Sam Mitchell v Dane Swan

[HawkHeaven]

Sam by a fair way and I am biased.

I have seen Swan play in person the last 3 games V the Hawks and although he racks up the possies he does not seem to hurt us.

Mitchell has better skills by hand and foot.

 

[Mateyman]

I'm biased, but Swan for me.
Mitchell has never really had a claim to being the best player in the league even for a season, whereas Swan in 2010 was the best player during the season IMO. Swan has dropped off a little, but last year he was still a top 5-10 mid. Swan's peak rates him above Mitchell for me essentially. I also feel like Swan's 2007-2011 is underrated, as 5 years where he was clearly in the top 2 or 3 mids in the comp.

 

[forwardflanker]

Mitchell is so underrated for some reason. Swan is a great player but not in the same class as Mitchell imo

 

[Collingwoodity]

About equal tbh. Mitchell seems like a bit of a "word-removed" on field when things arent going his way.

 

[Bailey01]

Mitchell is really underrated but still take Swan cos he kicks goals

 

[benbanjo]

One of the few polls where I can't bring myself to vote. Both great players.

I cant work out who to vote for either.... i'll go Mitchell on the basis of being a solid communicator.... Swanny just doesnt have that....
as players i dont know....

 

[Mateyman]

Mitchell is so underrated for some reason. Swan is a great player but not in the same class as Mitchell imo

I don't understand how you could Swan "not in the class of Mitchell"

 

[forwardflanker]

I don't understand how you could Swan "not in the class of Mitchell"

Ball use is vastly superior to Swans. Other than Ablett, as a midfielder Mitchell is about as good as gets the last 5 years or so, probably only Pendebury could be argued as better (it's close imo). Mitchell is criminally underrated for some reason.

 

[Mateyman]

Ball use is vastly superior to Swans. Other than Ablett, as a midfielder Mitchell is about as good as gets the last 5 years or so, probably only Pendebury could be argued as better (it's close imo). Mitchell is criminally underrated for some reason.

Disagree. Over the last 5 years I believe Swan has been better. Sure, Mitchell's ball use is superior, but ball use is not the be-all and end-all. Swan hits the scoreboard and impacts the contest through sheer weight of numbers and also his pace. IMO you are letting the last couple of years outweigh the previous 3 in the 5 year sample you are talking about.

 

[forwardflanker]

Disagree. Over the last 5 years I believe Swan has been better. Sure, Mitchell's ball use is superior, but ball use is not the be-all and end-all. Swan hits the scoreboard and impacts the contest through sheer weight of numbers and also his pace. IMO you are letting the last couple of years outweigh the previous 3 in the 5 year sample you are talking about.

Nah I've always rated him and could never understand why he didn't get the credit he deserved. It's not that I don't think Swan's a great player, it just that Michell is a bit better in my books. Mitchell's cleanliness in clearances is amazing and perhaps this aspect of the game is underrated a bit. If you can find a guy who distributes the ball out of stoppages to runners cleanly as well as Mitchell can then I'd be very impressed.

 

[Mateyman]

Nah I've always rated him and could never understand why he didn't get the credit he deserved. It's not that I don't think Swan's a great player, it just that Michell is a bit better in my books. Mitchell's cleanliness in clearances is amazing and perhaps this aspect of the game is underrated a bit. If you can find a guy who distributes the ball out of stoppages to runners cleanly as well as Mitchell can then I'd be very impressed.

IMO Pendlebury is pretty similar in a stoppage with his composure/handball/vision.

 

[forwardflanker]

IMO Pendlebury is pretty similar in a stoppage with his composure/handball/vision.

Yeah and I reckon a comparison b/w Pendebury and Mitchell is really close. Mitchell is probably a little bit better in the stoppages but Pendlebury is better on the spread and scores more.

 

[Mateyman]

Yeah and I reckon a comparison b/w Pendebury and Mitchell is really close. Mitchell is probably a little bit better in the stoppages but Pendlebury is better on the spread and scores more.

I think ATM Pendlebury is better due to his height which I think helps his evasive ability, which is frankly ridiculous, and his ability on the spread but I may be biased. Mitchell does seem to be more in and under and win more contested ball, but I'm not 100% sure if he actually does.

 

[MiloStedman]

Considering how close everyone seems to think these two are, it's surprising that the poll is so lop-sided.

 

[Guardian Hawk]

Yeah and I reckon a comparison b/w Pendebury and Mitchell is really close. Mitchell is probably a little bit better in the stoppages but Pendlebury is better on the spread and scores more.

