Preview Hawks vs Crows - changes, discussion.........

[HR Roughnstuf]

With the fixture, they didn't need to spend the money.

It's been handed to them on a platter, hang on to the platter properly and you lift up the silver wear, drop the platter....no silver wear

They dropped it last year, this year they wanted to be sure

 

[wallyt99]

Fairly certain that Port, Hawks and Sydney at least have been in heavy training. Port for two weeks, Hawthorn and Sydney for one.

Port will be back firing next week after a light training run. We will be firing for Sydney but so will they.

Going to be near impossible to beat Adelaide if the heavy training continues this week (which it probably will).

 

[HODGEYROAD]

Fairly certain that Port, Hawks and Sydney at least have been in heavy training. Port for two weeks, Hawthorn and Sydney for one.

Port will be back firing next week after a light training run. We will be firing for Sydney but so will they.

Going to be near impossible to beat Adelaide if the heavy training continues this week (which it probably will).

To be honest im sick of hearing about this heavy training load, we need to finish in the top 4 otherwise we can forget about 2014.... we need to win 5 of the last 7 to finish top 4 so we must win Friday night

 

[randall boner]

Heavy training load,love that excuse..nearly as good as the dog ate my homework....FFs there professional footballers ,attitude adjustment more appropriate me thinks.

 

[Taskmaster]

Fairly certain that Port, Hawks and Sydney at least have been in heavy training. Port for two weeks, Hawthorn and Sydney for one.

Port will be back firing next week after a light training run. We will be firing for Sydney but so will they.

Going to be near impossible to beat Adelaide if the heavy training continues this week (which it probably will).

WTF does that actually mean. So obviously the club has it all wrong. They train like millionaires and play like plebs?? This is the biggest bullshit excuse I have ever heard.

 

[Collins-Langford-Ayres]

Adelaide aren't that good.

Hell we only lost to Port by a bit at AO with half a team.

 

[Hodginator]

Interesting stat from Robbo in his dislikes today for those calling for Suckling to be dropped (although I'm probably one of them). Was an off night for most of the team though, so a bit stiff to highlight these four.

8. Hawthorn’s back six. Not all of them, but four of them: Stratton, Birchall, Duryea and Litherland. Not all their fault because the defence needs a hardworking midfield, but the four of them couldn’t get their hands on the ball. Just two rebound 50s between them — Suckling had six himself — tells us the Hawks couldn’t get moving from half-back. Credit to the Kangas, who worked hard defensively, which in turn had the Hawks forwards sucked up the ground, which meant the Hawks often didn’t have a forward option when they won the ball.

 

[MC_9]

Good to see the knives are out for Bigfooty's favourite whipping boys, Shoenmakers and Suckling. Hawthorn lost, lets drop the whipping boys.

Despite the fact that on a night where our outside run, and rebounding from defence was completely shut down. We should now drop the only guy that actually managed to provide us with some. Of all our outside runners, Suckling had the most disposals (6th best Hawk), and the most rebounds out of the defensive 50. But no, lets drop him.

Then onto Shoenmakers. Whilst up forward, he played as our CHF. He managed 1.1, and lead the team for inside 50s (In 2 and half quarters). Then when Lake was completely embarrassed by Petrie after having 5 goals kicked on him in 2 and half quarters. Shoenmakers is sent to the backline, and holds Petrie goalless. I guess we should drop him too.

Give it a rest. They will not be dropped until we have someone else that can play their role better. Which at this stage is no one.

 

[hawk for 37]

Regardless of form, injury, needing to win, the damning stat this week is 2 wins in 20 years versus the Crows in SA.

Only wins in Premiership years and both were a struggle and could be rated as lucky. All the bravado by supporters on here will mean jack. Seriously up against it.

A win on Friday will be be our finest for the year.

 

[Taskmaster]

Regardless of form, injury, needing to win, the damning stat this week is 2 wins in 20 years versus the Crows in SA.

Only wins in Premiership years and both were a struggle and could be rated as lucky. All the bravado by supporters on here will mean jack. Seriously up against it.

A win on Friday will be be our finest for the year.

You can only go on recent form, so Friday night we are F...ed!!

 

[Taskmaster]

Good to see the knives are out for Bigfooty's favourite whipping boys, Shoenmakers and Suckling. Hawthorn lost, lets drop the whipping boys.

Despite the fact that on a night where our outside run, and rebounding from defence was completely shut down. We should now drop the only guy that actually managed to provide us with some. Of all our outside runners, Suckling had the most disposals (6th best Hawk), and the most rebounds out of the defensive 50. But no, lets drop him.

Then onto Shoenmakers. Whilst up forward, he played as our CHF. He managed 1.1, and lead the team for inside 50s (In 2 and half quarters). Then when Lake was completely embarrassed by Petrie after having 5 goals kicked on him in 2 and half quarters. Shoenmakers is sent to the backline, and holds Lake goalless. I guess we should drop him too.

