Shoenmakers

[pricefixer]

Are we so unable to cope with losing a close game that we need someone to blame?

Football matches are there to be analysed, especially when the stakes are so high. It was Hawthorn's biggest match of the year to date (alright every game has been a big game after coming off 6 straight losses) and this loss has most certainly closed the door on any possible top four finish.

Losses themselves are always a lot more revealing then wins in this regard, generally because there are reasons. Sometimes those reasons can be narrowed down to the performances of individuals, and I find it questionable what purpose attempting to cover this up by certain posters on this board achieves.

At the end of the day the important thing is that this analysis enables the team to improve. Occasionally that improvement comes as result of dropping a player to BHHs, where a player can work on his skills with slightly less pressure.

 

[go hawks!!!]

What a cop out - suck up to someone else who agrees with you to try and degrade the other person who disagrees with you. Nice.

I wasn't questioning anyone's understanding of the game - but instead you using stats solely to prove your point. I never directly said anyone's opinion was incorrect, unlike you.

So answer the question, did shoey play well against essendon? I said you are entitled to your opinion, didn't I, so answer my question?

 

[Rioli magic]

The standard that the rest of the team has set and will want to set if we seriously wanna win a premiership.

And you expect exposure to Saturdays intensity at Box Hill? Hawthorn's best interest in winning a premiership is developing Shoey as best possible. We're yet to replace Croad, and Shoey is currently our best option. Whatever fast tracks his development the most is what should happen. The coaches obviously believe playing senior footy is the way. Maybe not playing him will cost us more than a premiership just this year?

 

[Messenger]

Football matches are there to be analysed, especially when the stakes are so high. It was Hawthorn's biggest match of the year to date (alright every game has been a big game after coming of 6 straight losses) and has most likely closed the door on any possible top four finish.

Losses themselves are a lot more revealing then wins in this regard, generally because there are reasons. Sometimes those reasons can be narrowed down to the performances of individuals, it is questionable what purpose attempting to cover this up by certain posters on this board achieves.

At the end of the day the important thing is that this analysis enables the team to improve.

You see this where I find the whole argument comes off the rails; you call it covering it up, I call it a point of view more sympathetic to Ryan Schoenmakers.

What I find revealing about losses is there seemingly has to be a reason, not a collection of reasons, not the vagaries of wind, luck or the talent of our opponents. If indeed we can narrow those reasons down to the performance of individuals then lets look no further than the person who missed the final shot which denied us the opportunity to win the match.

 

[Roddy27]

Football matches are there to be analysed, especially when the stakes are so high. It was Hawthorn's biggest match of the year to date (alright every game has been a big game after coming off 6 straight losses) and this loss has most certainly closed the door on any possible top four finish.

Losses themselves are always a lot more revealing then wins in this regard, generally because there are reasons. Sometimes those reasons can be narrowed down to the performances of individuals, and I find it questionable what purpose attempting to cover this up by certain posters on this board achieves.

At the end of the day the important thing is that this analysis enables the team to improve. Occasionally that improvement comes as result of dropping a player to BHHs, where a player can work on his skills with slightly less pressure.

I generally agree with that you say...

However- the lack of acceptance of differing opinions worries me. Someone loses credibility if they don't agree with you? Is that really how we're willing to operate?

And who are we to decide who the individuals responsible for a loss are? We are afterall- plebs on an Internet forum. Why is it that the club is happy with him- but seemingly some people ignore this fact.

Most worryingly though is the lack of balance in the analysis of shoey. You can assert what you like- that's fine by me- but where is our vision for the player? And where is the acknowledgement that while he did make mistakes- so did others? I mean I could go on... Who here can say that they've written with the intention of wanting what's best for shoenmakers?

We're treating him like he's a 2 dimensional character off a page... This is not how you help nurture players into becoming better players.

 

[Messenger]

I generally agree with that you say...

However- the lack of acceptance of differing opinions worries me. Someone loses credibility if they don't agree with you? Is that really how we're willing to operate?

And who are we to decide who the individuals responsible for a loss are? We are afterall- plebs on an Internet forum. Why is it that the club is happy with him- but seemingly some people ignore this fact.

Most worryingly though is the lack of balance in the analysis of shoey. You can assert what you like- that's fine by me- but where is our vision for the player? And where is the acknowledgement that while he did make mistakes- so did others? I mean I could go on... Who here can say that they've written with the intention of wanting what's best for shoenmakers?

We're treating him like he's a 2 dimensional character off a page... This is not how you help nurture players into becoming better players.

Well said. Fine post.

 

[pricefixer]

And you expect exposure to Saturdays intensity at Box Hill?

