Can Hawthorn succeed while ignoring the elite end of the draft? - Part 2

[WWSD]

Round 9

Club	Avg Age	Age Diff	Avg Gms	Gms Diff	Result
Haw	27.38	+1.19	138.8	+31.7	W
Geel	26.30	+0.39	110.1	-1.0	L
Carl	26.19	-1.19	107.0	-31.7	L
Adel	26.01	+0.65	82.2	-3.0	L
GWS	25.98	+1.51	108.5	+29.6	W
P.A.	25.97	+0.78	110.8	+18.7	W
W.C.	25.91	-0.39	111.0	+1.0	W
Coll	25.79	+1.00	92.8	+20.0	L
W.B.	25.78	+0.61	94.7	+16.9	L
N.M.	25.36	-0.65	85.2	+3.0	W
Melb	25.20	-0.78	92.1	-18.7	L
Rich	25.17	-0.61	77.8	-16.9	W
St.K	25.16	-0.68	82.3	+6.3	W
Ess	24.99	+0.18	76.1	-8.0	L
Bris	24.81	-0.18	84.1	+8.0	W
Frem	24.78	-1.00	72.8	-20.0	W
Syd	24.48	-0.68	76.0	-6.3	L
G.C.	24.47	-1.51	79.0	-29.6	L

Oldest teams after 9 games

Avg Age	Club	Year	Record	Ladder	Finished
27.82	N.M.	2016	9-0-0	1st	8th/18
27.58	Haw	2020	4-5-0	13th
27.51	Fitz	1946	4-5-0	6th	8th/12
27.40	Coll	1920	6-3-0	3rd	2nd/9
27.26	Fitz	1943	7-2-0	2nd	3rd/11
27.24	Melb	1920	4-5-0	7th	8th/9
27.19	Geel	2020	5-4-0	6th
27.13	Syd	1945	8-1-0	1st	2nd/12
27.09	Rich	1922	3-6-0	7th	5th/9
27.01	Fitz	1945	4-4-1	7th	6th/12

If you take out Burgoyne, that average age puts Hawthorn down to about the 5th or 6th oldest. He is 19 years older than the Hawks youngest player in Will Day!

 

[Ron The Bear]

If you take out Burgoyne, that average age puts Hawthorn down to about the 5th or 6th oldest. He is 19 years older than the Hawks youngest player in Will Day!

Still 26.88 and clear #1 for the round.

 

[stfan]

Still 26.88 and clear #1 for the round.

It must be that WWSD intends to just field a team of 21 players just to get the average down. Now that does work, but it will not help to win the game.

 

[Pessimistic]

I mentioned this before, but will repeat. The widespread acceptance of "hard rebuild' " going to the draft" "he wont be in their next premiership team" or other internal bloopers by other teams is an essential part of the Hawk's progress.

Lake, McEvoy, Frawley, Frost. All gifts from the systems which keep on giving. Keep it up peeps.

Could any of these teams have drafted Ben King?

6	Ben King	Gold Coast	Sandringham Dragons	TAC Cup	Traded from Melbourne; received from Fremantle; received from Brisbane Lions; received from Port Adelaide; received from Fremantle​

 

[Father Jack]

Using a mean average as a measure is of limited value, as it doesn't tell you the distribution or the age of their key players. You might have a few oldies dragging your average up but it isn't that much of a problem if your team isn't based around them. Remember when Melbourne had a cull of their older-but-still-useful players which only served to put back the development of their up-and-comers?

I also think that maybe North got spooked by their 'average age' numbers when they moved on players when perhaps they really didn't need to back in 2016.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Using a mean average as a measure is of limited value, as it doesn't tell you the distribution or the age of their key players. You might have a few oldies dragging your average up but it isn't that much of a problem if your team isn't based around them. Remember when Melbourne had a cull of their older-but-still-useful players which only served to put back the development of their up-and-comers?

