Hawthorn's Premeirship tally - A result of zoning and nothing else

[mess]

Sure, what if everyone just went for the side with the most flags? Wouldn't that make things......boring.

Agreed. It takes all sorts. Which is why our initial years of failure are still central to the culture of Hawthorn.

Point is, those who barrack for unsuccessful clubs and shit on the achievements of successful clubs out of sour grapes are just as shit as those who barrack for successful clubs just because they're successful.

 

[Falchoon]

Point is, those who barrack for unsuccessful clubs and shit on the achievements of successful clubs out of sour grapes are just as shit as those who barrack for successful clubs just because they're successful.

where's the sour grapes? we'd still be last.

I don't buy the argument of you barrack for club x you can't comment on club y because club x is worse, it's primary school politics at best.

 

[Ant_]

I don't buy the argument of you barrack for club x you can't comment on club y because club x is worse, it's primary school politics at best.

Agreed, however that's the fallback argument for most Big Footy users it seems.

 

[Chewy]

Falchoon,

You mentioned Keysborough and the Mordialloc shire. It's important to remember, the zones were not fixed for 20-30 years. Hawthorn was initially given a fair slice, but their zone was progressively made smaller and smaller. We didn't have the rights to the Edithvale, Aspendale, Chelsea area for very long. Less than five years. Long enough to recruit Lethal Leigh and Kel Moore and then it was given to St Kilda

Similar with Frankston. We had all of it, then the AFL gave most of it to St Kilda. We plucked Dermie from our last remaining, tiny pocket of Frankston, just before the Saints were given the whole region. So all of these population numbers you've quoted are actually quite meaningless... unless you're able adjust it for the zone boundary changes which the VFL made each year.

One thing we do know, from the early to mid 70's, St Kilda had a recruiting zone which extended from their Moorabbin surrounds all the way down to Frankston. By the eighties, they had all of Frankston and most of the Mornington Peninsula. I think it's strange for you to whinge about the advantage Hawthorn were handed, when it was St Kilda who were then handed the same territory that Hawthorn once had, only there was more people living there when the Saints had this zone in the late 70's and 80's.

Tell me something... Why did St Kilda not dominate the competition after the massive free kick they were given? They were handed all of Melbourne's southern suburbs and the Mornington Peninsula (and Ballarat!) You'd reckon the Saints would've "done a Hawthorn", created a dynasty and won a few premierships... Bear in mind, St Kilda was given other free kicks AT THIS SAME TIME when the VFL commission handicapped clubs like Hawthorn and Carlton and brought in the salary cap and draft.

The AFL knee-capped the Hawks - they continuously eroded our country zone, eventually giving St Kilda the lot. They brought in the salary cap, which meant we couldn't spend our cash on gun interstate recruits. They brought in the draft, which meant we could no longer recruit players from our local zone. They got rid of the reserves and under 19's, which meant we could no longer develop our players in our time-honoured fashion

(Frank Rover: Michael Tuck actually played 99 reserves games before his first senior game)

The VFL/AFL did all of this because they were sick of seeing the same successful clubs (Haw, Carl, Ess, Coll, Rich, NM) dominate the competition and wanted to give the loser clubs like St Kilda a leg-up. They quite rightly believed that an even competition would result in healthier attendances

So how did the Saints fare from this generosity? As the rich & successful clubs got weaker, St Killda gradually rose up the ladder, made the finals in 1991-92, then sank back down to the bottom for the next four years, briefly rose under Stan Alves for another 2 years of finals action in 1997-98, before collapsing once again and finishing on the bottom for the next five years. If we draw a line after the 1991 premiership, Hawthorn still made the finals six times in the next 10 years.

I realise you're being a bit thick and don't wish to read about St Kilda twaddle, but the comparison is perfectly apt, not because of who you follow dickwad, but because St Kilda were given Hawthorn's zone and were the polar opposite to Hawthorn when it came to club culture. I know you prefer to discuss demographics than football, but allow me to reiterate about our clubs' gun recruits from the country zone: By the mid 80's, Hawthorn had Tuck, Ayres, Mew, Brereton in their team and won premierships in '86, '88, '89 and '91. By the 90's, St Kilda had Harvey, Lockett, Loewe, Burke and Frawley from their zones and won bugger-all besides their night premiership

No use complaining, sunshine. St Kilda was given even greater "advantages" than Hawthorn, but all they've got to show for it is the 1996 Ansett Cup

Cheers

 

[Chewy]

Agreed, however that's the fallback argument for most Big Footy users it seems.

