Toast Hawthorn have headf***ed everyone

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Joined
Jun 19, 2007
Posts
33,044
Likes
35,868
Location
On the south side now
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
nil
Moderator #3,103
Okay let's dissect this a bit:
I just want to see what improvement is coming from their younger players, how they structure up, Sicily now clearly down back, what the structure of the side looks like,”
This is not a prediction. This is not an assessment. This is the opposite of an opinion/prediction. This is saying "I'm not insightful enough to give an opinion because I first want more information [how they structure up] before I make an opinion.

“Have they got enough depth through the middle of the ground? Where does Chad Wingard come in and play footy?
Again, these aren't predictions, these are questions. (Yes, I know he said he had super question marks). Asking questions, even rhetorical ones, doesn't make you a decent analyst. These aren't insight questions. Things he could have said:
- I don't think they have enough depth through the middle of the ground.
- Chad Wingard will probably play [insert position].
Instead of actually giving an opinion his question "where will Chad Wingard play?" is presented like it's a horrible problem with the team. Bringing in a gun who can play forward or mid is a GOOD thing. The fact you don't know where he best fits the list is a slight on YOU, not the club. In fact, your previous question raised the possibility that the hawks might not have enough depth in the midfield - so maybe this new player that can play mid or forward might go there? Whaddya think?

The comment could then be:
- THe hawks lack some depth in the middle of the ground, but they have brought in an extremely good player that sometimes plays that role - they will probably use him there to address their depth issue.

But no
He presents the problem AND the solution as though they're two problems. **** me.

“I sit there and sort of go, they’ve almost had a free hit with Scrimshaw and Scully, but they might not get games out of either of them.
It's at this point where I just have to wonder if this guy is all there. These two players cost us nothing. That's what a free hit is. The fact we might not get games out of either of them is addressed by the fact they cost us nothing. That's what a free hit is! And guess what - ONE OF THEM IS A MIDFIELDER!

So that question from before about a lack of depth in the midfield - Wallace has just listed two high quality players from other sides that play midfield - but somehow still has to ask "have they got enough depth". What is wrong with this guy?

“Is Scrimshaw good enough? We don’t know. Where do they set him up to play? He plays almost half-back or wing. Does he try to replace a Ryan Burton? Does he get a game?”
Oh. My. God.
Let me help you here Terry.
Does he try to replace a Ryan Burton? Yes. He 'does' try. He's a young guy at a new club. He 'will' try. He is trying. Why the focus on a guy you've just referred to as a free hit? I hope Scrimshaw is a gun - but right now he doesn't belong in a conversation about how we'll go in 2019.

“Scully won’t be ready and now you have Tom Mitchell out, I’ve got super question marks around them.
“I’ve got question marks around them going into the pre-season.”
Again - talking about a free hit - Scully this time. You can't call someone a free hit and then say it's a concern as to whether they'll play. It's double speak.

The super question mark is just an admission he has no idea what's going on. The most note worthy quote in the whole article is this:

Wallace didn’t provide a definitive prediction
The hawks have some serious holes on the list. KPF, KPB and probably the need for one or two match winners across the ground that we haven't quite replaced since all the stars phased out. Question marks over a couple of guys that are 'free hits' and asking questions (not making predictions) is just so so dumb and lazy.

Not headfukced - just really lazy uninspired, thoughtless commentary.
 

TylerDurden

Premium Gold
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Posts
5,461
Likes
11,008
Location
Lou's Tavern
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Okay let's dissect this a bit:

This is not a prediction. This is not an assessment. This is the opposite of an opinion/prediction. This is saying "I'm not insightful enough to give an opinion because I first want more information [how they structure up] before I make an opinion.


Again, these aren't predictions, these are questions. (Yes, I know he said he had super question marks). Asking questions, even rhetorical ones, doesn't make you a decent analyst. These aren't insight questions. Things he could have said:
- I don't think they have enough depth through the middle of the ground.
- Chad Wingard will probably play [insert position].
Instead of actually giving an opinion his question "where will Chad Wingard play?" is presented like it's a horrible problem with the team. Bringing in a gun who can play forward or mid is a GOOD thing. The fact you don't know where he best fits the list is a slight on YOU, not the club. In fact, your previous question raised the possibility that the hawks might not have enough depth in the midfield - so maybe this new player that can play mid or forward might go there? Whaddya think?

The comment could then be:
- THe hawks lack some depth in the middle of the ground, but they have brought in an extremely good player that sometimes plays that role - they will probably use him there to address their depth issue.

But no
He presents the problem AND the solution as though they're two problems. **** me.


