Hugh Greenwood debacle

Remove this Banner Ad

SandyToes

Premium Platinum
Nov 17, 2009
8,877
11,941
Gold Coast
AFL Club
Gold Coast
Nice story. The only issue is that Hugh fully agreed to the process and was happy to do it apparently for the club he loved. According to Boswell, GCB he told the club he would reject any offers. He left for money and the prospect of a job post footy while braking a handshake deal. Dog act. But that's just me. Yes, stupidity on Suns part but to be honest, I am glad Hugh is gone. Pretty s** attitude in my book, definitely not a fabric player as some commentators try to portrait him.
Yeah
My post in the trade thread after the news broke re his delisting about him taking one for the Club based on his character and senior leadership role aged really badly really quickly
He's a fake- but a good one because he had all of us fooled
 

Deadly Dunkley

Club Legend
Dec 18, 2015
2,185
3,722
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Arizona Cardinals
Nice story. The only issue is that Hugh fully agreed to the process and was happy to do it apparently for the club he loved. According to Boswell, GCB he told the club he would reject any offers. He left for money and the prospect of a job post footy while braking a handshake deal. Dog act. But that's just me. Yes, stupidity on Suns part but to be honest, I am glad Hugh is gone. Pretty s** attitude in my book, definitely not a fabric player as some commentators try to portrait him.
The thing about all of this is, largely speaking….

Supporters love clubs
Players love playing AFL and getting paid

He got a job offer on better money, playing for a bloke he respects and with a longer contract. Unless your name is Bob Murphy most players are going to run with it. And even Bob is turning up in a Freo jumper nowadays …
 

natedogg_79

Draftee
Oct 22, 2021
4
10
AFL Club
Gold Coast
Our only hope is it becomes a non issue after the suns make a leap up the ladder in 2022 cause you just know there will be a 24hr news cycle of 'gee if only the suns had a big bodied midfielder like greenwood' a couple of months into the season if we don't.

The timing of Miller re-signing is a clear message from the leadership group for me that yeah they may not agree with the football management department at the Suns but they believe in the playing group. We still need one of the young guns to sign an extension before the season starts and another early into the season before I can justify the risk of this whole debacle. I think the power that player agents hold these days will be a huge story soon enough.

In other news, what Touk Miller tattoo should I get lads?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Jen2310

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 21, 2018
19,166
28,677
Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
The unspoken rule that only exists in the minds of some fans? Luckily losing Greenwood is only a "slight deviation" for the Suns.
I think its that gentleman's rule that dates back to old times, but like Derek Hine recently said, the draft and trading lastscape is changing and evolving, so some of this stuff is starting to get thrown out of the window. What you thought was sacred is starting to become not so much. Now the box has been opened, more clubs will exploit this as North has done.
 

SandyToes

Premium Platinum
Nov 17, 2009
8,877
11,941
Gold Coast
AFL Club
Gold Coast
The thing about all of this is, largely speaking….

Supporters love clubs
Players love playing AFL and getting paid

He got a job offer on better money, playing for a bloke he respects and with a longer contract. Unless your name is Bob Murphy most players are going to run with it. And even Bob is turning up in a Freo jumper nowadays …
Written like a true outsider
 

tenderwarrior

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 26, 2003
5,245
4,368
Launceston
AFL Club
Geelong
I think its that gentleman's rule that dates back to old times, but like Derek Hine recently said, the draft and trading lastscape is changing and evolving, so some of this stuff is starting to get thrown out of the window. What you thought was sacred is starting to become not so much. Now the box has been opened, more clubs will exploit this as North has done.
It is #fakenews. The 'Agreement' if one ever truly existed, has been gone since 2014 when Geelong picked up Cam Delaney in the rookie draft, one pick before North had planned to re-draft him.

True gentleman would never bid on another teams available father/sons, or try and poach an opposition player when their current club wants to keep them.

