Deepest list

[HairyO]

I dont agree with everything you say, games played is a fantastic starting point. Although a ranking system is weighted to the teams in the cluster not the outriders who have other things bareing on their list maintenance.


think box plot.

Right, but if you weight Games Played as the most important, then you are putting plodders ahead of young guns. That to me makes zero sense.

From an outsider perspective maybe, but do you think a single club in the comp looks at the guys with 30 games over 5 or 6 years and puts them on the ground ahead of the kid with 5 games and incredible potential?

 

[HeHateMe]

In many cases the player who fits a role in the team plays before another player who might be better overall.

when I say think box plot that means teams who are way out in front or way out behind dont fit the systems boundaries.

we at hawthorn have had the luxury to let players like Duryea just sit on 0 games played for 3-4 years get him ready then implement him in thr perfect position. teams throughout other sections of the ladder dont have the same luxury he will most likely demand games. lets say he dose but the team he plays for dosent have a bp position suitable as a talented player you can tell he will be up to scratch because he will perform in other roles. those players not getting games in the middle to low section you can be almost certain are bad.

this is fliped for very low teams where they will have thr luxury to play young players in the desired positions giving them the chance to learn the game by the time you rise up the ladder and find out that player isnt up to scratch he has 20-30 games, games he wouldn't of got at middle or top sides.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

No it doesn't. He said proven depth. Lots of those players at Box Hill (who have seen success) are unproven at AFL level.

Yet they somehow beat the shit out of every other VFL side, most of which have more supposedly "proven" AFL players.

I'll give you a tip Sparky, just because you get a game at AFL level, it does not mean that you are a proven AFL performer. Some sides, GWS as an example are forced to give games to guys who aren't ready. Box Hill have been a dominant team in the VFL for a few years now but many of these guys don't get a game for Hawthorn because of the settled nature of the Hawthorn team and the way that the club handles it's succession planning. Yet, they come up against supposedly proven AFL talent week in, week out according to the half-baked analysis that we are both referring to.....and they win most of their games comfortably. When players are picked for Hawthorn they are generally better prepared than players picked for other teams. I am not really sure how this demonstrates Hawthorn's lack of depth. You don't win three consecutive premierships with no depth, that is certain.

If you can't see that such analysis is flawed then really, there is little point in continuing this discussion.

I mean, GWS are near the top of this apparent depth chart. Based on what? The fact that the kids have played more games through necessity? Because that is the argument being put forward.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Yet they somehow beat the shit out of every other VFL side, most of which have more supposedly "proven" AFL players.

I'll give you a tip Sparky, just because you get a game at AFL level, it does not mean that you are a proven AFL performer. Some sides, GWS as an example are forced to give games to guys who aren't ready. Box Hill have been a dominant team in the VFL for a few years now but many of these guys don't get a game for Hawthorn because of the settled nature of the Hawthorn team. Yet, they come up against supposedly proven AFL talent week in, week out according to the half-baked analysis that we are both referring to.....and they win most of their games comfortably.

If you can't see that such analysis is flawed then really, there is little point in continuing this discussion.

I mean, GWS are near the top of this apparent depth chart. Based on what? The fact that the kids have played more games through necessity? Because that is the argument being put forward.

And are many of these highly performing players playing for Box Hill proven at AFL level? If no then what are you arguing about.

We won the VFL with youth in 2012. Can't say we have the deepest list. Won't know how many of these guys will go once they start getting consistent games and once they no longer have the champs like Hodge, Mitchell, Gibson etc to pick up the slack.

 

[Mr Meeseeks]

Depth doesnt win flags - its your best 10 being on park that does

Its both.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

And are many of these highly performing players playing for Box Hill proven at AFL level? If no then what are you arguing about.

We won the VFL with youth in 2012. Can't say we have the deepest list. Won't know how many of these guys will go once they start getting consistent games and once they no longer have the champs like Hodge, Mitchell, Gibson etc to pick up the slack.

My argument, and it really is very simple, is that games at AFL level don't prove depth. Many teams are forced to give players games through necessity. Another factor conveniently overlooked here is that this analysis is all based on the assumption that all clubs are equal, that getting an AFL game at Melbourne is the same as getting one at Hawthorn. It is a nonsense argument, but like I said if you can't see that then there is no point continuing this discussion. I will give you an example of a player from my own club - Richie Vandenberg. All Hawk people love Richie but Richie was a plodder. He was not by any definition worthy of playing 145 AFL games but he did BECAUSE he was in a weak side which meant that we had to give games to guys who wouldn't have gotten them at other clubs. If Richie (at his absolute best) was on Hawthorn's list now, he wouldn't even be close to getting a game. Ask yourself why?