I also think that maybe North got spooked by their 'average age' numbers when they moved on players when perhaps they really didn't need to back in 2016.

Agree - it's the names and performance more than the total number that really impacts on future performances.

Older players that are on the list but not performing above average are a pain, but can be easily replaced with younger players without affecting performance. Generally 2-3 new players are added every year.

So lets look at clubs current 30+ players noting those performing above "Average":

ZERO
Western Bulldogs - Dickson, Suckling, Wood, Lloyd
Gold Coast - Harbrow, Hanley, Smith

ONE
Adelaide - McKay, Gibbs, Sloane (548 in 6)
Collingwood - Dunn, Pendlebury (732), Varcoe, Mayne, Greenwood, Reid, Beams
Essendon - Hooker (400 in 5), Bellchambers, Zaharakis
Fremantle - Mundy (651)
Melbourne - Jones, Hibberd (507 in 7), Jetta
St Kilda - Ryder (576 in 6), Geary, Brown

TWO
Sydney - Franklin, Kennedy (542 in 6), Sinclair (466 in 6)
West Coast - Kennedy (680), Hurn (777), Schofield, Jetta

THREE
Brisbane - Martin, Birchall (596 in 8), Zorko (628 in 7), Robinson (780), Eagles
North - Higgins (918), Goldstein (1148), Tarrant (741)
Richmond - Houli (377 in 4), Edwards (406 in 5), Riewoldt, Rance, Cotchin (571 in 6)

FOUR
Carlton - Simpson (651), Murphy (706), Betts, Kreuzer, Curnow (846), Casboult (672)
GWS - Shaw (647), Mumford (285 in 4), Jacobs (463 in 5), Reid, De Boer, Ward (354 in 4), Keefe
Hawthorn - Burgoyne (565 in 8), Puopolo, Henderson (494 in 7), Frawley, Smith (736), Stratton, McEvoy (704)

FIVE
Port Adelaide - Westhoff (678), Gray (694), Boak (945), Rockliff (534 in 6), Ebert (725 in 8)

SEVEN
Geelong - Ablett (575 in 7), Taylor (630 in 8), Selwood (664 in 7), Hawkins (875), Jenkins, Tuohy (744), Henderson (147 in 2), Steven, Dangerfield (985)

Obviously Cats/Power have to go for the flag before their aging stars performance drops away.

 

[hk89]

Avg Age	Club	Year	Record	Ladder	Finished
27.82	N.M.	2016	9-0-0	1st	8th/18
27.58	Haw	2020	4-5-0	13th
27.51	Fitz	1946	4-5-0	6th	8th/12
27.40	Coll	1920	6-3-0	3rd	2nd/9
27.26	Fitz	1943	7-2-0	2nd	3rd/11
27.24	Melb	1920	4-5-0	7th	8th/9
27.19	Geel	2020	5-4-0	6th
27.13	Syd	1945	8-1-0	1st	2nd/12
27.09	Rich	1922	3-6-0	7th	5th/9
27.01	Fitz	1945	4-4-1	7th	6th/12

How many teams in that list had played on their home ground only twice in the first 9 rounds? How many of the Vic teams in that list had played outside Melbourne in 6 of the first 9 rounds?

 

[Ron The Bear]

How many teams in that list had played on their home ground only twice in the first 9 rounds? How many of the Vic teams in that list had played outside Melbourne in 6 of the first 9 rounds?

Are you still clinging to the hope that Humpty Dumpty can be put back together?

 

[Pessimistic]

Are you still clinging to the hope that Humpty Dumpty can be put back together?

More that an admin with a proven track record, while not infallible, is much much more likely to achieve than a bunch of random posters predict otherwise

 

[hk89]

Are you still clinging to the hope that Humpty Dumpty can be put back together?

No, just questioning the validity of your data in what is an outlier year in many ways. I'm assuming the answer to both my question was none?

