Autopsy AFL 2026 Round 9 - Freo v Hawks Thurs May 7th 8:10pm AEST/6:10pm (OS)

[Mr Meow]

What a pathetic bump.

To quote my previous reply "You need to let go of this hypothetical. Geelong lost, get over it."

Hawthorn's wins are against higher quality opposition than Geelong's, even you would have to admit that. You have two wins against the top 8 as it sits right now, and two losses. We have 4 wins and 1 loss against the current top 8. You've had less games against the top 8 than we have, and are running at 50% against the top 8 versus 80% for us.

Let's keep things civil and friendly. It's just footy. The form lines were similar a month ago, less so a fortnight ago, similar again now. You were the one who got carried away in that period in the middle and made sure to do a big song and dance.

Take out our head-to-head game and look at the rest of the opposition. Getting Gold Coast in Tassie vs up north is a bigger discrepancy than getting Freo home vs away. Getting Sydney minus Gulden and Heeney at home is a free pass. Looking ahead, the Hawks have a fairly easy fixture list. GC and Brisbane away might be the only decent tests.

I never said Geelong are ahead of Hawthorn on form, just that our starts to the season have been roughly similar. The Easter Monday game was also as close as it gets, with the lead swapping in the last minute. The closeness should be celebrated, not angrily dismissed. Hawthorn should finish ahead of Geelong this season (I said as much before a game was played this year), but you never know.

 

[hk89]

Let's keep things civil and friendly. It's just footy. The form lines were similar a month ago, less so a fortnight ago, similar again now. You were the one who got carried away in that period in the middle and made sure to do a big song and dance.

And you fairly called me out on it. Now it is you who can't let this go.

Take out our head-to-head game

You seem overly fixated on this - I can only guess why.

Getting Gold Coast in Tassie vs up north is a bigger discrepancy than getting Freo home vs away.

By what metric? Geelong's home ground advantage is one of the biggest in the competition. While we do well at tassie, that is partly because we often play weaker teams there (although that often depends on how well the interstate or non-power-house vic sides are travelling - perhaps you could say the same for the cattery). Unlike Geelong, we still have to hop on a plane to get there which nullifies some of the advantages of playing an away team on your home deck.

Even if I concede your premise, don't you think the respective margins more than make up for that? You lost to GC by 56, we beat them by 49, you really think a home ground advantage makes a 105 point difference in performance roughly equivalent? You won by 10 points on your home ground to Freo after Freo led at the end of the first 3 quarters. We lost to them by 15 at their home ground after spending a good deal of the game in front. I'd say our respective performances against Dockers was much closer to equivalent due to the home vs away situation than our games against Suns.

Getting Sydney minus Gulden and Heeney at home is a free pass.

I love how you point out injuries to our opponents without mentioning you played Dogs with even more injuries than they had against us at the start of the game, and then had four injured guys on the bench by the end. Not saying you didn't seem to be controlling the game before that, but if you're going to mention Gulden and Heeney being out, at least try to do the same for your won games against top 8 teams. Didn't GC have outs against you that were mostly back for our game, making your loss to them even worse from a relative form point of view.

As you seem to want to forget, we also beat you. Won most of the important stats during that game too. Complaining that you lost due to a single fumble when you won very few stat categories (apart from the free kick count of course) is unfortunate.

Looking ahead, the Hawks have a fairly easy fixture list. GC and Brisbane away might be the only decent tests.

I never said Geelong are ahead of Hawthorn on form, just that our starts to the season have been roughly similar.

If you're going to ignore who we played, and the fact we beat you, what is the point then? Yes, our starts to the season have been similar in that we've had the same number of wins, but looking at number of wins this early in the season when fixture differences will have a bigger difference than it will by the end of the season seems like a pointless exercise.

If your point is simply "we've had the same wins" and not "we've had similar form" then ok, I agree with you, but it is a fairly uninteresting statement at this relatively early stage of the season, and ignore a lot of nuance.

The Easter Monday game was also as close as it gets, with the lead swapping in the last minute. The closeness should be celebrated, not angrily dismissed. Hawthorn should finish ahead of Geelong this season (I said as much before a game was played this year), but you never know.

It was a good game - as the majority of games between those clubs has been over the last 20 years - but looking at the stats, it is hard to argue the right team didn't win. As such, continually stating it as an asterisk against us being above you on the ladder smells like sour grapes to me. As you say, the game should be celebrated not used as a point-scoring hobby horse in every Hawthorn game day thread we exchange posts in.

Across several game day threads you've argued your case with a bunch of what ifs, ignoring that any what-if competition cuts both ways. Yes, if we'd lost games we won, be lower down the ladder. Conversely, if we'd capitalised on a 19-5 centre clearance dominance against Pies we'd have won that, and if we'd not lost Barrass, during the Freo game, we might have held off a fast finishing Dockers, and be sitting 8-1 (hard to find any decent what-if excuses for losing to an undermanned GWS). In reality, the Pies game is probably the only real "one that got away", Freo simply too good in the second half, and not convinced Barrass would have saved us (and with the amount of ball coming in , arguable score flattered us). However in the rest of our games, I think the right team won given how play unfolded on the day, and if anything the score flattered Geelong in our head to head matchup.

I can definitely see us slipping a few spots, I'm not making statements on where we will sit overall, just on how we've done thus far. I think we're still vulnerable to sides with deep midfields if Newcombe has a bad day, and relying on a 34 year old being competitive in the coleman isn't a great strategy for our forward line either.

