Murphy..

[Easy Slips Catch]

"An opinion is the lowest form of knowledge"

That attitude must encourage some stimulating discussion.

If you do not want to read opinions why log on? Come on. You are here. It is contrary opinions that are the problem.

 

[Hawkzzz]

That attitude must encourage some stimulating discussion.

If you do not want to read opinions why log on? Come on. You are here. It is contrary opinions that are the problem.

It's a joke Friar. Just to lighten things up.

 

[Collins-Langford-Ayres]

"An opinion is the lowest form of knowledge"

Hawkzzz,

I don't know you and am not big on people taking pot-shots at each other on this forum, so will refrain from an attempted witty retort.

However, surely the purpose of this forum is for people to share their opinions and increase the knowledge our supporters have, by discussing, forming and changing our opinions on issues such as player capabilities, gameplans and recruitment needs.

The more we opine the more we all become part of the Hawks Genii !!



Fondest reagrds,

C-L-A

 

[Collins-Langford-Ayres]

[YOUTUBE][/YOUTUBE]

It's a joke Friar. Just to lighten things up.

Can we still become Genii though?

 

[HR Roughnstuf]

I was just watching the video that Molly posted of Murphys game against the Swans. Can the Murphy lovers please explain to me what I am missing

- 1st Play - clanger kick that falls directly for a swan (under little pressure when kicking)
- 2nd Play - misses the target with a handpass, falls to another swans player
- 3rd Play - takes a soft bump in a marking contest and goes to ground (only player to go to ground out of about 4-5 players around contest)
- 4th Play - appears to get a fist on a ball, doesnt kill it but falls towards goal and gibson cleans up
- 5th Play - drops a mark and goes to ground, was under pressure
- 6th Play - chases the ball takes possession, goes to ground, is under pressure but he just puts the ball on the ground and hits it away, should of been holding the ball, lucky it wasnt.
- 7th Play - good play here, wins the ball and bangs it long
- 8th Play - the 'hospital' play to Lewis. enough said

Sorry I am out of time now but can I just get a bit of perspective of what the LOVERS are seeing that I'm not because this was about the entire first half and really not much to hang your hat on here.

 

[Cynic]

I was just watching the video that Molly posted of Murphys game against the Swans. Can the Murphy lovers please explain to me what I am missing

- 1st Play - clanger kick that falls directly for a swan (under little pressure when kicking)
- 2nd Play - misses the target with a handpass, falls to another swans player
- 3rd Play - takes a soft bump in a marking contest and goes to ground (only player to go to ground out of about 4-5 players around contest)
- 4th Play - appears to get a fist on a ball, doesnt kill it but falls towards goal and gibson cleans up
- 5th Play - drops a mark and goes to ground, was under pressure
- 6th Play - chases the ball takes possession, goes to ground, is under pressure but he just puts the ball on the ground and hits it away, should of been holding the ball, lucky it wasnt.
- 7th Play - good play here, wins the ball and bangs it long
- 8th Play - the 'hospital' play to Lewis. enough said

Sorry I am out of time now but can I just get a bit of perspective of what the LOVERS are seeing that I'm not because this was about the entire first half and really not much to hang your hat on here.

1st play - Smothered kick, Sydney player on both sides
2nd play - Yep, bad handball
3rd play - Pushed in the back, Gibson and Spangher both go to ground as well
4th play - Spoils the ball towards the boundary line and you're still not happy
5th play - Oh you've got to be joking, not sure anyone other than Hale on our team would mark that
6th play - Sees the ball safely to the boundary line and you're still not happy

Stop looking at it with a glass half full. This is why the calls of 'hater' start coming out as there is so much negativity with Murphy. He does most things right, he plays within his limitations, plays within the team rules, is respected by his peers, normally beats his opponent and yet some of our supporters feel the need to scape goat him.

