List Mgmt. Hawk's List Management 2023

[Mercy Seat]

It's up there with "we need 6 A-graders!"

It means absolutely nothing from an analytical standpoint.

It’s Sam Mitchell using the term so he must mean something when he says it.

For me, as it’s been touched on, it’s something that goes beyond stats and analytics. The ability to break games open with a few freakish acts that go beyond structure and game plan. Rioli and Franklin had it.

 

[Elhawko]

Nah - bog average is a global assessment. In any case, I dispute the proposition that Mihocek has average ability. He has great hands, reads the play very well and is very mobile. He is a perpetually underrated player.

AFL Player Statistics

AFL player statistics.

www.wheeloratings.com

Hard to find a measure that he rates among the top twenty key forwards on though. I like him but I don’t think he’s brimming over with talent, personally.

 

[Argy]

Has anyone ever been able to define what "X-Factor" actually is? How do you even quantify it?

I don't believe the midfield we had during our peak era really had any X-factor. That unit was incredibly skilled, but they weren't out there kicking goals out of their backsides (Hodgey in GF's excepted) and winning games off their own boot in that way. They weren't really a high scoring midfield unit, weren't freak athletes, and they didn't really have any break-away pace in the middle either.

Maybe the pace and running power of Smith/Hill on the outside, and the sublime kicking skills of Mitchell, Hodge and Burgoyne could be considered their X-Factor?

I think having a big, athletic and skilled midfield is more important at this stage and that's exactly what we are developing. We could end up with the best skilled midfield in terms of kicking ability in a few years.

To me X-factor means individual brilliance. Which is great as a thing. But we play a team sport and to my mind the ability to know what your team mates will do before they do it, to anticipate the games flow and to trust your team mates to do the same is much more important.

Look no further than the 2014 GF. Going into that game we were underdogs - we barely scraped in against a rampaging Port and the Swans had thrashed North and were the in form club. However, the level of teamwork, commitment and trust that we had on that day made us invincible. We tackled hard, took risks and backed one another up to a level that was almost like mind-reading.

If this team can become half as cohesive as that, then we're in for a great ride.

 

[crazywildhorse]

To me X-factor means individual brilliance. Which is great as a thing. But we play a team sport and to my mind the ability to know what your team mates will do before they do it, to anticipate the games flow and to trust your team mates to do the same is much more important.

Look no further than the 2014 GF. Going into that game we were underdogs - we barely scraped in against a rampaging Port and the Swans had thrashed North and were the in form club. However, the level of teamwork, commitment and trust that we had on that day made us invincible. We tackled hard, took risks and backed one another up to a level that was almost like mind-reading.

If this team can become half as cohesive as that, then we're in for a great ride.

The underdog part was total wishful thinking. The swans as favourites was one of the better media band wagons of all time and it was based on Buddy. Apart from a few sloppy moments, that hawk side were at their peak and were basically in cruise control.

 

[Judd2Sewell]

View attachment 1878744

When required, this bloke turned up time after time after time

Yeah he kicked the immortal go-ahead goal there. See I'd say he (and Hodgey in particular) were amazing big game players, and maybe that was their "X-Factor?"

When I mentioned kicking goals out of their backsides and winning games off their own boot I was thinking more along the lines of what Franklin could do - kick multiple goals from nothing.

It's all semantics anyway, and as everyone is pointing out it is really not definable and is a bit of a nothing term.

 

[Dewnior]

It's all semantics anyway, and as everyone is pointing out it is really not definable and is a bit of a nothing term.

 

[Judd2Sewell]

The underdog part was total wishful thinking. The swans as favourites was one of the better media band wagons of all time and it was based on Buddy. Apart from a few sloppy moments, that hawk side were at their peak and were basically in cruise control.

That Sydney side was being pumped up as one of the all-time greats. It really was a quality team, but we were simply much better.

 

[Judd2Sewell]

View attachment 1878771


View attachment 1878769


View attachment 1878770

Yeah I probably should have referred to the dictionary at some point.

 

[Judd2Sewell]

It’s Sam Mitchell using the term so he must mean something when he says it.