I think most Hawthorn fans would be happy with what we've done if you offered us the start we'd have at the beginning of the season, as I think most would have seen the goal as being close enough to striking distance of top 4 while we wait for Day to help with our midfield problem, and so far I think we've done that. We also have what looks on paper to be a nice run of games towards the end of the year with Giants, Demons, Blues, Tigers, Bombers , Roos in a row at home (Demons and Roos in Tassie). Eagles in Perth in the final round, might be handy if we are win outside the top 4 at that point.

So tl;dr: If you're argument really is about 'we have similar starts as shown by the ladder' then yeah, that doesn't seem worth arguing about, and we should perhaps wait until later in the season to argue about who is going better (which was what I THOUGHT we were discussing).

 

[Mr Meow]

And you fairly called me out on it. Now it is you who can't let this go.



You seem overly fixated on this - I can only guess why.




By what metric? Geelong's home ground advantage is one of the biggest in the competition. While we do well at tassie, that is partly because we often play weaker teams there (although that often depends on how well the interstate or non-power-house vic sides are travelling - perhaps you could say the same for the cattery). Unlike Geelong, we still have to hop on a plane to get there which nullifies some of the advantages of playing an away team on your home deck.

Even if I concede your premise, don't you think the respective margins more than make up for that? You lost to GC by 56, we beat them by 49, you really think a home ground advantage makes a 105 point difference in performance roughly equivalent? You won by 10 points on your home ground to Freo after Freo led at the end of the first 3 quarters. We lost to them by 15 at their home ground after spending a good deal of the game in front. I'd say our respective performances against Dockers was much closer to equivalent due to the home vs away situation than our games against Suns.



I love how you point out injuries to our opponents without mentioning you played Dogs with even more injuries than they had against us at the start of the game, and then had four injured guys on the bench by the end. Not saying you didn't seem to be controlling the game before that, but if you're going to mention Gulden and Heeney being out, at least try to do the same for your won games against top 8 teams. Didn't GC have outs against you that were mostly back for our game, making your loss to them even worse from a relative form point of view.

As you seem to want to forget, we also beat you. Won most of the important stats during that game too. Complaining that you lost due to a single fumble when you won very few stat categories (apart from the free kick count of course) is unfortunate.



If you're going to ignore who we played, and the fact we beat you, what is the point then? Yes, our starts to the season have been similar in that we've had the same number of wins, but looking at number of wins this early in the season when fixture differences will have a bigger difference than it will by the end of the season seems like a pointless exercise.

If your point is simply "we've had the same wins" and not "we've had similar form" then ok, I agree with you, but it is a fairly uninteresting statement at this relatively early stage of the season, and ignore a lot of nuance.



It was a good game - as the majority of games between those clubs has been over the last 20 years - but looking at the stats, it is hard to argue the right team didn't win. As such, continually stating it as an asterisk against us being above you on the ladder smells like sour grapes to me. As you say, the game should be celebrated not used as a point-scoring hobby horse in every Hawthorn game day thread we exchange posts in.

Across several game day threads you've argued your case with a bunch of what ifs, ignoring that any what-if competition cuts both ways. Yes, if we'd lost games we won, be lower down the ladder. Conversely, if we'd capitalised on a 19-5 centre clearance dominance against Pies we'd have won that, and if we'd not lost Barrass, during the Freo game, we might have held off a fast finishing Dockers, and be sitting 8-1 (hard to find any decent what-if excuses for losing to an undermanned GWS). In reality, the Pies game is probably the only real "one that got away", Freo simply too good in the second half, and not convinced Barrass would have saved us (and with the amount of ball coming in , arguable score flattered us). However in the rest of our games, I think the right team won given how play unfolded on the day, and if anything the score flattered Geelong in our head to head matchup.

I can definitely see us slipping a few spots, I'm not making statements on where we will sit overall, just on how we've done thus far. I think we're still vulnerable to sides with deep midfields if Newcombe has a bad day, and relying on a 34 year old being competitive in the coleman isn't a great strategy for our forward line either.

I think most Hawthorn fans would be happy with what we've done if you offered us the start we'd have at the beginning of the season, as I think most would have seen the goal as being close enough to striking distance of top 4 while we wait for Day to help with our midfield problem, and so far I think we've done that. We also have what looks on paper to be a nice run of games towards the end of the year with Giants, Demons, Blues, Tigers, Bombers , Roos in a row at home (Demons and Roos in Tassie). Eagles in Perth in the final round, might be handy if we are win outside the top 4 at that point.

So tl;dr: If you're argument really is about 'we have similar starts as shown by the ladder' then yeah, that doesn't seem worth arguing about, and we should perhaps wait until later in the season to argue about who is going better (which was what I THOUGHT we were discussing).

You're a good kid hk. I like your work. I want to keep things respectful and do appreciate the detailed, thoughtfule essay you have compiled here. I just like chatting footy but if the conversation is upsetting or infuriating, we can stop.

Geelong also tends to play weaker teams at GMBHA to bolster it's record there. Given that the Roos are competitive this year, it just hasn't started that way in 2026. Fremantle, Adelaide, Bulldogs, North Melbourne, Sydney, Gold Coast and Brisbane are our first 7 opponents there this season. If we can't count many wins, maybe we need to slice out Hawthorn's MCG wins against non-tenants too. Easter Monday played in Geelong easily flips that result, for instance.