Now there is some talk that Hugh was happy with the arrangement and promised to knock back any attempts to poach him, but really who here really knows what transpired? The more likely scenario is that Greenwood was confused and hurt by the proposal but went along with it and did his best to support the club, and played the united front card to the media.

I thought what Greenwood has said to this point makes sense, that "24 hours is a long time in football". Some in this thread are acknowledging that he was offered a deal "too good to refuse" yet at the same time, they are pointing to his lack of a moral compass in accepting it!
 

Choppers

Club Legend
Dec 5, 2015
2,483
3,956
Banchang,Thailand
AFL Club
Gold Coast
I think its that gentleman's rule that dates back to old times, but like Derek Hine recently said, the draft and trading lastscape is changing and evolving, so some of this stuff is starting to get thrown out of the window. What you thought was sacred is starting to become not so much. Now the box has been opened, more clubs will exploit this as North has done.
I think you maybe right, Jen, and it's not a problem for mine....
For sure, it was a mess the way things were done, but Suns just got rid of 400K, and with that, Touk just signed for another 5yrs, maybe he got 150k of that, who knows, leaving 250k for King Lukosius and Rankine who are all OOC in 2022....
Greenwoods contract was also up at the end of 2022,altough he had a trigger apparently, and he would be 31yo in March 2023. But he got a better offer, and I would be utterly disappointed in him if he didn't put his family and their future first, when making the decision to go back on his word. Family first always.
I'm sad to see him go, but it's not the end of the world, and it now gives more time on the ground hopefully to young uns like Davies Hollands Flanders Rowell Anderson, even Fiorini Ainsworth and Bowes, to show their wares.
What I would like to see is our List size revert to the same as every other team. With the COVID stuff happening over the past 2 seasons, the bottom 5-6 have had no chance to develop. Not their fault, but it's just the way it is. Totally unlucky to be born at the wrong time. But with the lack of development, they're probably not going to make it (just my opinion) and I'm not sure what the min.wage is, but that's got to be hurting the Club, and it's money that could be better spent elsewhere.
Just sayin'
 

Jirik13

Premiership Player
Jan 22, 2018
4,433
5,607
AFL Club
Gold Coast
I'm not sure what the min.wage is, but that's got to be hurting the Club, and it's money that could be better spent elsewhere.
Rookie salaries are not part of TPP so don't really hurt the club. But I agree there is no point having extra rookies if we don't have resources to develop them properly while having played like 7 VFL games. Instead some mature players only for VFL would be handy. It looks like Lions will have several of them, Buzza one of them.
 
Last edited:

Choppers

Club Legend
Dec 5, 2015
2,483
3,956
Banchang,Thailand
AFL Club
Gold Coast
Rookie salaries are not part of TPP so don't really hurt the club. But I agree there is not point having extra rookies if we don't have resources to develop them properly while having played like 7 VFL games. Instead some mature players only for VFL would be handy. It looks like Lions will have several of them, Buzza one of them.
Thanks....didn't realise that.
 

The Kings Ransom

Team Captain
Aug 30, 2021
391
490
AFL Club
Gold Coast
It's weird that posters on big footy think that AFL players are loyal to clubs like they used to be when they played Under 10's.
Imagine if your employer came and told you that despite being one of the best performed members of the organisation, they were standing you down and probably would put you back on later when things improve (I'm referring to the Suns and Greenwood).

The employee would be rightfully hurt, and insecure, but would put a brave face on it. Not like he has any power in the relationship. (Greenwood again).

Then a rival company recognises his value and agrees to provide him with regular employment and a slight pay rise. (North this time).

The employee takes the other job. (Greenwood).

What a mercenary, disloyal prick the employee is. Apparently.
As Hugh himself tweeted - wouldn’t change a thing with him playing at the Suns in the same capacity next year. This little ‘real life’ version you’ve made up is certainly wide of the mark.

the slight payrise is also a laugh.
We don’t know what the triggers for a 2nd year at the Suns and a 3rd year at north are - but the way it’s been written about, the Suns mark was less likely and the north parameters will be easily met.