For me, as it’s been touched on, it’s something that goes beyond stats and analytics. The ability to break games open with a few freakish acts that go beyond structure and game plan. Rioli and Franklin had it.

I think that explains the drafting of Watson. We've got the base of talented and skilful players (Day, Newcombe, Mackenzie, Ward, MacDonald, etc), now we need the potential match winners.

 

[unitedhawk]

That Sydney side was being pumped up as one of the all-time greats. It really was a quality team, but we were simply much better.

I recall David King predicting on 360 that the Swans would win by 60 points! I don't mind Kingy but that was not his best moment.

 

[Dipper]

If anyone ever saw Brazilian Ronaldo play soccer in the mid 90s,certainly prior to his big injury...well that's x-factor right there.

 

[Khmerhawk]

I recall David King predicting on 360 that the Swans would win by 60 points! I don't mind Kingy but that was not his best moment.

He made a big point about it as well, as if to say everyone knows Sydney will Absolutely smash Hawthorn but nobody has the guts except for him to say by that much. Quite funny in hindsight by I've had him branded as an idiot ever since.

 

[crazywildhorse]

That Sydney side was being pumped up as one of the all-time greats. It really was a quality team, but we were simply much better.

They were good, but not really that good. 2016 they were at their peak and still didn’t win.

 

[Mercy Seat]

I recall David King predicting on 360 that the Swans would win by 60 points! I don't mind Kingy but that was not his best moment.

68 points.

He’s tried to say in recent years that he told his producer 6-8 points and they misheard, but sounds like bullshit.

 

[HawthornHawk]

68 points.

He’s tried to say in recent years that he told his producer 6-8 points and they misheard, but sounds like bullshit.

6 or 8 goals was still a fair way off

 

[DogDaySonny]

The week between Christmas and New Year’s Eve is the best week ever for the board’s discussion quality. This week has real X-factor.

 

[Dewnior]

6 or 8 goals was still a fair way off

The poster said points not goals. But I call bs

 

[tl92]

68 points.

He’s tried to say in recent years that he told his producer 6-8 points and they misheard, but sounds like bullshit.

Still 10 goals off

 

[Khmerhawk]

Still 10 goals off

Actually he was about 22 goals off considering we won by 63 points

 

[Khmerhawk]

68 points.

He’s tried to say in recent years that he told his producer 6-8 points and they misheard, but sounds like bullshit.

He said it himself, I still remember him giving the tip live on tv . Everybody had given their tip and they all went with Sydney from about 3 to 5 goals and then tried to make a bigshot of himself and actually said "Well nobody else is going to say it so I will !Sydney by 68 points" . There was 100 percent no misunderstanding .

 

[Judd2Sewell]

They were good, but not really that good. 2016 they were at their peak and still didn’t win.

They were excellent, they smashed so many teams and kept opposition teams to low scores all season. Downplaying them essentially takes a little away from what we achieved.

As Dennis said, "you can't score against Sydney unless you're Hawthorn."

 

[Judd2Sewell]

68 points.

He’s tried to say in recent years that he told his producer 6-8 points and they misheard, but sounds like bullshit.

I suppose that's plausible, but the way in which he said it suggests otherwise. And he didn't correct himself live on air either.

 

[HawthornHawk]

The poster said points not goals. But I call bs

I recall him talking about this and am 90% sure he said 6 or 8 goals

 

[unitedhawk]

I recall him talking about this and am 90% sure he said 6 or 8 goals

In which case you'd be 100% wrong - no offence.

 

[peetoo]

I'd be pretty surprised if anyone actually thinks that, but then I do see plenty of Best 22s with Sicily at CHB so maybe it's a thing? Perhaps it's a match-up thing with some posters & their B22, but I'm all but sure nobody thinks the list shouldn't have multiple KPD on the off chance an opponent doesn't play 2x KPF.

Melbourne play with 2 excellent kpd who also rebound well, but have multiple NQR forwards, so it’s always a compromise

Of course we were spoiled in 12-16 with a threepeat capable team, we keep comparing to them, which is way above what would be needed to contend in the next few years