 

[Ron The Bear]

No, just questioning the validity of your data in what is an outlier year in many ways. I'm assuming the answer to both my question was none?

I didn't look at it as I assumed you had, and were inferring that the fixture is an excuse for Hawthorn. The die was cast for the Hawks before 2020 began.

 

[hk89]

I didn't look at it as I assumed you had, and were inferring that the fixture is an excuse for Hawthorn.

Yes, so you see the fact that very likely no other teams in your list of old teams had to have 7 games away from their home ground in the first nine rounds as not relevant? I like your data, and your posts quoting numbers are always interesting, but you also prove that you can do anything with numbers when you have an agenda, and blindly stick to it, no matter how illogical.

Ignoring the fixture is about as dumb as looking at reduced scores this year and ignoring the shorter quarters. It is not surprising scores are lower is it? It is also not surprising an older list is performing worse than other older lists when none of the other old lists played in a season with hubs requiring them to have a bunch of games away from their home ground.

 

[Ambrosia]

Yes, so you see the fact that very likely no other teams in your list of old teams had to have 7 games away from their home ground in the first nine rounds as not relevant? I like your data, and your posts quoting numbers are always interesting, but you also prove that you can do anything with numbers when you have an agenda, and blindly stick to it, no matter how illogical.

Ignoring the fixture is about as dumb as looking at reduced scores this year and ignoring the shorter quarters. It is not surprising scores are lower is it? It is also not surprising an older list is performing worse than other older lists when none of the other old lists played in a season with hubs requiring them to have a bunch of games away from their home ground.

But why are older lists more disadvantaged by the current situation than other lists?

 

[Ron The Bear]

Yes, so you see the fact that very likely no other teams in your list of old teams had to have 7 games away from their home ground in the first nine rounds as not relevant? I like your data, and your posts quoting numbers are always interesting, but you also prove that you can do anything with numbers when you have an agenda, and blindly stick to it, no matter how illogical.

True, my opinion on the Hawks was set some time ago (prior to this thread) and results in the past couple of years have tended to confirm it. I just don't feel a need to focus on flimsy contradictory evidence.

 

[hk89]

True, my opinion on the Hawks was set some time ago (prior to this thread) and results in the past couple of years have tended to confirm it. I just don't feel a need to focus on flimsy contradictory evidence.

The fact that you think it is 'flimsy' that the worst performed team by round 9 in your list of old teams is also very likely the team that played the least number of home ground games in the first 9 rounds out of any of those teams (and likely ever) speaks very loudly about your interest in an accurate assessment of the situation.

 

[Ron The Bear]

The fact that you think it is 'flimsy' that the worst performed team by round 9 in your list of old teams is also very likely the team that played the least number of home ground games in the first 9 rounds out of any of those teams (and likely ever) speaks very loudly about your interest in an accurate assessment of the situation.

It's your prerogative to keep fighting the good fight. Que sera, sera.

 

[hk89]

But why are older lists more disadvantaged by the current situation than other lists?

Did you see the year next to the other teams in his list of 10 oldest teams by round 9? In that second table, he's not comparing Hawthorn to this years bunch of old teams, he's comparing them to the all time list of old teams. Given how much of an outlier our lack of home ground games this year is compared to most if not all other teams in that second list, I think that yes, it is a significant disadvantage, and part of the reason our performance is such an outlier compared to those historical teams.

We may well be doing worse than other old teams currently in the competition (relatively speaking), but that isn't the comparison the data in that second table is making, and it is a completely reasonable theory that we look terrible compared to the 9 other teams on that list, partly because of the unusual consequences of the COVID season, consequences that 0 of the teams that list compares us to had. Note that I'm assuming nobody in that second list had anything like our lack of home ground games, but it is just an assumption. Ron has the data to easily answer that question, but doesn't want to , I suspect because it doesn't suit his very clear agenda.