Ignoring the cool ‘heist’ the Roos pulled off, are you happy with payin 1.25 mil over 3 for a 30 year old coming off a knee injury who is great inside but already struggled to run. I wonder if north had access to his medical records given the last minute approach.
 

natedogg_79

Draftee
Oct 22, 2021
4
10
AFL Club
Gold Coast
The league really needs transparency on player contracts. It's frankly ridiculous that we don't know enough financial details on this debacle. Is there any other salary capped league for any sport in the entire world that has this must secrecy on financials ?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

GC2015

Club Legend
May 27, 2013
2,881
3,505
AFL Club
Gold Coast
I'm not going to comment on what transpired over the last few days because I think everything that needed to be said has already been posted on our board.

Moving forward, I'm more interested everyone's opinion on whether losing Greenwood is actually a big loss or it just feels like a big loss because of the circumstances. I think we can all agree that the best patch of our 2021 season took place over a four-week period against the reigning premiers Richmond and 2021 finalists GWS, Bulldogs and Brisbane. Putting the second half against Brisbane to the side for a moment, Greenwood only participated in about five minutes of these 14 consecutive quarters of footy in which we played some really great footy and found ways to win against highly fancied opponents. Very important to point out that we also played all four of those matches without a recognised ruckman.

Greenwood's biggest strength was obviously his tackling but did his presence on the field actually do more harm than good in the tackling department? Let's look at the team tackle count before and during the aforementioned month of footy:

R11 v Hawthorn: 62-65 tackles (7 Miller/Swallow, 6 Greenwood, 5 Flanders)
R13 v Fremantle: 61-66 tackles (10 Greenwood, 7 Holman, 6 Miller)
R14 v Port Adelaide: 66-70 tackles (14 Greenwood, 9 Miller, 4 Flanders/Smith)
R15 v North Melbourne: 65-54 tackles (11 Greenwood, 7 Rowell, 6 Lemmens)

R16 v Richmond - 66-48 tackles (7 Miller/Swallow, 6 Day/Holman/Lemmens)
R17 v GWS - 92-84 tackles (14 Miller, 12 Holman, 9 Fiorini/Rowell/Swallow)
R18 v Bulldogs - 59-42 tackles (7 Miller, 6 Fiorini, 5 Anderson/Flanders)
R19 v Brisbane - 55-50 tackles (9 Miller, 6 Rowell, 4 Anderson/Brodie/Fiorini)

Those eight midseason matches included three wins for us and a couple of close losses by less than two goals. However, the quality of opponent was certainly more difficult in the second quartet and, without Greenwood playing, we actually performed better in tackling department. Why is this so? It's very obvious that Touk stepped up his tackling in Greenwood's absence but we also had a much more even spread amongst other players whereas Greenwood was the clear tackle winner in three of the previous four games. In fact, the round 11 match against Hawthorn where Greenwood didn't win the tackle count happened to be the only one of the first four that we won. Can it negatively impact a team when you have an over reliance on one player for a key area like tackling? I would say the evidence above suggests it can. I think you'd rather have a more even spread amongst multiple players for many of reasons. I think it should also be noted that we won the tackle count 65-61 in the round 21 Carlton win as well.

