What's their secret?

[The OtherThommo]

Lots of disappointment and angst since Satdee night's game, and a lot of discussion about individual players, particularly the younger fellas, where lots of people are trying to dissect their weaknesses with a fine toothed comb.

I've been thinking for some time that a lot of football discussion along those sorts of lines might be missing some of what it is that makes up a good footy side in this day and age.

I don't watch as much footy as I did a few years ago - anyone who has visited the 1005 page thread will cotton as to why (I watch us, and remain a member). Increasingly, as the head scratching rolls on, about what it is that makes a good footy side these days, I inevitably keep coming back to one question, i.e.

How do Hawthorn do it? Why are they the most successful club of the modern era, and the very modern era? They've had to cope with the same salary cap and the same drafting rules as everyone else since '90'ish. They've been closer to death than almost all others just 20 odd years ago (the merger with Melbourne). When they lost Franklin, they lost the game's highest profile player, didn't even try for a like for like type to plug the hole, and haven't missed a beat - they've arguably got better.

I watched a fair bit of their game yesdee, the GF replay, with that question in mind. On paper, their top end was weak (e.g. Cap'n and V-C both missing). The Eagles were close to full strength, and had their best key defender back after missing '15. Yet, the Dorks won in a canter.

Here's half of Hawthorn's side from yesdee:

Stratton, Duryea, Litherland, Bruest, Puopolo, Schoenmakers, Ceglar, Sicily, Langford, Howe, Smith.

Here's the playing list - http://www.hawthornfc.com.au/football/p ... hes/senior

Just take a look at that 11's CV's, starting with their route to the club (just click on the player).

Remember, that's half of yesdee's side and they were never not in control of the game. The player who really made me think watching yesdee was Sicily. I'd never seen him play, and here was a mid sized forward taking contested marks, in and around packs of much bigger blokes, as if he'd been at it for years. As his profile shows, he's around 186 cms and 79 Kgs, was drafted in the 50's (in the compromised draft in '13), yet he dominated last year's GF opponent's defence.

How do they do it, particularly if success in the modern game supposedly remains significantly dependent on the early identified abilities and weaknesses of individual players? How do they integrate half a side of very average types (when considered on their individual talents) with some of the best of the rest, and operate like a Swiss watch?

I like to understand things, and I'm struggling.

Consider this a plea for a benchmarking expert.

[saynta]

FIIK

[Con Gorozidis]

Gibson had 17 disposals in the first quarter!!!! 44 for the game!! Absolutely running riot out of defence.

Meanwhile our defenders couldnt get 44 between the lot of them. And when they did get it they usually mongrel punt it.

[SMS]

Great question:

Answer: Culture, Leaders, Money
Clarkson, Crawford, Hodge, Mitchell, Lewis, Roughead
Invested HEAVILY. Do you know that they have Virtual Reality set up. The players are constantly going heiugh plays and scenarios over and over again.
Others clubs are just now thinking about it. Theyve done his simce 2011/2012.

Obviously a lot more to it but basically you need everyone to buy in and feel the club is bigger than the indicidual this also creates others wanting to play for em. AND at a lot less.
I would argue it dont matter if you get number 3 or number 43. 9/10 pick 43 will end up a better team player this nore worthy than pick 3 for melbourne.

[SMS]

Great question:

Answer: Culture, Leaders, Money

Leaders like Clarkson, Crawford, Hodge, Mitchell, Lewis, Roughead

Invested HEAVILY. Do you know that they have Virtual Reality set up. The players are constantly going heiugh plays and scenarios over and over again.
Others clubs are just now thinking about it. Theyve done his simce 2011/2012.

Obviously a lot more to it but basically you need everyone to buy in and feel the club is bigger than the individual as this also creates others wanting to play for em. AND at a lot less.
I would argue it dont matter if you get number 3 or number 43. 9/10 pick 43 for hawks will end up a better team player than pick 3 for melbourne.

