Hawthorn Vs St Kilda-The worst game ever?

[cradle of filth]

I wouldn't think so, actually i found it very exciting.

Hear me out for a second.

I'm a hawthorn supporter who was at the game and the first half (particularly the 2nd quarter) was without a doubt some of the dullest football i have ever seen. For the first time in my life i contemplated leaving at half time despite my team being in front.

But towards the end of the 3rd quarter when Roughead put through the first goal for 22 minutes, I, and all around me we're jumping up and down in our seats like it was the match winner.

The last quarter was when it finally opened up and we booted 6 goals to 2. Each time a goal was scored it was like when a goal is scored in soccer and everyone goes crazy.

In the the end, what started out as a nighmare ended in a stressful, yet rewarding win. And after all, a win is a win.

 

[Pessimistic]

It was quality defense for the first tree quarters - the strategies were quite enthralling

Then built up the exitement - the umpires tried to destoy it with needless 50m penalties then the game broke open.

Not boring - enthralling

Half the posters bagging it here probably didnt watch it - just reacted to the scoreline

 

[mule]

I agree, St Kilda were defending fromt the first bounce. They knew they didn't have the players to match the hawks, so they tried to lock the game down from the start. Once we found our avenues to goal, we were right.

Don't worry about the other posters on here, most of them are frustrated richmond supporters who will bag hawthorn no matter what.

 

[Big Ted]

I agree, St Kilda were defending fromt the first bounce. They knew they didn't have the players to match the hawks, so they tried to lock the game down from the start. Once we found our avenues to goal, we were right.

Don't worry about the other posters on here, most of them are frustrated richmond supporters who will bag hawthorn no matter what.

Once you found your avenues to goal ??

Most of your goals came from turnovers, created by the Saints not hitting a target. IMO that came from Fatigue , not from pressure created by the Hawks.

Both sides had two men drop back. That seems to be missed in this. Hawthron uses this "Buddy's Box" forward se up that has 4 players in it. So they question I put to Hawks fans is this ... Where are the 2 other players gone then ? ..

Hmm, up back I think !!

 

[speedy]

Worst game in 2007 ---------------------- Saints v Hawks
Second worst game in 2007--------------- Lions v Hawks
Worst game in 2006 ---------------------- Kangas v Hawks

Hmmm, interesting.

 

[Frederlick]

I wouldn't think so, actually i found it very exciting.

Hear me out for a second.

I'm a hawthorn supporter who was at the game and the first half (particularly the 2nd quarter) was without a doubt some of the dullest football i have ever seen. For the first time in my life i contemplated leaving at half time despite my team being in front.

But towards the end of the 3rd quarter when Roughead put through the first goal for 22 minutes, I, and all around me we're jumping up and down in our seats like it was the match winner.

The last quarter was when it finally opened up and we booted 6 goals to 2. Each time a goal was scored it was like when a goal is scored in soccer and everyone goes crazy.

In the the end, what started out as a nighmare ended in a stressful, yet rewarding win. And after all, a win is a win.

Yeah wasn't that bad, I went to Collingwood v Carlton last week and it wasn't exactly a score fest in the first half, but the game was still alive at 3/4 time and no one was bored, so really it is only TV commentaors whineing that jazz's this sort of thing up, and they are as useful as a choclate teapot. Every week they are paid to do a job that isn't needed. The only people who need them are blind and deaf people.
If every game was basketball rebound footy every week would that be entertaining? Footy is like sex, you have top try a different position now and then to spice it up. Yep Hawks v Saints may have been a 2 minute missionary quickie, but it was still ultimately satisfying and got the job done.

 

[krustyman]

saints were short of a few running players, hawks should have fancied themselves from the first bounce. I expected saints to be steamrolled, not bored into submission.

 

[Seth]

That was a crap game, let's be honest. 4 goals from both sides up to half time, gee how exciting. a chip chip circle work affair with many turnovers and mistakes. Clarkson thinks they have arrived, arrived where? gone backwards to 2 years ago. And Lyon, I would have loved to have been there for his coaching interview when he put his defensive flooding chip chip gameplan forward as the saviour for the Saints. Crap, crap, crap!