About GC, yes I do think playing them up north compared to south can result in such a shifft. Geelong lost by 10 goals to them in 2024 up north and then won by 6 goals in Geelong a year later, despite GC being a better team in 2025.

Of course when you talk about form and performance what-ifs come into the equation, because only a few minor things have to change for win-loss tallies to be massively different. I know you don't like that line of reasoning, but it's simply the nature of having a few games decided in the last minute that all skewed in one direction. Much like Norm missing his shot after the siren in the 2016 QF. It wasn't good Geelong play that stopped him kicking the winner.

Win/loss tally and percentage after 9 games is enough to see which form lines are looking roughly similar. The head to head game was a coin flip and I'll happily concede that it earns Hawthorn a slight edge. But that doesn't dispute my whole point that the team's form lines have been roughly similar. Hawthorn just get hyped more when they win (weren't they equal flag favourites early in 2025?).

 

[hk89]

You're a good kid hk. I like your work. I want to keep things respectful and do appreciate the detailed, thoughtfule essay you have compiled here. I just like chatting footy but if the conversation is upsetting or infuriating, we can stop.

Geelong also tends to play weaker teams at GMBHA to bolster it's record there. Given that the Roos are competitive this year, it just hasn't started that way in 2026. Fremantle, Adelaide, Bulldogs, North Melbourne, Sydney, Gold Coast and Brisbane are our first 7 opponents there this season. If we can't count many wins, maybe we need to slice out Hawthorn's MCG wins against non-tenants too. Easter Monday played in Geelong easily flips that result, for instance.

About GC, yes I do think playing them up north compared to south can result in such a shifft. Geelong lost by 10 goals to them in 2024 up north and then won by 6 goals in Geelong a year later, despite GC being a better team in 2025.

Of course when you talk about form and performance what-ifs come into the equation, because only a few minor things have to change for win-loss tallies to be massively different. I know you don't like that line of reasoning, but it's simply the nature of having a few games decided in the last minute that all skewed in one direction. Much like Norm missing his shot after the siren in the 2016 QF. It wasn't good Geelong play that stopped him kicking the winner.

I'm not saying any wins should be counted/not counted. In fact it was you who is saying the 'where' makes a difference to assessing ladder positions (which I do not disagree with, although putting a 105 point difference in performance against the same team down to home/away seems doubtful to me. Overall I think 'who' is a good deal more important than 'where', but you definitely need to look at both when comparing how two teams are going).

The trouble with what-ifs is that it is a rabbit hole that is hard to come back out of again. Are you only going to look at a couple of what-ifs, like 'what-if player Y doesn't make mistake X in the last minute' or are you going to do the same for the same mistakes for the entire game, because all those mistakes that led to scores earlier in the game impacted the final result too in a close game. Do you analyse all the umpiring decisions in the same manner? Do we look at all of the 24 frees Geelong got, and ask if any of them were undeserved, and if so, did they result in scoring chains that by definition impacted the final result? Do we then do the same for Hawthorn, with their 13 frees, and ask the question in every single piece of play if there were frees that could have been played that were not than might have changed the result? Analysing in-game what-ifs of the type you raised "a fumble" , or potential umpiring mistakes is a fools game, because those all happen MANY times in the game. There are much more useful things to compare when you are trying to assess how two teams have gone compared to each other, like injuries to opposition (yes Sydney were weakened against us compared to other games they've played this season, as were dogs against you - and us to a lesser extent). Similar the oddity of getting a 19-5 centre clearance differential and losing is a more interesting what-if than a single game event. Those more global stats or situations are systemic influences, as opposed to your single situation example of a fumble potentially changing the result of the hawks-cats game, so seem like more reasonable discussion points. In-game single event what-ifs just sound like copium to me when talked about by someone who supports the losing side.

/Win/loss tally and percentage after 9 games is enough to see which form lines are looking roughly similar.

Not when one of those sides has played more top 8 teams than the other. It is just a narrative that happens to suit your argument given it is your side that is lower on the ladder, but with a higher percentage.

The head to head game was a coin flip and I'll happily concede that it earns Hawthorn a slight edge. But that doesn't dispute my whole point that the team's form lines have been roughly similar. Hawthorn just get hyped more when they win (weren't they equal flag favourites early in 2025?).

Nothing you've said has convinced me you're right given we are 4-1 against current top 8 sides, and you are 2-2. You are putting too much weight on ladder position and percentage, and ignore what happened when better teams were played (partly by applying caveats to our wins that you seem to refuse to apply equally to your own). Most of the public game prediction models that use actual game data and not 'the vibe' of a supporter of one of the two teams being discussed agrees with me rather than you (although admittedly by a smaller margin after this weekend's results).

 

[Mr Meow]

I'm not saying any wins should be counted/not counted. In fact it was you who is saying the 'where' makes a difference to assessing ladder positions (which I do not disagree with, although putting a 105 point difference in performance against the same team down to home/away seems doubtful to me. Overall I think 'who' is a good deal more important than 'where', but you definitely need to look at both when comparing how two teams are going).