From a pure pursuit of wins perspective, did Greenwood tackling help or hinder us? If the answer is the latter then the next question that should be asked is what did the team actually get (or perhaps sacrifice) by playing Greenwood? I would probably suggest there was less urgency from the other 21 players to tackle because they knew Greenwood would rack them up over the course of the four quarters anyway. What about contested possessions some may say? I'm afraid that stat paints a similar picture with the contested possession count in the first four games looking like this - R11 v Hawthorn 140-120 (12 Swallow, 10 Miller, 9 Ellis), R13 v Fremantle 114-129 (13 Miller, 10 Greenwood, 9 Swallow), R14 v Port Adelaide 140-158 (15 Miller, 13 Rowell/Smith, 10 Anderson/Greenwood/Rankine), R15 v North Melbourne 126-145 (14 Greenwood, 11 Anderson, 10 Miller). Note the winning contested possession count in our win against Hawthorn without Greenwood in the top 3. Then the following four matches looked like this - R16 v Richmond 146-130 (15 Miller, 11 Fiorini, 9 Burgess/Sharp), R17 v GWS 157-185 (17 Ellis, 16 Miller, 12 Burgess), R18 v Bulldogs 137-144 (17 Miller, 13 Fiorini, 12 Swallow), R19 v Brisbane 116-148 (14 Fiorini, 12 Miller, 9 Swallow). Also, the contested possession count in the round 21 Carlton game was 130-120 (13 Fiorini, 12 Miller, 11 Powell) in our favour.

Although we lost most of those contested possession counts above, the number of contested possessions we accumulated was definitely a lot higher against Richmond, GWS and the Bulldogs. You could definitely argue those were our three most difficult opponents of that stretch and our midfield played really well without Greenwood. I guess what I'm trying to get at here is, are we actually a better performing team without Greenwood doing most of the tackling and racking up big contested possession numbers? If the answer is yes then what does playing a 30-year-old Greenwood who has just come off a PCL injury really do for the team? Unlike his Adelaide days, he was never really a scoreboard threat for us with only 9 goals to his name in 32 games vs the 36 goals he kicked in 51 games for the Crows.

If there's anything I'm missing in terms of Greenwood's playing impact on a game then go ahead and point it out but the stats above do lead me to believe his loss isn't as big as some may have thought.
 

TheSunGod

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 17, 2010
11,326
14,180
AFL Club
Gold Coast
I'm not going to comment on what transpired over the last few days because I think everything that needed to be said has already been posted on our board.

Moving forward, I'm more interested everyone's opinion on whether losing Greenwood is actually a big loss or it just feels like a big loss because of the circumstances. I think we can all agree that the best patch of our 2021 season took place over a four-week period against the reigning premiers Richmond and 2021 finalists GWS, Bulldogs and Brisbane. Putting the second half against Brisbane to the side for a moment, Greenwood only participated in about five minutes of these 14 consecutive quarters of footy in which we played some really great footy and found ways to win against highly fancied opponents. Very important to point out that we also played all four of those matches without a recognised ruckman.

Greenwood's biggest strength was obviously his tackling but did his presence on the field actually do more harm than good in the tackling department? Let's look at the team tackle count before and during the aforementioned month of footy:

R11 v Hawthorn: 62-65 tackles (7 Miller/Swallow, 6 Greenwood, 5 Flanders)
R13 v Fremantle: 61-66 tackles (10 Greenwood, 7 Holman, 6 Miller)
R14 v Port Adelaide: 66-70 tackles (14 Greenwood, 9 Miller, 4 Flanders/Smith)
R15 v North Melbourne: 65-54 tackles (11 Greenwood, 7 Rowell, 6 Lemmens)

R16 v Richmond - 66-48 tackles (7 Miller/Swallow, 6 Day/Holman/Lemmens)
R17 v GWS - 92-84 tackles (14 Miller, 12 Holman, 9 Fiorini/Rowell/Swallow)
R18 v Bulldogs - 59-42 tackles (7 Miller, 6 Fiorini, 5 Anderson/Flanders)
R19 v Brisbane - 55-50 tackles (9 Miller, 6 Rowell, 4 Anderson/Brodie/Fiorini)

Those eight midseason matches included three wins for us and a couple of close losses by less than two goals. However, the quality of opponent was certainly more difficult in the second quartet and, without Greenwood playing, we actually performed better in tackling department. Why is this so? It's very obvious that Touk stepped up his tackling in Greenwood's absence but we also had a much more even spread amongst other players whereas Greenwood was the clear tackle winner in three of the previous four games. In fact, the round 11 match against Hawthorn where Greenwood didn't win the tackle count happened to be the only one of the first four that we won. Can it negatively impact a team when you have an over reliance on one player for a key area like tackling? I would say the evidence above suggests it can. I think you'd rather have a more even spread amongst multiple players for many of reasons. I think it should also be noted that we won the tackle count 65-61 in the round 21 Carlton win as well.

