Sam Mitchell - 300 Games

[HolyRioli]

Gun player to state the obvious, but the kneeings are disgusting, I'm not talking about just Fyfe, blokes done it more than once.

Fyfe deserved that for not playing the ball and initiating the contact on Mitchell

 

[Suma Magic]

He's a champion player. Everyone agrees there.

But everyone has things they regret. His reputation as a cheap shot merchant is not without reason. Not sure why people are trying to deny it.

He's not a saint. Let's celebrate a great career but there is no need to have a head in the sand about the corking incidents.

 

[ashep]

I find it funny that Hawks fans were more than happy to turn Goodes' entire farewell season into a 6 month melt about his "extensive" history as a sniper but anyone who deigns to critique good guy Sam - even whilst acknowledging his brilliance - is told to gtfo.

Dry your eyes boys.

 

[Unfinished]

Are you blokes really melting because I said I rank him just below 3 all time greats?

Like I said, look at the stats over his career. Yes he's had a few good games but the Swans have kept him relatively quiet.

Jesus christ piss off back to the hawks board if all you want is a non-stop wank.

Hardly think pointing out great games he has had against Sydney constitutes 'melting'

 

[Unfinished]

I find it funny that Hawks fans were more than happy to turn Goodes' entire farewell season into a 6 month melt about his "extensive" history as a sniper but anyone who deigns to critique good guy Sam - even whilst acknowledging his brilliance - is told to gtfo.

Dry your eyes boys.

You were hardly told that. People merely pointed things out to you which you seem to have not liked and are now melting about.. irony.

 

[ashep]

You were hardly told that. People merely pointed things out to you which you seem to have not liked and are now melting about.. irony.

What have you pointed out other than the fact that Mitchell has played a couple of good games against the Swans? So has Ivan Maric.

It doesn't really disprove my point.

I'm pretty sure I've clearly labeled him a brilliant player. Just a touch below some of the best ever.

 

[Jatz]

My fav non Carlton player to watch over the last 10 years. Just unbelievably good at times.

Honestly don't think I've seen someone kick so well on both feet before.

 

[pazza]

How he had to wait in the VFL to be given a chance way back when helped create the legend.

 

[Mr Lizard]

Nope. How many great games has he played against the Swans.

You are free to maintain your position that he is a mere accumulator of possessions which don't hurt the opposition.

 

[The Swert]

Nope. How many great games has he played against the Swans.

Sydney is his worst opponent. He only averages 23 possessions against them. But he has played a few good games against them.

Even in the 2012 GF loss he had more clearances than any Swan.

 

[Unfinished]

Sydney is his worst opponent. He only averages 23 possessions against them. But he has played a few good games against them.

Even in the 2012 GF loss he had more clearances than any Swan.

Across 4 finals he averages just under 29 disposals against Sydney. I would argue that cancels out a supposed bad record against them, by performing when it counts.

 

[Unfinished]

Nope. How many great games has he played against the Swans.

Woohoo! He won a flag against us! I'm sure you're flicking through your spank bank looking for more pictures to post. He lost one too remember.

Averages just under 29 disposals against Sydney across 4 finals. Case closed, you must not have been watching.

 

[Doss]

He's one of the best midfielders I've seen, without question.

 

[Judd2Sewell]

Take the pissing contest elsewhere for the love of god.

 

[ashep]

Averages just under 29 disposals against Sydney across 4 finals. Case closed, you must not have been watching.

So? Are the the only games he's played against them? Over the journey he's been below his best against us.

Untwist your knickers mate.

Has Mitchell ever had a moment in his entire career like Goodes' goal on the run in the last quarter of the 2006 GF which caused opposition fans to collectively fill their dacks?

That's all I'm saying. It's not the definitive way to rank players - I never said it was - but just a personal observation.

 

[eldorado]

Bit different to kneeing blokes off the ball I would of thought..

Every knee has been raised at someone coming at him off the ball.

The only problem is Sammy's timing is better than theirs.

Anyway, back on topic...a genius with ball in hand, percieves time and space around him better than anyone, and executes by hand and foot as good as, and arguably better, than anyone.

