Can Hawthorn succeed while ignoring the elite end of the draft?

[ScottyDogg]

At the end of a rebuild you have an experienced, mature list dont you?

Absolutely, but one that can spend the next 5 years together.

Half of your best 22 are nearing retirement and you don’t have the young talent to fill their holes. Just wondering how this qualifies as a “rebuilt list.”

 

[hk89]

Absolutely, but one that can spend the next 5 years together.

Half of your best 22 are nearing retirement and you don’t have the young talent to fill their holes. Just wondering how this qualifies as a “rebuilt list.”

Half is a fair exaggeration. That would imply 11 of our players are nearing retirement. Unless you are calling 28 'nearing retirement' which would be a gross exaggeration , there are currently 10 players on our list over 28. 3 of those have not been regularly parts of best 22 this year i.e.:
- Roughy
- Birchall
- Mohr

Poppy is still best 22, but has had perhaps his worst year, so is now borderline best 22, and is a good chance of retiring. If he does, that leaves 6 players
who are 29+ that are best 22:
- Burgoyne
- Henderson
- Frawley
- Smith
- Stratton
- McEvoy

That's less than a third of our best 22, and 5 of those 6 players are still 30, so could have quite a few years to go before retirement. To put things in context, Lake was 31 when he started playing with us, and we got 3 good years out of him.

 

[ScottyDogg]

Half is a fair exaggeration. That would imply 11 of our players are nearing retirement. Unless you are calling 28 'nearing retirement' which would be a gross exaggeration , there are currently 10 players on our list over 28. 3 of those have not been regularly parts of best 22 this year i.e.:
- Roughy
- Birchall
- Mohr

Poppy is still best 22, but has had perhaps his worst year, so is now borderline best 22, and is a good chance of retiring. If he does, that leaves 6 players
who are 29+ that are best 22:
- Burgoyne
- Henderson
- Frawley
- Smith
- Stratton
- McEvoy

That's less than a third of our best 22, and 5 of those 6 players are still 30, so could have quite a few years to go before retirement. To put things in context, Lake was 31 when he started playing with us, and we got 3 good years out of him.

That doesn’t answer my question. How does your current list (one of the oldest in the league and facing significant turnover in the next 3 years) qualify as “already rebuilt”

It’s obvious to any non Hawks supporter that you have been rebuilding since 2016 and have a long way to go until your list is rebuilt.

 

[hk89]

That doesn’t answer my question.

I wasn't trying to answer your question, I was more concerned with your stupid statement that half our best 22 was nearing retirement which is clearly false.

How does your current list (one of the oldest in the league and facing significant turnover in the next 3 years) qualify as “already rebuilt”

It’s obvious to any non Hawks supporter that you have been rebuilding since 2016 and have a long way to go until your list is rebuilt.

As for your question. What do you mean by 'rebuilt'? It seems you mean, 'everyone over 30 gone, and nobody from your last flag still there". Rebuilding is something that all lists are continuing doing. Even those in a premiership window are still taking in some draft picks, even if they are very late. From what I can see we are not planning to completely turn over the current list in the short term.

We're probably hoping to fill some holes and compete for our next flag with a number of players from our last flag still in place, so players like Breust, Gunston, McEvoy, Stratton, Frawley and Shiels. I don't think many think the rebuild is progressed far enough to compete with the best teams at the pointy end of the season right now. But it is probably not as far off as those still psychologically damaged by our last bout of success would like to think. Yes a few of the team we'd like to compete for our next flag with are 30 now, but teams in flag windows usually have a few players in that age bracket. We're probably missing one elite mid, and possibly one , maybe even two elite KPP, but that might not be the case if Lewis continues to develop, and O'Brien keeps his mid career improvement trajectory moving in the current direction. We were largely very competitive this year against top 8 teams despite missing our best player for the year. We'd probably have played finals this year if not for some in game injury mishaps that had us cough up a couple of handy leads while multiple players down on the bench. With Mitchell back and no other additions we'd probably play finals. Add one more elite mid to that and one more decent KPF to help Lewis, and we'd probably make a decent push for top 4 with some injury luck (we'd still be more shallow than some other contenders, so we'd probably need more luck with injuries than some others would). I think we've shown at times this year that we are close enough to warrant risking having a tilt with the current list. If it fails we've still got a decent 26 and under core to build another attempt around in another 4-5 years (namely Wingard, JOM, T.Mitchell, Sicily, Worpel, Hardwick, Scrimshaw, L.Mitchell from our current best 22, with some hope of a few of the other late picks mostly playing at Box Hill for now, even Gunston, still at 27 could wait for another medium term tilt). I think our best chance is trying to push the foot down now while we still have those 30+ players in decent shape, and the club seems to agree given its current approach each trade period.