From a pure pursuit of wins perspective, did Greenwood tackling help or hinder us? If the answer is the latter then the next question that should be asked is what did the team actually get (or perhaps sacrifice) by playing Greenwood? I would probably suggest there was less urgency from the other 21 players to tackle because they knew Greenwood would rack them up over the course of the four quarters anyway. What about contested possessions some may say? I'm afraid that stat paints a similar picture with the contested possession count in the first four games looking like this - R11 v Hawthorn 140-120 (12 Swallow, 10 Miller, 9 Ellis), R13 v Fremantle 114-129 (13 Miller, 10 Greenwood, 9 Swallow), R14 v Port Adelaide 140-158 (15 Miller, 13 Rowell/Smith, 10 Anderson/Greenwood/Rankine), R15 v North Melbourne 126-145 (14 Greenwood, 11 Anderson, 10 Miller). Note the winning contested possession count in our win against Hawthorn without Greenwood in the top 3. Then the following four matches looked like this - R16 v Richmond 146-130 (15 Miller, 11 Fiorini, 9 Burgess/Sharp), R17 v GWS 157-185 (17 Ellis, 16 Miller, 12 Burgess), R18 v Bulldogs 137-144 (17 Miller, 13 Fiorini, 12 Swallow), R19 v Brisbane 116-148 (14 Fiorini, 12 Miller, 9 Swallow). Also, the contested possession count in the round 21 Carlton game was 130-120 (13 Fiorini, 12 Miller, 11 Powell) in our favour.

Although we lost most of those contested possession counts above, the number of contested possessions we accumulated was definitely a lot higher against Richmond, GWS and the Bulldogs. You could definitely argue those were our three most difficult opponents of that stretch and our midfield played really well without Greenwood. I guess what I'm trying to get at here is, are we actually a better performing team without Greenwood doing most of the tackling and racking up big contested possession numbers? If the answer is yes then what does playing a 30-year-old Greenwood who has just come off a PCL injury really do for the team? Unlike his Adelaide days, he was never really a scoreboard threat for us with only 9 goals to his name in 32 games vs the 36 goals he kicked in 51 games for the Crows.

If there's anything I'm missing in terms of Greenwood's playing impact on a game then go ahead and point it out but the stats above do lead me to believe his loss isn't as big as some may have thought.
The loss of Hugh is going to hurt us in 2022 unless some of our other players step up big time. Experience and leadership are intangibles but we lack both so he’s a big loss there. He also provides a big hard body to add some buffer and protection for our younger mids. Will Rowell, Anderson and Flanders bodies’ be able to hold up an entire season without help? I’m not sure Bowes even has the physicality to last a whole season in the middle? He has the size but he’s not a crash and bash player like Greenflog.
Beyond 2022 I don’t think it will be so much of an issue but next year, yes he is a big loss.
 

The Kings Ransom

Team Captain
Aug 30, 2021
391
490
AFL Club
Gold Coast
I'm not going to comment on what transpired over the last few days because I think everything that needed to be said has already been posted on our board.

Moving forward, I'm more interested everyone's opinion on whether losing Greenwood is actually a big loss or it just feels like a big loss because of the circumstances. I think we can all agree that the best patch of our 2021 season took place over a four-week period against the reigning premiers Richmond and 2021 finalists GWS, Bulldogs and Brisbane. Putting the second half against Brisbane to the side for a moment, Greenwood only participated in about five minutes of these 14 consecutive quarters of footy in which we played some really great footy and found ways to win against highly fancied opponents. Very important to point out that we also played all four of those matches without a recognised ruckman.