A killer combination. THE most important Hawk according to the majority of hawthorn supporters who watch closely every week.

 

[Brad Goodman]

Remarkable player, especially given his athletic limitations. Proves that a footballer can be a footballer regardless of the era.

 

[YippeeYiYeo]

Absolute gun.

Anyone who can kick 50+m on both feet, finds the ball at will, makes the right decisions with the ball and creates space in tight contests is a champ.

 

[The King!]

One of the best readers of the game I have seen, always looked slow, but hands and decisions so quick
Great career and still looks strong
Think he is better as non captain even though he was a premiership skipper

 

[Guardian Hawk]

One of the smartest players of all time with impeccable skills and disposal.

I probably rank him slightly below the likes of Judd, Ablett, Goodes and now Dangerfield as he's never struck me as a player who can blow a game open. His consistency and nose for the footy is remarkable but I've never thought "shit, here comes Sam".

Calling him an accumulator would be disrespectful but I view him the way other teams probably see someone like Hannebery. Will get his 30+ but will he really hurt you?

Thought I'd join this discussion without any of the other crap that has gone on since if you don't mind.

I understand your thinking and it is quite common but I think it is erroneous. To elucidate, people watch Judd and Dangerfield, etc burst from a pack and boot the ball forward and marvel at their athletic prowess and how 'damaging' they are. They do it a few times and people talk of how they've 'taken the game by the scruff of the neck'. The thing is, bursting from a pack and kicking to a contest is of no more value than being on the bottom of a pack and firing out a kick/handball to a team mate in space. It looks better and more imposing but the end result has no additional 'hurt factor' as people incorrectly assume (in fact, bombing it forward can often have less 'hurt' if it does not result in your team retaining possession).

With Mitchell, he is too slow to burst from a pack and does not have the athletic attributes that make the casual observer marvel at his dominance. What he does do, however, is win the hard ball in a pack/under pressure and use incredible vision and elite skills to 'unlock' the play that leads to a Hawthron score. His disposal is lighting quick, as good on both sides and remains the same no matter how much pressure he is under but the 'kicker' is his vision as he hits targets behind him, etc where no one expects (including the opposition) giving the receiver space and time to use the ball. This is what a footy nut should marvel at (degree of difficulty is high and its pure football skills rather than athletic gifts) AND has high hurt factor.

This is the reason Mitchell pretty much leads the 'score involvements' stat on behalf of midfielders nearly every year.

The other thing that elevates Danger, Judd, etc. in the minds of the observer is that they regularly have pings at the goals whereas Mitchell is usually the one that sets up the scoring chain or hits our forwards on the chest. People always remember who kicked the crucial goal but never the player that put it down their throat. In my mind, the value is equal. Look back at Hawthorn's close wins and the key last quarter goals - Mitchell is nearly always involved.

I mean, is there any wonder that no matter how many forwards we lose (Franklin, Roughead, etc), someone else steps up to kick the important goals? Or is there any wonder that Hawthorn lose contested footy nearly every game but still win? One of the main constants is Mitchell always releasing the players waiting on the outside or putting it dow the throats of whoever we have up forward!

It's a shame 'we' tend to value the wrong things as it means players like Mitchell (and to a lesser extent Sydney's own Kennedy) miss out on recognition like AA's in favour of 'flashier' types.

 

[ashep]

Thought I'd join this discussion without any of the other crap that has gone on since if you don't mind.

I understand your thinking and it is quite common but I think it is erroneous. To elucidate, people watch Judd and Dangerfield, etc burst from a pack and boot the ball forward and marvel at their athletic prowess and how 'damaging' they are. They do it a few times and people talk of how they've 'taken the game by the scruff of the neck'. The thing is, bursting from a pack and kicking to a contest is of no more value than being on the bottom of a pack and firing out a kick/handball to a team mate in space. It looks better and more imposing but the end result has no additional 'hurt factor' as people incorrectly assume (in fact, bombing it forward can often have less 'hurt' if it does not result in your team retaining possession).

With Mitchell, he is too slow to burst from a pack and does not have the athletic attributes that make the casual observer marvel at his dominance. What he does do, however, is win the hard ball in a pack/under pressure and use incredible vision and elite skills to 'unlock' the play that leads to a Hawthron score. His disposal is lighting quick, as good on both sides and remains the same no matter how much pressure he is under but the 'kicker' is his vision as he hits targets behind him, etc where no one expects (including the opposition) giving the receiver space and time to use the ball. This is what a footy nut should marvel at (degree of difficulty is high and its pure football skills rather than athletic gifts) AND has high hurt factor.

This is the reason Mitchell pretty much leads the 'score involvements' stat on behalf of midfielders nearly every year.

The other thing that elevates Danger, Judd, etc. in the minds of the observer is that they regularly have pings at the goals whereas Mitchell is usually the one that sets up the scoring chain or hits our forwards on the chest. People always remember who kicked the crucial goal but never the player that put it down their throat. In my mind, the value is equal. Look back at Hawthorn's close wins and the key last quarter goals - Mitchell is nearly always involved.

I mean, is there any wonder that no matter how many forwards we lose (Franklin, Roughead, etc), someone else steps up to kick the important goals? Or is there any wonder that Hawthorn lose contested footy nearly every game but still win? One of the main constants is Mitchell always releasing the players waiting on the outside or putting it dow the throats of whoever we have up forward!

This is a great post that comes pretty close to elucidating what i was saying however the players I mentioned were also prolific in their own right so to dismiss them as just bursting through packs a few times is a bit disingenuous.


I'd also suggest that the fact that the majority of Mitchell's possessions are uncontested as opposed to the players I named who are all closer to 50/50 disproves the narrative that he's the one winning hard ball at the bottom of the pack.

 

[Ricky Vaughn]

Has Mitchell ever had a moment in his entire career like Goodes' goal on the run in the last quarter of the 2006 GF which caused opposition fans to collectively fill their dacks?

Watch his last quarter (whole game even) in the 2013 Pre-liminary Final.
It was simply outstanding, match-winning football.

 

[HolyRioli]

He deserves a knee? Shit bloke you are.

Maybe, but what does that make Fyfe for trying to take a player out well off the ball?

 

[Guardian Hawk]

This is a great post that comes pretty close to elucidating what i was saying however the players I mentioned were also prolific in their own right so to dismiss them as just bursting through packs a few times is a bit disingenuous.


I'd also suggest that the fact that the majority of Mitchell's possessions are uncontested as opposed to the players I named who are all closer to 50/50 disproves the narrative that he's the one winning hard ball at the bottom of the pack.

Not disingenuous - don't take me the wrong way - of course I'm not saying that's all these (champion) players do. I'm saying its these acts that distinguish for some (incorrectly) what makes them damaging over a player like Mitchell as Mitchell does everything else, more often and at higher efficiency than these players do.

In terms of contested numbers, Mitchell is top 5 all time for contested and uncontested ball. He's no slouch in either area. But, the main point is that Mitchell's vision unlocks the play. Even if he hasn't won the ball on the bottom of the pack, when players are under pressure they give the ball to Mitchell. Mitchell is usually under pressure himself (taggers, Mitchell is slow so doesn't get separation) and he finds the pass that opens the play that leads to a score. Even when completely on his own (not all that common), he will draw players and use his footskills (at the last possible moment) to hit an under pressure target (or someone now in space) that also unlocks the play. These examples count as uncontested possessions but is still skill excecution under pressure that results in high hurt factor.

 

[Sirlemsip]

This is a great post that comes pretty close to elucidating what i was saying however the players I mentioned were also prolific in their own right so to dismiss them as just bursting through packs a few times is a bit disingenuous.


I'd also suggest that the fact that the majority of Mitchell's possessions are uncontested as opposed to the players I named who are all closer to 50/50 disproves the narrative that he's the one winning hard ball at the bottom of the pack.

What stats are you looking at exactly? Mitchell is 4th on the all time list for contested possessions.