 

[HR Roughnstuf]

1st play - Smothered kick, Sydney player on both sides
2nd play - Yep, bad handball
3rd play - Pushed in the back, Gibson and Spangher both go to ground as well
4th play - Spoils the ball towards the boundary line and you're still not happy
5th play - Oh you've got to be joking, not sure anyone other than Hale on our team would mark that
6th play - Sees the ball safely to the boundary line and you're still not happy

Stop looking at it with a glass half full. This is why the calls of 'hater' start coming out as there is so much negativity with Murphy. He does most things right, he plays within his limitations, plays within the team rules, is respected by his peers, normally beats his opponent and yet some of our supporters feel the need to scape goat him.

I think you need to read my post again, I never said anything about being happy or not, that must have been your thoughts when watching the vision. I just called it the way I saw it.

You are correct about 1st play being smothered, and Spangher does go to ground but his recovery is a bit better, and Gibson only goes to ground after an effective spoil.

In my opinion Murphy is in our best 22 and will definately play the rest of the finals series. The only player on the list that could take his spot would be Cheney and he hasnt done enough. I do feel that Murphy will need to improve to keep his spot next season.

However I dont know how anyone could possibly defend that half of football as decent though, or even AFL standard. If they were Murphy's only involvements in the first half then it does highlight that the game was won in the midfield and not by any direct match-up of Murphy vs Rohan/Spangher. I would also argue that Murphy's effective vs. his opponent was more a result of Gibson's world record number of spoils coming third man up.

As an overall comment on the backline I think that it is unsustainable to continually play a 7th defender in the backline. I know that injuries have severely effected our ability to play the way we wont to, but we have to continually rob peter to pay paul in the backline because the coaches (rightly so) dont back our players to beat their direct opponents one on one.

 

[Cynic]

I think you need to read my post again, I never said anything about being happy or not, that must have been your thoughts when watching the vision. I just called it the way I saw it.

You are correct about 1st play being smothered, and Spangher does go to ground but his recovery is a bit better, and Gibson only goes to ground after an effective spoil.

In my opinion Murphy is in our best 22 and will definately play the rest of the finals series. The only player on the list that could take his spot would be Cheney and he hasnt done enough. I do feel that Murphy will need to improve to keep his spot next season.

However I dont know how anyone could possibly defend that half of football as decent though, or even AFL standard. If they were Murphy's only involvements in the first half then it does highlight that the game was won in the midfield and not by any direct match-up of Murphy vs Rohan/Spangher. I would also argue that Murphy's effective vs. his opponent was more a result of Gibson's world record number of spoils coming third man up.

As an overall comment on the backline I think that it is unsustainable to continually play a 7th defender in the backline. I know that injuries have severely effected our ability to play the way we wont to, but we have to continually rob peter to pay paul in the backline because the coaches (rightly so) dont back our players to beat their direct opponents one on one.

Apologies, misinterpreted your post

I still believe Murphy played a good game, would have to re-watch the game again to be sure but that was my first impression.

I agree that Gibson played a large role in Murphy beating Rohan, all though that said Rohan isn't the sort of player you'd worry about in the air. He is very fast however and it is a good sign that Murphy played him well that he never got the opportunity to utilise that speed.

That said I also agree with your other comments, Murphy is in our best 22 for the rest of this season but baring improvement will be in the 22-30 depth range next year.

As for your last comment, completely disagree, there is too much value in having a spare man in your defence for it to stop being a tool.

 

[mollyfud]

I think you need to read my post again, I never said anything about being happy or not, that must have been your thoughts when watching the vision. I just called it the way I saw it.

You are correct about 1st play being smothered, and Spangher does go to ground but his recovery is a bit better, and Gibson only goes to ground after an effective spoil.

In my opinion Murphy is in our best 22 and will definately play the rest of the finals series. The only player on the list that could take his spot would be Cheney and he hasnt done enough. I do feel that Murphy will need to improve to keep his spot next season.

However I dont know how anyone could possibly defend that half of football as decent though, or even AFL standard. If they were Murphy's only involvements in the first half then it does highlight that the game was won in the midfield and not by any direct match-up of Murphy vs Rohan/Spangher. I would also argue that Murphy's effective vs. his opponent was more a result of Gibson's world record number of spoils coming third man up.