It's at this point where I just have to wonder if this guy is all there. These two players cost us nothing. That's what a free hit is. The fact we might not get games out of either of them is addressed by the fact they cost us nothing. That's what a free hit is! And guess what - ONE OF THEM IS A MIDFIELDER!

So that question from before about a lack of depth in the midfield - Wallace has just listed two high quality players from other sides that play midfield - but somehow still has to ask "have they got enough depth". What is wrong with this guy?


Oh. My. God.
Let me help you here Terry.
Does he try to replace a Ryan Burton? Yes. He 'does' try. He's a young guy at a new club. He 'will' try. He is trying. Why the focus on a guy you've just referred to as a free hit? I hope Scrimshaw is a gun - but right now he doesn't belong in a conversation about how we'll go in 2019.


Again - talking about a free hit - Scully this time. You can't call someone a free hit and then say it's a concern as to whether they'll play. It's double speak.

The super question mark is just an admission he has no idea what's going on. The most note worthy quote in the whole article is this:



The hawks have some serious holes on the list. KPF, KPB and probably the need for one or two match winners across the ground that we haven't quite replaced since all the stars phased out. Question marks over a couple of guys that are 'free hits' and asking questions (not making predictions) is just so so dumb and lazy.

Not headfukced - just really lazy uninspired, thoughtless commentary.
He starts with a narrative that we’ll be ****. Then tries to back it up with dribble.
 

marklar

Club Legend
Joined
Oct 27, 2008
Posts
1,511
Likes
2,639
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Atlanta Braves, Falcons, Everton
I agree he probably isn't head****ed, I just tend to dislike his media work because though he gives criticism he's not often right. In fact, he gives famously poor predictions.
He is one of the many examples of a great football player that probably should have left it at that. Couldn't coach effectively and can't analyse the game in commentary.
 

GerryLewis

Team Captain
Joined
Nov 10, 2015
Posts
417
Likes
1,014
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
San Antonio Spurs
Okay let's dissect this a bit:

This is not a prediction. This is not an assessment. This is the opposite of an opinion/prediction. This is saying "I'm not insightful enough to give an opinion because I first want more information [how they structure up] before I make an opinion.


Again, these aren't predictions, these are questions. (Yes, I know he said he had super question marks). Asking questions, even rhetorical ones, doesn't make you a decent analyst. These aren't insight questions. Things he could have said:
- I don't think they have enough depth through the middle of the ground.
- Chad Wingard will probably play [insert position].
Instead of actually giving an opinion his question "where will Chad Wingard play?" is presented like it's a horrible problem with the team. Bringing in a gun who can play forward or mid is a GOOD thing. The fact you don't know where he best fits the list is a slight on YOU, not the club. In fact, your previous question raised the possibility that the hawks might not have enough depth in the midfield - so maybe this new player that can play mid or forward might go there? Whaddya think?

The comment could then be:
- THe hawks lack some depth in the middle of the ground, but they have brought in an extremely good player that sometimes plays that role - they will probably use him there to address their depth issue.

But no
He presents the problem AND the solution as though they're two problems. **** me.


It's at this point where I just have to wonder if this guy is all there. These two players cost us nothing. That's what a free hit is. The fact we might not get games out of either of them is addressed by the fact they cost us nothing. That's what a free hit is! And guess what - ONE OF THEM IS A MIDFIELDER!

So that question from before about a lack of depth in the midfield - Wallace has just listed two high quality players from other sides that play midfield - but somehow still has to ask "have they got enough depth". What is wrong with this guy?


Oh. My. God.
Let me help you here Terry.
Does he try to replace a Ryan Burton? Yes. He 'does' try. He's a young guy at a new club. He 'will' try. He is trying. Why the focus on a guy you've just referred to as a free hit? I hope Scrimshaw is a gun - but right now he doesn't belong in a conversation about how we'll go in 2019.


Again - talking about a free hit - Scully this time. You can't call someone a free hit and then say it's a concern as to whether they'll play. It's double speak.

The super question mark is just an admission he has no idea what's going on. The most note worthy quote in the whole article is this:



The hawks have some serious holes on the list. KPF, KPB and probably the need for one or two match winners across the ground that we haven't quite replaced since all the stars phased out. Question marks over a couple of guys that are 'free hits' and asking questions (not making predictions) is just so so dumb and lazy.

Not headfukced - just really lazy uninspired, thoughtless commentary.
Geez I enjoyed reading this. Thanks LP!
 

rogiebear93

Premiership Player
Joined
May 17, 2017
Posts
3,986
Likes
7,139
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Okay let's dissect this a bit:

This is not a prediction. This is not an assessment. This is the opposite of an opinion/prediction. This is saying "I'm not insightful enough to give an opinion because I first want more information [how they structure up] before I make an opinion.