Give it a rest. They will not be dropped until we have someone else that can play their role better. Which at this stage is no one.

Stats mean shit when half of them are ineffective or turnovers. Suckling plays like he is a f..ken millionaire and Shoenmakers plays like he is playing kick to kick with his mates.

Until these 2 show they have some prick about them and actually want to be there, then maybe the whole "drop them" business may stop. But to this day they have shown not alot!!!!

 

[Glasgow Hawk]

I have just worked out the A.F.L's definition of equalisation.
Let's formulate a fixture that gives Sydney and Freo equal chance of finishing first and second on the ladder.

Surely you haven't just worked it out Thai..
I thought it was common knowledge.

 

[Thaihawk]

Surely you haven't just worked it out Thai..
I thought it was common knowledge.

I am a little old and slow, Glasgow, but I think I have been blindsided by the way Port have been playing. However, I do have a feeling that Swans could have run their race come September.

 

[MC_9]

Stats mean shit when half of them are ineffective or turnovers. Suckling plays like he is a f..ken millionaire and Shoenmakers plays like he is playing kick to kick with his mates.

Until these 2 show they have some prick about them and actually want to be there, then maybe the whole "drop them" business may stop. But to this day they have shown not alot!!!!

Oh cool. Now we have just resorted to making stuff up.

Stats do mean shit, when people resort to making up complete garbage as you have shown. Suckling played at 85% disposal efficiency, and had 2 clangers. But just keep making things up, so you can keep up with your vendetta against him.

As I mentioned there were plenty worse players than Shoenmakers on the night. He proved that he was a target for us as a CHF, then held Petrie goalless after he tore Lake a new one. Just like he held Tippet to 1 goal after he kicked 3 goals in the Sydney game. Or when he held Shulz (the bloke leading the coleman) to 1 goal.

But I guess you don't like the cut of their jib, so they just be dropped. Nothing to back it up, just a vibe thing.

Anyway I know that I will be proven correct, when these guys will be picked in the seniors for the rest of the year ahead of Spangher, Duryea, Langford, Hallahan, Cheeney, Ross, etc.

 

[Taskmaster]

Oh cool. Now we have just resorted to making stuff up.

Stats do mean shit, when people resort to making up complete garbage as you have shown. Suckling played at 85% disposal efficiency, and had 2 clangers. But just keep making things up, so you can keep up with your vendetta against him.

As I mentioned there were plenty worse players than Shoenmakers on the night. He proved that he was a target for us as a CHF, then held Petrie goalless after he tore Lake a new one. Just like he held Tippet to 1 goal after he kicked 3 goals in the Sydney game. Or when he held Shulz (the bloke leading the coleman) to 1 goal.

But I guess you don't like the cut of their jib, so they just be dropped. Nothing to back it up, just a vibe thing.

Anyway I know that I will be proven correct, when these guys will be picked in the seniors for the rest of the year ahead of Spangher, Duryea, Langford, Hallahan, Cheeney, Ross, etc.

Oh your one of those supporters!

 

[Taskmaster]

Oh cool. Now we have just resorted to making stuff up.

Stats do mean shit, when people resort to making up complete garbage as you have shown. Suckling played at 85% disposal efficiency, and had 2 clangers. But just keep making things up, so you can keep up with your vendetta against him.

As I mentioned there were plenty worse players than Shoenmakers on the night. He proved that he was a target for us as a CHF, then held Petrie goalless after he tore Lake a new one. Just like he held Tippet to 1 goal after he kicked 3 goals in the Sydney game. Or when he held Shulz (the bloke leading the coleman) to 1 goal.

But I guess you don't like the cut of their jib, so they just be dropped. Nothing to back it up, just a vibe thing.

Anyway I know that I will be proven correct, when these guys will be picked in the seniors for the rest of the year ahead of Spangher, Duryea, Langford, Hallahan, Cheeney, Ross, etc.

Your a star.... So please tell me this, why the f..k is Suckling the first to go missing when the pressure is on???? Explain this one, please, I need to know.

And did you not see Suckling try and sell some candy and get absolutely fu..en hammered and got holding the ball when the game was in the balance???

Im not saying that the game was Sucklings and Shoenmakers fault, the whole side should be dropped after a performance like that.

But obviously you are one of those that can accept mediocre performances.

 

[MC_9]

Oh your one of those supporters!

I guess you're one of those supporters that just posts shit, based on absolutely nothing. Because you don't like a certain player.

Let me guess, you are also one of the supporters that also thinks that Langford should be in the team ahead of Suckling. Just because Langford has shown a bit of mongrel, but ignoring the fact they play completely different roles.

Your a star.... So please tell me this, why the f..k is Suckling the first to go missing when the pressure is on???? Explain this one, please, I need to know.