 

[ScottyDogg]

I wasn't trying to answer your question, I was more concerned with your stupid statement that half our best 22 was nearing retirement which is clearly false.



As for your question. What do you mean by 'rebuilt'? It seems you mean, 'everyone over 30 gone, and nobody from your last flag still there". Rebuilding is something that all lists are continuing doing. Even those in a premiership window are still taking in some draft picks, even if they are very late. From what I can see we are not planning to completely turn over the current list in the short term.

We're probably hoping to fill some holes and compete for our next flag with a number of players from our last flag still in place, so players like Breust, Gunston, McEvoy, Stratton, Frawley and Shiels. I don't think many think the rebuild is progressed far enough to compete with the best teams at the pointy end of the season right now. But it is probably not as far off as those still psychologically damaged by our last bout of success would like to think. Yes a few of the team we'd like to compete for our next flag with are 30 now, but teams in flag windows usually have a few players in that age bracket. We're probably missing one elite mid, and possibly one , maybe even two elite KPP, but that might not be the case if Lewis continues to develop, and O'Brien keeps his mid career improvement trajectory moving in the current direction. We were largely very competitive this year against top 8 teams despite missing our best player for the year. We'd probably have played finals this year if not for some in game injury mishaps that had us cough up a couple of handy leads while multiple players down on the bench. With Mitchell back and no other additions we'd probably play finals. Add one more elite mid to that and one more decent KPF to help Lewis, and we'd probably make a decent push for top 4 with some injury luck (we'd still be more shallow than some other contenders, so we'd probably need more luck with injuries than some others would). I think we've shown at times this year that we are close enough to warrant risking having a tilt with the current list. If it fails we've still got a decent 26 and under core to build another attempt around in another 4-5 years (namely Wingard, JOM, T.Mitchell, Sicily, Worpel, Hardwick, Scrimshaw, L.Mitchell from our current best 22, with some hope of a few of the other late picks mostly playing at Box Hill for now, even Gunston, still at 27 could wait for another medium term tilt). I think our best chance is trying to push the foot down now while we still have those 30+ players in decent shape, and the club seems to agree given its current approach each trade period.

I totally agree with everything you have written. You have just described an ongoing rebuild. Which I think is going really well.

I was questioning a poster who said your rebuild was “nearing its end.”

In my opinion, the rebuild is maybe half way there, with a real need to bring in a quantity of high caliber youth that Will fill in for those 28+ year olds as they retire in the next few years.

Credit to you for admitting that you guys are rebuilding. I don’t know why so many Hawks supporters are offended by the suggestion that your list is in transition. Making the 8 or nearly making it while going through a rebuild is a very impressive achievement. Very few teams are able to do it.

 

[Pessimistic]

Absolutely, but one that can spend the next 5 years together.

Half of your best 22 are nearing retirement and you don’t have the young talent to fill their holes. Just wondering how this qualifies as a “rebuilt list.”

Rebuild is not correct as its a failed concept that not everyone realises yet.

BUT the hawks best 22 at the end of 2009 (finished 9th with 9 wins) had some 12 changes when they embarked on a threepeat 2012-2016. 16 players won three flags, of that 16, 5 played in the 2008 grand final

Is that a Rebuild?

 

[ScottyDogg]

Rebuild is not correct as its a failed concept that not everyone realises yet.

BUT the hawks best 22 at the end of 2009 (finished 9th with 9 wins) had some 12 changes when they embarked on a threepeat 2012-2016. 16 players won three flags, of that 16, 5 played in the 2008 grand final

Is that a Rebuild?

I don’t think it matters what term you want to use “rebuild, renovate, restructure, reorganize, rebalance” that’s just petty semantics.

It’s obvious Clarko and your club agree with the general footballing public, that the list needed and still needs significant work.

I have so much admiration for how he and your club have managed the list since 2016 looking to finish as high as possible while making big changes.

The only people who don’t seem to agree that Hawthorn’s list is going through a period of major changes are Hawk supporters.

