropped was a kick in the ass for him, but he has responded in a brutal fashion.

Cegs is the future, but Hale has delivered for us and absolutely deserves a shot at getting the second ruck spot.

I don't disagree on the most part.

But I just think they should have put the acid on Hale more by giving him at least 1 more game at box hill.

Let's face it Hale hasn't done much all season. McEvoy has done more yet he was forced to play 3 (IIRC) games at BH before given a spot, he was made to earn it. Hale has only been out of the side for 1 week. I don't think it sends enough of a message.

What if Hale is poor at AFL level this week? Is he instantly dropped?

Ideally McEvoy and Hale both in good form/nick is our finals combination with Ceglar showing enough that he will be the future. Wouldn't be surprised if Hale retires this year.

 

[Suckling2Gunston]

First to answer the top part of your post: If Shoey had the confidence to attack the ball instead of always been focused on his man, as others on here and on the other thread have pointed out, and take a few contested marks, their wouldn't be a need for Gibbo and others coming across to spoil the ball, contiguously living their man free roaming around and kicking easy goals.
And it did happen in the Swans game watch the replay and in the start of the third quarter theirs a perfect example of what iam talking about how Goodes gets the easiest goals because four of our defenders are trying to help out Schoey..

Second: this whole debate started because I gave my honest opinion, that I feel much more confident with Spangher in the side playing in defence then Schoenmakers, from what I have seen this year.
You've said the opposite, and you've tried to prove your case by stats and in your many posts here and on the other thread is Schoey in our top 22.

Ok well lets look at this years stats between the two:
And lets not even start taking in to consideration stats of contested marking.

Matt Spangher2014 Season Average
Games Played 8
Kicks 10.4
Handballs 4.9
Disposals 15.2
Marks 5.6
Tackles 1.9
Ranked 20th in One Percenters Per Game in the League
Schoenmakers 2014SeasonAverage
Games Played 11
Kicks 10.2
Handballs 4.5
Disposals 14.7
Marks 4.5
Ranked 46th in One Percenters Per Game in the League

So according to your so called stats and with Spangher having played 2 less games then Schoenmakers who's been the better play this year??

I have a stat for you, lets take a look at their last respective games, shall we?

Spangher v Jenkins - Jenkins kicks 5 goals 1, almost single handedly drags Adelaide over the line at home and the reaction is oh well, Spang tried his best.

Schoenmakers v Tippett - Tippett kicks 2 goals 2, has no influence for the second half and his mids deliver it better than Adelaide do and the reaction is omg how do we let him play?

 

[Hodginator]

I gots me a feeling that in some crazy karmic balance for that dropped mark late in the 2011 prelim that somewhere, at some time in this year's finals, Shoey is going to win the game for us with either a late goal or a saving mark

Can you imagine? Yet he'll still be ridiculed around here for not killing the ball that put the opposition in striking distance 2 minutes earlier.

 

[BigAl3001]

Have to question the validity of playing games in Tassy deep into winter. I'd like to be going to the footy this week to see my team play but I can't because they are down in Tassy in front of 3 men and a baby. Time to find a new sponsor Hawthorn.

 

[Bumpswithagrin]

I don't disagree on the most part.

But I just think they should have put the acid on Hale more by giving him at least 1 more game at box hill.

Let's face it Hale hasn't done much all season. McEvoy has done more yet he was forced to play 3 (IIRC) games at BH before given a spot, he was made to earn it. Hale has only been out of the side for 1 week. I don't think it sends enough of a message.

What if Hale is poor at AFL level this week? Is he instantly dropped?

Ideally McEvoy and Hale both in good form/nick is our finals combination with Ceglar showing enough that he will be the future. Wouldn't be surprised if Hale retires this year.

Hale has played two weeks at Box Hill. McEvoy was also short of match fitness due to a couple of injuries so I think the three weeks for McEvoy and two weeks for Hale is about right.

 

[Brishawk]

Beg to differ. Clarko won't play Shoenmakers as a swing man forward without Lake in the back line. Spanghar, despite his admiral endeavour and intent has very little composure and has been a great fill-in but he's a long way from Lake's class.

We can surely get away with it against the bulldogs especially with Gibbo back.

 

[Hawks1994]

Whilst I feel for Cegs, I think the right call has been made.

First, Cegs has had a massive workload, is still very young, and whilst obviously is clearly in our future plans, it is the right call to test Hale and see which balance will work for finals.

Second, Hale is an experienced campaigner, who has the runs on the board in finals. At his best he is a much more potent force than Cegs/McEvoy due to his superior forward play, and his form at Box Hill was pretty insane in the 2 games. Hale getting dropped was a kick in the ass for him, but he has responded in a brutal fashion.

Cegs is the future, but Hale has delivered for us and absolutely deserves a shot at getting the second ruck spot.

Yep correct call.

Cegs' time will come, along with our other young guns.

You want seasoned bodies and heads come finals time and if Hale proves he is back in form then he is my chioce, with McEvoy, for finals.

Again Ceglar has done not a thing wrong, its just how it goes...

 

[Long Live HFC]

Have to question the validity of playing games in Tassy deep into winter. I'd like to be going to the footy this week to see my team play but I can't because they are down in Tassy in front of 3 men and a baby. Time to find a new sponsor Hawthorn.

dry your eyes princess.

 

[deanc]

We can surely get away with it against the bulldogs especially with Gibbo back.

Perhaps but do we really need 3 tall forwards against a small Dogs back line? That aside the Dogs midfield has vastly improved over the past month so the focus will be to shut that down and if we don't then our defensive could be crucial - so Shoey stays back.