Greenwood's biggest strength was obviously his tackling but did his presence on the field actually do more harm than good in the tackling department? Let's look at the team tackle count before and during the aforementioned month of footy:

R11 v Hawthorn: 62-65 tackles (7 Miller/Swallow, 6 Greenwood, 5 Flanders)
R13 v Fremantle: 61-66 tackles (10 Greenwood, 7 Holman, 6 Miller)
R14 v Port Adelaide: 66-70 tackles (14 Greenwood, 9 Miller, 4 Flanders/Smith)
R15 v North Melbourne: 65-54 tackles (11 Greenwood, 7 Rowell, 6 Lemmens)

R16 v Richmond - 66-48 tackles (7 Miller/Swallow, 6 Day/Holman/Lemmens)
R17 v GWS - 92-84 tackles (14 Miller, 12 Holman, 9 Fiorini/Rowell/Swallow)
R18 v Bulldogs - 59-42 tackles (7 Miller, 6 Fiorini, 5 Anderson/Flanders)
R19 v Brisbane - 55-50 tackles (9 Miller, 6 Rowell, 4 Anderson/Brodie/Fiorini)

Those eight midseason matches included three wins for us and a couple of close losses by less than two goals. However, the quality of opponent was certainly more difficult in the second quartet and, without Greenwood playing, we actually performed better in tackling department. Why is this so? It's very obvious that Touk stepped up his tackling in Greenwood's absence but we also had a much more even spread amongst other players whereas Greenwood was the clear tackle winner in three of the previous four games. In fact, the round 11 match against Hawthorn where Greenwood didn't win the tackle count happened to be the only one of the first four that we won. Can it negatively impact a team when you have an over reliance on one player for a key area like tackling? I would say the evidence above suggests it can. I think you'd rather have a more even spread amongst multiple players for many of reasons. I think it should also be noted that we won the tackle count 65-61 in the round 21 Carlton win as well.

From a pure pursuit of wins perspective, did Greenwood tackling help or hinder us? If the answer is the latter then the next question that should be asked is what did the team actually get (or perhaps sacrifice) by playing Greenwood? I would probably suggest there was less urgency from the other 21 players to tackle because they knew Greenwood would rack them up over the course of the four quarters anyway. What about contested possessions some may say? I'm afraid that stat paints a similar picture with the contested possession count in the first four games looking like this - R11 v Hawthorn 140-120 (12 Swallow, 10 Miller, 9 Ellis), R13 v Fremantle 114-129 (13 Miller, 10 Greenwood, 9 Swallow), R14 v Port Adelaide 140-158 (15 Miller, 13 Rowell/Smith, 10 Anderson/Greenwood/Rankine), R15 v North Melbourne 126-145 (14 Greenwood, 11 Anderson, 10 Miller). Note the winning contested possession count in our win against Hawthorn without Greenwood in the top 3. Then the following four matches looked like this - R16 v Richmond 146-130 (15 Miller, 11 Fiorini, 9 Burgess/Sharp), R17 v GWS 157-185 (17 Ellis, 16 Miller, 12 Burgess), R18 v Bulldogs 137-144 (17 Miller, 13 Fiorini, 12 Swallow), R19 v Brisbane 116-148 (14 Fiorini, 12 Miller, 9 Swallow). Also, the contested possession count in the round 21 Carlton game was 130-120 (13 Fiorini, 12 Miller, 11 Powell) in our favour.

Although we lost most of those contested possession counts above, the number of contested possessions we accumulated was definitely a lot higher against Richmond, GWS and the Bulldogs. You could definitely argue those were our three most difficult opponents of that stretch and our midfield played really well without Greenwood. I guess what I'm trying to get at here is, are we actually a better performing team without Greenwood doing most of the tackling and racking up big contested possession numbers? If the answer is yes then what does playing a 30-year-old Greenwood who has just come off a PCL injury really do for the team? Unlike his Adelaide days, he was never really a scoreboard threat for us with only 9 goals to his name in 32 games vs the 36 goals he kicked in 51 games for the Crows.

