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

[GuzzLG]

No but I ve got all the Hawk premiership DVDs

I don't count you as existing without dvd evidence of said birth.

 

[Hawk Dork]

but you count the 1924 flag without actually having played in a grand final for it

 

[dean31]

likewise

Thanks for the re-read, all of my above points on the greatest free kick in history still stand.

Jealous zone theory debunked, Hawk envy confirmed.
Hawks simply made the most of a zone that was judged as weak.
The Aints been the historical disgrace they are somehow managed to waste 1 of the best zones.

" The allocation was a matter of pot luck, literally. Club names were placed in the Premiership Cup and the 12 zones in its lid, and a draw conducted. St Kilda, Carlton, Footscray and North Melbourne seem to have fared best. The zones theoretically the ‘weakest’ have gone to Geelong, South Melbourne, Hawthorn and Richmond."


http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/ASSH Bulletins/No 26/ASSHBulletin26e.pdf

 

[dean31]

Lost to your Grand Final opponent on their home deck 2 weeks before that. Just like they lost to Sydney in Sydney in 2014.



You're not even trying now.

And what were the points differential for both teams home and away that you refer to Guzzlgoo?
Hawks well ahead.

 

[GuzzLG]

And what were the points differential for both teams home and away that you refer to Guzzlgoo?
Hawks well ahead.

That's nice. You didn't earn a home grand final. Even if you beat them by 100 pts in Melbourne and lost by 5 pts in Sydney the fact is that there was a free kick Hawthorn which says the game was played at the G which was the sole determining factor. The AFL decided the premier purely by fixturing. I'm not even sure why Hawthorn count it.

 

[dean31]

That's nice. You didn't earn a home grand final. Even if you beat them by 100 pts in Melbourne and lost by 5 pts in Sydney the fact is that there was a free kick Hawthorn which says the game was played at the G which was the sole determining factor. The AFL decided the premier purely by fixturing. I'm not even sure why Hawthorn count it.

Hawthorn finished about 1 goal in percentage behind $ydney in 2014. With Sydney notorious for getting soft fixtures, COLA and the academies. The Hawks were easily the moral minor premier of 2014 and clearly the best team of that season.

COLA >>>>>>> daylight >>>>>> 1 goal in percentage difference.

 

[GuzzLG]

Hawthorn finished about 1 goal in percentage behind $ydney in 2014. With Sydney notorious for getting soft fixtures, COLA and the academies. The Hawks were easily the moral minor premier of 2014 and clearly the best team of that season.

COLA >>>>>>> daylight >>>>>> 1 goal in percentage difference.

Enough with the excuses. The flag is illegitimate due to blatant fixturing bias.

 

[dean31]

Enough with the excuses. The flag is illegitimate due to blatant fixturing bias.

GuzzlGoo you called it a free kick to Hawthorn, yet don't acknowledge the COLA free kick for the $wans.
Hawks just owning Essendank* tonight, a lot like winning more Premierships in the 90 years of been in the Comp. Hawks better than Essendon for 90 years.
13>10

 

[dean31]

That's nice. You didn't earn a home grand final. Even if you beat them by 100 pts in Melbourne and lost by 5 pts in Sydney the fact is that there was a free kick Hawthorn which says the game was played at the G which was the sole determining factor. The AFL decided the premier purely by fixturing. I'm not even sure why Hawthorn count it.

GuzzleGoo gone into hiding after Essendrugs biggest loss of the season.
Confirmed wankr campaigner.

 

[mianfei]

Russell Greene and Aaron Hamill both confirmed that the culture at the Hawks and Carlton was one of people out to do their best and the Saints was of blokes who were happy to train hungover.

“what a nice bloke (Greene)...the thing that stood out was how he described the difference between us and Hawthorn at the time. worlds apart....one club if he had stayed at would have shortened his career considerably..the other a professional unit that not only prolonged his career but improved him as a footballer. Spoke of players turning up drunk or with hangovers to training and playing the next day......I sort of feel a bit cheated now going to the games during that era knowing this, putting up with so many losses, thinking it was the norm and thinking the others clubs had it over us simply by monetary means.

He explained how he was shocked to see Hawthorn players crying over close games, he had never seen such commitment before then.”

That’s not really surprising, actually, although it’s never the story one reads in the history books or hears from contemporary news reports or match reviews.

There certainly is a huge tradition of amateurism in sport within south-of-Yarra Melbourne, seen on so many levels from a long-lived amateur football competition to the hostility of local businessmen to patronising sport. What Greene says about St. Kilda hardly shocks me at all from listening to them not manning up any opponents fifteen years ago – not to mention the fact that never in over 120 seasons of football have St. Kilda been renowned for speed of foot across the football field – and is consistent with such a strong tradition of playing for fun in these affluent and/or low-cost eastern and southern suburbs. It’s unsurprising how Hawthorn and St. Kilda were so bad for so long up to the 1950s – all but two wooden spoons from 1941 to 1955 went to one of those two clubs, who had a culture of accepting losing and no useful patrons of any sort to gain players from outside their metropolitan zones.