Note that in terms of comparison to this year's older teams, looking at Geelong, the second oldest team on Ron's list of teams this year, we've played one less game at home than Geelong and have one less win. The home ground issue is fairly significant IMO. Port is the only team in the top 4 who has not played twice as many home ground games as Hawthorn. In fact the majority of teams currently above us on the ladder have played twice as many home ground games as us. GC and GWS have played 3 times as many. You can see the impact the Sydney hub had on our season, when we are 3-0 at MCG size grounds, and 1-5 everywhere else.

Only a completely one eyed Hawthorn hater would compare us to a vic team that played in the 1920s and never left the state, and probably played a heap of home games and say it was a fair comparison to what has happened to us this year due to COVID.

Again, I'm not saying we've not under-performed for an older list, but the comparison to historic older teams showing us as the worst old team ever by a fair margin, is just completely misleading given how COVID has impacted the playing locations this year.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Did you see the year next to the other teams in his list of 10 oldest teams by round 9? In that second table, he's not comparing Hawthorn to this years bunch of old teams, he's comparing them to the all time list of old teams.

It was just a reminder that the problems haven't gone away after beating a disappointing Carlton. They're the same problems as the week before, and the week before that.

Only a completely one eyed Hawthorn hater would compare us to a vic team that played in the 1920s and never left the state, and probably played a heap of home games and say it was a fair comparison to what has happened to us this year due to COVID.

Hahaha, I've got nothing against Hawthorn. They're just gone, is all.

Hawthorn may well reel off the next five and make a push for the top four. I kinda hope they do.

 

[hk89]

It was just a reminder that the problems haven't gone away after beating a disappointing Carlton. They're the same problems as the week before, and the week before that.

Not really. Having an old list is fine if you are winning. As you've accurately pointed out , most old lists do fairly well on the winning front. The problem with the previous 4 weeks was that we were not winning.

Hawthorn may well reel off the next five and make a push for the top four. I kinda hope they do.

That seems very doubtful, Carlton are obviously not much of a yardstick to measure against, (and neither is Freo in our next game). If we can beat WC we'd have something to be excited about. In any case, we'll certainly have a better chance of doing that at Optus than at GIANTS stadium. If we did make top 4, you would of course be completely wrong, because as you've pointed out in the past, old lists are not the problem, old lists that lose lots of games are the problem.

Hawthorn were a tad unlucky with the way their draw unfolded this year. Geelong game would normally have been at the MCG, and the Sydney hub was probably our worst case scenario in terms of locations that suited our game plan. Of course people pretending to be impartial like you will cut us no slack for the way the draw unfolded for us. Legitimate reasons always get labelled as lame excuses in troll threads like this.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Not really. Having an old list is fine if you are winning. As you've accurately pointed out , most old lists do fairly well on the winning front. The problem with the previous 4 weeks was that we were not winning.

It's a pattern entrenched over several seasons. Since the shock loss to Melbourne late in 2016, Hawthorn is 14-16 when 1.5+ years older than the opposition. The average team wins two-thirds of such games; indeed the Hawks - champion team that they were - had won 42 of their previous 47, including 25 on the trot. No matter what you say or I say, Hawthorn is not going to buck those percentages without major change.

That seems very doubtful, Carlton are obviously not much of a yardstick to measure against, (and neither is Freo in our next game). If we can beat WC we'd have something to be excited about. In any case, we'll certainly have a better chance of doing that at Optus than at GIANTS stadium. If we did make top 4, you would of course be completely wrong, because as you've pointed out in the past, old lists are not the problem, old lists that lose lots of games are the problem.

Hawthorn were a tad unlucky with the way their draw unfolded this year. Geelong game would normally have been at the MCG, and the Sydney hub was probably our worst case scenario in terms of locations that suited our game plan. Of course people pretending to be impartial like you will cut us no slack for the way the draw unfolded for us. Legitimate reasons always get labelled as lame excuses in troll threads like this.

That was from 2018 when Hawthorn was out of the eight. Top four and gone!