Others on this forum want to discuss Clarko’s innovative approach, which is to neglect the draft in order to top up continuously. It takes serious balls to attempt what he’s doing cause if it doesn’t work it could leave the list a mess but please stop taking such offense to the word rebuild.

Just makes you look like a bunch of out of touch sooks.

 

[Pessimistic]

Petty semantics? Have a read of the OP for example. The definite vibe was unless the hawks took thir medecine, and just drafted for a few years waiting for those guys to mature, they would be in no mans land mid tabel for a long time.
Many suggested the approach clarko is taking means being bottom 4 for a long time which sounds contra to the first vibe.
I guess its now becoming clear to all the hawks wont drop off, and such as yourself are somehow saung hawks posters are sooking and unreasonable? Thats a staggering turnaround

You responded to my post about the number of changes saying we are denying any changes. Thats not logical

Otherwise you are describing the changes in a balanced way, commendable

The midfield has been almost totally replaced, as it was age unbalanced.

The rest of the team. Just as needed. Eg frawley was on board before lake retired.

Half the best 22 changes since 2016 have come from trades, half via the draft. Just not from the ‘elite end’ because frankly the hawks have rarely been there, and (and here is the contention) first round picks have neen used to teplace the midfield via trades

The draft has not been ignored

 

[ScottyDogg]

Petty semantics? Have a read of the OP for example. The definite vibe was unless the hawks took thir medecine, and just drafted for a few years waiting for those guys to mature, they would be in no mans land mid tabel for a long time.
Many suggested the approach clarko is taking means being bottom 4 for a long time which sounds contra to the first vibe.
I guess its now becoming clear to all the hawks wont drop off, and such as yourself are somehow saung hawks posters are sooking and unreasonable? Thats a staggering turnaround

You responded to my post about the number of changes saying we are denying any changes. Thats not logical

Otherwise you are describing the changes in a balanced way, commendable

The midfield has been almost totally replaced, as it was age unbalanced.

The rest of the team. Just as needed. Eg frawley was on board before lake retired.

Half the best 22 changes since 2016 have come from trades, half via the draft. Just not from the ‘elite end’ because frankly the hawks have rarely been there, and (and here is the contention) first round picks have neen used to teplace the midfield via trades

The draft has not been ignored

Thanks for directing me to the OP. I hadn’t actually read it, just the thread title.

It poses a really interesting question in a very even-handed manner.

“Can this current approach work?? It’s fascinating. Since the draft was introduced, I’m not sure there’s a club that has had the balls to sideskirt it so heavily.”

As are most of the other posts on here, the OP is highly flattering of your club and it’s willingness to take list management risks.

Grow some thicker skin and stop being such a sook. Engage in some discussion rather than getting offended. Your football club is not above question and critique. Props to the OP for raising a really good topic.

 

[HairyO]

I don’t think it matters what term you want to use “rebuild, renovate, restructure, reorganize, rebalance” that’s just petty semantics.

It’s obvious Clarko and your club agree with the general footballing public, that the list needed and still needs significant work.

I have so much admiration for how he and your club have managed the list since 2016 looking to finish as high as possible while making big changes.

The only people who don’t seem to agree that Hawthorn’s list is going through a period of major changes are Hawk supporters.

Others on this forum want to discuss Clarko’s innovative approach, which is to neglect the draft in order to top up continuously. It takes serious balls to attempt what he’s doing cause if it doesn’t work it could leave the list a mess but please stop taking such offense to the word rebuild.

Just makes you look like a bunch of out of touch sooks.

Which team list doesnt go through big changes each year?

BTW our list which apparently needs a lot of work could well finish 1 spot behind the Dogs.

And many spots above Carlton and Melbourne who have spent 10 years rebuilding.

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

Which team list doesnt go through big changes each year?

BTW our list which apparently needs a lot of work could well finish 1 spot behind the Dogs.

And many spots above Carlton and Melbourne who have spent 10 years rebuilding.

Just because clubs have failed rebuilds in the past doesn’t mean it’s not the correct way to do it. Richmond are reaping the rewards of a ‘rebuild’ 10 years ago. Brisbane are a side who spent years down the bottom collecting talent.

The Dogs won a flag more recently than the Hawks and still have a better group of young talent. They’ll be fine.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Clubs are always restructuring. Sometimes they are more aggressive in certain years than others. Sometimes they go to the draft and sometimes they go for more mature types to fill a void. Hawthorn are playing it as they are because they have older champs retiring which is freeing up cap space to go for FAs or out of contract guns. They hope by doing it this way it will be quicker to win another premiership than to just do what they did in 2004. Only time will tell if they are right. At least they know they have the right coach which is a luxury precious few teams have.