Again, these aren't predictions, these are questions. (Yes, I know he said he had super question marks). Asking questions, even rhetorical ones, doesn't make you a decent analyst. These aren't insight questions. Things he could have said:
- I don't think they have enough depth through the middle of the ground.
- Chad Wingard will probably play [insert position].
Instead of actually giving an opinion his question "where will Chad Wingard play?" is presented like it's a horrible problem with the team. Bringing in a gun who can play forward or mid is a GOOD thing. The fact you don't know where he best fits the list is a slight on YOU, not the club. In fact, your previous question raised the possibility that the hawks might not have enough depth in the midfield - so maybe this new player that can play mid or forward might go there? Whaddya think?

The comment could then be:
- THe hawks lack some depth in the middle of the ground, but they have brought in an extremely good player that sometimes plays that role - they will probably use him there to address their depth issue.

But no
He presents the problem AND the solution as though they're two problems. **** me.


It's at this point where I just have to wonder if this guy is all there. These two players cost us nothing. That's what a free hit is. The fact we might not get games out of either of them is addressed by the fact they cost us nothing. That's what a free hit is! And guess what - ONE OF THEM IS A MIDFIELDER!

So that question from before about a lack of depth in the midfield - Wallace has just listed two high quality players from other sides that play midfield - but somehow still has to ask "have they got enough depth". What is wrong with this guy?


Oh. My. God.
Let me help you here Terry.
Does he try to replace a Ryan Burton? Yes. He 'does' try. He's a young guy at a new club. He 'will' try. He is trying. Why the focus on a guy you've just referred to as a free hit? I hope Scrimshaw is a gun - but right now he doesn't belong in a conversation about how we'll go in 2019.


Again - talking about a free hit - Scully this time. You can't call someone a free hit and then say it's a concern as to whether they'll play. It's double speak.

The super question mark is just an admission he has no idea what's going on. The most note worthy quote in the whole article is this:



The hawks have some serious holes on the list. KPF, KPB and probably the need for one or two match winners across the ground that we haven't quite replaced since all the stars phased out. Question marks over a couple of guys that are 'free hits' and asking questions (not making predictions) is just so so dumb and lazy.

Not headfukced - just really lazy uninspired, thoughtless commentary.
Thanks for taking the time to put my thoughts into words mate, really good job. Could not have put it better myself!

Thinking back on most of Terry Wallace's season predictions - the questions are something that he does a lot. He always poses problems presented as questions.

I always look at Gary Buckenara as someone who gives thoughtful analysis.
 

RIOLINWITPUNCHS

Big Footy Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Posts
3,575
Likes
7,980
Location
Back Of My Kombi
AFL Club
Hawthorn
The accurate interpretation of Brad Johnson and Del Santo predicting we come 14 or 15 is that we will finish top 4.
Always done it the hard way and often after being written off.

Can't wait to prove everyone wrong again.

It's the Hawthorn way.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Pessimistic

TheBrownDog
Joined
Sep 13, 2000
Posts
67,611
Likes
27,267
Location
Melbourne cricket ground. Australia
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Horks
Urban legends: The stripes were inspired by collingwoods and made the players look 'bigger'

Collingwood asked Hawthorn at one point for some tips to success. Hawthorn admin were a bit lost for words saying 'Not sure, we copied you largely'

It may be myth cos Collingwood have regularly made grand finals, despite having a poor win/loss ratio since getting there
 

Dave Id

Club Legend
Joined
Oct 25, 2015
Posts
1,135
Likes
1,393
Location
Some Australian Mountain Range
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Guangzhou Evergrande Taobao FC
Urban legends: The stripes were inspired by collingwoods and made the players look 'bigger'

Collingwood asked Hawthorn at one point for some tips to success. Hawthorn admin were a bit lost for words saying 'Not sure, we copied you largely'

It may be myth cos Collingwood have regularly made grand finals, despite having a poor win/loss ratio since getting there
Jack Hale remodeled us on the Magpies fourpeat teams and the 1950s teams.
 
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Posts
1,853
Likes
2,314
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Canetoads Bulls Gunners Packers
It wasn’t an article. Just a poorly written brief summary of our history.
To write a full history of the Hawthorn Football Club would require 2 volumes of the Hard Way.

What was written in the article is only meant to be a precis of our history and they did an ok job of that.

I do have one question on accuracy though. It states that Hawthorn's highest VFA score as 30 31 211 (the highest score ever kicked in the VFA). For some reason I have always thought it to 30 30 210 the same score as Carlton's then VFL record score against us in round 2 1969.

Stemline are you there to confirm which is true.
 
Joined
Oct 15, 2014
Posts
2,991
Likes
4,906
Location
Doing 80kph in the fast lane.
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
The Boro, Knicks, Fins
Top Bottom