The vast modern difference in on-field results between them can only reflect John Kennedy being much more successful than Allan Killigrew at eliminating this idealisation of amateurism from their respective club’s cultures, and that Hawthorn has been far more successful (think Jeff Kennett) at gaining powerful patrons than St. Kilda. It also reflects that, along with its tradition of amateurism, these conservative suburbs have an extremely strong tradition of collectivism and team-work that Hawthorn – and not St. Kilda – has used as the basis for building successful cultures.

 

[TazHawk15]

GuzzLG come out come out wherever you are.

 

[Pessimistic]

Jealous zone theory debunked, Hawk envy confirmed.
Hawks simply made the most of a zone that was judged as weak.
The Aints been the historical disgrace they are somehow managed to waste 1 of the best zones.

" The allocation was a matter of pot luck, literally. Club names were placed in the Premiership Cup and the 12 zones in its lid, and a draw conducted. St Kilda, Carlton, Footscray and North Melbourne seem to have fared best. The zones theoretically the ‘weakest’ have gone to Geelong, South Melbourne, Hawthorn and Richmond."


http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/ASSH Bulletins/No 26/ASSHBulletin26e.pdf

Thanks for that but th document explains why hawthorn werent successful prior to 1951 rather than succssful after 1968

Powerful clubs set restrictive rules but flouted them themselves

Also when you look at consessions to the seven clubs since 1987 they were fantastic compared to whet the three 1925 clubs were allowed

So in the history of the vfa vfl afl there has been so much corruption, the op has no real case to single out one club and one period

 

[dean31]

Thanks for that but th document explains why hawthorn werent successful prior to 1951 rather than succssful after 1968

Powerful clubs set restrictive rules but flouted them themselves

Also when you look at consessions to the seven clubs since 1987 they were fantastic compared to whet the three 1925 clubs were allowed

So in the history of the vfa vfl afl there has been so much corruption, the op has no real case to single out one club and one period

There is an explanation of the zoning from page 9 onwards, referring to the late 60's through to the late 80's.

 

[Hawk Dork]

Just wondering how zoning and nothing else helped our recent success ?

 

[Pessimistic]

Three different clubs hauling three premierships each with essentially the same team suggests even when the playing fild is seen as level, multiple premierships can happen

 

[mianfei]

Jealous zone theory debunked, Hawk envy confirmed.

Hawks simply made the most of a zone that was judged as weak.

The Saints being the historical disgrace they are somehow managed to waste one of the best zones.

"The allocation was a matter of pot luck, literally. Club names were placed in the Premiership Cup and the 12 zones in its lid, and a draw conducted. St Kilda, Carlton, Footscray and North Melbourne seem to have fared best. The zones theoretically the ‘weakest’ have gone to Geelong, South Melbourne, Hawthorn and Richmond."

http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/ASSH Bulletins/No 26/ASSHBulletin26e.pdf

Whilst the power of Hawthorn’s zone was unforeseen by observers who saw it as small and unproductive, it might be remembered that, except for Hawthorn’s zone and Richmond’s Sunraysia zone which was acknowledge as much superior to Collingwood’s Western District, the predictions of zones’ values were largely accurate:

1. South Melbourne, already doomed by the loss of their old support base to suburbanisation and repopulation by southern and eastern Europeans possessing no interest in Australian Rules, had no hope of surviving in Melbourne and the 1982 Yearbook said that “few except the most diehard supporters were going to miss them” (or something like that – I forget the exact quote).
2. Geelong, a strongly-supported powerhouse in the 1960s, entered the doldrums for over half a decade when country zoning came in and apart from their top-class defence of 1978 to 1981, were never any premiership threat
3. Carlton, with its long tradition of rich patronage permitting it to buy key interstate recruits, used the Bendigo League zone to entrench themselves at the top of the ladder all through country zoning. During country zoning’s lifespan, the Blues never finished with a percentage below 104, had an overall record of 306—140—5, and missed just three finals series, one of which was missed after a last round loss
4. North Melbourne, a chopping block throughout the 1960s (their record from 1960 to 1972 was 69—177—4) were able to use their powerful zone to build up a consistently powerful Under-19 side from 1972 (when their seniors won only one game and their reserves two, their Under-19s were 16—5—1) and extend that power to the senior grades later
5. Footscray, decimated by the same loss of support to southern and eastern Europeans devoid of interest in Australian Rules, and also affected by the loss of heavy industry from the western suburbs, were able to survive much better than South Melbourne due to their strong Latrobe Valley zone
6. Even re St. Kilda, an article from one 1979 issue of Inside Football did note that St. Kilda’s metropolitan zones had something like thirty percent fewer boys that Carlton’s.