The VFL is a high quality competition. Where Schoenmakers is at with his football he would not be out of place in this competition. I think he would find it every bit the challenge given he has only been playing senior football for a year and a half.

Hawthorn's best interest in winning a premiership is developing Shoey as best possible. We're yet to replace Croad, and Shoey is currently our best option.

Why did the club expose itself to this situation though? Both Markovic and Coad, much more advanced then Schoenmakers and capable of holding down a KPD position were available cheaply at the end of last year but the club decided on providing a superannuation package to Croad; and to retain mediocrity in Murphy and Stokes.

Whatever fast tracks his development the most is what should happen. The coaches obviously believe playing senior footy is the way. Maybe not playing him will cost us more than a premiership just this year?

What should happen is that the club should be gunning for the premiership this season, if everything had fallen into place they were a chance. Capable of beating any side with the right breaks and the right personnel.

The coaches are playing Schoenmakers because the cupboard is bare for KPDs.

 

[Noneedforaname]

Maybe you're right aussieicon91, maybe Shoey is as bad as you say. But, I'm looking for a little convincing, a little bit of evidence to change my mind on the matter.

I'd agree last Saturday was pretty poor from him (though I wouldnt say he lost it for us), but that he's never played a game up to AFL standard, never played a decent game in his life ..... hmmmmm you kind of got me wondering there. I'm not quite sure Im with you.

At first, I thought maybe you didnt watch many games. Maybe you had'nt had the opportunity to watch the guy develop (which at some stage theyve all done) and so hadn't seen enough to know what you're talking about. (I did ask you about Sydney last year, and others have asked about the Dons a few weeks ago and you didnt manage a response - so I kinda was wondering?) Then I thought, like a few other posters on here maybe were as well, maybe its us with the problem. Maybe I cant judge what constitutes a decent game, and similarly maybe someone like Clarko has the same problem and keeps playing the kid.
I was wondering though, for the sake of clarity can you explain what would qualify as decent. What would Shoey have to do so you would give him a tick. Would it be something as simple as not fumbling the ball in the backline and costing us the game. I'm sure its a whole world more, but can you enlighten us.

I don't want to seem greedy, but while your at it, can you just give us an idea of who else on the list (starting with the seniors) youve noticed isnt up to scratch. I'm not sure why Shoey has been brought to our attention before for such a roasting, but Id hate for others to escape our vigilance.

I only hope we can manage to scrape together a 22 ready for the weekend.

 

[grizzlym]

Shoey was dropped back to Box Hill to find form and confidence. Or in the words of someone close to the club, "to dominate". The feeling was that so much had been asked of Shoey, that his form and confidence were being affected. Well, he went back to Box Hill and played very well. He did what the coaches were after and came back into the seniors where he played a couple of good games. Now, he had a poor game against the cats, no question. He's young and he needs to develop - that will be in the seniors and at BH, hopefully the older he gets less so at Box Hill.

As I posted earlier, I don't have a problem with posters having differing opinions about Shoey, where he's at, and debating those views, but I find blanket statements that he's never played a good game ridiculous.

 

[Rioli magic]

The VFL is a high quality competition. Where Schoenmakers is at with his football he would not be out of place in this competition. I think he would find it every bit the challenge given he has only been playing senior football for a year and a half.

No doubt he'd find it challenging - he's 19. But you'll never get exposure, pressure etc like playing Geelong at the G in front of 70,000 in the VFL. That one game could've been worth 10 for Box Hill, equally it could have cost him. Do I think it was worth selecting him - yes.

Why did the club expose itself to this situation though? Both Markovic and Coad, much more advanced then Schoenmakers and capable of holding down a KPD position were available cheaply at the end of last year but the club decided on providing a superannuation package to Croad; and to retain mediocrity in Murphy and Stokes.

This is a different topic, but Coad is Stratton's height, am im more than happy with Jesus.

What should happen is that the club should be gunning for the premiership this season, if everything had fallen into place they were a chance. Capable of beating any side with the right breaks and the right personnel.

The coaches are playing Schoenmakers because the cupboard is bare for KPDs.

I agree we're in it to win it, but it's not as easy as filling gaps because you want to. We're investing in Shoey for the next decade which isn't a bad thing.

 

[Ellis2WeightsRoom]

You see this where I find the whole argument comes off the rails; you call it covering it up, I call it a point of view more sympathetic to Ryan Schoenmakers.

What I find revealing about losses is there seemingly has to be a reason, not a collection of reasons, not the vagaries of wind, luck or the talent of our opponents. If indeed we can narrow those reasons down to the performance of individuals then lets look no further than the person who missed the final shot which denied us the opportunity to win the match.