The trouble with what-ifs is that it is a rabbit hole that is hard to come back out of again. Are you only going to look at a couple of what-ifs, like 'what-if player Y doesn't make mistake X in the last minute' or are you going to do the same for the same mistakes for the entire game, because all those mistakes that led to scores earlier in the game impacted the final result too in a close game. Do you analyse all the umpiring decisions in the same manner? Do we look at all of the 24 frees Geelong got, and ask if any of them were undeserved, and if so, did they result in scoring chains that by definition impacted the final result? Do we then do the same for Hawthorn, with their 13 frees, and ask the question in every single piece of play if there were frees that could have been played that were not than might have changed the result? Analysing in-game what-ifs of the type you raised "a fumble" , or potential umpiring mistakes is a fools game, because those all happen MANY times in the game. There are much more useful things to compare when you are trying to assess how two teams have gone compared to each other, like injuries to opposition (yes Sydney were weakened against us compared to other games they've played this season, as were dogs against you - and us to a lesser extent). Similar the oddity of getting a 19-5 centre clearance differential and losing is a more interesting what-if than a single game event. Those more global stats or situations are systemic influences, as opposed to your single situation example of a fumble potentially changing the result of the hawks-cats game, so seem like more reasonable discussion points. In-game single event what-ifs just sound like copium to me when talked about by someone who supports the losing side.




Not when one of those sides has played more top 8 teams than the other. It is just a narrative that happens to suit your argument given it is your side that is lower on the ladder, but with a higher percentage.



Nothing you've said has convinced me you're right given we are 4-1 against current top 8 sides, and you are 2-2. You are putting to much weight on ladder position and percentage, and ignore what happened when better teams were played (partly by applying caveats to our wins that you seem to refuse to apply equally to your own). Most of the public game prediction models that use actual game data and not 'the vibe' of a supporter of one of the two teams being discussed agrees with me rather than you (although admittedly by a smaller margin after this weekend's results).

Yes I realise that earlier events in games also influence games. But after all of those hundreds of incidents, in the last minute of those games the opposition did have a great chance to win. Credit to the Hawks and criticism to their opponents can be valid in that situation, while luck and randomness can also be acknowledged. This is simply how I view a team having a collection of close games where it was very feasible for the other side to scrape home in the end. I view Geelong wins by less than a goal in the same way. If we have a few of them in quick succession then I'm simply not going to get carried away.

Your last point is exactly what I'm talking about. If the Cats handled that last minute better after taking the lead or a Hawthorn player made a mistake, then Geelong are 3-1 against top 8 sides and Hawthorn are 3-2. That's how fine the margins are for such a discrepancy. So we are putting this supposed form line discrepancy down to who handled the last minute of an Easter Monday game a little better. Flip a coin 10 times for that last minute and there's probably an even spread of wins to both sides and draws. That's not enough for me to say Hawthorn have been performing to a clearly higher level than Geelong.

We clearly handled Fremantle and Collingwood better. Hawthorn handled Gold Coast and Port better. The Dogs games were similar and barely anything split us in the head to head.

 

[Mr Meow]

I'm not saying any wins should be counted/not counted. In fact it was you who is saying the 'where' makes a difference to assessing ladder positions (which I do not disagree with, although putting a 105 point difference in performance against the same team down to home/away seems doubtful to me. Overall I think 'who' is a good deal more important than 'where', but you definitely need to look at both when comparing how two teams are going).

The trouble with what-ifs is that it is a rabbit hole that is hard to come back out of again. Are you only going to look at a couple of what-ifs, like 'what-if player Y doesn't make mistake X in the last minute' or are you going to do the same for the same mistakes for the entire game, because all those mistakes that led to scores earlier in the game impacted the final result too in a close game. Do you analyse all the umpiring decisions in the same manner? Do we look at all of the 24 frees Geelong got, and ask if any of them were undeserved, and if so, did they result in scoring chains that by definition impacted the final result? Do we then do the same for Hawthorn, with their 13 frees, and ask the question in every single piece of play if there were frees that could have been played that were not than might have changed the result? Analysing in-game what-ifs of the type you raised "a fumble" , or potential umpiring mistakes is a fools game, because those all happen MANY times in the game. There are much more useful things to compare when you are trying to assess how two teams have gone compared to each other, like injuries to opposition (yes Sydney were weakened against us compared to other games they've played this season, as were dogs against you - and us to a lesser extent). Similar the oddity of getting a 19-5 centre clearance differential and losing is a more interesting what-if than a single game event. Those more global stats or situations are systemic influences, as opposed to your single situation example of a fumble potentially changing the result of the hawks-cats game, so seem like more reasonable discussion points. In-game single event what-ifs just sound like copium to me when talked about by someone who supports the losing side.




Not when one of those sides has played more top 8 teams than the other. It is just a narrative that happens to suit your argument given it is your side that is lower on the ladder, but with a higher percentage.



Nothing you've said has convinced me you're right given we are 4-1 against current top 8 sides, and you are 2-2. You are putting too much weight on ladder position and percentage, and ignore what happened when better teams were played (partly by applying caveats to our wins that you seem to refuse to apply equally to your own). Most of the public game prediction models that use actual game data and not 'the vibe' of a supporter of one of the two teams being discussed agrees with me rather than you (although admittedly by a smaller margin after this weekend's results).

Another way to show you how fine the margins are - this season it is a top 10, not a top 8.

Hawthorn's record against top 10 sides: 4 wins, 1 draw, 1 loss. 573 points for, 481 points against (119.1%).