And did you not see Suckling try and sell some candy and get absolutely fu..en hammered and got holding the ball when the game was in the balance???

Im not saying that the game was Sucklings and Shoenmakers fault, the whole side should be dropped after a performance like that.

But obviously you are one of those that can accept mediocre performances.

Cool. Now we are bringing up previous games because your argument has been shot to bits. Also throw in the old accepting mediocrity chestnut.

What are the alternatives to Suckling and Shoenmakers. Who do bring into the team, that can play their role better?

Or should we just have a team full of hard contested inside midfielders, and not worry about team balance and structure. But at least everyone has a go, and has some mongrel about them.

 

[Hungry Hawk]

Your a star.... So please tell me this, why the f..k is Suckling the first to go missing when the pressure is on???? Explain this one, please, I need to know.

And did you not see Suckling try and sell some candy and get absolutely fu..en hammered and got holding the ball when the game was in the balance???

Im not saying that the game was Sucklings and Shoenmakers fault, the whole side should be dropped after a performance like that.

But obviously you are one of those that can accept mediocre performances.

One incident in isolation taskmaster. Suckers game as a whole was no worse than a lot of his compatriots.

 

[crows dude]

Good to see the knives are out for Bigfooty's favourite whipping boys, Shoenmakers and Suckling. Hawthorn lost, lets drop the whipping boys.

Despite the fact that on a night where our outside run, and rebounding from defence was completely shut down. We should now drop the only guy that actually managed to provide us with some. Of all our outside runners, Suckling had the most disposals (6th best Hawk), and the most rebounds out of the defensive 50. But no, lets drop him.

Then onto Shoenmakers. Whilst up forward, he played as our CHF. He managed 1.1, and lead the team for inside 50s (In 2 and half quarters). Then when Lake was completely embarrassed by Petrie after having 5 goals kicked on him in 2 and half quarters. Shoenmakers is sent to the backline, and holds Lake goalless. I guess we should drop him too.

Give it a rest. They will not be dropped until we have someone else that can play their role better. Which at this stage is no one.

So Shoey held your full back goaless did he. LOL

 

[Glasgow Hawk]

I am a little old and slow, Glasgow, but I think I have been blindsided by the way Port have been playing. However, I do have a feeling that Swans could have run their race come September.

Let's hope so.. I don't think I could stomach a certain player crossing to the darkside and then winning a Premiership in his first season with them.

 

[MC_9]

So Shoey held your full back goaless did he. LOL

Typo, fixed.

 

[Taskmaster]

I guess you're one of those supporters that just posts shit, based on absolutely nothing. Because you don't like a certain player.

Let me guess, you are also one of the supporters that also thinks that Langford should be in the team ahead of Suckling. Just because Langford has shown a bit of mongrel, but ignoring the fact they play completely different roles.



Cool. Now we are bringing up previous games because your argument has been shot to bits. Also throw in the old accepting mediocrity chestnut.

What are the alternatives to Suckling and Shoenmakers. Who do bring into the team, that can play their role better?

Or should we just have a team full of hard contested inside midfielders, and not worry about team balance and structure. But at least everyone has a go, and has some mongrel about them.

Cool. Lets agree to disagree then. FYI I dont dislike Suckling, just dont think he is a defender. I never said Langford would be in the team ahead of Suckling, your just putting words into my mouth.

As for the alternatives, Spangher is all over Shoenmakers as a defender and I rekon Litherland is probably ahead of Shoenmakers. As for Suckling, I dont think he is a defender. more of a half forward/wing. Cheney is more suited as a defender. You cant fit everyone in, all Im saying is that, these 2 seem to let us down more often than not in the positions they are most vulnerable. But as always, its only an opinion and obviously yours is the correct one.

 

[Davo23]

So Shoey held your full back goaless did he. LOL

Hello, the dimwits from across the border have access to the internet?

.

 

[Taskmaster]

One incident in isolation taskmaster. Suckers game as a whole was no worse than a lot of his compatriots.

Totally agree with this. And for the record I think Suckling can be dynamite, but I just think as a defender he is to vulnerable. Its not a personal attack, just my opinion, thats it, an opinion.

 

[MC_9]

Cool. Lets agree to disagree then. FYI I dont dislike Suckling, just dont think he is a defender. I never said Langford would be in the team ahead of Suckling, your just putting words into my mouth.

As for the alternatives, Spangher is all over Shoenmakers as a defender and I rekon Litherland is probably ahead of Shoenmakers. As for Suckling, I dont think he is a defender. more of a half forward/wing. Cheney is more suited as a defender. You cant fit everyone in, all Im saying is that, these 2 seem to let us down more often than not in the positions they are most vulnerable. But as always, its only an opinion and obviously yours is the correct one.

Fair enough. Agree to disagree.

I do just think that these two players are unfairly maligned on this site.