Box Hill's performances over the past few years against supposedly "proven" talent at other clubs (remember most of them have more "proven" AFL talent so by extension must have more "proven" AFL players playing at their feeder clubs) irrefutably demonstrates Hawthorn's depth.

 

[Kram]

Hawthorn's depth is poor because Clarkson doesn't play the yoof.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

My argument, and it really is very simple, is that games at AFL level don't prove depth. Many teams are forced to give players games through necessity. Another factor conveniently overlooked here is that this analysis is all based on the assumption that all clubs are equal, that getting an AFL game at Melbourne is the same as getting one at Hawthorn. It is a nonsense argument, but like I said if you can't see that the there is no point continuing this discussion. I will give you an example of a player from my own club - Richie Vandenberg. All Hawk people love Richie but Richie was a plodder. He was not by any definition worthy of playing 145 AFL games but he did BECAUSE he was in a weak side which meant that we had to give games to guys who wouldn't have gotten them at other clubs. If Richie (at his absolute best) was on Hawthorn's list now, he wouldn't even be close to getting a game. Ask yourself why?

Box Hill's performances over the past few years against supposedly "proven" talent at other clubs (remember most of them have more "proven" AFL talent so by extension must have more "proven" AFL players playing at their feeder clubs) irrefutably demonstrates Hawthorn's depth.

Not arguing that. That's how football works and of course it is presently harder to get a game at Hawthorn than at Carlton.

However it doesn't prove anything about your depth at all. You won't know until they play at senior level whether they're up to it or not and winning flags at Box Hill doesn't suddenly validate them as footballers.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Depth doesnt win flags - its your best 10 being on park that does

Utter crap and for proof go back and have a look at the 2014 GF. Sydney's so called "top 10" were allegedly better than Hawthorn's yet they got the mother of all beltings (well, since 119...). Why? Because their "bottom 6" were deplorable. Ergo, Hawthorn batted deeper (depth ) and that is where the game was won.

 

[HairyO]

And are many of these highly performing players playing for Box Hill proven at AFL level? If no then what are you arguing about.

This was exactly his point (and mine). We have a bunch of players in the VFL who cant break in to our 22. That doesnt mean they are no good, it means they are not better than whoever is in our team.

There are a LOT of players on lists with a lot of AFL games but also are playing in the VFL, because they cant get in to the 22 of teams further down the ladder than us.

The logic being proposed here is that those players with AFL experience are by default better than the players with no AFL experience, despite the fact that the lesser clubs arent playing those with AFL experience (so what hope do they have of getting a run at one of the better teams?).

Does anyone think Billy Hartung wouldnt get a starting 18 run in at least 10 teams? Suckling barely made Sub for Hawthorn, he will be starting 18 at the Dogs - and they are definitely a top 8 side.

So rather than simply rating games played, surely you would weight those games based on the team they play for, as well as the teams they played against (because playing Carlton and Brisbane each year in place of someone getting rested doesnt really mean much).

 

[Art Vandelay_]

This was exactly his point (and mine). We have a bunch of players in the VFL who cant break in to our 22. That doesnt mean they are no good, it means they are not better than whoever is in our team.

There are a LOT of players on lists with a lot of AFL games but also are playing in the VFL, because they cant get in to the 22 of teams further down the ladder than us.

The logic being proposed here is that those players with AFL experience are by default better than the players with no AFL experience, despite the fact that the lesser clubs arent playing those with AFL experience (so what hope do they have of getting a run at one of the better teams?).

Does anyone think Billy Hartung wouldnt get a starting 18 run in at least 10 teams? Suckling barely made Sub for Hawthorn, he will be starting 18 at the Dogs - and they are definitely a top 8 side.

So rather than simply rating games played, surely you would weight those games based on the team they play for, as well as the teams they played against (because playing Carlton and Brisbane each year in place of someone getting rested doesnt really mean much).

Of course Hartung would play elsewhere and of course it's presently harder to play for Hawthorn. My argument is more so about the untried (or barely tried) depth. Litherland, Sicily, O'Brien, Brand, Heatherley, Howe etc.

I'm not saying that the hawks have the worst depth or anything but hard based off who's playing at Box Hill to easily say they have the deepest list.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Not arguing that. That's how football works and of course it is presently harder to get a game at Hawthorn than at Carlton.