As an overall comment on the backline I think that it is unsustainable to continually play a 7th defender in the backline. I know that injuries have severely effected our ability to play the way we wont to, but we have to continually rob peter to pay paul in the backline because the coaches (rightly so) dont back our players to beat their direct opponents one on one.

I can't agree that Murph beating Rohan was because of Gibson. I could accept that it was partly because of Shoenmakers and the thought that he was vunerable! If you watch the whole thing (and unfortunately the quailty of the video I put up wasn't the same as I watched due to it being like 1gb or something, to much to upload for this little black duck) there are two things you would note (or should):
1) Swans hardly went to his player. WHy? If he is the weak link that lots say, would the other team try to go to his man all the time?
2) Even when the ball was in his mans area, they got very little of it!

So you say that playing a 7th man in defense isn't practical and perhaps you are right but if you are (or even if your not) having a guy that blankets his own opponent so that Gibson doesn't have to help on every occasion is something you need!

Also just want to touch on the "hospital pass". Did he set Lewis up? Yep he did (much like Rioli setup Birchal that no one mentioned). It was a bit loopy but not like Lewis had to sit under it and wait. I have seen a lot worse hospital balls then that (Mitch to Lewis v dogs last year for one). But yes, a ball you would like to see a bit flatter (although if a Swan got a hand on it because it was flatter, he would be criticised for it).

On some of the incidents you raise (which are missing some in the play order making it look like an issue with everything he did):
3rd: Was backing back to help (which apparently he never does by the way) and did hit the deck when got to the pack that meant couldnt get to the end falling spot of the ball. While you might like him not to hit the deck, was going back with eyes on the ball and was straight up to help out if the ball got behind the contest.
4th: Goes back to help out (which did I mention apparently he never does) and got it out of harms way. Ideally would have loved to put it straight to a team mate but killed the contest to an at worst 50/50
5th: Comes in from the side to help team mates (which aparrently he never does). Yes was off balance and we got holding the ball. (no mention of Stratton going to ground as you brought it up in play 3rd point???)
6th: Could of been holding the ball. Wasn't! By the way, forgot to mention that he went to ground to try to evade a tackle as many players do.
6.5: Was Birchall giving away a free that lead to a goal But just ignore that, right?
8th: see above
9th: Going back with the flight of the ball to help out (yadda, yadda, yadda)
10th: Chases down a fist by Gibson (that if it was Murhpy fisting you would of said went straight into the danergous McGlynn's path) and nullifies him with a tackle.
11Th: Kicks out to WhiteX advantage, WX wins free. Could have been a little deeper on the kick
12th: Rioli pops it up with a Hospital pass to Birchall. (am I allowed to say that or is that "shooting Bambi"???)

JMTC

 

[HR Roughnstuf]

I wasnt ignoring any of the plays on purpose, I only skipped plays where I dont think he a) touched the footy or b) effected the play at all, and sorry i was doing it in my lunch break.

If you dont think that Gibson helped out Murphy then you really have the rose coloured glasses on. Gibson had 21 effective spoils IIRC, that means 21 forward 50 entries were killed by the IRON FIST! Not sure how many forward 50's sydney has but that is a fair chunk that Gibson killed off.

I am not saying that 7 defenders is all bad, in fact for the cattle we have (or cattle that are currently injured) that is the way we need to play it. And every team tries to create a free player in defence to rebound, Scarlett, Fletcher etc. But I just feel that we dont have enough (or even any) defenders that are capable of beating a good opponent 1 on 1. Gibson (and Stratton fully fit) is the only player I feel that can, and that is only when he is matched up on a fair opponent.

You say that Murphy beat his opponent convincingly, and the stats back this up, but looking at the video you posted I never saw Murphy in a 1 on 1 vs. and sydney forward.

My point is that the hawthorn backline plays as a defensive unit, it is too short, small in size and inexperienced to try to beat opponents in 1 on 1 duels, so it relies on players helping each other, bringing the ball to ground and then running the ball out through precision passing. I think that Gibson had a great game against Sydney, most people would have him as BoG. But the reason why I think he had a great game was because of the support he gave his team mates and run out of defense not because he beat opponent X. However you are using stats against forwards that were well covered by the TEAM as if Murphy played a lone shut down role.