I think this statement nails it really. Mitchell and Pendles so close (both a bit ahead of Swan) with Mitchell marginally ahead on the inside and Pendles marginally ahead on the spread. Stats are almost identical too.

The challenge for Pendlebury will be to maintain it for as long as Mitchell has - given their output is so similar but Mitchell will be 32 this year and Pendlebury is smack bang in the middle of his prime (26).

I'm biased, but Swan for me.
Mitchell has never really had a claim to being the best player in the league even for a season, whereas Swan in 2010 was the best player during the season IMO. Swan has dropped off a little, but last year he was still a top 5-10 mid. Swan's peak rates him above Mitchell for me essentially. I also feel like Swan's 2007-2011 is underrated, as 5 years where he was clearly in the top 2 or 3 mids in the comp.

Again, this is pretty much the same as Pendlebury. Pendles has never been the clear no 1 player in the comp but is consistently in the top 3-4 - same as Mitchell. I would still prefer a player who is top 3-4 every season than someone who is no 1 once and around the 5-10 mark (and more recently 10-15) otherwise.

Swan's 2007-2011 is not underrated! It was highly publicised - there were two page spreads every few weeks at one point (makes sense given he was the best player in easily the most popular team) - and he won every accolade possible. The reality is that Mitchell was highly underrated for most of this time. His output was similar to Swan's over this time (Swan ahead) with Mitchell being better before and after.

 

[Mateyman]

I think this statement nails it really. Mitchell and Pendles so close (both a bit ahead of Swan) with Mitchell marginally ahead on the inside and Pendles marginally ahead on the spread. Stats are almost identical too.

The challenge for Pendlebury will be to maintain it for as long as Mitchell has - given their output is so similar but Mitchell will be 32 this year and Pendlebury is smack bang in the middle of his prime (26).

On the flip side, I don't know how early Mitchell got to as good as Pendles is.

Again, this is pretty much the same as Pendlebury. Pendles has never been the clear no 1 player in the comp but is consistently in the top 3-4 - same as Mitchell. I would still prefer a player who is top 3-4 every season than someone who is no 1 once and around the 5-10 mark (and more recently 10-15) otherwise.

Swan's 2007-2011 is not underrated! It was highly publicised - there were two page spreads every few weeks at one point (makes sense given he was the best player in easily the most popular team) - and he won every accolade possible. The reality is that Mitchell was highly underrated for most of this time. His output was similar to Swan's over this time (Swan ahead) with Mitchell being better before and after.

See, I disagree that Mitchell's output over this time was really comparable at all. IMO Swan was the clear 2nd best performed mid over this time after Ablett, with the possible competition of Judd, whereas I think Mitchell was more in the 10-15 bracket for most of these 5 years. IMO Mitchell hasn't been in the top 3 or 4 mids in the comp consistently at all.

 

[bkozican]

Good question. Mitchell for me. When I first thought about it, it was close. They more I sit and think about it, the more Sammy is the clear favourite. Swan is no joke of a player by any means but I Think Sam has been there and proved himself on many more occasions

 

[Guardian Hawk]

See, I disagree that Mitchell's output over this time was really comparable at all. IMO Swan was the clear 2nd best performed mid over this time after Ablett, with the possible competition of Judd, whereas I think Mitchell was more in the 10-15 bracket for most of these 5 years. IMO Mitchell hasn't been in the top 3 or 4 mids in the comp consistently at all.

These are opinions so we can go back and forth ad nauseum about where we rate without anything conclusive coming of it.

However, this poll suggests you probably underrate Mitchell (massively IMO). I have crunched a few numbers and found that Mitchell was #4 in Brownlow votes over this period, #3 in Herald Sun POTY votes and #4 in Coaches votes. Given the time it takes, I went through just two main stats and found Mitchell was #3 for disposals in this period (only Swan and Ablett ahead but with reduced efficiency) and #2 in clearances (Judd #1). With that in mind, I would estimate that top 3-4 is more likely than your view of top 10-15, remembering that these years were cherry picked as Swan's best and that if you include more years, Mitchell's case only strengthens (he was B&F and runner up in the Brownlow the year after for example).

 

[Guardian Hawk]

I'm biased, but Swan for me.
Mitchell has never really had a claim to being the best player in the league even for a season, whereas Swan in 2010 was the best player during the season IMO. Swan has dropped off a little, but last year he was still a top 5-10 mid. Swan's peak rates him above Mitchell for me essentially. I also feel like Swan's 2007-2011 is underrated, as 5 years where he was clearly in the top 2 or 3 mids in the comp.