 

[Bollox]

Worst game in 2007 ---------------------- Saints v Hawks
Second worst game in 2007--------------- Lions v Hawks
Worst game in 2006 ---------------------- Kangas v Hawks

Hmmm, interesting.

you arnt the first to notice this....but the worst game in 06 was tiges/crows closely followed by the kanga's/hawks debacle.

Hawthorn fans need to be very humble about this win...celebrate it certainly coz its 4 important points but if i were them i wouldnt go trying to blame the saints entirely. They were both as bad as each other.

The only runner the saints had left was Sam Fisher who i thought had a good game. Sewell was given another negative role on Dal Santo and i've got no idea why they seem to think he deserves an AA spot for basically doing what Baker/Rawlings do without recognition. Weagles fans would be screaming blue murder if it was Judd copping it.

The pregame loss of their quickest guys killed the saints...two livewires in Clarke and Gram were likely enough to tip Lyon over the brink and try anything to squeeze out 4pts...sent Riewoldt on a mission to provide a target to make up for an expected lack of pace around the ground...he was brilliant but he looked understandably stuffed by half time.

Its critical at the Saints...missing from selection were

Goddard, Gram, Baker, XClarke, RClarke, Hayes, Maguire, Hudghton, Gardiner, MClarke, Hammil, Thompson....thats TWELVE first 22 players...just ridiculous.

Add to that the unavailibility of...A McQualter, C Jones, J Allen, M Ferguson

A total of 16 Blokes missing from potential selection for this game...the problem for them is that they are hardest hit with the starting 22 types.

How many on a list ?....40 ?...u got to name 22 from 24 blokes ??...i reckon if anything Lyon figured he was totally stuffed and the coaches stuck their heads together to find some way of combatting a quick young list....it didnt work coz Hawthorn had the same gameplan.

Add it up and both are to blame for yet another example of absolute garbage....you would think tho that having such a pace advantage via injuries would have allowed Clarkson to play expansive footy...did he not realise the ridiculous advantage he had ?????

Neither team can hold its head up for this embarassing game.

 

[clobba]

I watched the first half and 10 or so minutes of the third and then decided after that much "Enthralling" play decided to turn it off as it was the ugliest most boring game I had ever seen & didnt care if we won or not. Today I find we didnt and I can live with that as I wouldnt have wanted that style of play to be rewarded with a win.

 

[tazhawk]

Worst game in 2007 ---------------------- Saints v Hawks
Second worst game in 2007--------------- Lions v Hawks
Worst game in 2006 ---------------------- Kangas v Hawks

Hmmm, interesting.

One of the best games of the season................. Hawks V Essendon.

Also the Hawks beating a full strength Melbourne team was enjoyable.

Hmmmm, interesting.

Ps.......... as boring and as crap the 2006 Hawks V Roos game was, it was bloody exiting compared to the Richmond V Adelaide 2006 game.

 

[BABYBOMBERS2007]

Worst game in 2007 ---------------------- Saints v Hawks
Second worst game in 2007--------------- Lions v Hawks
Worst game in 2006 ---------------------- Kangas v Hawks

Hmmm, interesting.

I dont know, Adelaide Richmond was pretty bad in 2006

 

[_RT_]

It is interesting Hawks fans defending the side getting a win like that yet they would be first in line, hurling abuse, if Wallace was to play that way this year to get the Tigers their first win. Yeah a win is a win but really what did they learn from last night, nothing other than they can play ugly football against a decimated team and get a win. The Hawks have looked great this year when they have played free flowing open attacking footy. Not this flooding crap they have produced on more than one occasion this year.

Is it any wonder then why they only got 36,000 to a game featuring two sides competing for a top 8 spot. Keep serving up that crap and the fans will stay away regardless of the wins. Play the open attacking footy you are capable of and attract the fans that way, you'll find they are more willing to part with their hard earned if they are going to get a game of footy they want to watch rather than a game of footy that no-one wants to watch.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

StKilda didnt want to win it and played into Hawthorns hands, who happily played possession football, especially when they were a few goals up in the lasy quarter. Stilda gave themselves no chance by flooding and not manning up. Having a few injuries is no excuse for not running and chasing. They should have gone down fighting, but they didnt, they went down zoning off.