 

[The Kipster]

The only player on the list that could take his spot would be Cheney and he hasnt done enough. .

I dunno about that, I believe he has shown enough to suggest his ability across the board is better...I don't think Murph will be dropped though for team balance...

 

[mollyfud]

I wasnt ignoring any of the plays on purpose, I only skipped plays where I dont think he a) touched the footy or b) effected the play at all, and sorry i was doing it in my lunch break.

If you dont think that Gibson helped out Murphy then you really have the rose coloured glasses on. Gibson had 21 effective spoils IIRC, that means 21 forward 50 entries were killed by the IRON FIST! Not sure how many forward 50's sydney has but that is a fair chunk that Gibson killed off.

I am not saying that 7 defenders is all bad, in fact for the cattle we have (or cattle that are currently injured) that is the way we need to play it. And every team tries to create a free player in defence to rebound, Scarlett, Fletcher etc. But I just feel that we dont have enough (or even any) defenders that are capable of beating a good opponent 1 on 1. Gibson (and Stratton fully fit) is the only player I feel that can, and that is only when he is matched up on a fair opponent.

You say that Murphy beat his opponent convincingly, and the stats back this up, but looking at the video you posted I never saw Murphy in a 1 on 1 vs. and sydney forward.

My point is that the hawthorn backline plays as a defensive unit, it is too short, small in size and inexperienced to try to beat opponents in 1 on 1 duels, so it relies on players helping each other, bringing the ball to ground and then running the ball out through precision passing. I think that Gibson had a great game against Sydney, most people would have him as BoG. But the reason why I think he had a great game was because of the support he gave his team mates and run out of defense not because he beat opponent X. However you are using stats against forwards that were well covered by the TEAM as if Murphy played a lone shut down role.

I spent about 3hrs putting that video (of 10mins) together. That is basically all the time that Murphy was on screen, definitely everytime the ball was in his area. You could tell me how many times Gibbo helped out on Murph's opponent. From the plays you pointed out, I don't remember one that he helped on Murph's opponent! I agree that there were very few 1-on-1's with Murphy and his man and I ask you, why was that? Part of it is that the whole defense helped each other (as is seen by the number of times in the plays you point out that Murph is the/one of the guys helping out) but the other thing is, why did the Swans never go to his man?

I would suggest there are 3 or 4 reasons for this:
1) Murphy did a good job of not letting his man free
2) There were always options the opponents thinks is better then Murphy's man whether because of that guy or because they thought the defender matchup was worst (to be honest, this is the one I think is most likely as the thought was Shoey was an easy target after the Cats game)
3) Just the run of how things happened.
4) Took me a while to do this post and I forget other options.

And absolutely Gibbo was BOG! I think the fact everyone thinks Murph is the biggest dud in the team means anyone defending him can only do so if he is BOG! I am not. I am saying he did his job and did it very well!

Also, I find it very interesting that you talk about the defense being small when he is taller (not KPP tall but medium to tall) type player that plays best on smalls but is a backup on the medium to talls! If he can do a good to very good job on these smalls, surely that is another plus in his pocket as he can help out on the taller players. The guy everyone tells me should be in for him is 3cm smaller which (unless my maths is wrong) would make the the defense smaller! I was under the impression one of the strengths of our defense was seeing as we have Gibbo, Stratts and Murph all around the same size, the guys can switch and cover for each other!

So no, I am not dirty that Murph didn't make the AA side (as some are almost suggesting) just dirty that people are still questioning his place in the side!

Yes, would love to have someone good enough to push him out of the side. Not because he is bad but because to push him out is going to take a bloody good player! I hope that there is a player to push Ozzie, Schoey, bateman, etc out as well, as they would be Bloody good players as well! At present, I personally don't see the player pushing Murph out yet. If Gilham comes back, he is more likely to compete with Schoey not Murph IMHO.