 

[hk89]

It's a pattern entrenched over several seasons. Since the shock loss to Melbourne late in 2016, Hawthorn is 14-16 when 1.5+ years older than the opposition. The average team wins two-thirds of such games; indeed the Hawks - champion team that they were - had won 42 of their previous 47, including 25 on the trot. No matter what you say or I say, Hawthorn is not going to buck those percentages without major change.

You talk like we haven't been making major changes just because we have a somewhat older list profile. Players no longer on the list from that 2016 loss to Melbourne:
Mitchell
Hodge,
Lewis,
Birchall,
Gibson,
Whitecross,
Rioli,
O'Rourke,
Hill,
Langford,
Brand,
Duryea,
Heatherley

Only 9 left. I'd say that was 'major change' wouldn't you? Probably not massively above average list churn, but I'd guess slightly above average over a 4 year period.

Hawthorn have had stretches of being competitive with the top teams, such as the latter half of last year, but
we still lack depth in key areas that means we tend to drop off quickly (quicker than others) when we can't
get our best 22 out on the park. We addressed that somewhat in the off-season (at least for the defensive half of the ground, and partly offensive, although not getting a Poppy replacement was concerning. We also got Mitchell back in the middle). I don't think
our list is as bad as 13th, and that our current ladder position is partially due to bad luck with the
COVID impact, and our hub location being the worst available (for us), which has provided a lot more home ground games to a bunch of the teams sitting above us. That compacted into a confidence slump which saw us losing to very ordinary Sydney and Melbourne sides with some of the most stagnant ball movement I think I've ever seen (we tried against Sydney, but as soon as we were put under pressure, reverted back to the horrible movement of previous weeks).

We also have a very structure based gameplan that requires all the cogs to be well drilled at working together (yes, all teams have that to a disagree, but I think it is particularly true of how Clarko likes his players to go about it). I think this is partly why we've started several recent seasons very badly while integrating fresh blood into important positions, making a late run where we'd pick up decent scalps. I think COVID's training rules probably hurt our structure heavy game plan too.

 

[Ron The Bear]

You talk like we haven't been making major changes just because we have a somewhat older list profile. Players no longer on the list from that 2016 loss to Melbourne:
Mitchell
Hodge,
Lewis,
Birchall,
Gibson,
Whitecross,
Rioli,
O'Rourke,
Hill,
Langford,
Brand,
Duryea,
Heatherley

Only 9 left. I'd say that was 'major change' wouldn't you? Probably not massively above average list churn, but I'd guess slightly above average over a 4 year period.

Hawthorn have had stretches of being competitive with the top teams, such as the latter half of last year, but
we still lack depth in key areas that means we tend to drop off quickly (quicker than others) when we can't
get our best 22 out on the park. We addressed that somewhat in the off-season (at least for the defensive half of the ground, and partly offensive, although not getting a Poppy replacement was concerning. We also got Mitchell back in the middle). I don't think
our list is as bad as 13th, and that our current ladder position is partially due to bad luck with the
COVID impact, and our hub location being the worst available (for us), which has provided a lot more home ground games to a bunch of the teams sitting above us. That compacted into a confidence slump which saw us losing to very ordinary Sydney and Melbourne sides with some of the most stagnant ball movement I think I've ever seen (we tried against Sydney, but as soon as we were put under pressure, reverted back to the horrible movement of previous weeks).

We also have a very structure based gameplan that requires all the cogs to be well drilled at working together (yes, all teams have that to a disagree, but I think it is particularly true of how Clarko likes his players to go about it). I think this is partly why we've started several recent seasons very badly while integrating fresh blood into important positions, making a late run where we'd pick up decent scalps. I think COVID's training rules probably hurt our structure heavy game plan too.

The point is that it hasn't worked. Hawthorn has more "recycled" players than any other club with 17. All it's done is kept them mid-table with a possibility of filling one of the last finals spots. "Competitive", and occasionally bobbing up with a win against good opposition, isn't enough for a team that has been one of the two oldest since 2016.