Geelong's record against top 10 sides: 4 wins, 2 losses. 591 points for, 501 points against (118.0%).

See, not miles apart. Gunston's last second point on Easter Monday is the difference really. But the overall form lines are quite similar.

 

[hk89]

We clearly handled Fremantle and Collingwood better. Hawthorn handled Gold Coast and Port better. The Dogs games were similar and barely anything split us in the head to head.

Again you ignore Sydney. You have no close equivalent to compare to which is why you either ignore it or denigrate it due to injuries.

 

[Mr Meow]

Again you ignore Sydney. You have no close equivalent to compare to which is why you either ignore it or denigrate it due to injuries.

Sydney minus Heeney and Gulden is a bit like Hawthorn without Day and Newcombe - despite them being much better players. There is no way I'd ever mark Hawthorn down in that situation if they (minus Newcombe/Day) faced Sydney at the SCG with Heeney but no Gulden (for example). You're talking about a top 3 and a top 10 player in the comp, proven over full seasons (which vastly exceeds Day's proven quality, as much as I do rate him).

 

[hk89]

Another way to show you how fine the margins are - this season it is a top 10, not a top 8.

Hawthorn's record against top 10 sides: 4 wins, 1 draw, 1 loss. 573 points for, 481 points against (119.1%).

Geelong's record against top 10 sides: 4 wins, 2 losses. 591 points for, 501 points against (118.0%).

See, not miles apart. Gunston's last second point on Easter Monday is the difference really. But the overall form lines are quite similar.

Yes, if we extend the idea of "decent" teams to 10 instead of 8 the records start to look more similar.

This season is a top 6 with what is essentially a qualifying round that includes the lower ranked teams in spots 7-10 to see how qualifies as top 8, then the finals continue as usual.

If anything we should go in the opposite direction and look at the top 6 if we want to look at "form against quality".

You are 1/3. We are 3/4. That's not a slight difference. It also includes 1 humiliation to you, and none to us. Still hung up on the Easter Monday point from Gunston I see. 24 frees to 13 and you still couldn't get the job done! With such a lopsided count, you could easily argue the umpires kept you in it.

 

[hk89]

Sydney minus Heeney and Gulden is a bit like Hawthorn without Day and Newcombe - despite them being much better players. There is no way I'd ever mark Hawthorn down in that situation if they (minus Newcombe/Day) faced Sydney at the SCG with Heeney but no Gulden (for example). You're talking about a top 3 and a top 10 player in the comp, proven over full seasons (which vastly exceeds Day's proven quality, as much as I do rate him).

So Sydney is only a decent team at the moment when those two players are in the side? Their 128 point demolition of Eagles in Perth the following week with only one of them in the side suggests they can be lethal even with only one of the two in the side. Days is a disproportionate (to his ranking amongst the competition's best mids) loss for us due to how shallow our midfield talent pool is. Having him out is a massive disadvantage for us, whereas a team like Sydney can easily cover due to much deeper midfield quality (similar to a few other top sides compared to us, e.g Lions and Freo). If we do not go deep into September this year it will likely be largely down to a shallow midfield.

So now we are analysing the injury list of each team we've played to see if we should adjust how good a win is (or bad a loss is)? Imagine how much worse your humiliation against the suns would have been if the reigning brownlow medalist was in and on fire that day. How about just admitting beating Sydney was still a good win despite their two important outs.

 

[Mr Meow]

So Sydney is only a decent team at the moment when those two players are in the side? Their 128 point demolition of Eagles in Perth the following week with only one of them in the side suggests they can be lethal even with only one of the two in the side. Days is a disproportionate (to his ranking amongst the competition's best mids) loss for us due to how shallow our midfield talent pool is. Having him out is a massive disadvantage for us, whereas a team like Sydney can easily cover due to much deeper midfield quality (similar to a few other top sides compared to us, e.g Lions and Freo). If we do not go deep into September this year it will likely be largely down to a shallow midfield.

So now we are analysing the injury list of each team we've played to see if we should adjust how good a win is (or bad a loss is)? Imagine how much worse your humiliation against the suns would have been if the reigning brownlow medalist was in and on fire that day. How about just admitting beating Sydney was still a good win despite their two important outs.

They're functioning well enough without Gulden, as are Hawthorn without Day. Take Newcombe out as well and it probably tips things over the edge against strong sides - especially away from home. Heeney's impact is absolutely massive and he is right in the conversation for the most influential player in the comp. Gulden is "just" an All Australian running machine with elite skills and drifting around top 10 player in the comp status.

I'm not saying the Sydney win had no merit, but of course I would rank it a lot higher if the most damaging mid-forward in the comp was playing for them - and that's even with us pretending Day is as good as Gulden to cancel out those absences.

Rowell actually hasn't been that good this year. Geelong minus Cameron, Dangerfield and Stengle left us a little limp for firepower and leadership but we still sucked regardless of that.

 

[hk89]

They're functioning well enough without Gulden, as are Hawthorn without Day. Take Newcombe out as well and it probably tips things over the edge against strong sides - especially away from home. Heeney's impact is absolutely massive and he is right in the conversation for the most influential player in the comp. Gulden is "just" an All Australian running machine with elite skills and drifting around top 10 player in the comp status.