 

[mollyfud]

I dunno about that, I believe he has shown enough to suggest his ability across the board is better...I don't think Murph will be dropped though for team balance...

haha. If you were worried about team balance, you would drop Ryan why before you drop Murph, but absolutely you have too! By mentioning team balance you whole admit that Cheaney and Murph play totally different roles!

 

[The Kipster]

haha. If you were worried about team balance, you would drop Ryan why before you drop Murph, but absolutely you have too! By mentioning team balance you whole admit that Cheaney and Murph play totally different roles!

No I wouldn't....why would I drop a KKP as opposed to a medium sized player for this game?

"Cheney" (get his name right) can play the exact same role physically and I believe with superior skills, the difference being 'the balance' I was referring to was the on-field experience inclusive of leadership Murph has over him.

**** me, talk about getting on your high-horse...what are you going to do when he is over-taken into the future?

 

[mrcurly]

No I wouldn't....why would I drop a KKP as opposed to a medium sized player for this game?

"Cheney" (get his name right) can play the exact same role physically and I believe with superior skills, the difference being 'the balance' I was referring to was the on-field experience inclusive of leadership Murph has over him.

**** me, talk about getting on your high-horse...what are you going to do when he is over-taken into the future?

You are dead right about Cheney, plenty of upside in him, and already looks settled in defense. He is good at the close checking work, takes a solid mark for his size, knows when to spoil and is good in traffic - also has a bit of attacking capability.

Always makes a good impression when Clarko gives him a game, has settled at Hawthorn very quickly. Far too good to waste at BHH, will be pushing for a regular game next season, and Murph would be likely to be in his sights.

 

[mollyfud]

No I wouldn't....why would I drop a KKP as opposed to a medium sized player for this game?

"Cheney" (get his name right) can play the exact same role physically and I believe with superior skills, the difference being 'the balance' I was referring to was the on-field experience inclusive of leadership Murph has over him.

**** me, talk about getting on your high-horse...what are you going to do when he is over-taken into the future?

Seeings I am a male, I wouldn't even kiss you!!!!!!!!

But in future if/when that day comes, I will say we have a tremendously outstanding player to push out Murph from the side!!!

However my gut feel is that Cheney (my apologies to his family for the misspelling) will be pushing out Guerra when/if he gets a regular game as I just don't see Cheney playing the same role as Murph. Yes he has more attack in his game but he is nowhere near as dependable on the X-factor small/medium forwards that Murph is!
JMTC

 

[Brishawk]

Seeings I am a male, I wouldn't even kiss you!!!!!!!!

But in future if/when that day comes, I will say we have a tremendously outstanding player to push out Murph from the side!!!

However my gut feel is that Cheney (my apologies to his family for the misspelling) will be pushing out Guerra when/if he gets a regular game as I just don't see Cheney playing the same role as Murph. Yes he has more attack in his game but he is nowhere near as dependable on the X-factor small/medium forwards that Murph is!
JMTC

I'd like to see a 15 min video and associated powerpoint slide outlining the relevant statistics before I will accept you opinion on this. If you ask for others to provide that level of evidence for their opinions it is only fair you support your opinions with the same level of rigorous examination of the evidence.

 

[mollyfud]

I'd like to see a 15 min video and associated powerpoint slide outlining the relevant statistics before I will accept you opinion on this. If you ask for others to provide that level of evidence for their opinions it is only fair you support your opinions with the same level of rigorous examination of the evidence.

[YOUTUBE]GagPj3l78i8[/YOUTUBE]

There is my evidence number 1! Can I suggest that those wanting Cheney over Murph could go through the first Pies game the Cheney played for his video!

Rules of video:
Show basically everytime the player in question is on screen good or bad (whatever you can say about my arguments, that video above is warts and all the game of Murphy!!!!! If anything was missed it was a mistake or wasn't shown on camera).

I will endeavour, in the interest of fairness, to try and do the same this for the Cats game, one that wasn't Murph's best. I personally interested to see if I am indeed right that his first half was pretty good (especially considering the opposition).