However it doesn't prove anything about your depth at all. You won't know until they play at senior level whether they're up to it or not and winning flags at Box Hill doesn't suddenly validate them as footballers.

You really aren't following. I will re-phrase as I might not be coming across clearly.

1) If all of these clubs have more "AFL proven" talent than Hawthorn (according to the number of players on each list who have played at AFL level) then logically it follows that all of these clubs must have more "AFL proven" talent playing in the VFL. This must be the case based on the data and because an AFL team can only select 22 players every week.

2) Box Hill is in the top two VFL teams and has been for several seasons. Remember, according to the data this is a Box Hill team that has less "AFL proven" talent than just about every other team it plays against.

3) Box Hill's "unproven" talent routinely beats up on the "proven" AFL talent that it comes up against. Again, this is a fact based on the data provided and the performance of Box Hill against it's opponents over the past several seasons.

4) Therefore this Box Hill talent is in most cases better than the "proven" AFL talent that it plays against.

5) The major conclusion to draw from this is that using the number of players on your list to have played AFL level football as evidence of superior depth is absolutely flawed.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Of course Hartung would play elsewhere and of course it's presently harder to play for Hawthorn. My argument is more so about the untried (or barely tried) depth. Litherland, Sicily, O'Brien, Brand, Heatherley, Howe etc.

I'm not saying that the hawks have the worst depth or anything but hard based off who's playing at Box Hill to easily say they have the deepest list.

See above post.

 

[HairyO]

Of course Hartung would play elsewhere and of course it's presently harder to play for Hawthorn. My argument is more so about the untried (or barely tried) depth. Litherland, Sicily, O'Brien, Brand, Heatherley, Howe etc.

I'm not saying that the hawks have the worst depth or anything but hard based off who's playing at Box Hill to easily say they have the deepest list.

I agree. And I wouldnt say we have the best depth either. But someone posted us having the 3rd worst which truly is stupid. Its basically saying Clarko puts his eggs in one basket then crosses his fingers and hopes. He actually said this year we were going to the Draft rather than Free Trade/Transfer because we had a lot of kids who were ready to step up.

I very rarely disagree with Clarko. Im happy to trust he knows what he is doing with his list.

We arent going to know who has the best depth until teams start to get injuries and suspensions and we see players from outside the 22 playing. And we also need to see them tested against good teams, not just brought in for a 15 goal Essendon smashing.

'Unknown' doesnt mean 'Worse than known'.

 

[Chris_6678]

Hawks, Pies and WCE for me.

This would be my best 22:

Butler Mckenzie Sheppard
Wellingham Schofield Hurn

Jetta Priddis Gaff

Darling McGovern Lecra
Hill JK Cripps

Ruck: Nic Nat, Shuey, Yeo

Bench: Duggan, Sheed, Redden, Lycett.

Depth for players that could come into best 22 and perform if needed.

Backline: Ellis, Nelson, Brown, Barrass, Bennell

Midfield: Masten, Hutchings, Lucas, College,

Ruck: Giles

Forward: Lamb, Mcginnity, Tunbridge, Mcinnnes

Have No debuted yet:

Backline: Adamson, Brophy, Mutimer

Mids: Partington, Cole, Snadden, Waterman, Cavka,

Rucks : Nil

Forwards: Allen, Karpany,

 

[TheFourPillars]

You really aren't following. I will re-phrase as I might not be coming across clearly.

1) If all of these clubs have more "AFL proven" talent than Hawthorn (according to the number of players on each list who have played at AFL level) then logically it follows that all of these clubs must have more "AFL proven" talent playing in the VFL. This must be the case based on the data and because an AFL team can only select 22 players every week.

2) Box Hill is in the top two VFL teams and has been for several seasons. Remember, according to the data this is a Box Hill team that has less "AFL proven" talent than just about every other team it plays against.

3) Box Hill's "unproven" talent routinely beats up on the "proven" AFL talent that it comes up against. Again, this is a fact based on the data provided and the performance of Box Hill against it's opponents over the past several seasons.

4) Therefore this Box Hill talent is in most cases better than the "proven" AFL talent that it plays against.

5) The major conclusion to draw from this is that using the number of players on your list to have played AFL level football as evidence of superior depth is absolutely flawed.