I've never said they were not considerable outs (and yes, Heeney is obviously a gun, and from the games he has played so far, turning 30 isn't slowing him down yet). I just think Sydney bat deep enough in that part of the ground to cover them such that they are still a hard team to beat at the moment, even with those outs. Also listing a playing who hasn't played as a significant since round 1 for the team sitting on top of the ladder after 9 rounds shows how easily they've done without him. Using Gulden's out to partly downgrade our win isn't that far off a Hawk fan saying "We'd be sitting on top with 100% win rate if Day was available all year" (except Day is arguably more important to us than Gulden is to Sydney). Or equally silly "If dangerfield hadn't fallen off a cliff, Geelong would be top of the ladder right now". Gulden and Day have long term shoulder injuries , Dangerfield is likely cooked (as a midfielder at least - which if true will be a sigh of relief to even Hawthorn fan given what he did to us in the prelim last year). I don't think any of the three should feature in form line discussions, except from the point of view of trying to project current form to future form upto their return (or return to form in Danger's case).

I'm sure you'll be careful to mention Gulden's name as a key out if you manage a win over them at your only H&A meeting this year down at the cattery.

I'm not saying the Sydney win had no merit, but of course I would rank it a lot higher if the most damaging mid-forward in the comp was playing for them - and that's even with us pretending Day is as good as Gulden to cancel out those absences.

It is more that you either leave it out of almost all of your comparisons of form lines with us , or make out as if two outs for them made it impossible for them to put up a decent fight.

Rowell actually hasn't been that good this year. Geelong minus Cameron, Dangerfield and Stengle left us a little limp for firepower and leadership but we still sucked regardless of that.

Yes, his numbers are definitely down, but you'd still count him as a key out, although he was ordinary against us (in fact their midfield as whole was surprisingly poor).

 

[Mr Meow]

I've never said they were not considerable outs (and yes, Heeney is obviously a gun, and from the games he has played so far, turning 30 isn't slowing him down yet). I just think Sydney bat deep enough in that part of the ground to cover them such that they are still a hard team to beat at the moment, even with those outs. Also listing a playing who hasn't played as a significant since round 1 for the team sitting on top of the ladder after 9 rounds shows how easily they've done without him. Using Gulden's out to partly downgrade our win isn't that far off a Hawk fan saying "We'd be sitting on top with 100% win rate if Day was available all year" (except Day is arguably more important to us than Gulden is to Sydney). Or equally silly "If dangerfield hadn't fallen off a cliff, Geelong would be top of the ladder right now". Gulden and Day have long term shoulder injuries , Dangerfield is likely cooked (as a midfielder at least - which if true will be a sigh of relief to even Hawthorn fan given what he did to us in the prelim last year). I don't think any of the three should feature in form line discussions, except from the point of view of trying to project current form to future form upto their return (or return to form in Danger's case).

I'm sure you'll be careful to mention Gulden's name as a key out if you manage a win over them at your only H&A meeting this year down at the cattery.



It is more that you either leave it out of almost all of your comparisons of form lines with us , or make out as if two outs for them made it impossible for them to put up a decent fight.



Yes, his numbers are definitely down, but you'd still count him as a key out, he was ordinary against us (in fact their midfield as whole was surprisingly poor).

Remember that this whole back-and-forth started only because I dared suggest Hawthorn's form line isn't massively different from teams that were drifting around 5th-8th like Geelong. I still believe that - and have explained why using the head to head contest, games against top 10 opposition and overall win/loss/% tally, the nature of some of those games and anything else I considered relevant.

You don't have to agree but it's really not an out there opinion that you are contesting. If I said "Hawthorn are really no better than Collingwood because they drew against them" that would be silly. If I said "Geelong are clearly better than Fremantle currently - the win/loss tally lies and we beat them" that would be silly. "Geelong and Hawthorn's performance levels haven't been wildly different so far" is not that silly.

Despite all of this it has been great to connect and engage with you over this important matter, and I hope for a peaceful resolution. Brisbane will probably thump us at the Gabba and then you will get to say "See! I was right afterall!".

 

[hk89]

Remember that this whole back-and-forth started only because I dared suggest Hawthorn's form line isn't massively different from teams that were drifting around 5th-8th like Geelong. I still believe that - and have explained why using the head to head contest, games against top 10 opposition and overall win/loss/% tally, the nature of some of those games and anything else I considered relevant.

You don't have to agree but it's really not an out there opinion that you are contesting. If I said "Hawthorn are really no better than Collingwood because they drew against them" that would be silly. If I said "Geelong are clearly better than Fremantle currently - the win/loss tally lies and we beat them" that would be silly. "Geelong and Hawthorn's performance levels haven't been wildly different so far" is not that silly.

Despite all of this it has been great to connect and engage with you over this important matter, and I hope for a peaceful resolution. Brisbane will probably thump us at the Gabba and then you will get to say "See! I was right afterall!".

And I think you are wrong, especially when you look at games against the top 6. The fact that the AFL thinks it is a good idea to have finals include 10 teams doesn't mean the rest of should start believing the top 10 is the benchmark for 'good opposition', the top 8 was already a stretch. Top 6 record between Hawthorn and Geelong clearly favours Hawthorn.

If you beat Brisbane, you'll get the Sydney win equivalent you need to make your argument credible, even more so if we lose to Melbourne - which is entirely possible. If you thump Brisbane at the Gabba and we lose to Melbourne then I think it is more than reasonable to say you have the superior form line.