Hawthorn is shuffling the deck chairs and has done well to get this far without totally collapsing. But you can't turn an average older team into a premiership older team.

 

[Pessimistic]

The point is that it hasn't worked. Hawthorn has more "recycled" players than any other club with 17. All it's done is kept them mid-table with a possibility of filling one of the last finals spots. "Competitive", and occasionally bobbing up with a win against good opposition, isn't enough for a team that has been one of the two oldest since 2016.

Hawthorn is shuffling the deck chairs and has done well to get this far without totally collapsing. But you can't turn an average older team into a premiership older team.

We have the most, but 17 is BS. More like 13 and some current successful clubs have 10. 7-10 is about right

Any way if lists get cut dramatically the whole thing is turned on its head. See how that goes. project players will need to develop somewhere else.

If the AFL was smart it would leverage its relative liquidity and add 2-4 more teams and go for quick kill of competitor sports. They are struggling despite outward bravado

 

[stfan]

You talk like we haven't been making major changes just because we have a somewhat older list profile. Players no longer on the list from that 2016 loss to Melbourne:
Mitchell
Hodge,
Lewis,
Birchall,
Gibson,
Whitecross,
Rioli,
O'Rourke,
Hill,
Langford,
Brand,
Duryea,
Heatherley

Only 9 left. I'd say that was 'major change' wouldn't you? Probably not massively above average list churn, but I'd guess slightly above average over a 4 year period.

Hawthorn have had stretches of being competitive with the top teams, such as the latter half of last year, but
we still lack depth in key areas that means we tend to drop off quickly (quicker than others) when we can't
get our best 22 out on the park. We addressed that somewhat in the off-season (at least for the defensive half of the ground, and partly offensive, although not getting a Poppy replacement was concerning. We also got Mitchell back in the middle). I don't think
our list is as bad as 13th, and that our current ladder position is partially due to bad luck with the
COVID impact, and our hub location being the worst available (for us), which has provided a lot more home ground games to a bunch of the teams sitting above us. That compacted into a confidence slump which saw us losing to very ordinary Sydney and Melbourne sides with some of the most stagnant ball movement I think I've ever seen (we tried against Sydney, but as soon as we were put under pressure, reverted back to the horrible movement of previous weeks).

We also have a very structure based gameplan that requires all the cogs to be well drilled at working together (yes, all teams have that to a disagree, but I think it is particularly true of how Clarko likes his players to go about it). I think this is partly why we've started several recent seasons very badly while integrating fresh blood into important positions, making a late run where we'd pick up decent scalps. I think COVID's training rules probably hurt our structure heavy game plan too.

There is change and there is change.

A major change to the list management strategy would seem to be required. ie The type of players you trade for and their acquisition cost.

The current strategy of mainly topping up with players to win a flag including being willing to pay well overs for several key targets and a number of others with physical issues is actually making the team worse rather than better.

This has all stemmed from thinking that the team was ready to win the flag now with just a few tweaks. So part of this major change is realising that the current team is not going all the way and another approach is required.

 

[Pessimistic]

There is change and there is change.

A major change to the list management strategy would seem to be required. ie The type of players you trade for and their acquisition cost.

The current strategy of mainly topping up with players to win a flag including being willing to pay well overs for several key targets and a number of others with physical issues is actually making the team worse rather than better.

This has all stemmed from thinking that the team was ready to win the flag now with just a few tweaks. So part of this major change is realising that the current team is not going all the way and another approach is required.

Worse than a team which cruised to a threepeat? Well Im surprised.

Gunston , Gibson, Hale, Burgoyne, Lake etc. all declared as 'overpaid at the time. though I concede its harder these days. a function that more clubs see the 'topping up' value increasinfly

Yet some smegs use the phrase 'topping up" like its an insult everyone agrees with. Less and less people do