 

[_RT_]

I dont know, Adelaide Richmond was pretty bad in 2006

Yes it was bad but it also only happened once, how many times have the Hawks been involved in boring flood fests, by the list above at least 3.

 

[Big Ted]

Yes it was bad but it also only happened once, how many times have the Hawks been involved in boring flood fests, by the list above at least 3.

But it was ALL the Saints fault...

 

[Fred]

you arnt the first to notice this....but the worst game in 06 was tiges/crows closely followed by the kanga's/hawks debacle.

Hawthorn fans need to be very humble about this win...celebrate it certainly coz its 4 important points but if i were them i wouldnt go trying to blame the saints entirely. They were both as bad as each other.

The only runner the saints had left was Sam Fisher who i thought had a good game. Sewell was given another negative role on Dal Santo and i've got no idea why they seem to think he deserves an AA spot for basically doing what Baker/Rawlings do without recognition. Weagles fans would be screaming blue murder if it was Judd copping it.

The pregame loss of their quickest guys killed the saints...two livewires in Clarke and Gram were likely enough to tip Lyon over the brink and try anything to squeeze out 4pts...sent Riewoldt on a mission to provide a target to make up for an expected lack of pace around the ground...he was brilliant but he looked understandably stuffed by half time.

Its critical at the Saints...missing from selection were

Goddard, Gram, Baker, XClarke, RClarke, Hayes, Maguire, Hudghton, Gardiner, MClarke, Hammil, Thompson....thats TWELVE first 22 players...just ridiculous.

Add to that the unavailibility of...A McQualter, C Jones, J Allen, M Ferguson

A total of 16 Blokes missing from potential selection for this game...the problem for them is that they are hardest hit with the starting 22 types.

How many on a list ?....40 ?...u got to name 22 from 24 blokes ??...i reckon if anything Lyon figured he was totally stuffed and the coaches stuck their heads together to find some way of combatting a quick young list....it didnt work coz Hawthorn had the same gameplan.

Add it up and both are to blame for yet another example of absolute garbage....you would think tho that having such a pace advantage via injuries would have allowed Clarkson to play expansive footy...did he not realise the ridiculous advantage he had ?????

Neither team can hold its head up for this embarassing game.

I'd rather they went out and played footy as it should be played. If they lost giving it their best shot then I wouldn't be critical.

More and more I'm coming to the conclusion better footy can be seen in the country leagues. It may not be as skillful but there's no backward passing, switching play to the other side of the ground sideways or passing across the goals or playing keepings-off.

 

[Bollox]

I watched the first half and 10 or so minutes of the third and then decided after that much "Enthralling" play decided to turn it off as it was the ugliest most boring game I had ever seen & didnt care if we won or not. Today I find we didnt and I can live with that as I wouldnt have wanted that style of play to be rewarded with a win.

I was actually looking forward to watching this game...i was dumb enough to stick it out but started flicking the channels early...if i'm gonna be stuck at home on a sat night i wanna watch FOOOTY not that crap.

I also wanted to make heads or tails of how my mob got done the week before...wanted to see if we are truly BAD at the moment and not even good enough to beat a second string Saints lineup....but they at least had Goddard, XClarke and Gram for last week against us....i'm starting to wonder if Sydney arnt a GENUINE bottom 8 club this season instead of just out of form.

I can forgive the Saints a little for wasting my time coz no club should have that sort of unavailability...16 blokes including 12 starting 22 types is beyond a joke....what i cannot figure out is why Hawthorn must have known the incredible advantage they had yet STILL came to play negative footy.

Cannot figure out the reasoning behind Clarkson...it was a definite gameplan he had...but all he had to do was play attacking footy and they should have won by 10+ goals....why would u play defensive against that kinda list ?

 

[_RT_]

But it was ALL the Saints fault...

So Hawks fans would have us believe.

Perhaps I was just imagining 3 Hawks playing in front of Gehrig or another couple hanging around Riewoldt.

 

[Coin_Toss]

StKilda didnt want to win it and played into Hawthorns hands, who happily played possession football, especially when they were a few goals up in the lasy quarter. Stilda gave themselves no chance by flooding and not manning up. Having a few injuries is no excuse for not running and chasing. They should have gone down fighting, but they didnt, they went down zoning off.