I was at the game, and the wind was the worst I've seen it for quite some time. It was expected that goals would be missed.

Were there some goals missed that should have been kicked? Absolutely.
Has this been acknowledged as a contributing factor as to why we lost on the weekend? Yes.

What the wind did not affect however was the ability to hit a team-mate with a five metre handball, or the decision to, whilst flat-footed, try and bust a tackle with a team-mate in the immediate area free.

He cost us 3 goals minimum. Our goal-kicking probably cost us a similar amount. We have acknowledged it is a reason for our loss.

I think that it is only fair that you acknowledge that RS's mistakes against the cats (and not RS as a 19yo great bloke with good commitment that one time said g'day to you at training) cost us on Saturday.

 

[mattyfeck]

I was at the game, and the wind was the worst I've seen it for quite some time. It was expected that goals would be missed.

Were there some goals missed that should have been kicked? Absolutely.
Has this been acknowledged as a contributing factor as to why we lost on the weekend? Yes.

What the wind did not affect however was the ability to hit a team-mate with a five metre handball, or the decision to, whilst flat-footed, try and bust a tackle with a team-mate in the immediate area free.

He cost us 3 goals minimum. Our goal-kicking probably cost us a similar amount. We have acknowledged it is a reason for our loss.

I think that it is only fair that you acknowledge that RS's mistakes against the cats (and not RS as a 19yo great bloke with good commitment that one time said g'day to you at training) cost us on Saturday.

I acknowledge that RS mistakes cost us goals on the weekend. Did they cost us the game?? Absolutely not. about 1 million things contributed to us losing and to lump a large chunk of blame on his shoulders is not fair IMO.

I agree he had a poor game but I also think it was his first poor game since returning from Box Hill. I think he has made very solid contributions since he returned to the Hawks lineup and I for one, would like to see him retain his spot and tackle Browny this week in Tassie.

 

[King Elvis]

If age is going to be used as an excuse for below mediocrity then he shouldn't be anywhere near the side.

What an absurd post.

How many kids come in as 18/19 year olds, ESPECIALLY KPPs, and perform anything better than mediocre for a season or two?

Murphy and Stratton have years more experience than Shoey, if he's not at there level by the time he's their ages, this thread will have validity.

Crows have a lot of young kids in this year, you don't expect McLeod like performances from a 19 year old kid, and you know he'll be up and down.

 

[Ellis2WeightsRoom]

Goals cost games which cost points, which in our current situation this season are vital.

A share of the blame has to fall on a player whose mistakes gave Geelong 25% of their goals in a game we lost by 2 points.

 

[Ellis2WeightsRoom]

What an absurd post.

How many kids come in as 18/19 year olds, ESPECIALLY KPPs, and perform anything better than mediocre for a season or two?

Murphy and Stratton have years more experience than Shoey, if he's not at there level by the time he's their ages, this thread will have validity.

Crows have a lot of young kids in this year, you don't expect McLeod like performances from a 19 year old kid, and you know he'll be up and down.

Fwiw Stratton has 18months on Schoenmakers.

You are clearly bias though, please recognise this is not personal.

RS is not making mistakes that can be traced to his status as an 19yo KPP. He is not getting constantly monstered like Dawson was. He is making simple decision-making and disposal errors that players at senior level shouldn't be making. His defensive efforts, as has been stated many times, are fine.

The problem is that most logical fans cannot understand why he is being selected in a backline that boasts Gilham, Gibson, Brown, Stratton, Murphy, Birchall and Guerra. We don't need him defensively, and therefore we shouldn't have to suffer his errors when we have the ball.

According to the HFC website, he has 4cm and and 3kg on Stratton. 4cm and giving up kilo's to Gibson, and 1cm and giving up kilo's to Gilham; so I don't really buy into the whole size argument for keeping him in the team.

 

[Roddy27]

Goals cost games which cost points, which in our current situation this season are vital.

A share of the blame has to fall on a player whose mistakes gave Geelong 25% of their goals in a game we lost by 2 points.

Yes- but why was the ball down there in the first place? What mistakes were made prior to the final mistake? How was the gameplan let down?

The ball doesn't magically appear in the backline for defenders to make mistakes with so that everyone else escapes blame for what 'cost us'.

 

[PAOKTSIS]

Fwiw Stratton has 18months on Schoenmakers.

You are clearly bias though, please recognise this is not personal.

RS is not making mistakes that can be traced to his status as an 19yo KPP. He is not getting constantly monstered like Dawson was. He is making simple decision-making and disposal errors that players at senior level shouldn't be making. His defensive efforts, as has been stated many times, are fine.