Also didn't want to bring this up earlier (as its both arguable and not very relevant to who is better) but Mitchell certainly had a 'claim' to being the best player in 2011. He won several (i.e. the majority) of awards that rated players on a week by week basis including the Herald Sun Player of the Year, the 3AW player of the year, the overall media POTY and a few others I can't recall right now. He was also the All-Australian Centre and won the Hawthorn B&F in a canter. He narrowly missed the Coached award (3rd) after missing two games and was favourite to poll most votes in the Brownlow. As it turns out, he finished runner up to Dane Swan who no-one had in calculations as the umpires seemed to make up for the shafting they gave Swan the year prior when he was clearly the best player and polled poorly (there is a history of this in the Brownlow). As it turns out, Mitchell's 30 votes would have been enough t win the Brownlow in any other year.

None of the above means much IMO but it certainly highlights that Mitchell has at least 'claims' to being the best player at some point or at least closer to it than your rating suggests.

 

[Bobby_]

Mitchell is so underrated for some reason

never been an offensive midfielder, not his game. Look at players who had a similar style to Mitchell's like Williams, Hocking or even Jobe Watson who's like a 6'ft 4 version of Mitchell. . . they all kicked/kick goals. I'm also surprised by Mitchell's assists tally, would have thought it would be nearly 1 per game but it's closer to half that amount, although scoring involvements I'm sure he would dominate.

 

[Mateyman]

These are opinions so we can go back and forth ad nauseum about where we rate without anything conclusive coming of it.

However, this poll suggests you probably underrate Mitchell (massively IMO). I have crunched a few numbers and found that Mitchell was #4 in Brownlow votes over this period, #3 in Herald Sun POTY votes and #4 in Coaches votes. Given the time it takes, I went through just two main stats and found Mitchell was #3 for disposals in this period (only Swan and Ablett ahead but with reduced efficiency) and #2 in clearances (Judd #1). With that in mind, I would estimate that top 3-4 is more likely than your view of top 10-15, remembering that these years were cherry picked as Swan's best and that if you include more years, Mitchell's case only strengthens (he was B&F and runner up in the Brownlow the year after for example).

Because I have a different rating to other people does not make me "wrong". THese stats may also show that he was a top 3-4 player over the whole period, rather than a top 5 player at any one time during this period (although I would argue these stats don't even show that - I'm sure there would be many other competitions where he was in the 10-15 bracket over this time (e.g. the Age footballer of the year). IMO he was consistently a top 5-10 mid in this period, with an exceptional 2011 - he wasn't consistently top 3-4. What I'm saying is that there were other mids who rose and fell over this period (e.g. Selwood and Pendlebury were just getting going by 2008, Bartel was good in the early part of this period etc.) - sort of like Cox would be top 5 of the 00's probably without being a consistent top 5 player. On top of this, I really don't understand the argument about how much better Mitchell has been outside this period. Mitchell was better early on their careers, but they both "broke out at the same age - Mitchell in 2005 I think, and Swan in 2006. On top of this, they have both been reasonably even in the last 2 years IMO - You say Mitchell finished runner up in the brown low the next year, which he did, but Swan was also 2 votes from a Brownlow the year after that. I have to say I don't get the argument that Mitchell's argument strengthens that much outside the 2007-11 period.

 

[akneal]

Swans best is far, far better in my opinion.
But Mitchell has been good for a far longer period.
I wouldn't ever think about swapping though.

 

[HawkHeaven]

Swans best is far, far better in my opinion.
But Mitchell has been good for a far longer period.
I wouldn't ever think about swapping though.

Mitchell's best is far far better than Swan IMO

Have seen 5 Hawk games live against Collingwood and every time Swan gets a heap of ball but never hurts the Hawks.

Sam on the other hand cuts the Pies to ribbons, every time all I hear from the Collingwood people around me is "FFS Mitchell always kills us"

Mitchell by a fair way and the gap is getting bigger.

 

[Adam H]

Disagree. Over the last 5 years I believe Swan has been better. Sure, Mitchell's ball use is superior, but ball use is not the be-all and end-all. Swan hits the scoreboard and impacts the contest through sheer weight of numbers and also his pace. IMO you are letting the last couple of years outweigh the previous 3 in the 5 year sample you are talking about.

Ball use is the be all make no mistake about it.

 

[Mateyman]

Ball use is the be all make no mistake about it.

Then why is Peter Yagmoor such a spud?