[Con Gorozidis]

Great question:

Answer: Culture, Leaders, Money
Clarkson, Crawford, Hodge, Mitchell, Lewis, Roughead
Invested HEAVILY. Do you know that they have Virtual Reality set up. The players are constantly going heiugh plays and scenarios over and over again.
Others clubs are just now thinking about it. Theyve done his simce 2011/2012.

Obviously a lot more to it but basically you need everyone to buy in and feel the club is bigger than the indicidual this also creates others wanting to play for em. AND at a lot less.
I would argue it dont matter if you get number 3 or number 43. 9/10 pick 43 will end up a better team player this nore worthy than pick 3 for melbourne.

I just cannot believe how under-rated Gibson is in the general footy world. The guy has won 2 x B & Fs in premiership years but never gets a mention when people talk Hawthorn stars.

Lets face it - Mitchell, Hodge, Gibson and Burgoyne are super super players and when they stop dominating I think the Hawks will come to earth with a thud. But gee whizz they are good players. Throw in Lewis, Smith, Birchall, Roughead, Gunston and Cyril and they look hard to beat for a four-peat. Only injuries to key players will stop them. And Clarkson - without a doubt he is a football architect of the highest quality.

I also posted this in another thread:

The Hawks have 15 'ruck rovers' on their list who can compete in the air and on the ground -

Roughead, Birchall, Gunston, O'Brien, Langford, Litherland, Burton, Howe, Gibson, Stratton, Smith, Lewis, Burgoyne, Sicily, Hodge.

[White Winmar]

Drugs? You're the perfect man to investigate, TOT. I'd love to know too. I've been scratching my head wondering how you can pluck so many seemingly ordinary players, from under the noses of 17 other clubs and turn them into decent contributors so quickly. We've gotten better at it. Lonie and Sinclair are two good examples. Bruce another one, but seriously, eleven? I hadn't realised it was half their side, so well spotted. I did watch the game and wondered about several of the GOPs and how well they were going. Peptides? LSD? Whatever, I'm sure they're keeping their secrets close to their chests. Beveridge seems to be working the same magic at the Dogs. Let's hope Bolton is the exception to the rule!

[spert]

They have a very good coach with a plan and style who started implementing it when he arrived, and a board who fully support him, and have done since he got the gig. Strength at the top is the key, and we have had a bit of shifting sand for a number of years. Contrast to us, who put Watters in after Lyon, must have thought he was going to deliver a premiership, caved in to sooky players and support staff and never got behind him. Next up we get Richo, IMO can't coach his way out of a paper bag, and that's where we are at right now.

[stevie]

Taking nothing away from the Hawks win yesty but it helped that Wet Toast have quite a few front runners and indeed liabilities like Lecras and Darling who bring zero to the table when the heat is on. The E Girls coaching staff shoulda been worried when the Lions kicked 15 goals against them the week before (taking nothing from the Lions as they attacked with nothing to lose in that game anyway).

[bigred]

Money.

They have it.

We don't.

[matrix]

They can hit targets with kicks.......

[Con Gorozidis]

Money.

They have it.

We don't.

Did they have money back in 2008?

[dragit]

roids & coke

[BigMart]

They didn't pull out of Tassie because it was a bit too tough, wet cold and not an easy 4 points for one...

They have an evlolving coach who does not stagnate with his style, team make up and development

They don't accept mediocrity for long... And are only in the game to win.

Off field they don't waste money by making a rash call, or abandoning things after committing.

[bigred]

That and they have a craptonne of poker machines that suck life out of society.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/hawth ... nxys2.html

[perfectionist]

Here's a tip. The corporate world is populated by morons. Not only do they run companies but football clubs as well. Another fact - we now have 18 teams each with a list of about 40 players - that's 720 players. For unknown reasons, there are no more skilled players today with 18 teams than there were with 14 or 16 teams of the past. That means, on average, teams are less skilled. In 2004, the Saints were a highly skilled team. As it turned out, we had a bit of a dud coach, although a total commitment to attack was not such a bad fault. Back in 2004, the Hawks did not have a highly skilled team, but they did have the basis (think Hodge and Mitchell) in the same way we did in 2000 (think Harvey and Burke).