 

[Mr Meow]

And I think you are wrong, especially when you look at games against the top 6. The fact that the AFL thinks it is a good idea to have finals include 10 teams doesn't mean the rest of should start believing the top 10 is the benchmark for 'good opposition', the top 8 was already a stretch. Top 6 record between Hawthorn and Geelong clearly favours Hawthorn.

If you beat Brisbane, you'll get the Sydney win equivalent you need to make your argument credible, even more so if we lose to Melbourne - which is entirely possible. If you thump Brisbane at the Gabba and we lose to Melbourne then I think it is more than reasonable to say you have the superior form line.

No problem at all with you disagreeing. I have patiently explained my position and it is not an attempt to have you agree with me.

Beating Brisbane up there with their current side would be an achievement of much more value than the Hawks beating Sydney minus Heeney and Gulden at the G.

Beating Sydney minus Gulden (but still with Heeney) at Geelong a week later would be close enough, although still obviously a better win. If Geelong lose both and the Hawks comfortably account for Melbourne + Adelaide then it is reasonable to say that Hawthorn have the superior form line. It just isn't reasonable to say that right now, it wasn't a month ago but it was a fortnight ago.

Hopefully we've come to a place of understanding and can now smoothly move on.

 

[Freomaniac]

You are the worst judge of players it’s funny

Ryan played as a lockdown defender and did pretty well.

Had the same amount of disposals as Alex Pearce.

Finished with 6 kicks at 100% 1 GA AND 2 SI

Did pretty well in his first game, in a tough one

Well I am not going to knock on a kid that had a debut on the weekend.

Took him a season of ressies games before he got a debut game. Ryan could be anything.

So he was from the 2024 draft. A fair bit of those blokes got a debut game the next season in 2025.

 

[Dewyyyyy]

Well I am not going to knock on a kid that had a debut on the weekend.

Took him a season of ressies games before he got a debut game. Ryan could be anything.

So he was from the 2024 draft. A fair bit of those blokes got a debut game the next season in 2025.

Different systems. Sam Mitchell has been big on him for a while but it’s hard to find a way into a side as good as hawthorns. If at any other club he would’ve played plenty already. Plenty of players have done long runs of vfl form before being picked in the afl side at hawthorn.

 

[joe444]

Could be right. Are you believing the same thing about the swans though?

Am I believing they could get overrun and end up as just another finalist? Absolutely.

Seasons are rarely victory laps for the team on top in Round 11. This time two years ago, Essendon was second.

 

[Piggy Smalls]

Putting those arguments into perspective...

Adelaide aren't great. They are sitting at 4-4
Collingwood was a win in South Australia.. not a Collingwood HOME game
Hawthorn was a Home game for you

Freo have had a very easy run to start the season. Richmond, West Coast and Carlton. And Essendon next week. You have effectively played the bottom 4 very worst teams in the league in your first 9 rounds - This is 44% of your games in the first 9 rounds as free wins. I would have thrown Melbourne in that group as well, but they have been OK.

The test comes when you start playing big boys away - Brisbane, Sydney, Hawthorn, Collingwood, Gold Coast - When you play these teams on their home ground and beat them, you are a contender.

Thanks Garry.

FTR we beat Collingwood, Gold Coast, and Dogs on the road to close out last year. This year we've beaten Collingwood (again), Adelaide, Dogs (again) on the road. Some Vic teams don't get that many interstate wins in 5 years.

 

[Dewyyyyy]

Thanks Garry.

FTR we beat Collingwood, Gold Coast, and Dogs on the road to close out last year. This year we've beaten Collingwood (again), Adelaide, Dogs (again) on the road. Some Vic teams don't get that many interstate wins in 5 years.

Collingwood was at AO, so not exactly the same but I get your point. Freo have been good and deserve their plaudits. They’re definitely in contention. As are Brisbane, Hawthorn, Sydney thus far. Other teams will probably show their wares too. Like Geelong.

 

[Freomaniac]

Putting those arguments into perspective...

Adelaide aren't great. They are sitting at 4-4
Collingwood was a win in South Australia.. not a Collingwood HOME game
Hawthorn was a Home game for you

Freo have had a very easy run to start the season. Richmond, West Coast and Carlton. And Essendon next week. You have effectively played the bottom 4 very worst teams in the league in your first 9 rounds - This is 44% of your games in the first 9 rounds as free wins. I would have thrown Melbourne in that group as well, but they have been OK.

The test comes when you start playing big boys away - Brisbane, Sydney, Hawthorn, Collingwood, Gold Coast - When you play these teams on their home ground and beat them, you are a contender.

I would take any win over collingwood at the moment. Magpies have had the wood over Dockers constantly since the pandemic years.

Hawks Historically have the wood over the dockers too for most of the dockers existence.

I still remember that period between 2012-15 when dockers made finals each year. Dockers had a semi decent record over 16 other clubs. Hawks was the one side that beat us almos every time with the exception of 2014 in WA.

Even then, that one win in 2014 vs The hawks, they pushed us to play attacking footy.

I still remember the half time score on that game too. Freo 10.3.63 to hawks 10.9.69. Dockers won that game 17.8.110 to hawks 13.13.91.

Dockers beat the dogs in Marvel Recently too. even then that was a narrow win.

Dockers were fortunate to beat the dogs in that final round of the regualr season at marvel too. Glad we won that game.