If there's anything I'm missing in terms of Greenwood's playing impact on a game then go ahead and point it out but the stats above do lead me to believe his loss isn't as big as some may have thought.
I don't think this is publicly available, but I'd like to know how many 'first possessions' lead to a clear second possession.
Picking the ball up off the ground and hack kicking it 20m forward is one thing.
Picking the ball up off the ground - a 5m power burst away from a contest with a handball to a teammate in a bit of space is a different thing.


Also, Greenwood ranked high in tackles inside 50 - another key stat. Be interesting to see breakdown for those games.
 

Blue train 28

Debutant
Sep 13, 2021
65
168
AFL Club
Carlton
With losing Hugh Greenwood will you’s select midfielder Ben Hobbs with your first selection as a replacement ?
 

Hodges 153!

Club Legend
Sep 2, 2005
1,901
1,509
Adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
I don't think this is publicly available, but I'd like to know how many 'first possessions' lead to a clear second possession.
Picking the ball up off the ground and hack kicking it 20m forward is one thing.
Picking the ball up off the ground - a 5m power burst away from a contest with a handball to a teammate in a bit of space is a different thing.
aka DE%, no?

Hugh's 58% in 2020 put him 494th in the league.

64% in 2021 was 511th.
 

Sun Stormer

Mature Age Recruit
Jul 27, 2018
574
540
Gold Coast
AFL Club
Gold Coast
I'm not going to comment on what transpired over the last few days because I think everything that needed to be said has already been posted on our board.

Moving forward, I'm more interested everyone's opinion on whether losing Greenwood is actually a big loss or it just feels like a big loss because of the circumstances. I think we can all agree that the best patch of our 2021 season took place over a four-week period against the reigning premiers Richmond and 2021 finalists GWS, Bulldogs and Brisbane. Putting the second half against Brisbane to the side for a moment, Greenwood only participated in about five minutes of these 14 consecutive quarters of footy in which we played some really great footy and found ways to win against highly fancied opponents. Very important to point out that we also played all four of those matches without a recognised ruckman.

Greenwood's biggest strength was obviously his tackling but did his presence on the field actually do more harm than good in the tackling department? Let's look at the team tackle count before and during the aforementioned month of footy:

R11 v Hawthorn: 62-65 tackles (7 Miller/Swallow, 6 Greenwood, 5 Flanders)
R13 v Fremantle: 61-66 tackles (10 Greenwood, 7 Holman, 6 Miller)
R14 v Port Adelaide: 66-70 tackles (14 Greenwood, 9 Miller, 4 Flanders/Smith)
R15 v North Melbourne: 65-54 tackles (11 Greenwood, 7 Rowell, 6 Lemmens)

R16 v Richmond - 66-48 tackles (7 Miller/Swallow, 6 Day/Holman/Lemmens)
R17 v GWS - 92-84 tackles (14 Miller, 12 Holman, 9 Fiorini/Rowell/Swallow)
R18 v Bulldogs - 59-42 tackles (7 Miller, 6 Fiorini, 5 Anderson/Flanders)
R19 v Brisbane - 55-50 tackles (9 Miller, 6 Rowell, 4 Anderson/Brodie/Fiorini)

Those eight midseason matches included three wins for us and a couple of close losses by less than two goals. However, the quality of opponent was certainly more difficult in the second quartet and, without Greenwood playing, we actually performed better in tackling department. Why is this so? It's very obvious that Touk stepped up his tackling in Greenwood's absence but we also had a much more even spread amongst other players whereas Greenwood was the clear tackle winner in three of the previous four games. In fact, the round 11 match against Hawthorn where Greenwood didn't win the tackle count happened to be the only one of the first four that we won. Can it negatively impact a team when you have an over reliance on one player for a key area like tackling? I would say the evidence above suggests it can. I think you'd rather have a more even spread amongst multiple players for many of reasons. I think it should also be noted that we won the tackle count 65-61 in the round 21 Carlton win as well.