Don't fall for Falchoon's underhanded tricks. I agree this practise is widely used on Big Footy, always has been, always will be. It's why people get so shitty about "unlisted". However, in this instance it is entirely relevant. The topic is how the VFL's country zoning enabled Hawthorn to win most of their premierships

(A result of zoning and nothing else!!)

1. Some of us Hawks fans have contended it was one of many reasons for our success.
2. St Kilda were given most our zones, recruited a number of good players, but were unable to replicate Hawthorn's success

What could be more relevant to this discussion?

In my opinion, it is game, set, match... Thank you linesman... Thank you ball boys...

I've also given the example of Essendon, who won the 1984-85 premierships thanks to, in no small part, their country zone recruits. Falchoon wishes to labour his Hawthorn argument and blindly ignore these parallel examples

 

[Ant_]

I agree this practise is widely used on Big Footy, always has been, always will be. It's why people get so shitty about "unlisted".

It's still pathetic. The reason people go at "Unlisted" is not because of the amount of premierships, it's because they're weak cowards.

 

[dymmot]

They pioneered steroid abuse in the late 70's and won half a dozen flags with it.

You're access has been denied all right !

 

[Falchoon]

Falchoon,

You mentioned Keysborough and the Mordialloc shire. It's important to remember, the zones were not fixed for 20-30 years. Hawthorn was initially given a fair slice, but their zone was progressively made smaller and smaller. We didn't have the rights to the Edithvale, Aspendale, Chelsea area for very long. Less than five years. Long enough to recruit Lethal Leigh and Kel Moore and then it was given to St Kilda

I bought my first house on the site of the old Aspendale Tech back in about 1993

Similar with Frankston. We had all of it, then the AFL gave most of it to St Kilda. We plucked Dermie from our last remaining, tiny pocket of Frankston, just before the Saints were given the whole region. So all of these population numbers you've quoted are actually quite meaningless... unless you're able adjust it for the zone boundary changes which the VFL made each year.

similarly with Frankston, as the population aged and the demographic changed schools like Monterey tech closed. The Saints were 20 years too late, Langwarrin and the areas past Dandenong were the new boom suburbs.

One thing we do know, from the early to mid 70's, St Kilda had a recruiting zone which extended from their Moorabbin surrounds all the way down to Frankston. By the eighties, they had all of Frankston and most of the Mornington Peninsula..
I think it's strange for you to whinge about the advantage Hawthorn were handed, when it was St Kilda who were then handed the same territory that Hawthorn once had, only there was more people living there when the Saints had this zone in the late 70's and 80's..

Less 16 year olds

Tell me something... Why did St Kilda not dominate the competition after the massive free kick they were given? They were handed all of Melbourne's southern suburbs and the Mornington Peninsula (and Ballarat!) You'd reckon the Saints would've "done a Hawthorn", created a dynasty and won a few premierships... Bear in mind, St Kilda was given other free kicks AT THIS SAME TIME when the VFL commission handicapped clubs like Hawthorn and Carlton and brought in the salary cap and draft.

Even if the talent were the same I'm happy to admit Hawthorn added 25% extra to a 90% team, we added 25% to a 10% team, could have been handy circa 1971, Matthews on his own would have been handy in 1971.

The AFL knee-capped the Hawks - they continuously eroded our country zone, eventually giving St Kilda the lot.

They must have realised an error

Did we get on the coat tails of City of Casey's rise? i missed that in our history, I lived with a mate in Narre Warren before my first house purchase, my hadn't that sprouted.

They brought in the salary cap, which meant we couldn't spend our cash on gun interstate recruits. They brought in the draft, which meant we could no longer recruit players from our local zone. They got rid of the reserves and under 19's, which meant we could no longer develop our players in our time-honoured fashion

all this stop the Hawthorn zone induced dominance, are you arguing for me or you?

