Toast Hawthorn have headf***ed everyone

[Strapping Young Lad]

What is a super question mark anyway

It’s worth 15 points apparently.

 

[Gralin]

It’s worth 15 points apparently.

I thought that was a Zooper question mark

 

[Leather Poisoning]

Wallet. Headferked.

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 NFI 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]

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 NFI 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 s**t. Then tries to back it up with dribble.

 

[marklar]

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]

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 NFI 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!

 

[KermitJagger]

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 NFI 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.

 

[OnTheRocks]

Wallace just got Leather belt Poisoning

 

[Pessimistic]

I think we improved the list in trading but the loss of TMitch for the season has balanced it out. Improvement to be organic, and with the addition of smitch as coach

 

[Lord Mud of Glenferrie]

The accurate interpretation of Brad Johnson and Del Santo predicting we come 14 or 15 is that we will finish top 4.

 

[RIOLINWITPUNCHS]

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.

 

[TylerDurden]

 

[SuperSic]

Outline link for the article for those who aren’t subscribed to the Herald Sun:

https://outline.com/UzZH5d

 

[KermitJagger]

Outline link for the article for those who aren’t subscribed to the Herald Sun:

https://outline.com/UzZH5d

Apparently our last Brownlow Medallist was Sam Mitchell in 2012

 

[Pessimistic]

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

 

[COKEandCOLA]

He starts with a narrative that we’ll be s**t. Then tries to back it up with dribble.

He's one of the best in the business, when it comes to uneducated and unwarranted dribble.

 

[Dave Id]

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.

 

[threesixpio]

Thaihawk - did you read the HS article?

 

[Rushed_Behind]

It wasn’t an article. Just a poorly written brief summary of our history.

 

[Milkshaker]

It wasn’t an article. Just a poorly written brief summary of our history.

Agree. I dropped off.

 

[Lord Mud of Glenferrie]

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.

 

[HawkSince2008]

Saw this the other day. Hawthorn Still using Buddy, Sewell, Hodge and Mitchell to gain members


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Bumps"N"Grins]

View attachment 631491
Saw this the other day. Hawthorn Still using Buddy, Sewell, Hodge and Mitchell to gain members


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Spotted one beating a path up and down the Calder Hwy during the week, not sure if it was the same banner but it did get my attention.

 

[Dave Id]

All PCM winners 2005 to 2012. 8 between them.

Plus Sam's 2016.

 

[PKNF]

“Hawthorn have exploited free agency better than anyone” - Jono Brown. How does this keep getting accepted as fact?