Sam Mitchell vs Daniel Harris

[year of the roo]

I don't think Mitchell had a poor year at all, he just wasn't as influential as 2003, and one main reason was, he was our number one midfielder once Crawf went down. Harris still had the likes of Stevens, Simpson taking the presure off him.

Mitchell > Harris

So what you're trying to say is Mitchell is better because he failed to respond to being tagged and even as the "go to man" in Hawthorn's midfield, failed to take the next step and accept the extra responsibility. Right....

Harris is so much >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mitchell, that it is not really worth discussing anymore.

 

[iameviljez]

So what you're trying to say is Mitchell is better because he failed to respond to being tagged and even as the "go to man" in Hawthorn's midfield, failed to take the next step and accept the extra responsibility. Right....

Harris is so much >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mitchell, that it is not really worth discussing anymore.

Naah. Just look at the amount of Roos on this thread, you wouldn't believe it.

 

[feher]

So what you're trying to say is Mitchell is better because he failed to respond to being tagged and even as the "go to man" in Hawthorn's midfield, failed to take the next step and accept the extra responsibility. Right....

I like to see Harris perform the way Mitchell has by being the number 1 midfielder in his side, being tagged and play in a struggling side. Mitchell didn't have as much influence as 2003, but imo still had a fine year, certainly not as bad as most are making out, his disposals went up in '04. It is hard to have an influence over a side that refuses to give their all. I really don't understand how people can say Mitchell has failed to respond to being tagged, his disposals are up ffs, the problem is we probably expected Mitchell to avg 20+ disposals a game after '03.

Harris is so much >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mitchell, that it is not really worth discussing anymore.

Believe what you want, stats say:

Mitchell >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Harris

If we remove the stats part, I still feel that Mitchell has being far more influencial over his career then Harris, so therefore:

Mitchell > Harris

 

[tashibatts]

Biased- but Harro all the way..

Go Roos

 

[pazza]

Harris is still on the way up, whilst Mitchell has been on that level for a fair while.

Next year will be a better guide for both.

 

[F/D]

I'd rather have Daniel "The Magician" Harris than Samuel "ClangerMan" Mitchell

 

[Darky]

If you reason that Harris is in a stronger midfield and therefore has a lesser opponent, surely you could also reason that Mitchell has less of his own teammates fighting for the ball, much like Nathan Buckley at Collingwood for most of the last 10 years.

And yes, the game time argument comes into it. It's not Harro's fault he rotates via bench & flank with Stevo, Simpson, Grant, Boomer, Wells, Rawlings, etc while Mitchell and Crawford are virtual permanents because of the lack of second tiers.

 

[iameviljez]

If you reason that Harris is in a stronger midfield and therefore has a lesser opponent, surely you could also reason that Mitchell has less of his own teammates fighting for the ball, much like Nathan Buckley at Collingwood for most of the last 10 years.

And yes, the game time argument comes into it. It's not Harro's fault he rotates via bench & flank with Stevo, Simpson, Grant, Boomer, Wells, Rawlings, etc while Mitchell and Crawford are virtual permanents because of the lack of second tiers.

nah, no way. Playing in a better team improves your own stats no end, look at Headland for example

 

[Darky]

nah, no way. Playing in a better team improves your own stats no end, look at Headland for example

Depends...

would Buckley fare better surrounded by B-grade hacks like Raso, Scotland, McGough, Betheras, etc or in a team of champs like Black, Lappin, Voss, Akermanis, Power, etc?

Remember there is only so much of the ball to go around in 120 minutes, so if you stack your side with 8 or 10 champion midfielders, they won't ALL get in 30 times, and your side will still probably average 300-350 touches, not 500.

Given that Mitchell (and Crawford) roved to THE best tap ruckman of the last 20 years, and that their helpers were Vandenberg, Ries, Piciaone etc... who the hell else would Spider tap it to?

Not knocking Mitchell at all... I think he'll be a 10 year player for Hawthorn and plays his role very well... but Harris has more strings to his bow, and has had to work harder for his touches due to the lack of effectiveness of our ruckmen.

 

[dipper86]

Depends...

would Buckley fare better surrounded by B-grade hacks like Raso, Scotland, McGough, Betheras, etc or in a team of champs like Black, Lappin, Voss, Akermanis, Power, etc?

Remember there is only so much of the ball to go around in 120 minutes, so if you stack your side with 8 or 10 champion midfielders, they won't ALL get in 30 times, and your side will still probably average 300-350 touches, not 500.

Given that Mitchell (and Crawford) roved to THE best tap ruckman of the last 20 years, and that their helpers were Vandenberg, Ries, Piciaone etc... who the hell else would Spider tap it to?

Not knocking Mitchell at all... I think he'll be a 10 year player for Hawthorn and plays his role very well... but Harris has more strings to his bow, and has had to work harder for his touches due to the lack of effectiveness of our ruckmen.

Remember in 2003, Everitt missed a fair few games, so it was mitchlls abillity to read the other ruckman that also helped him acculmilate so many clerances around the ground.

Well just because we have a ruckman that is good doesnt make it easier, as soon as he gets the ball he gets tackled it just way to predictable, opposition players know who its getting tapped too and they counter that. and he still manages to find away through all the traffic lets not get confused here, Mitchell is no Buckley, Buckley is different player an outside player with 3 times the talent Mitchell has. Buckley accumilates his posetions all around the ground due to hard running, Mitchell is the in and under kind of player which provides a contest for the ball, Buckley is an allround gun doesnt matter if his team is poor or good he still acumilates high possesions. Now when collingwood was sh*t he accumilated just as high possestions, but because the team was poor he wasnt as effective as when the team was winning, Now mitchells possesions have increased this year trouble is he had no one else backing him up or feeding it 2, No doubt with a bit more back up Mitchell will be just as effective as he was in 2003.

 

[Ramma]

Mitchell has more runs on the board, Harro has a bigger scope for improvement.

Through all the bias on this thread, this is still the most accurate assessment, imo. I'd have Harris anyday - absolute gun. But so is Sammy. Love to see them in the same side, actually.

 

[superstar]

Lesson 1:

Ignore any opinion on Kangaroo or Melbourne footballers offered by supporters of those respsective clubs on Bigfooty.

Once learnt, this site becomes a much better place.

I like Harris, but i'd take Mitchell. Has performed at a higher level for longer and lacks support in the middle. Also had to endure some pretty ordinary opposition tactics this year in the absence of Crawford and Vandenberg.

 

[year of the roo]

The people have spoken, Harris receiving twice as many votes. Not even close, is it?

 

[HIG]

The people have spoken, Harris receiving twice as many votes. Not even close, is it?

The people are fickle...

Mitchell is twice the player Harris is.

 

[Nightwolf]

What a joke is all i can say.....

 

[Jubair]

I've never seen Harris play so I'll say Mitchell.

 

[jimmy35]

I would take Harris. Seems a much more polished performer and has great upside.
Would love him in our midfield.

 

[year of the roo]

I've never seen Harris play so I'll say Mitchell.

That's the exact same logic that these Dawk supporters are using!!

 

[dipper86]

I would take Harris. Seems a much more polished performer and has great upside.
Would love him in our midfield.

Yeh seems to be a great upside when your not getting tagged every game. why is that? they dont rate him enought to put a tagger on him just yet, definetley has to be Mitchell at the moment but who knows in a couple of years

 

[Thewlis Dish]

Yeh seems to be a great upside when your not getting tagged every game. why is that? they dont rate him enought to put a tagger on him

I reckon Harro would get tagged in Hawthorn's midfield, and I don't think Mitchell would get tagged in our midfield. So it's impossible to compare.

 

[Teagueeee15]

Harris gets most of his possesions in the first 15mins of a quarter, whereas mitchell runs out quarters better.

 

[Snickers]

i would say mitchell just at the moment

 

[dipper86]

I reckon Harro would get tagged in Hawthorn's midfield, and I don't think Mitchell would get tagged in our midfield. So it's impossible to compare.

thats fair enough, but what i was really trying to point out is that mitchell is doing just as a good a job as harris is doing but mitchell is also having to deal with taggers week in week out, where as mr harris is running free gathering possies at will.

 

[superstar]

The people have spoken, Harris receiving twice as many votes. Not even close, is it?

Hardly.

Take a quick look at the respective Team boards for Hawthorn and the Kangaroos.

At the moment, there are 2 people viewing the Hawthorn forum.

There are 21 viewing the Kangaroos.

As the Kangaroos don't have another forum (ie. Hawk Headquarters), there are more Kangaroo supporters on Bigfooty than most clubs. The results of the poll are therefore tainted, especially given the objective posters in this thread (not Hawthorn or Kanga fans) are about 50/50.

 

[year of the roo]

Yeh seems to be a great upside when your not getting tagged every game. why is that? they dont rate him enought to put a tagger on him just yet, definetley has to be Mitchell at the moment but who knows in a couple of years

Harris was our most damaging midfielder this year, so if he isn't being tagged (I'd argue that he was on occasions) then that is simply stupidity on the part of opposition coaches.

Measuring players on whether or not they get tagged is ridiculous.