The great "skill" of Clarkeson has been to only recruit players who can kick and to off load high possession winners, but bad kickers ,to other teams. In my opinion, such insight is worth about 20 cents, but he can charge more than a $1 million. In supporting evidence, our "leaders" seem oblivious to the fact.

We need to churn players every year until we get near the right mix. Even if they rack up 30 possessions a game (you know who) look at what they do it once they get it and try to get high draft pics to compensate,

Our No 1 draft pick last year looks a bit of a dud. That's probably because he is still woefully unfit. Not as bad as last year though. I can only guess he is highly skilled. Hawthorn would love him - in a few years.

The rule that allows players of "senior" status (free agents) to go to other clubs has benefitted the skill rich clubs to the disadvantage of the skill less clubs. From our view, it is a pity it was brought in 2012 and not 2007. Now, after eight years of big pay, a player can, for about the same pay (or even less), move from a club with no chance of winning a flag to one with a high chance of winning a flag. Think Hawthorn for the latter. Until weak clubs have the minimum player payments reduced to about 80% of those of the successful clubs this will continue ad infinitum.

Hawthorn's secret? Knowing which way is up and not having a drongo select recruits.

What should we do? Start churning players. With 18 teams it will take a long time - maybe 10 years - but that's better than 50 near the bottom.

[To the top]

Political.

Therefore rule changes which benefit Hawthorn are introduced.

The latest is "Free Agency" meaning they can maintain a core of experienced players to introduce their recruits to - unlike the sides who lose the "Free Agents" and which must then put responsibility on their recruits absent ny significant core of experienced players.

So Kennett and the other Liberal Party luminaries who support Hawthorn promote the agenda that suits Hawthorn.

The same mantra as "Free Markets" promoted by the Institute of Public Affairs "government" in Canberra - keep the strong strong to the exclusion of the weak - "trickle down" economics, the most effective form of regulation is self regulation - and the benefits go one way only.

This is the way business is done at the "top end" of town - and Hawthorn with Kennett and his fellow Liberals lead the way.

And these types, such as Kennett, just never go away.

Take Murray, the IPA's Guru on banking.

Well, RBA 10 Year data shows our Mortgage Debt owed to our home mortgage lenders rose from $115 BLLION in 1990 to $355 BILLION in 2000 and to $1.226 TRILLION in 2010 - then representing 100% of GDP.

So a 245% increase betwen 2000 and 2010, given the GFC stalled lending post 2008 because banks would not lend and could not raise funds - with the government endorsing their subordinated debt coupons to enable roll over on fractured Global Capital Markets.

The banker's received their bonuses on the "grow the book" success - including Murray.

But what have they left behind (as per the 7.30 program tonight - but a lazy 10 year too late!).

And where is Murray now?

So how do we get rid of these people - including Kennett?

Because they are dangerous.

We are all at risk from them - and the corridors of power they occupy for self gratification - and remuneration.

So, Hawthorn get "Free Agency" to perpetuate their "success" in winning premierships.

St Kilda do not have a voice at the table.

That is the way it is done.

[Zed]

Made some wise investments which has not only saved them on the $ front but given them a strong financial position moving forward. This helps build a culture where players feel they can prepare and perform at their best because the club doesn't have to cut corners .

Recruited players who generally use the ball well by foot.

Decisions in the heat of the moment are founded on well rehearsed , we'll understood, and well executed game plan.

A genuinely innovative coach.

[Con Gorozidis]

I actually have a theory on Hawthorn's recent success. Firstly and simply they got a good group of core players at the same age. Mitchell, Buddy, Roughead, Hodge, Lewis, Birchall. Secondly they got a brilliant coach.

But then something extraneous fell in their favour. The two expansion sides came along at just the perfect time for them. This entrenched the first two factors. The timing of the expansion clubs created a perfect storm for what was already a successful Hawks side.