(Frank Rover: Michael Tuck actually played 99 reserves games before his first senior game)

what depth

The VFL/AFL did all of this because they were sick of seeing the same successful clubs (Haw, Carl, Ess, Coll, Rich, NM) dominate the competition and wanted to give the loser clubs like St Kilda a leg-up. They quite rightly believed that an even competition would result in healthier attendances

loser clubs like Melbourne

So how did the Saints fare from this generosity? As the rich & successful clubs got weaker, St Killda gradually rose up the ladder, made the finals in 1991-92, then sank back down to the bottom for the next four years, briefly rose under Stan Alves for another 2 years of finals action in 1997-98, before collapsing once again and finishing on the bottom for the next five years. If we draw a line after the 1991 premiership, Hawthorn still made the finals six times in the next 10 years.

twaddle, the Saints added 4 players to a shit team

I realise you're being a bit thick and don't wish to read about St Kilda twaddle,

I wish to read about Richmond or Collingwood twaddle, contemporaries of the 70's, not loser clubs like St Kilda who may not have won anyway. Your success cost us nothing.

but the comparison is perfectly apt, not because of who you follow dickwad, but because St Kilda were given Hawthorn's zone and were the polar opposite to Hawthorn when it came to club culture. I know you prefer to discuss demographics than football,

I'm happy to swing both ways, Hawthorn's culture like the Bombres might have snagged 3 or 4 premierships regardless.

but allow me to reiterate about our clubs' gun recruits from the country zone: By the mid 80's, Hawthorn had Tuck, Ayres, Mew, Brereton in their team and won premierships in '86, '88, '89 and '91. By the 90's, St Kilda had Harvey, Lockett, Loewe, Burke and Frawley from their zones and won bugger-all besides their night premiership

who's complaining? we weren't good enough, probably still aren't, that's just you muddying the fact and irrelevant to the point.

 

[mess]

where's the sour grapes? we'd still be last.

It's the whole basis for this argument. It's the only reason you could possibly have to have kept this shit up.

I don't buy the argument of you barrack for club x you can't comment on club y because club x is worse, it's primary school politics at best.

Nor do I. I do buy the argument that if you lose an argument you shouldn't keep going with the argument because you feel like winning the argument. It's flogstyle politics at it's finest.

 

[Chewy]

I crap on that your zone gave you extra depth other clubs did not have, at both the top level and the bottom level, you certainly had 3 times the choice of youngsters as some of your competitors. The Tuck/Dipper scenario hardly disproves that.

This is nothing but pure, unadulterated horse shit. I reckon you forget what VFL footy was like back then (or you don't even know!) and you place today's football culture on the way things were. You confuse the two.

Hawthorn did not have greater depth than other teams. Remember, we're talking about an era when 100 blokes would rock up to the first summer training session. This would soon be whittled down to 50-60. All clubs had pretty good depth back in the days of Seniors, Reserves and Under 19's.

What set the clubs apart was their ability to buy gun recruits from interstate and buy gun players from their financially weaker rivals. If Hawthorn was a pauper club in the 70's and had to sell their star players, they would've been in the bottom half of the ladder alongside Footscray, Fitzroy, South Melbourne and Melbourne.

The ONLY reason we're having this argument is because the following players became multiple premiership players and household names (in some cases)

Leigh Matthews
Peter Knights
Michael Tuck
Kelvin Moore
Gary Ayres
Chris Mew
Dermott Brereton

I challenge you to list all these other youngsters who sprang from Gippsland and the Mornington Peninsula and helped Hawthorn to create their 70's and 80's dynasties

Go on... According to you, there should be dozens... hundreds...

Geoff Ablett and Kevin Ablett (who played just 2 seasons for Hawthorn)
Greg Dear and Paul Dear

Aaaah... Richard Loveridge and Russell Shields...


Ummmm... Aaaaahh...

Hmmm.


How is this any different to 11 other VFL clubs?

 

[Frankston Rover]

This is nothing but pure, unadulterated horse shit. I reckon you forget what VFL footy was like back then (or you don't even know!) and you place today's football culture on the way things were. You confuse the two.

Hawthorn did not have greater depth than other teams. Remember, we're talking about an era when 100 blokes would rock up to the first summer training session. This would soon be whittled down to 50-60. All clubs had pretty good depth back in the days of Seniors, Reserves and Under 19's.

What set the clubs apart was their ability to buy gun recruits from interstate and buy gun players from their financially weaker rivals. If Hawthorn was a pauper club in the 70's and had to sell their star players, they would've been in the bottom half of the ladder alongside Footscray, Fitzroy, South Melbourne and Melbourne.

The ONLY reason we're having this argument is because the following players became multiple premiership players and household names (in some cases)

Leigh Matthews
Peter Knights
Michael Tuck
Kelvin Moore
Gary Ayres
Chris Mew
Dermott Brereton

I challenge you to list all these other youngsters who sprang from Gippsland and the Mornington Peninsula and helped Hawthorn to create their 70's and 80's dynasties

Go on... According to you, there should be dozens... hundreds...