 

[matey]

Looking forward to Ross, Jones and Walker making their debuts next season. They have all showed plenty while serving their apprenticeships for BH. Let’s see how these kids careers go although not being taken at the elite end of the draft!

 

[ScottyDogg]

Which team list doesnt go through big changes each year?

BTW our list which apparently needs a lot of work could well finish 1 spot behind the Dogs.

And many spots above Carlton and Melbourne who have spent 10 years rebuilding.

This thread is not titled, “Which AFL list needs a bigger rebuild?” It is about whether Clarko’s rebuild approach will work. If you can’t handle that as a discussion point without being offended go somewhere else.

BTW I think the dogs list needs an equal amount of work but probably the opposite situation to you guys, we’re too young. But unlike a lot of Hawthorn supporters I am happy for my club to be questioned and critiqued without getting my knickers in a knot.

 

[philohk]

Just because clubs have failed rebuilds in the past doesn’t mean it’s not the correct way to do it. Richmond are reaping the rewards of a ‘rebuild’ 10 years ago. Brisbane are a side who spent years down the bottom collecting talent.

The Dogs won a flag more recently than the Hawks and still have a better group of young talent. They’ll be fine.

This is a bit of a misconception. IIRC when we played them recently they had more players in the 22 traded in than we did. Though for sure they got some top talent through early picks.

 

[HairyO]

Just because clubs have failed rebuilds in the past doesn’t mean it’s not the correct way to do it. Richmond are reaping the rewards of a ‘rebuild’ 10 years ago. Brisbane are a side who spent years down the bottom collecting talent.

The Dogs won a flag more recently than the Hawks and still have a better group of young talent. They’ll be fine.

At the start of 2017 Richmond were considered years away.

Dogs in 2016 too.

The idea that it takes years to rebuild has shown to be completely and utterly false.

In fact, taking years to rebuild means all your mature age players get old. Look at Carlton's top 10 B and F last year. Look who it will be this year.

Most of them will be gone within 2 or 3 years.

Then the next 5 or 8 year rebuild will be required.

 

[hk89]

I totally agree with everything you have written. You have just described an ongoing rebuild. Which I think is going really well.

I was questioning a poster who said your rebuild was “nearing its end.”

In my opinion, the rebuild is maybe half way there, with a real need to bring in a quantity of high caliber youth that Will fill in for those 28+ year olds as they retire in the next few years.

Well I don't really think a rebuild can ever be seen as over, you'll usually have a group of players that are on the edge of retirement that need to be replenished. This is especially true if you have a list that is actually in a position to contest at the pointy end of the season. The only teams that don't are those at the bottom of the ladder who are going a 'burn it all down and start again rebuild' and those seem to be a good thing to avoid given the number that have failed in the last 10-20 years. Dogs perhaps one of the few counter examples, so I can see why you think we're only half way done.

The question isn't really whether we are 'nearing the end' or a rebuild (we certainly have more players that will need to transition from the best 22 in the next 3 years), but how close what we have now is to being top-level competitive right away. Suggesting we are only half way there is IMO completely wrong. That implies we need to bring in 11 players to replace half our existing best 22 to be competitive. The number is not zero, but way smaller than that. We've been competitive enough against the top 8 to suggest the number is more like 2-3 players given how we've gone this year without our best player.

Our midfield improved a lot as the year went on, as Worpel started to step up in the second half of the season. When we were terrible in that area earlier on, we lost to 3 of the bottom 5 teams which put us behind the 8-ball in terms of finals hopes. Once the midfield improved we then started to get very inaccurate in front of goals, kicking ourselves out of wins against WC and Lions. We'll need to fix that next year, but the midfield should go ok if we can maintain recent form and add Mitchell to the mix. Another top level mid would be a bonus rather than an absolute necessity if Mitchell is right to go from round 1. Mitchell, JOM, Wingard, Worpel, Shiels is not the best midfield going around, but there is a lot who is worse. Good years instead of down years from Breust and Gunston would fix some of our forward woes too, and defence has been pretty solid all year. We don't need to transition 11 players to make that work, given we really only have one player currently 31 or older who is going to be clearly best 22 next year (Burgoyne) - we'll have a few that turn 31 next year, but they've mostly been in decent form and largely injury free, so not requiring urgent replacement. Frawley is probably going to be the next urgent replacement after Burgoyne, but its not an avalanche all coming down next year.