Agreed. St Kilda were woeful.

I didn't need to watch every minute because I knew the losers were playing into the winners hands.

 

[_RT_]

I was actually looking forward to watching this game...i was dumb enough to stick it out but started flicking the channels early...if i'm gonna be stuck at home on a sat night i wanna watch FOOOTY not that crap.

I also wanted to make heads or tails of how my mob got done the week before...wanted to see if we are truly BAD at the moment and not even good enough to beat a second string Saints lineup....but they at least had Goddard, XClarke and Gram for last week against us....i'm starting to wonder if Sydney arnt a GENUINE bottom 8 club this season instead of just out of form.

I can forgive the Saints a little for wasting my time coz no club should have that sort of unavailability...16 blokes including 12 starting 22 types is beyond a joke....what i cannot figure out is why Hawthorn must have known the incredible advantage they had yet STILL came to play negative footy.

Cannot figure out the reasoning behind Clarkson...it was a definite gameplan he had...but all he had to do was play attacking footy and they should have won by 10+ goals....why would u play defensive against that kinda list ?

I'll Ask the same question the Hawks fans asked in Bay 13: How do you know that they would have won by 10 goals?

For me the proof is in the fact they kicked 6 goals to 2 in the last quarter when they did finally attack in the last term. 4 goals better off when they did attack and if you are just 2 goals better in the first 3 terms then presto 10 goal win

 

[nintiwirri]

A great advertisement for the game
To all those blokes that rave on about Dal Santo,Ball,Riewaldt,Hodge and Franklin.
They were all pathetic last night.Talk about over rated footballers.Riewoldt had about 13 marks on the wing but no good there.

 

[Hawkk]

I'll Ask the same question the Hawks fans asked in Bay 13: How do you know that they would have won by 10 goals?

For me the proof is in the fact they kicked 6 goals to 2 in the last quarter when they did finally attack in the last term. 4 goals better off when they did attack and if you are just 2 goals better in the first 3 terms then presto 10 goal win

Every game is different.

Hawthorn believe that they are the fitest team in the competition, so for the St.Kilda game that decided to follow the Saints suit and flood with the intention of grinding them into the ground over the first 3 quarters and opening it up in the last.

When the Saints ran out of puff - in the last, the Saint flood subsided and the Hawks opened the game up and ran away with it. Obviously you have to approach a game differently from week to week - we obviously won't play like that against the Eagles this week, but to say that if we opened the game up in the 3rd we would have won by 10 goals is ignorant.

The only way to beat a flood is to run the opposition of their legs...

Both clubs had men back from the get go, so one club shouldn't be blamed over the other for the flood.

By round 16, the Saints should regain some of their key personal and hopefully a more attractive game awaits...

 

[jazz]

So Hawks fans would have us believe.

Perhaps I was just imagining 3 Hawks playing in front of Gehrig or another couple hanging around Riewoldt.

Man you are full of sh&t!

Reiwolt played most of the game around the wings. If there were 3 men around him they were 3 men in the midfield.

Once Saints put 2 extra back the Hawks had 2 spare. They didn't want to put them in our forward line, that would cramp the whole thing up as the Saints wanted.

Where should the Hawks have played them?

 

[_RT_]

Man you are full of sh&t!

Reiwolt played most of the game around the wings. If there were 3 men around him they were 3 men in the midfield.

Once Saints put 2 extra back the Hawks had 2 spare. They didn't want to put them in our forward line, that would cramp the whole thing up as the Saints wanted.

Where should the Hawks have played them?

Ask yourself a couple of very important questions and you might figure it out. Riewoldt played most of the game leading up to the wing for marks.

Why was that?

Could it have been that he had those spare Hawks sitting back around the CHF area where he wanted to play considering he is the Saints CHF?

Once Riewoldt was forced to play up the ground they sat back in front of Gehrig and blocked his space.

Oh and you forget the Hawks play Buddy's Box where they have 4 permanent forwards, where were the other 2 Hawks forwards? Wouldn't be the 2 that played down back in front of Riewoldt and Gehrig would they? Perhaps the 2 Saints players you say were put back were just the 2 that didn't have opponents due to the Hawks only playing 4 forwards.