Geoff Ablett and Kevin Ablett (who played just 2 seasons for Hawthorn)
Greg Dear and Paul Dear

Aaaah... Richard Loveridge and Russell Shields...


Ummmm... Aaaaahh...

Hmmm.


How is this any different to 11 other VFL clubs?

Chewy, I've said exactly what you've said there 5 times already in this thread.

Believe me, it won't get thru.

 

[Falchoon]

(A result of zoning and nothing else!!)

I don't agree with that, as i said give ogilvy a hole head start and he's a multiple major winner, give me a hole head start and I don't make the cut.

1. Some of us Hawks fans have contended it was one of many reasons for our success.

1. 
   
   agreed, some of us think it more major than others.
   
   

   [*]St Kilda were given most our zones, recruited a number of good players, but were unable to replicate Hawthorn's success

What could be more relevant to this discussion?

That would be the same zone a generation later, this crap does your argument no service

In my opinion, it is game, set, match... Thank you linesman... Thank you ball boys...

lol

self assessment has a tendency to be biased

 

[Falchoon]

The ONLY reason we're having this argument is because the following players became multiple premiership players and household names (in some cases)

Leigh Matthews
Peter Knights
Michael Tuck
Kelvin Moore
Gary Ayres
Chris Mew
Dermott Brereton

I like how you can casually leave out one of the top 25 goalkickers of all time.

As I said previously I'm not doing a thesis, just throwing in my 5c worth.

Without looking, what's to say you didn't parlay the early success of the zone into a successful interstate recruiting strategy, that actually neglected the zone and proved your eventual downfall

Given the amount of quality youngsters still coming out of the SWGFL and MPNFL how many players did you miss whilst concentrating on the interstaters.

My argument all along is a metropolitan growth zone shouldn't have been a country zone, any agreeance?

 

[Frankston Rover]

Given the amount of quality youngsters still coming out of the SWGFL and MPNFL how many players did you miss whilst concentrating on the interstaters.

How many flags have the Dandenong Stingrays won again?

Zero.

Try again, pal.

 

[dymmot]

How many flags have the Dandenong Stingrays won again?

Zero.

Try again, pal.

How Many VFL Flags have the Box Hill Hawks won?

ONE

How many VFL Flags have the Geelong Cats won?

TWO.

This is despite only being in the competition for a whisker that the Box Hill Hawks have.

Try again Pal

 

[mess]

How Many VFL Flags have the Box Hill Hawks won?

ONE

How many VFL Flags have the Geelong Cats won?

TWO.

This is despite only being in the competition for a whisker that the Box Hill Hawks have.

Try again Pal

I don't think you understand what point you are trying to rebut.

 

[Rioli magic]

How Many VFL Flags have the Box Hill Hawks won?

ONE

How many VFL Flags have the Geelong Cats won?

TWO.

This is despite only being in the competition for a whisker that the Box Hill Hawks have.

Try again Pal

You don't want to play that game.

 

[Falchoon]

How many flags have the Dandenong Stingrays won again?

Zero.

Try again, pal.

ah the old half truth,

again

The division of teams is interesting, 1/2 of hawthorns old country zone gets 1/12th of the teams. For cross reference the Ballarat rebels draw on 100% of St Kildas & Essendons old country zones. The Bushrangers I believe take in 3 teams of old.

That tells a story

Since the formation of the TAC cup, Hawthorn's old zone has provided 3 of the 10 Victorian no.1 draft picks, if Mark Murphy went F/S it would be 4/10. Goddards old man lived in Warragul so you'd probably swing 5/10.

best leave it to Chewy, I might not agree with all of what he says but at least he's trying

 

[Frankston Rover]

ah the old half truth,

again

The division of teams is interesting, 1/2 of hawthorns old country zone gets 1/12th of the teams. For cross reference the Ballarat rebels draw on 100% of St Kildas & Essendons old country zones. The Bushrangers I believe take in 3 teams of old.

That tells a story

Since the formation of the TAC cup, Hawthorn's old zone has provided 3 of the 10 Victorian no.1 draft picks, if Mark Murphy went F/S it would be 4/10. Goddards old man lived in Warragul so you'd probably swing 5/10.

best leave it to Chewy, I might not agree with all of what he says but at least he's trying

And of those No 1 draft picks we have:

Travis Johnstone
Tom Scully
Jeff White

Wow. Scully might be decent but the other two were hardly world beaters.