From a pure pursuit of wins perspective, did Greenwood tackling help or hinder us? If the answer is the latter then the next question that should be asked is what did the team actually get (or perhaps sacrifice) by playing Greenwood? I would probably suggest there was less urgency from the other 21 players to tackle because they knew Greenwood would rack them up over the course of the four quarters anyway. What about contested possessions some may say? I'm afraid that stat paints a similar picture with the contested possession count in the first four games looking like this - R11 v Hawthorn 140-120 (12 Swallow, 10 Miller, 9 Ellis), R13 v Fremantle 114-129 (13 Miller, 10 Greenwood, 9 Swallow), R14 v Port Adelaide 140-158 (15 Miller, 13 Rowell/Smith, 10 Anderson/Greenwood/Rankine), R15 v North Melbourne 126-145 (14 Greenwood, 11 Anderson, 10 Miller). Note the winning contested possession count in our win against Hawthorn without Greenwood in the top 3. Then the following four matches looked like this - R16 v Richmond 146-130 (15 Miller, 11 Fiorini, 9 Burgess/Sharp), R17 v GWS 157-185 (17 Ellis, 16 Miller, 12 Burgess), R18 v Bulldogs 137-144 (17 Miller, 13 Fiorini, 12 Swallow), R19 v Brisbane 116-148 (14 Fiorini, 12 Miller, 9 Swallow). Also, the contested possession count in the round 21 Carlton game was 130-120 (13 Fiorini, 12 Miller, 11 Powell) in our favour.

Although we lost most of those contested possession counts above, the number of contested possessions we accumulated was definitely a lot higher against Richmond, GWS and the Bulldogs. You could definitely argue those were our three most difficult opponents of that stretch and our midfield played really well without Greenwood. I guess what I'm trying to get at here is, are we actually a better performing team without Greenwood doing most of the tackling and racking up big contested possession numbers? If the answer is yes then what does playing a 30-year-old Greenwood who has just come off a PCL injury really do for the team? Unlike his Adelaide days, he was never really a scoreboard threat for us with only 9 goals to his name in 32 games vs the 36 goals he kicked in 51 games for the Crows.

If there's anything I'm missing in terms of Greenwood's playing impact on a game then go ahead and point it out but the stats above do lead me to believe his loss isn't as big as some may have thought.
Well written and detailed. I saw every home game in 2021 and watched the others on TV. Greenwood was a very good tackler but live at the ground, you couldn't help but see the wild kick to (hopefully) advantage as well as on many occasions, just as wild a handball. He was slow then and he'll probably be slower now - at least for the first part of the season. No doubt he'll be missed for that tackling pressure but he was never a big possession gatherer. I'll be happy to Anderson to move further inside (he's a gun in the making), add in a hopefully much fitter and body confident Rowell - and then Miller, Swallow, Bowes, Fiorini and a plethora of others to help out. Hollands is yet to be featured, Davies to grow into the role and we still don't know whether Callaghan or Hobbs might be here in 2022. Insanely stupid strategy by Suns and a dog act by Greenwood BUT there is still hope on the horizon with what we have.
 

Sun Stormer

Mature Age Recruit
Jul 27, 2018
574
540
Gold Coast
AFL Club
Gold Coast
The loss of Hugh is going to hurt us in 2022 unless some of our other players step up big time. Experience and leadership are intangibles but we lack both so he’s a big loss there. He also provides a big hard body to add some buffer and protection for our younger mids. Will Rowell, Anderson and Flanders bodies’ be able to hold up an entire season without help? I’m not sure Bowes even has the physicality to last a whole season in the middle? He has the size but he’s not a crash and bash player like Greenflog.
Beyond 2022 I don’t think it will be so much of an issue but next year, yes he is a big loss.
Greenwood's body didn't even hold up for the whole year so we need to develop options and luckily at the moment, we have some depth in the middle - just not a lot of experience.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad