Murphy's law of team defence

[Roby]

Of course its not difinitive! Do the clanger stats include being run down from behind, being 2nd to the loose ball, choosing the worst of 2 options, over running the ball, missing a punch? No they don't!

Murph is fine as a 2nd or 3rd tall defender when we are going ok but if he gets the big job he struggles.

You know what you should do, go to the football and just watch Murphy play, nothing else. So you don't make such ignorant comments.

By the way out of 10 games this season his had 12 goal kicked on him.
Outstanding.

 

[HAWKS HEROES]

good Game by Murphy last night !


oh and the idiot who rang triple M asking Jason why they pick Murphy , i am sure it is the same one that i heard after a previous game , GO JUMP AND STOP BOTHERING Jason with stupid comments ! support the whole team or go support some one else , if you could not see the GOOD Tom did last night you and the others are blind !

 

[Roby]

Probably our best defender last night. Also was the only one I saw at half time I saw go up to Hodgey and pat him on the back to give him encouragement. Don't know if he knew if he was injured or not. Still must be one of the reasons why his in the leadership group.

 

[HIG]

Amazing that Murph could unfairly be dropped for our next game if Gibson and Brown are both fit.

If Clarkson decided to go like-for-like we could see
INS: Brown, Gibson
OUT: Murphy, Shoenmakers

Would be very harsh on both if that were to be the case.

 

[arupist]

..... if you could not see the GOOD Tom did last night you and the others are blind !

And this is the crux of the issue HH. It's pretty much human nature - can't see the forest for the trees type of thing. Same deal with the discussions on Roughie at the moment. Most observers do not bother to look at the 1%ers and particularly not with Murph and Rough. Lewis is another.

Funny thing is, everybody looks for these in Hodgey's game - the tap ons, the tackles, on-field directions, pulling team mates away from scuffles and so on. They do this because they expect it. And he does more of it. Buddy is another who can cop criticism. If he doesn't kick a bag, he's had a bad day, even though he may have had 20 possessions and kept the ball in the forward line. Case in point - 08 GF. I loved his game on that day but he only scored 2 goals, both at critical moments. He did so much more than that.

If we all took the time to watch every player closely we may feel differently. But we don't. Most don't look at replays and only remember the highlights - the speccy, the goal, and, unfortunately, the clanger. Everything else fades from memory pretty quickly.

Its a good thing that the coaching panel are not like the host of supporters. It is their job to see what goes on. And they do.

Time to give the players a break. Let the club chose the team. They know better than us.

 

[HAWKS HEROES]

And this is the crux of the issue HH. It's pretty much human nature - can't see the forest for the trees type of thing. Same deal with the discussions on Roughie at the moment. Most observers do not bother to look at the 1%ers and particularly not with Murph and Rough. Lewis is another.

Funny thing is, everybody looks for these in Hodgey's game - the tap ons, the tackles, on-field directions, pulling team mates away from scuffles and so on. They do this because they expect it. And he does more of it. Buddy is another who can cop criticism. If he doesn't kick a bag, he's had a bad day, even though he may have had 20 possessions and kept the ball in the forward line. Case in point - 08 GF. I loved his game on that day but he only scored 2 goals, both at critical moments. He did so much more than that.

If we all took the time to watch every player closely we may feel differently. But we don't. Most don't look at replays and only remember the highlights - the speccy, the goal, and, unfortunately, the clanger. Everything else fades from memory pretty quickly.

Its a good thing that the coaching panel are not like the host of supporters. It is their job to see what goes on. And they do.

Time to give the players a break. Let the club chose the team. They know better than us.

exactly and thank you

 

[Brishawk]

That is your issue and maybe you should speak to someone about your irrational anxiety.

Murphy averages the least amount of clangers, (I don't know how many times I have to say this before some people comprehend it), and one of the best in terms of disposals, just before some ignorant person brings that up again.

Average Disposals per clanger

These are the highest at the club with 50 or more disposals:
Ladson 17.7
Burgoyne 15.2
Birchall 11.7
Murphy 10.7
Suckling 9.9
Whitecross 9.9
Hodge 9.1
Peterson 8.8
Lewis 8.6
Gilham 8.1

Now that ladder isn't the definitive guide of who is the best user of the balls but just merely a mere misconception attributed to Murphy. Not too mention the other 40 good things he averages in a game but nobody feels the need to point these out.

Re-watch the Essendon game - or any game in which Murphy plays - and tell me how many time he tries to be creative or constructive with his disposal? He defers responsibility for creating play to other team mates. I have no problem with this as it is the right thing to do however please don't parade stats out like this as proof that he has sure disposal when he rarely even attempts to make a pass of any kind of difficulty like most of the players on that list.

He does not have a strong history of providing support to his team mates. There are many times where he does not provide a spoil where he was in a position to do so because he is standing his opponent with little awareness of where the ball is dropping. I can't believe you have not noticed this given how many times you re-watch games and even specifically watched Murphy. I am glad he is showing more confidence regarding providing support to team mates but he is not near as proficient at it as a number of players in our side (or missing from our side) and he needs to improve. When Gibson or Brown punch the ball away from a marking contest they do it with the intent of smashing the ball out of the area. They read the ball through the air well and have the power in their bodies to impact the contest. Murphy does not read the ball through the air well. As an example, he tried to punch a ball over the goal line by punching it out of their air against essendon. He barely made contact with it even though he was under no body pressure. It dribbled over the line. I believe it is this weakness more than any other which limits his potential as a player and why with a full strength back line available he will be playing for box hill. But it is great having him as a depth player when he is able to contribute as he has in the last couple of weeks.

 

[diggydig]

Amazing that Murph could unfairly be dropped for our next game if Gibson and Brown are both fit.

If Clarkson decided to go like-for-like we could see
INS: Brown, Gibson
OUT: Murphy, Shoenmakers

Would be very harsh on both if that were to be the case.

Dogs half-forward line was: Hill (186cm), Hahn (188cm) Stack (184cm),
and full-forward line was Grant (192cm), Hall (194cm) and Minson (199cm).

Our half-backline was: Birchall (193cm), Stratton (189cm) Shoei (193cm)
Full-back line was: Guera (182cm), Gilham (192cm), Murphy (189cm)

Other options: Brown (177cm), Gibson (189cm).

Shoei on Minson and Gilham on Hall seems most likely.

Hard to imagine Gibson coming straight in unless he has a blinder at Box Hill next Sunday.

Also hard to imagine both Brown and Guera down back - if Brown returns, might be up forward playing Hoopers role.

 

[illnino]

Hard to imagine Gibson coming straight in unless he has a blinder at Box Hill next Sunday..

I wouldn't say it's hard to imagine that....Gibbo may not come in, but if he plays out the Box Hill game and is fit enough (in the coach's view) come selection time, I suspect he might play.

Also hard to imagine both Brown and Guera down back - if Brown returns, might be up forward playing Hoopers role.

WTF?!?! 08 Grand Final? In fact the years 2008 through 2010?

And this is the crux of the issue HH. It's pretty much human nature - can't see the forest for the trees type of thing. Same deal with the discussions on Roughie at the moment. Most observers do not bother to look at the 1%ers and particularly not with Murph and Rough. Lewis is another.

Funny thing is, everybody looks for these in Hodgey's game - the tap ons, the tackles, on-field directions, pulling team mates away from scuffles and so on. They do this because they expect it. And he does more of it. Buddy is another who can cop criticism. If he doesn't kick a bag, he's had a bad day, even though he may have had 20 possessions and kept the ball in the forward line. Case in point - 08 GF. I loved his game on that day but he only scored 2 goals, both at critical moments. He did so much more than that.

If we all took the time to watch every player closely we may feel differently. But we don't. Most don't look at replays and only remember the highlights - the speccy, the goal, and, unfortunately, the clanger. Everything else fades from memory pretty quickly.

Its a good thing that the coaching panel are not like the host of supporters. It is their job to see what goes on. And they do.

Time to give the players a break. Let the club chose the team. They know better than us.

Excellent post arupist Agree with it all and actually posted something similar in the thread about Roughy earlier. Unfortunately, I suspect the bolded part represents the majority of BF posters.

 

[HAWKS HEROES]

Gibbo is playing Box hill thsi weekend he told me

 

[diggydig]

WTF?!?! 08 Grand Final? In fact the years 2008 through 2010?

...now where exactly did Brown line up in the 08 Grand Final ....

 

[HIG]

...now where exactly did Brown line up in the 08 Grand Final ....

Fair call, but the point stands though - Brown and Guerra have played a lot of football in defense alongside each other, and play on different types of opponents, so not sure why they wouldn't play in the same side.

Gibson is a clear-cut starting player. Like all clear cut starting players he'd be a lock in the side once fit. One week at Box Hill is enough. It's just a shame that his return co-incides with Shoey and Murph both showing decent form.

 

[Roby]

Re-watch the Essendon game - or any game in which Murphy plays - and tell me how many time he tries to be creative or constructive with his disposal? He defers responsibility for creating play to other team mates. I have no problem with this as it is the right thing to do however please don't parade stats out like this as proof that he has sure disposal when he rarely even attempts to make a pass of any kind of difficulty like most of the players on that list.

Relevance of this?

He does not have a strong history of providing support to his team mates. There are many times where he does not provide a spoil where he was in a position to do so because he is standing his opponent with little awareness of where the ball is dropping. I can't believe you have not noticed this given how many times you re-watch games and even specifically watched Murphy. I am glad he is showing more confidence regarding providing support to team mates but he is not near as proficient at it as a number of players in our side (or missing from our side) and he needs to improve. When Gibson or Brown punch the ball away from a marking contest they do it with the intent of smashing the ball out of the area. They read the ball through the air well and have the power in their bodies to impact the contest. Murphy does not read the ball through the air well. As an example, he tried to punch a ball over the goal line by punching it out of their air against essendon. He barely made contact with it even though he was under no body pressure. It dribbled over the line. I believe it is this weakness more than any other which limits his potential as a player and why with a full strength back line available he will be playing for box hill. But it is great having him as a depth player when he is able to contribute as he has in the last couple of weeks.

You reference one time in the game that Murphy a suspect thing. How abot Gilham being too slow to effect a spoil on 3 occasions? What about Guerra not able handle Davey, so they had to put Murphy on him otherwise we would of lost the game? What about Stratton who did what you said Murphy did once in the game, on more than one occasion? What about the fact that Murphy had no goals kicked on him or that he marked 6 balls from opposition kicks and was named in the 6 best?

The disposal per clanger statistics were in response to Murphy being called the 'Clanger King' even though he averaged the least clangers. Of course the so called smart people replied with 'Oh he doesn't get a lot of the ball' hence the stat. His 13th at the club for disposals.

By the way I know what the relevance of the first part of your post is but I just wanted to see if yo have the comprehension skills to read down this far. I never said Murphy was the best kick in the side or is responsible for breaking the lines. What it does say is that Murphy know his limits and plays the percentages, making the right decisions. So in effect he is doing essentially what a defenders should be doing. Not conceding goals, helping out in defence, reading attacks and reducing errors when coming out of defence. Their were several stops in D50 by a Murphy spoil or mark which resulted in Hawthorn goals, especially when it counted in the last quarter.

Just admit.. you are wrong. It's simple, admit you're wrong and appear more intelligent that way, otherwise just best not say anything at all.

"It is better to be thought a fool, than to say something and remove all doubt".

 

[Brishawk]

Relevance of this?


You reference one time in the game that Murphy a suspect thing. How abot Gilham being too slow to effect a spoil on 3 occasions? What about Guerra not able handle Davey, so they had to put Murphy on him otherwise we would of lost the game? What about Stratton who did what you said Murphy did once in the game, on more than one occasion? What about the fact that Murphy had no goals kicked on him or that he marked 6 balls from opposition kicks and was named in the 6 best?

The disposal per clanger statistics were in response to Murphy being called the 'Clanger King' even though he averaged the least clangers. Of course the so called smart people replied with 'Oh he doesn't get a lot of the ball' hence the stat. His 13th at the club for disposals.

By the way I know what the relevance of the first part of your post is but I just wanted to see if yo have the comprehension skills to read down this far. I never said Murphy was the best kick in the side or is responsible for breaking the lines. What it does say is that Murphy know his limits and plays the percentages, making the right decisions. So in effect he is doing essentially what a defenders should be doing. Not conceding goals, helping out in defence, reading attacks and reducing errors when coming out of defence. Their were several stops in D50 by a Murphy spoil or mark which resulted in Hawthorn goals, especially when it counted in the last quarter.

Just admit.. you are wrong. It's simple, admit you're wrong and appear more intelligent that way, otherwise just best not say anything at all.

"It is better to be thought a fool, than to say something and remove all doubt".

You are talking like I said he is shit and should be dropped. Read my post history. I have never out and out bagged Murphy. He played terribly early in the season and was dropped and has been good since. In this thread alone I have celebrated the fact that he has shown improvement in an area I define as a weakness.

If you are so intelligent you would not have used stats backed by fallacious reasoning. Or were you just being deceitful like you were in your most recent post?

Please let me know how many examples it will require you to be convinced that he does not read the ball through the air well. Not saying I am going to find them but you seem to suggest the couple I have supplied is not enough. It is why he gets out positioned in marking contests by smaller and same sized opponents. He is much better at defending a lead. He is not so bad at it that he does not add value to the team but I would rather it be Brown or Gibson (when they return) rather than Murphy. Why am I and the many others on here wrong? Your argument is because Ben Stratton did poorly in some spoiling efforts, I am wrong about Murphy. I guess we will see what the coach and match committee say when those two return. They agreed with me in 2008.

 

[Roby]

You are talking like I said he is shit and should be dropped. Read my post history. I have never out and out bagged Murphy.

Just read the next sentence.

He played terribly early in the season and was dropped and has been good since.

If you are so intelligent you would not have used stats backed by fallacious reasoning. Or were you just being deceitful like you were in your most recent post?

Why don't you point were I have been deceitful? It is you, who is been deceitful, masquerading as someone who is honest. You have not caught me out on any lie. I explained the stats in my previous post in high detail and you have not replied consequently to those details. You are been deceitful.

Please let me know how many examples it will require you to be convinced that he does not read the ball through the air well.

I was probably the first person to mention this particular nuance. Hmmm.

Not saying I am going to find them but you seem to suggest the couple I have supplied is not enough.

It's ok, you don't need to, as your argument has failed multiple times. Give it up.

It is why he gets out positioned in marking contests by smaller and same sized opponents. He is much better at defending a lead. He is not so bad at it that he does not add value to the team but I would rather it be Brown or Gibson (when they return) rather than Murphy. Why am I and the many others on here wrong? Your argument is because Ben Stratton did poorly in some spoiling efforts, I am wrong about Murphy. I guess we will see what the coach and match committee say when those two return. They agreed with me in 2008.

Never bagged him, never said he should be dropped. It's hilarious, I don't even require to read your previous posts as you contradict yourself in the same post.

 

[Motown]

It is why he gets out positioned in marking contests by smaller and same sized opponents.

I'm not sure I agree with this. He's over-matched against the bigger guys where he can look all at sea trying to be competitive, but I can't recall too many times where he's been lit up by a small or mid in the air other than Burton a fair while ago. His defensive discipline and positioning is generally pretty good which is why he has a decent defensive record on the likes Betts, Medhurst and Johnson.

He is much better at defending a lead. He is not so bad at it that he does not add value to the team but I would rather it be Brown or Gibson (when they return) rather than Murphy.

They don't generally play on smalls or mids, though. Despite his stature, Brown's a third tall kind of defender and has been pwned in the past by the likes of Corey Jones, Milne etc, precisely the types Murphy does well on. Haven't seen enough of Gibson on smalls to pass judgement, but bringing those guys in for Murphy for those type of jobs smacks of whacking square pegs into round holes. Murphy's competition comes from the likes of Guerra, Ladson or, more likely, the absence of a suitable opposition threat to justify his inclusion.

 

[Brishawk]

Relevance of this?

By the way I know what the relevance of the first part of your post is but I just wanted to see if yo have the comprehension skills to read down this far.

Yes, you're right. You are the epitome of honesty.

How does stating a fact "played terrible and was dropped" equal me saying that I am calling for his head now? Murphy was dropped by the match committee at a time when we were desperate for defenders. Playing a lot better now so I am glad they did it.

Murphy is Tim Clarke MkII. Tries hard and you can't question his commitment but he has some weaknesses that get exposed from time to time. He divides supporters because there are those who will blindly defend him despite his weakness while there are those that will condemn him for his weaknesses no matter how many good things he does. My position is in the middle. Decent player with weaknesses that I believe limit what he can offer the team. You are welcome to disagree of course but you seem to imply in your criticism of my comments that Murphy has good foot skills, played well early in the year, and didn't get dropped (?). In fact you seem to think he is a model defender and has been for some time. Of course you ignore that he was dropped in 2008 for the finals. Dropped again last year due to form and dropped this year due to form. Match committee is on my side in this argument yet I'm wrong?

For my part I hope he takes his chances and becomes a complete player. The HFC will be the winner

 

[Brishawk]

They don't generally play on smalls or mids, though. Despite his stature, Brown's a third tall kind of defender and has been pwned in the past by the likes of Corey Jones, Milne etc, precisely the types Murphy does well on. Haven't seen enough of Gibson on smalls to pass judgement, but bringing those guys in for Murphy for those type of jobs smacks of whacking square pegs into round holes. Murphy's competition comes from the likes of Guerra, Ladson or, more likely, the absence of a suitable opposition threat to justify his inclusion.

Brown's days as a third tall are over as has been discussed a few times. His rolls this year on small/mid players have been pretty impressive prior to injury. Last year he was clearly impaired by injury and I worried he would not recover but his form in defence was very good this year.

Gibson is very versatile from what I have seen of him at North. Not sure he would have been my first choice to play on Davey against the bombers so he is not like for like with Murphy but he is quicker than Murphy and I think he would make a good plan B option if Goo or Ladson could not cover him (as was the case).