 

[Pessimistic]

Given the core 16 players over 2012 to 2016 didnt change there is an argument to say hawks slowed the rebuild to almost nothing at that time, although that means 3or so premiership players changed each year and the list had the mandatory minimum player changes
Since then the change has been accellerated to rebalance the list age wise. It has been 50;50 between draftees via box hill and trade ins. Thats where most of the early posters basically got it wrong, attributing success to early draft picks

 

[TylerDurden]

At the start of 2017 Richmond were considered years away.

Dogs in 2016 too.

The idea that it takes years to rebuild has shown to be completely and utterly false.

In fact, taking years to rebuild means all your mature age players get old. Look at Carlton's top 10 B and F last year. Look who it will be this year.

Most of them will be gone within 2 or 3 years.

Then the next 5 or 8 year rebuild will be required.

Nailed it.

 

[Judd2Sewell]

What Hawthorn are trying to do has never been done.

And so far it has been unsuccessful, they will miss finals this year with the oldest team in the league , not a good sign

It is a very short term strategy that is failing badly in the short term

Anyway good luck to them

Our team next year will likely have an average age in the 25's, the same as Carlton.

 

[WWSD]

Whether Coniglio joins Hawthorn as a free agent I honestly don’t know.


IN
Mitchell (26)
Patton (26)
Impey (24)
Scrimshaw (20)
Jiath (20)
Maguinness - F/S (18)
Average age: 22.3

OUT
Burgoyne (36)
Roughead (31)
Puopolo (31)
Birchall (30)
Smith (30)
Ceglar (28)
Average age: 31


Projected Round 1 2020 best 22


B: Stratton (30), Frawley (30), Hardwick (22)

HB: Scrimshaw (20), O’Brien (25), Sicily (24)

C: Scully (28), Mitchell (26), Henderson (31)

HF: Wingard (26), Patton (26), Gunston (27)

F: Breust (28), Lewis (20), Impey (24)

R: McEvoy (30), O’Meara (25), Shiels (28)

INT: Worpel (20), Morrison (21), Jiath (20), Maguinness (18)

 

[ScottyDogg]

Well I don't really think a rebuild can ever be seen as over, you'll usually have a group of players that are on the edge of retirement that need to be replenished. This is especially true if you have a list that is actually in a position to contest at the pointy end of the season. The only teams that don't are those at the bottom of the ladder who are going a 'burn it all down and start again rebuild' and those seem to be a good thing to avoid given the number that have failed in the last 10-20 years. Dogs perhaps one of the few counter examples, so I can see why you think we're only half way done.

The question isn't really whether we are 'nearing the end' or a rebuild (we certainly have more players that will need to transition from the best 22 in the next 3 years), but how close what we have now is to being top-level competitive right away. Suggesting we are only half way there is IMO completely wrong. That implies we need to bring in 11 players to replace half our existing best 22 to be competitive. The number is not zero, but way smaller than that. We've been competitive enough against the top 8 to suggest the number is more like 2-3 players given how we've gone this year without our best player.

Our midfield improved a lot as the year went on, as Worpel started to step up in the second half of the season. When we were terrible in that area earlier on, we lost to 3 of the bottom 5 teams which put us behind the 8-ball in terms of finals hopes. Once the midfield improved we then started to get very inaccurate in front of goals, kicking ourselves out of wins against WC and Lions. We'll need to fix that next year, but the midfield should go ok if we can maintain recent form and add Mitchell to the mix. Another top level mid would be a bonus rather than an absolute necessity if Mitchell is right to go from round 1. Mitchell, JOM, Wingard, Worpel, Shiels is not the best midfield going around, but there is a lot who is worse. Good years instead of down years from Breust and Gunston would fix some of our forward woes too, and defence has been pretty solid all year. We don't need to transition 11 players to make that work, given we really only have one player currently 31 or older who is going to be clearly best 22 next year (Burgoyne) - we'll have a few that turn 31 next year, but they've mostly been in decent form and largely injury free, so not requiring urgent replacement. Frawley is probably going to be the next urgent replacement after Burgoyne, but its not an avalanche all coming down next year.

Agree, no avalanche coming.

I think you are also right to say you are only 2-3 players away from competing over the next couple years...