You know what, and no promises, throw me a Cheney game you think shows his best outing and I will endeavour to do the same thing for him! I can honestly say it is a great exercise to take!

 

[Brishawk]

[YOUTUBE]GagPj3l78i8[/YOUTUBE]

There is my evidence number 1! Can I suggest that those wanting Cheney over Murph could go through the first Pies game the Cheney played for his video!

Rules of video:
Show basically everytime the player in question is on screen good or bad (whatever you can say about my arguments, that video above is warts and all the game of Murphy!!!!! If anything was missed it was a mistake or wasn't shown on camera).

I will endeavour, in the interest of fairness, to try and do the same this for the Cats game, one that wasn't Murph's best. I personally interested to see if I am indeed right that his first half was pretty good (especially considering the opposition).

You know what, and no promises, throw me a Cheney game you think shows his best outing and I will endeavour to do the same thing for him! I can honestly say it is a great exercise to take!

As you haven't already done the work regarding Cheney I will dismiss your opinion and assume you are a Cheney hater. As Mitchell once did a hospital pass to Lewis, that means all Cheney's bad kicks are ok and he doesn't deserve criticism. And in the Collingwood game everyone was playing bad so it was ok for Cheney's man to have 8 shots at goal and 27 possessions. Hater!!

 

[The Kipster]

Seeings I am a male, I wouldn't even kiss you!!!!!!!!


However my gut feel is that Cheney (my apologies to his family for the misspelling) will be pushing out Guerra when/if he gets a regular game as I just don't see Cheney playing the same role as Murph. Yes he has more attack in his game but he is nowhere near as dependable on the X-factor small/medium forwards that Murph is!
JMTC

JMTC...that is a relief

fair call on the other statements, we will have to wait and see...as you have already expressed thank god Clarko is in the chair and not all of us

 

[mollyfud]

As you haven't already done the work regarding Cheney I will dismiss your opinion and assume you are a Cheney hater. As Mitchell once did a hospital pass to Lewis, that means all Cheney's bad kicks are ok and he doesn't deserve criticism. And in the Collingwood game everyone was playing bad so it was ok for Cheney's man to have 8 shots at goal and 27 possessions. Hater!!

Fair call. So serious question, what was Cheney's best game for the year? If I am going to do this exercise (if I can technically & timewise), I don't want someone to come along after the fact and say I just pick a game a) everyone played badly b) he played badly. So if I do it, lets pick his best game!

 

[Cynic]

Fair call. So serious question, what was Cheney's best game for the year? If I am going to do this exercise (if I can technically & timewise), I don't want someone to come along after the fact and say I just pick a game a) everyone played badly b) he played badly. So if I do it, lets pick his best game!

Probably the Essendon game personally, Jetta kicked 3 on him but Cheney played well and even got 1 back!

 

[Brishawk]

Fair call. So serious question, what was Cheney's best game for the year? If I am going to do this exercise (if I can technically & timewise), I don't want someone to come along after the fact and say I just pick a game a) everyone played badly b) he played badly. So if I do it, lets pick his best game!

Wouldn't you need to review a game where he played on an 'X-factor small/medium forward' to support your opinion?

 

[mollyfud]

Wouldn't you need to review a game where he played on an 'X-factor small/medium forward' to support your opinion?

Okay. Do you have one of those? I do plan on reviewing Murph's game on SteveJ. In fact in it, I plan to also review all SteveJ's possies whether on Murph or not.

 

[Brishawk]

Okay. Do you have one of those? I do plan on reviewing Murph's game on SteveJ. In fact in it, I plan to also review all SteveJ's possies whether on Murph or not.

Question: If your analysis of the cats game shows Murphy not staying with SJ, getting drawn up the ground and out of position, peeling off at the wrong time, getting caught between his man and marking contests, not helping out to spoil and when he helps out not impacting the contest and leaving his man on the ground, and not providing sufficient pressure on SJ once the ball hits the ground, would it change your opinion of Murphy? I'd say the answer is no. So why do you think it would change anyone else's mind if the video shows him to have played a blinder (or even a passable game)?