Stingrays players drafted:
2009 Tom Scully (1), Ryan Bastinac (21), Dylan Roberton (49), Rohan Kerr (59)

2008 Tom Gillies (33), Ash Smith (36), Shane Savage (75), Steven Gaertner.

2007 Jarrad Grant (5), John McCarthy (31), Scott Simpson (44), Jarrad Boumann (48)

2006 Andrejs Everitt (11), Greg Bentley, Daniel Nicholls

2005 Nathan Jones (12), Ryan Cook (23), Travis Tuck (38)

2004 Jarred Moore (31), Damien McCormack (38), Jayden Attard (50), Luke Forsyth (64), Anthony Raso (77), Zane Leonard

2003 Shane Tuck, Aaron Edwards

2002 Steven Salopek (6), Paul Johnson (24), Matthew Boyd

2000 Laurence Angwin (7), Ryan Lonie (34), Michael Handby (38), Adam McPhee (39), Chris Newman (55), Nathan Lonie (58), Stephen Milne

1999 David Hille (40), Daniel Wulf

1998 Adam Ramanauskas (12), Brendan Fevola (38), Toby Thurstans (39), Craig Jacotine (41), Steven Rode (66)

1997 Travis Johnstone (1), Trent Croad (3), Kris Massie (7), Andrew Williams (34), Craig Black (55), Darren Hulme

1996 Paul Corrigan, Tom Gilligan, Mark Winterton, Chris Holcombe

1995 Chad Morrison, Ashley Gehling, Brent Williams, Daniel Marshall, Ryan Aitken

1994 Jeff White (1), Matthew Joy, Chad Liddell, Michael Agnello, Austinn Jones

1993 Christian O’Brien, Michael Prentice, Shayne Smith, Clint Shaw

1992 Darren King, Danny Winkel, Kane Batzloff, Justin Leppitsch


Again, hardly compelling. Kinda proves a lot of my points about this 'Zoning Bogeyman'.

I also take the go-away call as a compliment. You've run out of places to hide.

 

[Falchoon]

And of those No 1 draft picks we have:

Travis Johnstone
Tom Scully
Jeff White

Wow. Scully might be decent but the other two were hardly world beaters.

I thought the fabelled Hawthorn v Melbourne culture thing would have them each as multiple brownlow medallists, fact is they are the most talented 17 year olds in the land and you had access to more of them to do with them as you pleased.

Again, hardly compelling. Kinda proves a lot of my points about this 'Zoning Bogeyman'.

I wonder how it compares to say Ballarat?

I also take the go-away call as a compliment. You've run out of places to hide.

you've twisted most things, why stop now

places to hide? we're merely playing circle work now, any decent point was flushed out 10 pages ago.

I noticed again you missed the major point of the post and went into battle against point no.2, no St kilda references at hand?

My argument all along is a metropolitan growth zone shouldn't have been a country zone, still yet to see someone refute it.

 

[dymmot]

I don't think you understand what point you are trying to rebut.

You don't want to play that game.

WAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

The Dawks flogs are trying to avoid being laughed at for their failures in the VFL.

Don't even bother trying to do it with AFL premierships as you Hawthorn Flogs turned it on to the VFL/VFA debate.

 

[mess]

WAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

The Dawks flogs are trying to avoid being laughed at for their failures in the VFL.

Oh man, that's incredible...

 

[Frankston Rover]

My argument all along is a metropolitan growth zone shouldn't have been a country zone, still yet to see someone refute it.

Probably not but then Essendon had the northern area above Melbourne and, while successful, they don't get close to our records from 71-91.

It still doesn't explain why St.Kilda were so bad, given they got much of this 'metro country zone' after it became populated.

 

[mianfei]

Geelong's biggest problem in the 70's and 80's was they could never afford to top up their list with any interstate recruits. This is why they remained anchored to the middle or lower half of the ladder. They were paupers. Back in the 60's, Geelong were perennial finalists, thanks to gun interstate recruits like Polly Farmer and Denis Marshall.

That is hardly correct, as I see it. What about Brian Peake, one of the highest-profile of all interstate recruits in that period?

As I have seen it, Geelong were like Essendon in that they sought to compensate for the loss of players from country zoning by recruiting from interstate. It was probably true that country zoning, which gave Geelong - apart from, you are right, an abundant supply of players from local leagues - very little, did affect their ability to pay for top interstate recruits, but it could not be said to have eliminated it. It was a matter of degree rather than fundamental change.

 

[bontshow]

The AFL knee-capped the Hawks

They brought in the draft, which meant we could no longer recruit players from our local zone.

/thread