BUT

I don’t think those 2-3 get you a premiership. Then it’s 2022 and you don’t have the A grade youth to keep the list going.

its a really interesting topic for discussion. Will top ups in the next couple years bear fruit or will they only get you close but put you in a much worse spot long term? Only time will tell.

Thanks for actually discussing the topic and not just getting defensive.

 

[HairyO]

Agree, no avalanche coming.

I think you are also right to say you are only 2-3 players away from competing over the next couple years...

BUT

I don’t think those 2-3 get you a premiership. Then it’s 2022 and you don’t have the A grade youth to keep the list going.

its a really interesting topic for discussion. Will top ups in the next couple years bear fruit or will they only get you close but put you in a much worse spot long term? Only time will tell.

Thanks for actually discussing the topic and not just getting defensive.

Who were the identified and agreed A grade youth at the Dogs at the end of 2015 ?

 

[Judd2Sewell]

View attachment 730872

Jordan Lewis spoke about his close group of mates and there really is no greater illustration of the incredible manner in which Hawthorn have flipped their recruiting strategy

Pick 12
Pick 7
Pick 36
Pick 2
Pick 14
Pick 1

Throw in that handy spearhead they had with pick 5.

There’d be no greater draft success story in footy history.

There were some big misses along the way - Dowler (6) and Thorpe (6) in particular.

Let's look at the rest of the team that played throughout that magnificent period for us. BTW this post isn't to form an argument either way, but to just look at the numbers:

Drafted players:
Stratton - pick 46, in 2009
Duryea - pick 69, in 2009
Suckling - rookie elevation, pick 70, in 2009

Sewell - rookie draft pick 7, in 2003
Shiels - pick 34, in 2008
Smith - pick 19, in 2010
Hill - pick 33, in 2011

Breust - rookie elevation, pick 77 in 2011
Puopolo - pick 66, in 2010

Traded players and acquired via FA:
Burgoyne - traded for pick 9 and Jay Nash, in 2009 (originally drafted at pick 12, in 2000)

Lake - traded for pick 21 and 41 (with 26 coming in return), in 2012 (originally drafted at pick 71, in 2001)

Gibson - traded for pick 25 and 41 (with 69 coming in return), in 2009 (originally drafted with pick 7 in rookie draft, in 2005)

Hale - traded for pick 17 and 71, in 2011 (originally drafted at pick 7, in 2001)

Big Boy - traded for pick 18 and Shane Savage (originally drafted at pick 9, in 2007)

Gunston - traded for 24, 46 and 64 (with 53 and 71 coming in return), in 2011 (originally drafted at pick 29, in 2009)

Frawley - FA acquisition in 2014 (originally drafted at pick 12, in 2006)

Guerra - pick 3, in the 2005 pre-season draft (originally drafted at pick 28, in 1999)

 

[hk89]

Agree, no avalanche coming.

I think you are also right to say you are only 2-3 players away from competing over the next couple years...

BUT

I don’t think those 2-3 get you a premiership. Then it’s 2022 and you don’t have the A grade youth to keep the list going.

It can be very hard to predict what is enough to win a premiership. I don't think many thought Richmond's couple of off-season recruits in 2017 pre-season were going to be enough to jump them from 13th, and a percent of 79% to flag winners the next year. We've been a lot more competitive than Richmond was the year before their recent flag. If we had made finals this year there are only two teams I think we'd have really struggled against, your team in its present form has a game style that troubles us, and Richmond is a team whose game plan we've had trouble breaking down recently. Essendon's run troubled us somewhat too, but we've improved our midfield performance since then. The rest we either beat or missed an opportunity to beat due to very poor kicking (Eagles/second game against Lions). I'd never say 2-3 players is the difference between a premiership or not - too many things need to go right to win premiership beyond just your list - but right now, and for probably at least the next 2 seasons it may be the difference between being in a position to reasonably compete for one and continuing to put in disappointing finals performances.

When people see a list with too many old blokes, I look at our current list (after this years retirements) and see a mature unit with enough experience to compete at the pointy end, but lacking probably one good player in each line that is holding us back from being legitimate contenders. I don't even think we need to fill all of those 3 gaps. Lots of teams win flags with holes in particular parts of the ground, but get lucky in other areas such as close to zero injury lists when they hit September. Personally I think Hawthorn's current strategy is giving itself its best chance of getting a flag in the next 3 years. It might not be enough, but I rather they gave it a try than doing a "many years of pain" rebuild, only to still not get a flag, much like several members of the current bottom 5 have done.