Hawthorn fans have given up on 2011

[vonn]

Gah what is it with supporters on either side looking over-confident and arrogant? Hate it. Hawthorn are a bloody good team and they didn't belt us at the SCG by mistake, and they most defs did not fluke a top 3 finish. Let's not get carried away by the fact we beat a side who was only ahead of us on percentage and they lost to the one of the best sides I've ever seen.

 

[raff23]

The longer the week has gone, the more deluded the poor Hawthorn souls have become. Apparently they will beat us by 10 goals, Goodes doesn't have a defensive bone in his body (never mind Franklin), and Bailey will thrash Mumford in the ruck (despite the fact that Mummy was severely hampered by injuries when we played them at the SCG).

The funniest thing though is that they are making themselves believe that there is no way that they will not make amends for the performance last week, and this should give them the win comfortably. Never mind the fact that they are playing a team in red hot form, and will be playing in one of the greatest players of the clubs history's 300th. Deluded, I tell ya.[/quote]
bailey was playing his 1st senior game for 18 months, dont use that as an excuse, mumford wasnt at his best and was beaten, milestone games in finals imo are completely irrelevant, goodesy could be playing his 400th and it wouldnt make a difference, a preliminary final berth is at stake, you guys can use it for extra motivation but it wont get you guys over the line not by a long shot, good luck for tomorrow night.

 

[Kurtley Beale]

2 losses?

I agree though, Hawks should go in strong favorites. Not sure about a 10 goal win though.

Yeah sorry 4 losses and no i don't personally think it will be 10 goals, it qill be very close in my opinion.

 

[Swans_01]

The longer the week has gone, the more deluded the poor Hawthorn souls have become. Apparently they will beat us by 10 goals, Goodes doesn't have a defensive bone in his body (never mind Franklin), and Bailey will thrash Mumford in the ruck (despite the fact that Mummy was severely hampered by injuries when we played them at the SCG).

The funniest thing though is that they are making themselves believe that there is no way that they will not make amends for the performance last week, and this should give them the win comfortably. Never mind the fact that they are playing a team in red hot form, and will be playing in one of the greatest players of the clubs history's 300th. Deluded, I tell ya.[/quote]
bailey was playing his 1st senior game for 18 months, dont use that as an excuse, mumford wasnt at his best and was beaten, milestone games in finals imo are completely irrelevant, goodesy could be playing his 400th and it wouldnt make a difference, a preliminary final berth is at stake, you guys can use it for extra motivation but it wont get you guys over the line not by a long shot, good luck for tomorrow night.

Mumford was beaten by Bailey? If you seriously believe that, you must be deluded. Mumford had 30 hitouts to Bailey's 19, Mumford had 6 possessions to Bailey's 5, Mumford took 3 marks to Bailey's 1, Mumford had 71 sc points to Bailey's 52. Yes, I can see quite clearly now that Mumford was beaten

And I wasn't saying that Goodes' 300th would provide any extra motivation, but the majority of your Hawthorn supporting mates believe that just because you were comprehensively beaten last week that somehow that means that you will come out snarling and beat us by 10 goals. Remind me how that logic works again? Both teams have a lot to play for, it being a final and all.

And yes should be a cracking match, and a lot closer than your Hawthorn brethren believe.

 

[bedford]

I think Bailey looked good because he hadn't really had much of a go due to injuries, but i thought he played well in that game

 

[Riders of Rohan]

Last two times we've played Hawk's at the G we've lost by less than 20 points combined.

 

[Kurtley Beale]

Last two times we've played Hawk's at the G we've lost by less than 20 points combined.

Yep, and i recall one of those times some kid named Hannebery nearly getting you over the line.

 

[themarkedman72]

Last two times we've played Hawk's at the G we've lost by less than 20 points combined.

Firstly good luck swans. My Dad barracked for SYdney and I reserve something special for these occasions due to this fact.

ALways barrack for you when the hawks arent involved.

I think you can win it but it depends on one thing and it isnt if buddy plays.

The thing is the mental toughness of the senior hawks.

They are p!ssed with themselves and vowed to make amneds in the papers after last week.

However they may be on a form dip due to mental fatigue??

If all things go right for the hawks we could beat you by ten goals.

However more likely Buddy doesnt play and the hawks are flat after geelong and you win.

Truth likely somewhere inbetween....anyones game!!

Sorry for long post and good luck

 

[BarneyBent]

If Buddy is sore, I think I'd rather he play than not. If he doesn't play, the Hawthorn focus broadens. If he doesn't, the focus narrows on him. This is great when he's fit and firing, but when he's not it can actually be detrimental. This is similar to how we were with Hall at times when he was out if form.

 

[Neverwas]

Mumford was beaten by Bailey? If you seriously believe that, you must be deluded. Mumford had 30 hitouts to Bailey's 19, Mumford had 6 possessions to Bailey's 5, Mumford took 3 marks to Bailey's 1, Mumford had 71 sc points to Bailey's 52. Yes, I can see quite clearly now that Mumford was beaten

The Swans were out-coached in that game and nullified Mumford by using a third man up on many occasions. This in turn nullified our inside mids and threw our entire game plan out of kilter.

I think we may have learnt more about the capabilities of our own players now and certainly will be aware of the Hawks tactics so that should not happen again.

Swans by 118 points

 

[macdaddio]

Gah what is it with supporters on either side looking over-confident and arrogant? Hate it. Hawthorn are a bloody good team and they didn't belt us at the SCG by mistake, and they most defs did not fluke a top 3 finish. Let's not get carried away by the fact we beat a side who was only ahead of us on percentage and they lost to the one of the best sides I've ever seen.

We had Roughead back then, Hale wont last against Mummy and depending how Bailey goes he will come close but wont beat Mummy..
If we get smashed in the centre bounces again then we wont stand a chance to stopping your Talls...

 

[themarkedman72]

The Swans were out-coached in that game and nullified Mumford by using a third man up on many occasions. This in turn nullified our inside mids and threw our entire game plan out of kilter.

I think we may have learnt more about the capabilities of our own players now and certainly will be aware of the Hawks tactics so that should not happen again.

Swans by 118 points

hehe!! good call about knowing our game plan, plus K.jack playing doesnt hurt your chances.

Buddy may be the sub.

We had Roughead back then, Hale wont last against Mummy and depending how Bailey goes he will come close but wont beat Mummy..
If we get smashed in the centre bounces again then we wont stand a chance to stopping your Talls...

Mummy to goodes...could be a long hard night