This though:

1. is nothing like the discrepancy between Hawthorn’s and South Melbourne’s country zones
2. did not consider relative popular interest in Australian Rules
3. cannot explain why St. Kilda’s Under-19s from 1977 to 1982 won only twenty and drew three of 131 games (a success rate of 16.41%, five percent worse than Hawthorn from 1925 to 1953)
4. nor why St. Kilda’s Reserves between 1970 and 1981 only twice finished higher than eleventh of twelve (tenth in 1972; ninth in 1977). They never won more than seven matches in any season during this period and had an overall record of 63—197—2 or a success rate of 24.43%.

I imagine Russell Greene would have had a lot of experience with the losing culture obviously ingrained within these lower grades into St. Kilda during his period at the club – and that it would have affected even those players talented enough to graduate into the senior side in the absence of patrons to buy players from outside the club’s recruiting zones!

Thanks for that but the document explains why hawthorn weren’t successful prior to 1951 rather than successful after 1968

Powerful clubs set restrictive rules but flouted them themselves

Also when you look at consessions to the seven clubs since 1987 they were fantastic compared to whet the three 1925 clubs were allowed

So in the history of the vfa vfl afl there has been so much corruption, the op has no real case to single out one club and one period

It would hardly have to be much concessions to be fantastic compared to what the 1925 newcomers got – absolutely no aid whatsoever, nor major local patrons. Without patrons, the new clubs had not the tiniest hope of obtaining the best recruits from the country or interstate, and their local recruiting zones were not large. I have, though, long felt that if in 1897 Footscray had been admitted instead of St. Kilda the Tricolours would have obtained the requisite business patronage for long-term success, but they were never considered back then and it was too late to find patrons in 1925.

 

[Pessimistic]

South were bundled out for tv exposure reasons.

You look at some crowds, and wonder whether they could have ultimately survived and prospered in melbourne

 

[mianfei]

South were bundled out for TV exposure reasons.

You look at some crowds, and wonder whether they could have ultimately survived and prospered in Melbourne

Maybe the VFL tried to move into the traditional rugby league states for television exposure (rather badly, as even in the 1980s they might have known to play at night rather than on Sunday afternoons – the NSWRL played night games weekly as early as 1984), but South Melbourne – along with Fitzroy, Footscray, North and Hawthorn who of course all did benefit from country zoning – received the lowest or nearly lowest attendances in every season from 1981 back to 1960. Even in their best seasons, the Swans were not a big draw: in 1970 they were only seventh in attendance with a 14—8 record, and in 1977 with a 13—8—1 record they had poorer attendances than 7—14—1 Essendon and 5—17 Melbourne. So it’s impossible to see South surviving in Melbourne under the economic and demographic conditions of the 1970s and 1980s

Less poor attendances explains why St. Kilda was not singled out for relocation during the late 1970s and early to middle 1980s – if on-field performances across the grades were a guide, St. Kilda would have definitely been the first club relocated! However, in their 11—10—1 1978 season, the Saints were able to attract bigger crowds than the 1970 or 1977 Swans, and even in 1981 when they went 5—17 in a dreadfully wet season, the Saints attracted over five thousand more spectators per game than a 14—8 Fitzroy team with the highest-scoring attack in the league.

 

[mianfei]

I don't know, it wasn't due to massive country population growth that's for sure, did their metro zone include the northern growth areas? Keilor etc?

It did, and so did the metropolitan zones of Carlton and North Melbourne. That was why North Melbourne so dominated the Under-19 competition between 1975 and its dissolution in 1991, and may have been a factor in the fates of those three clubs since the end of metropolitan zoning in 1991: all three remained powers throughout most of the 1990s, yet since 2002 none have played in a grand final or looked like doing so.

The Saints changed their culture in the sixties, country zoning tore it apart.

The Saints, Dees, & South were absolutely smashed.

Much of the problem for the Saints and Demons was that the metropolitan zones of St. Kilda and Melbourne were declining areas in the middle southeastern suburbs, located around the railway junction at Caulfield and where families were leaving for cheaper housing. In one 1979 issue of Inside Football it said that St. Kilda's metropolitan zones had lost ten percent of their population since 1968, whilst those of Carlton were growing very rapidly.

 

[Pessimistic]

Yet despite all that, Hawhtorn were clearly the inferior team on the road against their GF opponents.

Using other club's failures to convert a home ground advantage still does not make a single one of those legitimate. It just confirms that the interstate sides that did win in Melbourne can be proud of what they achieve and not live with the shame of having a premiership handed to them undeservedly.

Thankfully I've never had to walk away from any of the 16 premiership seasons knowing that the system rather than my team's ability determined the eventual winner.

Essendons triumphs in finals outside victoria? You sound like the pure and impotent