 

[Motown]

Brown's days as a third tall are over as has been discussed a few times. His rolls this year on small/mid players have been pretty impressive prior to injury.

Which were these? My recollection has Murphy taking the more dangerous smalls and mids, even when he and Brown were in the same side.

Brown's days as a defender of talls may be over, but that doesn't necessarily put him in front of Murphy as a defender of smalls and mids. As I said before, Brown's record as a stopper on goal-scoring smaller players is patchy.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

There was only really one incident on Friday night which really disappointed me from Murphy.
The ball was kicked long into Gumbleton in the 3rd and Schoenmakers was struggling to get back as the ball was being popped over his head. At this time Murphy was running back to the contest also from the top of the 50, but just didn't push back hard enough to help out, and Gumbleton took a relatively regulation mark over the top of Schoenmakers.
Murphy could've made it if he'd wanted to and made spoil. That was my only real grievance with his game on Friday night.

 

[Roby]

Yes, you're right. You are the epitome of honesty.

How does stating a fact "played terrible and was dropped" equal me saying that I am calling for his head now? Murphy was dropped by the match committee at a time when we were desperate for defenders. Playing a lot better now so I am glad they did it.

Murphy is Tim Clarke MkII. Tries hard and you can't question his commitment but he has some weaknesses that get exposed from time to time. He divides supporters because there are those who will blindly defend him despite his weakness while there are those that will condemn him for his weaknesses no matter how many good things he does. My position is in the middle. Decent player with weaknesses that I believe limit what he can offer the team. You are welcome to disagree of course but you seem to imply in your criticism of my comments that Murphy has good foot skills, played well early in the year, and didn't get dropped (?). In fact you seem to think he is a model defender and has been for some time. Of course you ignore that he was dropped in 2008 for the finals. Dropped again last year due to form and dropped this year due to form. Match committee is on my side in this argument yet I'm wrong?

For my part I hope he takes his chances and becomes a complete player. The HFC will be the winner

Read you post before you post, seriously, it's annoying at best.

You keep say you want him dropped, so therefore yes you are calling for his head now. You have even stipulated who you would have ahead of him.

You contradict yourself in the same posts over, and over, and will continue to do doggedly. Do you like rolling the stone up the hill, considering it will just roll down back again and you having to roll in it back up again?

You want Murphy to be a complete player when only player at Hawthorn and few in the AFL are complete players. Even then, they have their deficiencies. Most players are role players and that's how it is.

I fear that my words of wisdom and knowledge appears to be lost on you, so this my last post in reply.

 

[go hawks!!!]

Let me provide a story for you and some humour I hope.

Tonight, I was playing indoor football with my nephews, who are both fanatic hawks supporters, and six years of age.

One of them, X, was running around, with footy, saying Tom Murphy runs around takes a shot, and scores......

So Y, replies:

"Tom Murphy is a sucker......" so i say don't say that, Y replies, "Tom Murphy is a Donkey"..... i was laughing but had to discipline them!!!!

Murph is doing well, but will struggle to keep his pot with the return of browny and gibbo

 

[Jaeger]

Good story there, GH!!!

The one thing Murph did that bothered me on Friday was when he played in front and was out marked by Leroy Jetta. Sorry if this has already been brought up.

I thought he was really good against the scum. He's still young enough to be a gun believe it or not.

 

[Brishawk]

Read you post before you post, seriously, it's annoying at best.

You keep say you want him dropped, so therefore yes you are calling for his head now. You have even stipulated who you would have ahead of him.

You contradict yourself in the same posts over, and over, and will continue to do doggedly. Do you like rolling the stone up the hill, considering it will just roll down back again and you having to roll in it back up again?

You want Murphy to be a complete player when only player at Hawthorn and few in the AFL are complete players. Even then, they have their deficiencies. Most players are role players and that's how it is.

I fear that my words of wisdom and knowledge appears to be lost on you, so this my last post in reply.

Please don't go. I like it that you keep attacking me for positions I don't hold. You accuse me of inconstancy but can't identify one example . . . not once have I called for Murphy's head. I think he would be dropped given a full list available (i.e. not in our best 22) but when was the last time we had that? Oh yeah, 2008 . . . and he got dropped.

Truth is, you want to lump me in with the Murphy Haters (Of which I am not one) because you can't handle negative criticism of one of our players. I am not the only poster in this thread you have responded to with abuse over constructive argument. It is demonstrative of your passion for the subject. I can appreciate that as player haters add nothing to this forum. I just wish you could take of the rage goggles and try and engage others instead of resorting to name calling.