The problem is that most logical fans cannot understand why he is being selected in a backline that boasts Gilham, Gibson, Brown, Stratton, Murphy, Birchall and Guerra. We don't need him defensively, and therefore we shouldn't have to suffer his errors when we have the ball.

According to the HFC website, he has 4cm and and 3kg on Stratton. 4cm and giving up kilo's to Gibson, and 1cm and giving up kilo's to Gilham; so I don't really buy into the whole size argument for keeping him in the team.

Shoey has tanked up considerably over the offseason, yet he still makes the same decision-errors and still lacking in awareness as he was last yr; so size cannot play a factor in this!

 

[Ellis2WeightsRoom]

Yes- but why was the ball down there in the first place? What mistakes were made prior to the final mistake? How was the gameplan let down?

The ball doesn't magically appear in the backline for defenders to make mistakes with so that everyone else escapes blame for what 'cost us'.

a butterfly flapped its wings in south america?

how many more excuses are the blokes on this board going to make for this guy?

 

[grizzlym]

The problem is that most logical fans cannot understand why he is being selected in a backline that boasts Gilham, Gibson, Brown, Stratton, Murphy, Birchall and Guerra. We don't need him defensively, and therefore we shouldn't have to suffer his errors when we have the ball.

So does it boil down to this then:

You either understand something the coaches don't. Or they understand something you don't.

 

[CaptainHodgey]

Yes- but why was the ball down there in the first place? What mistakes were made prior to the final mistake? How was the gameplan let down?

The ball doesn't magically appear in the backline for defenders to make mistakes with so that everyone else escapes blame for what 'cost us'.

This is a bit silly, it doesn't matter why the ball was in defense the fact is the ball was there and it is up to our defenders to deal with the situation in capable fashion. Which shoey didn't do a few times. Do you expect us to play games where the ball never reaches our defensive 50?

 

[Ellis2WeightsRoom]

And the proof was in the pudding on Saturday afternoon wasn't it? The coaches were right to leave Brown in the forward line and leave RS to be exposed by Stokes, Varcoe et al.

Not every decision the coaching staff make is right.

Just out of interest, where does Schoey fit into your back 6 in that spot?

 

[CaptainHodgey]

So does it boil down to this then:

You either understand something the coaches don't. Or they understand something you don't.

It is a valid point though grizzly. Why is shoey playing along with Gibson and Stratton? Is it because the match committee feel neither Gibson or Stratton don't have the size to deal with the second big forward? Players like ottens kosi, brown,Cloke etc

 

[Roddy27]

This is a bit silly, it doesn't matter why the ball was in defense the fact is the ball was there and it is up to our defenders to deal with the situation in capable fashion. Which shoey didn't do a few times. Do you expect us to play games where the ball never reaches our defensive 50?

Far out... It is not silly to suggest that there is always a chain of errors that can be associated with any goal!! It's what happens in every play... To purely blame the people at the end of the line, to make them solely responsible for what has happened is to not have a vision of what has happened prior to this which has contributed to the goal...

Of course defenders must deal with the ball- but how is the way the ball ends up there any less important?

 

[grizzlym]

It is a valid point though grizzly. Why is shoey playing along with Gibson and Stratton? Is it because the match committee feel neither Gibson or Stratton don't have the size to deal with the second big forward? Players like ottens kosi, brown,Cloke etc

Who knows? I was merely testing the logic.

I'm not saying they're always right, but they have their reasons beyond sentimentality or encouraging a young player.

 

[Ellis2WeightsRoom]

The inference was pretty obvious grizzly.

I think it's clear to all but the most deluded supporters that the coaching staff got it wrong on saturday.

As for my original question, where does Schoenmakers fit into your current best available back 6?

I'll throw mine out there for analysis.

For mine, it'll be a mix from the following players.

Talls: Gilham, Gibson and Stratton.
Smalls/Mediums: Brown, Guerra, Murphy.
Rebounders: Birchall, Ladson
Cover to run a double-team if a KPP is getting on top of us: Hodge, potentially Skipper as well.

At the moment I'd probably have Muston/Brown staying up forward in the defensive/forward role as I think in modern football your back 6 must have some creative rebounding players such as Birchall and Guerra.

If there is no match-up for Murphy then unluckily he will probably miss out.

So my back six would look like this:

Stratton/Brown* Gibson Birchall
Guerra Gilham Murphy/Brown*

*Depending on Matchups

I'd keep Ladson probably on the i/c, I don't think there is room for another KPPD on the bench, assuming we are playing Gilham, Gibson and Stratton. I also think it is possible for Hodge to drop back into the hole if we are in trouble down back.

Second tier players providing cover: Whitecross, Schoenmakers, JKT, Suckling.