The Hawks potential rivals at this point - Pies, Swans, Dockers and Eagles got up to a certain standard but found it impossible to recruit enough talent to bridge the gap. All of the young talent was being diverted to the expansion clubs. Remember the Hawks had locked in most of their talent already. Gibson arrived in 2009. Burgoyne in 2010. The expansion clubs and their extremely generous draft concessions meant that attracting the talent to bridge the gap was too difficult for the main rivals.

In summary the Hawks have benefited from good players, good management, good coaching AND a one-off quirk of history coming at just the right time to prevent their competitors from catching up to them.

[WellardSaint]

We hang onto losers who butcher the ball. CJ, Gilbo, Geary. Don't reward skilled players but reward mediocrity.

[To the top]

Just to add, and what we pay for is that for 2 successive years in the early 2000's the ASX was negative on the back of an economic climate mirroring the economic climate today.

Into that circumstance came the GST (shifting the tax burden demographic) and a negative quarterly GDP - the government responding by giving impetus to the home building industry by way of the non means tested First Home Owner's Grant and the Capital Gains Tax relief turning the Bunsen Burner under house prices - because of the ASX performance - into a raging bush fire, then accentuated by the "grow the book regardless" mantra of the banking industry and then by tax cuts (Vanstone: "a sandwich a week" for median income earners whilst high income earners received the benefit of $120- a week) driving negative gearing.

Then came sub-prime lending, the sell of of those debt parcels globally (to "grow the book" and receive bonuses) and the GFC.

The prime consideration in Australia at that time was keeping the banks afloat (and there was a fee for the Government endorsing their paper) including by keeping a 5 in front of un-employment so that our home mortgage debt at the same size of our GDP could continue to be serviced - and the whole balloon did not go up as it did elsewhere where houses were worthless.

Government debt moved from $39 BILLION in 1990 to $37 BILLION in 2010 to $73 BILLION in 2010, the last figure due to government impetus measures to keep the economy afloat during the GFC - which is the responsibility of government, to manage across the economic cycle.

Now we have annual deficits to the order of $40 BILLION Plus - and the article in "The Age" today (in the absence of Gittens) which hits the nail on the head.

Then 7.30 tonight - but 15 years too late!!!

But don't tell that to Kennett or Murray or Costello or the Merchant Banker, Mr HIH Turnbull et al - who are still presented to us as icons pontificating as they are permitted to by our media, without question and still strutting the corridors of power to the detriment of the overwhelming majority of Australians.

And tyey impact on the "people's game", formerly Australia Rules Football to boot!!

Excuse the pun, but they need to be called to account and given the boot!!!!!

[bigred]

I actually have a theory on Hawthorn's recent success. Firstly and simply they got a good group of core players at the same age. Mitchell, Buddy, Roughead, Hodge, Lewis, Birchall. Secondly they got a brilliant coach.

But then something extraneous fell in their favour. The two expansion sides came along at just the perfect time for them. This entrenched the first two factors. The timing of the expansion clubs created a perfect storm for what was already a successful Hawks side.

The Hawks potential rivals at this point - Pies, Swans, Dockers and Eagles got up to a certain standard but found it impossible to recruit enough talent to bridge the gap. All of the young talent was being diverted to the expansion clubs. Remember the Hawks had locked in most of their talent already. Gibson arrived in 2009. Burgoyne in 2010. The expansion clubs and their extremely generous draft concessions meant that attracting the talent to bridge the gap was too difficult for the main rivals.

In summary the Hawks have benefited from good players, good management, good coaching AND a one-off quirk of history coming at just the right time to prevent their competitors from catching up to them.

I think you just might be onto something there.

[maverick]

Can we keep the politics off here.

[asaint]

I like the politics, about time we got angry. Four corners nailed it. Corruption is everywhere.

[mr six o'clock]

There secret is no secret.
Apparently there a happy team at hawthorn
They love there club and they play to win
Riding the bumps with a grin
There all for one and one for all
They are mighty fighting hawks