Had we lost, we would of finished 9th with 15 wins and 8 losses, in which most seasons 15 wins and 8 losses would usually mean top 4 or at worst a top 6 finish with a home elim final.

 

[Mr Meow]

And I think you are wrong, especially when you look at games against the top 6. The fact that the AFL thinks it is a good idea to have finals include 10 teams doesn't mean the rest of should start believing the top 10 is the benchmark for 'good opposition', the top 8 was already a stretch. Top 6 record between Hawthorn and Geelong clearly favours Hawthorn.

If you beat Brisbane, you'll get the Sydney win equivalent you need to make your argument credible, even more so if we lose to Melbourne - which is entirely possible. If you thump Brisbane at the Gabba and we lose to Melbourne then I think it is more than reasonable to say you have the superior form line.

See you can sort of see what I mean now. After the opening round disaster against GC, here are Geelong's results against top 10 teams:

-Beat Fremantle by 10 points
-Beat Adelaide by 8 points
-Lost to Hawthorn by 1 point
-Beat Bulldogs by 75 points
-Beat Collingwood by 54 points
-Beat Brisbane by 41 points

Then the thumping of NM who look to be a wildcard contender.

Games against the top 6 teams are now a close win, a really close loss, a thumping win and a thumping loss.

3rd best percentage in the comp. Ahead of Hawthorn now but likely not at the end of the round. Similar form lines overall.

 

[Dewyyyyy]

See you can sort of see what I mean now. After the opening round disaster against GC, here are Geelong's results against top 10 teams:

-Beat Fremantle by 10 points
-Beat Adelaide by 8 points
-Lost to Hawthorn by 1 point
-Beat Bulldogs by 75 points
-Beat Collingwood by 54 points
-Beat Brisbane by 41 points

Then the thumping of NM who look to be a wildcard contender.

Games against the top 6 teams are now a close win, a really close loss, a thumping win and a thumping loss.

3rd best percentage in the comp. Ahead of Hawthorn now but likely not at the end of the round. Similar form lines overall.

Difference was the big loss Geelong had to Gold Coast and Port.

Geelong at their best are a top 4 side it was just the inconsistency to start the year. They’re going well now and another big test next week.

They probably finish anywhere six and up now and would like their chances for the top 4. Despite a hard run.

 

[hk89]

See you can sort of see what I mean now. After the opening round disaster against GC, here are Geelong's results against top 10 teams:

-Beat Fremantle by 10 points
-Beat Adelaide by 8 points
-Lost to Hawthorn by 1 point
-Beat Bulldogs by 75 points
-Beat Collingwood by 54 points
-Beat Brisbane by 41 points

Then the thumping of NM who look to be a wildcard contender.

Games against the top 6 teams are now a close win, a really close loss, a thumping win and a thumping loss.

3rd best percentage in the comp. Ahead of Hawthorn now but likely not at the end of the round. Similar form lines overall.

Yes, much more similar after that game. We've accumulated a few outs now, so I can see us finishing the round below you, but has been hard to get a read on Melbourne (Brisbane too, to be honest), and I don't think we deserve the favouritism in Sunday's game, given we are missing a few starting key position players for this game (Barrass, Gunston and Chol), and our first in line defender to replace Barrass (although not kind for kind) in Scrimshaw injured himself during training, so also not available.

We are still 3-1 against the top 6, with no major thumpings against from those games, so from a top 6 point of view, arguably still slightly ahead of your 2-2 record with one thumping against. However our results against teams outside the top 6 are worse than yours, so I think "reasonably close" right now is probably on the mark, with you moving ahead if we lose to Melbourne (hard to argue a team above us on the ladder isn't travelling better ).

Although having said that , if we do lose to Melbourne , Brisbane will no longer be top 6, so the top 6 record will shift to 3-2 for us vs 1-2 for you, so arguably harder run for us. Lions probably needed this win a lot more than you did, and look shaky right now. They've currently won zero games against the current top 6, but that is only from 2 games so 0-2 (0-3 if Melbourne beat us), which is partly why they are a bit tricky to get a read on - have had an easy run compared to others, and still tracking poorly (for a premiership contender), with no decent scalps so far.

None of our injuries are long term right now, so with no further injuries we'll be close to injury free in about 4-5 weeks which isn't a terrible situation to be in. We also have a few easy games still to come, so I think we can still push for top 4, but in the short term I can see us dropping out of top 8.

Anyway, good win to Geelong, expected the bump from you when I saw the result

 

[Mr Meow]

Difference was the big loss Geelong had to Gold Coast and Port.

Geelong at their best are a top 4 side it was just the inconsistency to start the year. They’re going well now and another big test next week.

They probably finish anywhere six and up now and would like their chances for the top 4. Despite a hard run.

We have a couple of shockers in the first half of basically every season. 7 out of 8 games we've played very well, the Hawthorn game was a bit of a mixed bag for both sides and then we had 2 forgettable efforts. It's happened to Brisbane, Geelong, Port, Collingwood and Sydney in recent seasons where they finished top 4 too. A couple of really poor games at some point of the season.

As annoying as it is to lose to a team like Port, I'd take that and a big win over Brisbane instead of the reverse. From the top teams, we sucked against GC but that's business as usual at their two home stadiums.

Sydney will be a big test. Anyway, my point all along was just that Geelong are loosely in this chasing/contending rather than cooked or making up the numbers group. Not that they are anything close to favourites, but worthy of being grouped in with the others.