I wont disagree with you and what you are stating. BUT the point still stands our depth is untested to a large degree because not many have AFL experience. We have had this depth the last few years and currently at our weakest point. BUT like you i believe the guys that are at box hill are ready to step up if required

 

[QuietB]

What do you mean know much about football why because I don't agree with the sheep that say Hawthorn have the deepest list pretty sure GWS and Collingwood would have more depth players then Hawthorn

Who is Collingwoods depth? Given they got hammered by injury last year and fell off a cliff I'd suggest their depth is not that good - yet

 

[10571z]

Who is Collingwoods depth? Given they got hammered by injury last year and fell off a cliff I'd suggest their depth is not that good - yet

Agreed. When we say depth we have maybe 15 first picked blokes in the side then another 15 around the same level. Obviously they aren't that good hence our ladder position last year.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

I wont disagree with you and what you are stating. BUT the point still stands our depth is untested to a large degree because not many have AFL experience. We have had this depth the last few years and currently at our weakest point. BUT like you i believe the guys that are at box hill are ready to step up if required

I'm not saying that we have the deepest list but I contend that it isn't one of the three worst in terms of depth. My argument revolves around the erroneous notion that depth is best measured by the number of players on a list who have played an AFL game. The so called "kids" at Box Hill beat up on AFL talent every week so by extension the whole "played an AFL game" argument doesn't hold up.

 

[Hap Hapablap]

Which level was this? Best defence in the league?

no we didnt have the best defence record however to lose 2 of your main kpbs you should be looking at one of the worst defensive records. instead wce had players playing out of their skins

 

[The 747]

I'm not saying that we have the deepest list but I contend that it isn't one of the three worst in terms of depth. My argument revolves around the erroneous notion that depth is best measured by the number of players on a list who have played an AFL game. The so called "kids" at Box Hill beat up on AFL talent every week so by extension the whole "played an AFL game" argument doesn't hold up.

Yes, and our kids in the VFL used to run riot too. That didn't mean they were all guns at AFL level, as has been shown. Same thing will happen to Hawthorn, you can't replace champions.

 

[HairyO]

Yes, and our kids in the VFL used to run riot too. That didn't mean they were all guns at AFL level, as has been shown. Same thing will happen to Hawthorn, you can't replace champions.

I assume they came from somewhere...

Geelong won a GF after Ablett left. Was he replaced, or was he not a champion?

We did okay after Buddy left. Not a champion?

 

[HalAlaric]

Box Hill are an amazing side so needless to say I believe the Hawks have the best depth. Geelong, WCE, Collingwood and GWS (although unproven) would round out my top 5.

I barrack for the team with the worst list currently (aside maybe * now) but I think the club has made some good strides. Yes we let some of our more seasoned talent walk but in an effort to bleed a better culture at the club it was necessary. Also, I believe at least 50% of our new recruits will make a huge impact.

Heres my team (ages in brackets) and depth moving forward in 2016 (3-5 wins predicted):
Carlton FC
FB: Tuohy (27) Jamison (30) Buckley (23)
HB: Plowman (22) Weitering (18) Thomas (29)
Mid: Docherty (23) E.Curnow (27) Kerridge (23)
Fol: Kreuzer (27) Murphy (29) Cripps (21)
HF: Gibbs (27) Everitt (27) Boekhorst (23)
FF: Lamb (22) Casboult (26) Walker (28)
Int:Whiley (24) Simpson (32) Byrne (22) Phillips (25)
Emg: Sheehan (26) Graham (22) Rowe (29)/Jaksch (22)

Northern Blues (Depth)
FB: Dick (22) Rowe (29) Glass-McCasker (19)
HB: DVR (20) White (26) Sheehan (26)
Mid: Wright (27) Gowers (20) Cuningham (19)
Fol: Corringe (22) C.Curnow (19) Graham (22)
HF: Sumner (23) Forster (21) Jaksch (22)
FF: SOJ (18) McKay (18) Smith (20)
Int: Dick (22) Gallucci (22) Tutt (25) Armfield (30) Jones (23) Wood (29) Korcheck (25)

 

[MarkT2]

Depth is over rated, past about 28 or so on the list anyway. Sides that generally field close to their best side generally win the flag. Hawthorn are a bit of an unusual case because they do have great depth but take out a few key players and they don't win the flag, no matter how good their VFL side is relative to other VFL sides.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Yes, and our kids in the VFL used to run riot too. That didn't mean they were all guns at AFL level, as has been shown. Same thing will happen to Hawthorn, you can't replace champions.

Where did I say all our kids were guns?

Where did I say that you can't replace champions?

In fact, where did I even say that we had the best depth, or even better than average depth?

My point, and I am sick of repeating it, is simply that you cannot measure depth by the number of players on a club list who have played AFL games. And I think that I have proven why that is the case.

Why is that so difficult for some people to comprehend?